Appeals Court decision on Defense of Marriage Act expected
CORBIS/Philip James Corwin
This morning, the Minnesota Court of Appeals is scheduled to hand down a decision in a little-known, controversial lawsuit [PDF] filed by three same-sex couples claiming the Minnesota Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory.
The couples, who were all legally married elsewhere, filed suit in 2010 in state court after Hennepin County refused to issue them marriage licenses. After a trial court judge dismissed the suit, the couples, who comprise the nonprofit Marry Me Minnesota, appealed.
No matter its content, the decision released this morning will be controversial — particularly among gay-rights proponents, many of whom fear it will have a negative impact on the campaign to defeat a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage to be decided by voters in November.
In 2008, nearly two years before the suit and more than three before statehouse Republicans created the ballot initiative, two leading Minnesota gay-rights groups took a formal stance opposing the use of lawsuits as a means of achieving marriage equality.
“Because progress toward full marriage equality in other states has often been the result of court litigation, it is tempting to consider initiating a court challenge to Minnesota’s current bans on marriage for gay and lesbian couples,” said a statement issued by OutFront Minnesota, Project 515 and the Family Equality Council. “However, filing lawsuits in Minnesota is not the best approach at this time and in fact poses a significant risk to achieving marriage equality.”
Fears over method
An initial concern was that the wrong lawsuit would set a harmful precedent. The groups now additionally fear that the case will detract from efforts to defeat the amendment.
If the appeals court rules that the couples have cause to sue and sends the case back to Hennepin County for trial, some same-sex marriage advocates fear it could give a boost to the pro-amendment campaign by fueling arguments that a constitutional amendment is needed to combat “activist judges.”
If the court rules against the six, it will be bad for gay-marriage proponents, who believe the constitution affords all Minnesotans the same rights.
On the other hand, a ruling against the couples might also be good for amendment opponents, who can then argue that the legislative process works so there is no need for a change to the constitution.
Likely to be appealed to Supreme Court
Of course, either ruling is likely to be appealed to the state Supreme Court. Even if the justices accepted the case and eventually sent it back to Hennepin County, there’s little chance it will be resolved before next fall’s amendment vote.
Robbinsdale residents Douglas Benson and Duane Gajewski were married in 2000 in Vermont and in Ontario in 2003. Because Minnesota refuses to recognize their marriage, they may not share retirement benefits nor are they guaranteed legal recognition as a couple should one of them become ill.
Thomas Trisko and John Rittman registered with the city of Minneapolis as domestic partners in 1991, were religiously married in their church, St. Mark’s Episcopal Cathedral, in 1999, and legally in Winnipeg in 2005. In their 60s, they are increasingly concerned about their lack of legal standing in matters involving health care and survivorship.
Jessica Dykhuis, Lindzi Campbell were married in Iowa last year and have a son, Sean Campbell. Their registry as domestic partners with the city of Duluth affords them no legal rights, and they are unable to provide each other health insurance.
More like this
- Will same-sex marriage ruling spread to rest of union?
- Minnesota's gay community purposely moving slowly on gay marriage efforts
- Sen. Marty: Iowa gay marriage ruling boosts Minnesota efforts
- It's time to move forward with gay-marriage legislation
- Challenge to Minnesota ban on same-sex marriage: good law, bad politics
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
30 comments
-
27 comments
-
27 comments
-
26 comments
-
24 comments
Comments (18)
Perfect!
If the state recognizes the marriage of a church as legal, then they are required to accept ALL marriages by ALL churches as being valid (if the people are of legal age to give consent). If the state refuses to do so, then it is a violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution (because the state is *choosing* to deny to one religion the same authority it accepts from another religion).
It seems, as time passes, that being gay and lesbian has become the new norm amongst our youth. Deviant, nowadays, has a whole new meaning. The only real purpose for the union of marriage of two people, whether in law or otherwise, is for the protection of the family. A union that could never, for anatomical reasons, produce offspring shouldn't qualify for the label of marriage. The gay rights movement has spent all of it's life making the law into an ass. Any law that gives gay couples the right to adopt children should be abolished because the natural environment for bringing up children is in the family. Personally, I have a "Live and Let Live" attitude to gays and lesbian but in a situation where the adopting couple's lifestyle could have a negative impact on a young mind, it must be considered a disqualifying factor in an adoption application.
#3 - I am a hetero female who due to a medical issue beyond my control I can never bear children - by your viewpoint because I am not able to have children my marriage should not be valid? Don't know that I agree with that. The purpose of marriage is to consent to live your life united with another person - regardless of offspring. I believe a true marriage & family thrives in a loving household - regardless of the sexual orientation of those living in it.
Aren't you supposed to get a marriage license before you get married?
Seems to me the easiest solution is to get the license at the same place where you get "legally" married. Then the courts get to decide if they can ignore a legal document from another state.
