|
A constitutional amendment defining marriage is unnecessary
and redundant because the legislature has already passed laws
defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman and
the Minnesota Supreme Court has already upheld restricting
marriage to different-sex couples.
A Minnesota Marriage Timeline
1971: The Minnesota Supreme Court upholds denial of a
marriage license to a same-sex couple.
1977: The legislature amends the marriage statute, defining
the institution as “a civil contract” between a man and a woman.
1993: “Sexual orientation” is added to Human Rights Act;
marriage is excluded from MHRA’s scope.
1997: The legislature passes the Defense of Marriage Act,
allowing the state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages
performed elsewhere.
2004: During the 2004 Session, the constitutional amendment
to prohibit any legal recognition of same-sex couples is first
introduced and passes the House with a vote of 88-42. The
amendment dies in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate
votes to block an attempt to pull the amendment out of the
Judiciary Committee for a full Senate vote. The majority of the
Senate votes to uphold the legislative process.
In November, all legislators voting against the amendment are
re-elected and 12 legislators voting for the amendment are
defeated. (With the exception of Representative Jim Rhodes
who was replaced by Representative Steve Simon; Simon also
publicly stated opposition to the amendment.)
2005: The anti-marriage amendment passes the House for a
second year in a row, but again dies in the Senate. The vote in
the House is 77-56. An attempt to pull the amendment from the
Judiciary Committee to compel a floor vote fails by a margin of
36-30.
2006: Anti-marriage amendment passes the House; fails in a
Senate committee.
2007: Several anti-marriage amendment bills are introduced in
the House and Senate. No action taken.
2008: As of April, no action taken on anti-marriage amendment
bills.
Current Minnesota Marriage Laws Restricting Marriage
Passed in 1977:
MINN. STAT. § 517.01 “Marriage a civil contract. Marriage, so
far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract
between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties,
capable in law of contracting, is essential. Lawful marriage may
be contracted only between persons of the opposite sex and only
when a license has been obtained as provided by law and when the
marriage is contracted in the presence of two witnesses and
solemnized by one authorized, or whom one or both of the parties
in good faith believe to be authorized, so to do.”
Additions in 1997:
MINN. STAT. § 517.03
“Subdivision 1. General. (a) The following marriages are
prohibited: . . .
(4) a marriage between persons of the same sex.
(b) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either
under common law or statute, that is recognized by another state
or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state and contractual
rights granted by virtue of the marriage of its termination are
unenforceable in this state.”
MINN. STAT. § 517.20
“Except as provided in section 517.03, subdivision 1, paragraph
(b), all marriages contracted within this state prior to March
1, 1979 or outside this state that were valid at the time of
contract or subsequently validated by the laws of the place in
which they were contracted or by the domicile of the parties are
valid in this state.”
MINN. STAT. § 518.01
“All marriages which are prohibited by section 517.03 shall be
absolutely void, without any decree of dissolution or other
legal proceedings…”
Pertinent Legal Cases on Minnesota State Marriage Laws
Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971). In this
case, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling
that state law did not require issuing marriage licenses to
same-sex couples. The Court held that a “sensible reading” of
the statute showed no intent by the legislature to allow such
marriages. The Court also dismissed federal constitutional
claims, finding that marriage rights protected under privacy
cases only protected the “historic” and “procreative”
heterosexual institution and that equal protection was not
implicated because the marriage law was wholly rational.
McConnell v. Nooner, 547 F.2d 54 (8th Cir. 1976). In
this case, the Court of Appeals upheld a district court’s
dismissal of a veteran’s claim for spousal educational benefits
for his same-sex partner, with whom he had undergone a marriage
ceremony. The Court found that the federal law governing
veterans’ benefits defines spouse in terms of state marriage
law, and that the Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker had clearly
determined that marriages between members of the same sex were
invalid and prohibited in Minnesota.
Church of the Chosen People (North American Panarchate) v.
U.S., 548 F.Supp. 1247 (D. Minn. 1982). In this case, the
District Court denied the Church’s petition for tax refunds from
the IRS on the basis of religious exemption. The facts of the
case showed that the primary tenet of the Church was the “Gay
Imperative,” a doctrine encouraging the validity of same-sex
relationships and even performing marriage ceremonies for
same-sex couples. The Court found that the Church’s major
doctrine was “a single-faceted doctrine of sexual preference and
secular lifestyle” and thus did not qualify as a religious
institution. The Court noted in its analysis that marriages of
same-sex couples were prohibited in Minnesota. |
