Subscribe
Gay couples organizing for lawsuit to challenge Minnesota's marriage statutes
A group of gay and lesbian couples are organizing a lawsuit similar to one in California that resulted in laws against same-sex marriage in those states being struck down. Court challenges in Massachusetts and California seem to have provided lasting marriage equality for same-sex couples, but will Minnesota follow suit?
“We have waited long enough,” says Doug Benson. He and his partner, Duane, together for 18 years, are one of the pioneer couples looking to sue the state. “The point we want to make is to make sure equality is pursued wherever we can pursue it.” He continues, “Because we can’t sit around waiting for this to happen. We want this to become a reality here at home, and we are trying through the courts as well as through the Legislature.”
The first steps include finding about 30 couples to get involved in the suit. “We want a critical mass of couples involved,” Doug says. They’ve spoken with a law firm who is willing to take the case. In order to cover some of the legal expenses, couples signing on should be prepared to pay as much as $1,000. Couples have until Aug. 15 to sign up for the lawsuit.
So far, three have signed up, two of which have Canadian marriage licenses. Another handful are contemplating joining, but Doug and Duane are assuring them that the risks — at least financially — will be well worth it if the lawsuit is successful.
“In Doug and my case, we pay $3,000 more a year in taxes because we are not spouses,” says Duane. “Gays and lesbians face legal costs to get legal documents such as hospital visitation, care decisions, and so on — all that are granted by marriage.”
The lawsuit is a small price to pay for couples who could get significant financial relief through marriage.
Certain to be controversial, the lawsuit will challenge existing Minnesota law that prevents same-sex marriage on the grounds that such laws violate equal protection. Unlike California, Massachusetts and — for a brief time — Iowa, Minnesota already has a Supreme Court decision that bars same-sex marriage.
Baker v. Nelson was the first challenge to anti-marriage laws in the country. Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell applied for a marriage license in Hennepin County in 1970, and when they were denied a license the took the county to court — and lost.
The lawsuit is a step that local LGBT community groups have not been keen on taking, instead preferring to change the minds of Minnesotans and pass marriage equality legislatively.
While Doug and Duane have encountered some negativity to the lawsuit from community groups, they say it’s not up to organizations to help people achieve equality.
“We have a responsibility as citizens to take responsibility for ourselves. We can’t wait for organizations to do things for us. They can’t — and shouldn’t — do everything.”
On the chances of success, the couple says you’ll never know if you don’t try. “We don’t know what’s going to happen,” says Doug. “We’re just taking it one step at a time.”
Doug Benson is coordinating couples for the lawsuit and asked me to share his contact information: Phone: 763-219-1206. Email: dugby3@yahoo.com.
Comments
Times are a'changin'
Good for those who fight against unfair laws! It’s time every state with discriminatory laws has to spend tax payer money if they want to keep discrimination. Maybe one of these days Minnesota will join the 21st century.
Lawsuits are the easy way out and usually fail
Successful lobbying for legislation for civil unions or domestic partners has never been overturned and created minimal backlash. Civil unions provide all the rights of marriage a state can confer. “Marriage” gives us no more rights than CU’s but creates huge backlashes which has brought us an entirely new body of anti-gay laws: federal Defense of Marriage Act and 45 states passing laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. The week before the “victorious” California Supreme Court ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court, with small notice, ruled that their state’s anti-same-sex marriage amendment strips public employees of their domestic partnership benefits. Pensions, health care, family leave, all gone. Michigan was part of the backlash to Massachusetts’s “marriages.” The main obstacle to CU’s has been the backlashes to our community’s marriage-only strategy which has been a disaster. Barak Obama supports federal CU’s which would give us 1,138 more rights than any state “marriage.” Federal Civil Unions, with ALL of the rights of marriage, is true marriage equality, not any single state “marriage” devoid of many of the rights of marriage.
Kind of nice
I think it’s nice that gay couples are getting the right to get married. Some of these folks have built lives together that in every way simply are a marriage. Why should we forbid them from going to city hall to get a license? I’m happy for them. And I will never understand people having objections for supposed religious reasons. It has nothing to do with religion, or else we wouldn’t allow atheist couples to get married either. I think people just use that as an excuse to hide their discomfort about homosexuality.
marriage for everyone.
Good luck!
The only beneficiary is the law firm...
Gee, what a generous law firm (left unmentioned, you’ll notice) who agrees to file a hopeless lawsuit for $30,000 up front. The fact is that the Supreme Court of Minnesota has already made a ruling on same sex marriage, which means that the only way to overrule it is to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s a great idea, but virtually impossible. I’m totally in support of gay marriage or civil unions, but this is shysterism.
The person before me
The person before me said…
>>>Gee, what a generous law firm (left unmentioned, you’ll notice) who agrees to file a hopeless lawsuit for $30,000 up front. The fact is that the Supreme Court of Minnesota has already made a ruling on same sex marriage, which means that the only way to overrule it is to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s a great idea, but virtually impossible. I’m totally in support of gay marriage or civil unions, but this is shysterism <<<
Um…no.
The MN Sup Court case this article is referring to (Baker v. Nelson) was decided clear back in 1971…..when both the social acceptance of gays and the make-up of the MN Sup Court was different. Courts overturn their own cases all the time, to comport with changes in society and social attitudes regarding the particular issue…...especially if the case is old. If the MN Sup Court felt that its decision in Baker v. Nelson was wrongly decided, it can certainly overrule it.
I think these guys are doing the right thing. It’s worth a try.
.Fantastic.
It’s time. Separate is not equal. I support this lawsuit 100%!
Foolish
These guys are not doing the right thing. And saying that “it’s worth a try” shows naivety about the complexity and import of the decision to litigate these cases. The litigation victories achieved in California and Massachusetts were the products of careful strategic planning by folks who spent years and years developing the plaintiffs’ cases to achieve maximum effect.
We have bad precedent here. Sure, it’s over 30 years old, but we have arguably the most conservative supreme court this state has seen since that time. The chances of Baker v. Nelson being overruled are slim. The effect of another loss would be devastating. It’s just not the right time yet.
Well...
I don’t live in MN so I didn’t realize the MN Sup Ct was that conservative. If the Court is currently that conservative, then you are right—maybe it’s not good strategy for them to bring the case now, and they should wait until more liberal judges come in (Who knows how long that will be though? Which raises another question—how long must they wait?). Of course, they can always try to do it through the legislature (if there’s any possibility that would work).
Remember the CA Sup Ct that legalized gay marriage were mostly republican/conservative-nominated judges…...so a “conservative” court isn’t necessarily a bad thing for gay marriage. Hopefully these guys have thoroughly researched the backgrounds of the current MN justices before they bring the lawsuit.
Maybe
Hmmm, possibly…but 3 of the 4 justices on the CA Supreme Court that handed down the recent decision were Republicans appointed by Republican governors. Even conservatives can make what might be considered liberal decisions, if the liberal side is the one that happens to be right.
CU's don't work
Check out what’s happening in NJ.
The panel of official and legislative appointees established as part of the law attributed the failure of some New Jersey employers to recognize civil unions to a federal law that allows self-insured companies – an estimated 50 percent of all employers in the state – to choose not to offer benefits to same-sex partners.
Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, a leading gay-rights group in the state, said about 2,500 New Jersey couples have entered into civil unions since the law was passed, and about a fifth have complained to his group that their unions have not been recognized by employers.
“This report delivers a thousand cuts to the civil unions law,” Goldstein said. “For same-sex couples all across New Jersey, the law segregates, discriminates, and humiliates.”
Post new comment