Sean: Your definition of the purpose of marriage as procreation and protection of the family is only from a moral and religious point of view. Historically, it is also about property rights.
My only problem with "homosexual marriage" (and the terminology should make it clear that I am not a homosexual) is the use of the term marriage - why do they so vehemently object to the term 'civil union'; for that is what they want - the secular rights and benefits of two people who have decided to be a couple forever.
#3 is incorrect, at least for the most part.
“Protection of the family” is *not* the only reason for marriage. The state (both literally and figuratively) has a substantial interest in the institution of marriage strictly from the standpoint of an orderly and regular system of property ownership and transfer. In that context, it matters not whether the people involved are of the same gender. What’s at issue is who owns the property of the partnership when one member dies.
Further, even if we accept #3’s rationale (I don’t, but for argument’s sake…), it’s an odd definition of “family” that excludes several of my heterosexual couple friends because, for anatomical reasons, they’re incapable of producing offspring. Reproduction is certainly *a* reason for marriage, but it’s decidedly not the *only* reason. I don’t think there’s a court in the land that would rule a marriage illegal for the sole reason that the two people involved were not capable of having children. I have friends who’ve spent thousands of dollars on fertility treatment, to no avail. Should the state invalidate their marriage and, in effect, “divorce” them because they have no offspring? I think not.
I certainly agree that the *preferred* natural environment for bringing up children is in the family, but it’s worth considering what constitutes *family.* Those on the right, terrified of sexuality in general, are actively working to make the Ozzie & Harriet, heterosexual couple the *only* accepted definition of family, which, rules out children being raised by relatives, single parents, friends of deceased parents, or other persons who might otherwise make very capable parent figures. Moreover, there are millions of children around the world without families, due to disease, warfare, etc. That should not rule out their being raised by loving humans who want them.
The “lifestyle” argument is specious at best, and sheer prejudice at worst. The only gay or lesbian people I know personally are licensed professionals in professional careers. They all make more money than I do, live middle-class lives, pay their bills on time, and are not, since it’s prejudice we’re dealing with here, inclined toward weekends devoted to the hedonistic and orgiastic. Their lifestyles are as conventional in all other respects as anyone else I know who’s heterosexual. Is every gay or lesbian couple like that? No. Are all heterosexual couples like that? No again.
And despite all this, I think Mr. Swift is correct. This lawsuit will be *perfect* for the sexual bigots on the right, who will be able to add weight to their generally-specious argument that “law is not enough” when prejudice is being reinforced.
#3 - And when folks are too old to have children, their marriage is a nullity. Yup, that makes sense, allright.
I think I might be a hyprocrite, don't really appose same sex unions but might have an issue with multiple unions. Are they less than able to love, raise kids and function as a family?
If the Catholic church does not want to recognize same sex marriages, then don't. That doesn't mean the whole state shouldn't. The church currently will not marry a couple if one of the participants is divorced, yet that couple can go to the state to get it done. I see no difference
"Personally, I have a "Live and Let Live" attitude to gays and lesbian.."
Er, no your comment seems more to indicate you have a 'let me live my life the way I want and keep people I dislike from having the same rights as me' sort of vibe. Your active advocate for discrimination based on sexual orientation is not a live and let live attitude in the slightest.
Marriage, like everything else is a socially evolving issue. Do people really want marriage to be traditional? A giving away or exchanging the woman to a man as property?
As the saying goes: Against Same Sex Marriage? Don't have one.
Today's decision is a big win for marriage equality.
Ms. Hawkins' effort to sow division between those fighting for marriage equality in the courts and those who fight for marriage equality by the defeat of this immoral, antidemocratic constitutional amendment is misplaced, misleading, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding, if not hostility, to the struggle for marriage equality.
The world knows now of this case. The plaintiffs and their allies are as Partisans, who have dealt a fearsome blow to the enemies of human rights, that the regular armies of the institutions favoring marriage equality might take heart, renew their energies, regroup, and defeat these common enemies at the ballot box in November and every other battlefield and front. The world knows once again, by the dedication of the plaintiffs and their allies in this case, that the friends and advocates of human rights are on the march again, and winning on the marriage equality front.
We fight for human rights, of which marriage equality is one facet, in the courts, in the fields of political battle, in the air in the mass media, and the hearts and minds of men and women who love liberty as much as, or more than, their own lives. We will show that the state has no legitimate interest, let alone a compelling interest, in the prohibition of marriage equality between spouses regardless of gender. We will never surrender. We will win.
Mr. Nickitas (#11): Ms. Hawkins isn't sowing division - she is reporting on the division that exists. The fact is that a number of gay rights groups think this lawsuit is a bad idea, and will undermine the effort to defeat the marriage amendment. Put simply, by bringing this lawsuit, they think you are actually hurting the cause. In addition to the bad strategy, I expect that they aren't too happy about the issue being champtioned by an attorney who has been suspended in both Wisconsin and Minnesota.
http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seq...
http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2005/ora051202-0811....
On the dissolution of property issue, back in 1986 I bought a house with a women I was not married to. I think the term was "joint tenants in common" where, if one died the other got the house.
On the flip side my parents were married more than half a century before my mother had to go into a nursing home for a while. We went over the asset draw down process. Basically, if my mother had been a nursing home long enough to deplete assets (figure cost of at least $5K per month for the nursing home) the assets would have been split between the married couple. My father could stay in the house but the state would put a lien on my mother's half.
I had split from the co-owner of my house and bought her part out but I asked what would happen with two single people with the co-ownership if one of us had catastrophic medical costs. The state would put a lien on half the value of the house.
The point is that all the legal structure is available without formal marriage.
"The point is that all the legal structure is available without formal marriage. "
uhm, no. Some can be approximated, if the couple has the time and resources to hire an attorney to draw up a contract spelling those out, but that's a step and expense not required of a heterosexual couple that gets those rights merely with their signatures on a marriage license.
That also assumes that third parties honor the terms spelled out in the contracts, which is not always the case (there are plenty of stories where powers-of-attorney, hospital visitation, and claiming of a partners remains were not recognized, regardless of the contracts provided)
Other things, like survivors benefits, health insurance, tax favored inheritance, and others simply cannot be granted by civil contract.
I don't want to wade into the quagmire, but I have a stylistic (journalistic) quibble with the piece. The term "marriage equality" is, as far as I know, used only by those who support expanding - or changing, depending on whom one is talking to - the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
It's one thing to have the phrase in a direct quote, but the article uses the phrase in the body of the text. This is no more appropriate than would be the use of "marriage protection" in such a context; it explicitly takes a position and shades the article towards editorial commentary rather than straight reporting.
Mr. Hintz:
My clients are pleased. My clients hired me with knowledge of my track record.
You, sir, have little to say about the wrong in the denial of marriage equality. You, sir, have nothing to say of the stigma that children of same-gendered parents bear, in a world that is only slowly recognizing marriage equality.
You, sir, have nothing to say of the struggles that people of many faith endure to gain marriage equality rooted in their faith traditions. Several Christian denominations recognize marriage equality. As does the Baha'i faith. As do four of the five major movements in Judaism, with one Orthodox same-sex marriage actually performed in Washington, D.C. in 2011.
Please feel free to prate, sir, that your comments may provide a useful contrast to the comments that address all sides of this issue, from the many who seek greater light and understanding.
Mr. Nickitas:
You really just don't get it, do you. Let me spell it out:
First of all, I wholeheartedly support marriage equality. I believe that same-sex couples should have all the legal rights (including marriage) that opposite-sex couples do. I would legalize gay marriage tomorrow if I could.
The groups cited in the article that do not support your lawsuit - OutFront Minnesota, Project 515 and the Family Equality Council - are, in fact supporters of same-sex marriage and are working hard to defeat the marriage amendment. Their opposition to your lawsuit is not due to opposition to same sex marriage. Rather, they believe that your lawsuit will adversely affect the outcome of the vote on the marriage amendment. They believe your lawsuit may be counterproductive.
And again, Ms. Hawkins wasn't sowing division. She was merely reporting on what these organizations have said about your lawsuit. If you took time to actually read what was written instead of launching into tirades about your cause, you might actually understand what was really going on.
Your clients may be pleased with you, but unfortunately you are not speaking just on their behalf, but on behalf of all same-sex couples in this state. And some of the groups working on this issue - OutFront Minnesota, Project 515 and the Family Equality Council - are not happy with your lawsuit. Those groups do not speak for everyone, and your clients obviously have the right to bring their claims. But if achieving marriage equality is really your goal, maybe you should listen to what they are saying instead of simply assuming that anyone who opposes what you are doing is a marriage equality opponent.
Speaking of pejorative terms like "politically correct, "progressive" "economic (or whatever) justice" and "marriage equality".
Just after high-school there were identical-twin single females on the same floor of my apartment building. They were convinced I couldn't tell them apart. (That was "fun").
I had a car, they didn't. They were Catholic so the three of us went to church together. People at the church said I should get married but I stayed in "kabe" and said I couldn't tell them apart so how could I only marry one when they are of "the same flesh"?
Someone asked the priest to study this question and there was no specific liturgical answer! They eventually came up with the 19th Century PT Barnum circus male "Siamese/conjoined" twins who married two different women. The priest eventually told the person who inquired that I could only marry one person because "that's the way it is!". That is the law!
The point is that a logical argument is not the law as written. (If anyone wants to write a romantic comedy here is a theme)
BTW: DNA might not be able to tell identical twins apart but pigments in hair give a log of body chemistry (IE drinking canned, bottled or keg beer). This depends on the intensity of the pigments so logically, identical twin albinos might foil current technology. Note identical twins but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edgar_Winter_Group