Minnesota Governor vetoes domestic partner bill

[Ghel]

on CityPages blog
on StarTribune website

Governor Tim Pawlenty took time off from fishing opener weekend to veto a bill that "would have given gay partners the power to decide about how to dispose of a body and file wrongful death suits." His stated reasons were twofold: 1. The powers given to the bereaved in this bill could be covered in a will (he didn't say what to do if there wasn't a will). 2. "Marriage - defined as between a man and woman - should remain elevated in our society at a special level, as it traditionally has been. I oppose efforts to treat domestic relationships as the equivalent of traditional marriage."

I saw this bill as a step in the right direction. Instead, Minnesota's slipping further into discrimination and bigotry. And this fellow who's supposed to be representing ALL Minnesotans is leading the way.

[smileyeagle1021]

Ah welcome to America where everyone is equal... unless of course they are gay.
Too bad Minnesota doesn't have a libertarian legislature that despises their republican governor enough to override his veto just to spite him (which is how it got passed in Nevada).

[Hobbs]

Darn, not in before Smiley...do you stalk these same-sex threads?

Anyway...aren't there a couple of other states that still have same-sex marriage? Has anyone from those states tried to federally challenge another state's anti-gay marriage bill?

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

You know. I have an answer to the whole same sex marriage thing.

Marriage as it is today is a civil union (getting the marriage licence at the county courthouse) and the blessing of a religious figure.

However, the religious figure is optional in the laws of the United States. You can be "married" (with the licence) by any one with the power to perform the ceremony. This can be ship captains, Elvis Impersonators in Vegas 24 hour wedding chapels, and the like.

Technically speaking, my wife and I aren't "Married" but only have the Civil Union since we tied the knot at the court house.

No religious figures were involved at all.

However, for tax purposes, Power of Attorney, custody of children if one of us dies, ICU visitations and all the other benefits that "married" couples get...

We're just the same as they are and in fact are considered "Married" for all intents and purposes.

So my answer is to let the churches decide on whether or not they want to allow Same Sex Marriage, but make the Civil Union part of "marriage" legal. This does a nice job of keeping the who separation of Church and State and resolves the whole battle that some sects of the various faiths have with it.

Well not really since they will likely still be a bit pissy about it, but from a legal stance it would shut them down if not shut them up. So if your church does not want to allow it, then you may want to consider a different faith that does or to not bother with them and just do a quick Justice of the Peace.

Either way, this will be a moot point. The movement is growing stronger and stronger and all it will take is for the next big thing to come along and SSM will be pushed aside so everyone can harrumph over the new crisis and SSM will sneak in with little fanfare.

[fireheart17]

Here's a question I have to put forward that's been in the back of my mind for some time and now it's been put forward by Mongo.

If marriage is as sacred as people seem to state it is, then why is the divorce rate so high? Why do we have the kitschy lame Vegas chapels?

[Ghel]

So my answer is to let the churches decide on whether or not they want to allow Same Sex Marriage, but make the Civil Union part of "marriage" legal. This does a nice job of keeping the who separation of Church and State and resolves the whole battle that some sects of the various faiths have with it.

That would be great. Now we just have to convince all the vocal Christians who are trying to claim that the USA is a "Christian nation" and that we should return to our "religious roots."

Anyway...aren't there a couple of other states that still have same-sex marriage? Has anyone from those states tried to federally challenge another state's anti-gay marriage bill?

You have to live in a state to challenge that state's same-sex marriage ban. That's the only way you have standing. I suppose if you (er, not you, personally) got married and then moved, but it would still have to start at the state level.

There was a lawsuit recently filed in Minnesota, seeking to overturn its same-sex marriage ban. The group that brought the suit is called Marry Me Minnesota, on behalf of 3 couples. One couple was married in Canada. They can travel out of the state north into Canada, where their marriage will be recognized, or south into Iowa, where their marriage will also be recognized, but in their home state they’re just two guys living together. Another couple is retirement age, and they’re worried about being able to receive each others’ pensions and shared assets. The third couple has a young son, who is biologically one of the spouse’s. They want to be able to make medical decisions for their son, the same way any married couple could. Instead, they had to have a document made up for the other spouse, the same as you would give a babysitter, which allows her to make medical decisions for the boy.

I hope either this case or Perry v. Schwarzenegger makes it to the Supreme Court, so that we can do away with the Defense of Marriage nonsense.

[Hobbs]

Well that's what I meant. I mean...you'd think in the time since the first years of same-sex marriage, some couple would have moved to another state.

[Fryk]

I don't understand why no one seems to have brought a 14th Amendment challenge of these laws to the Supreme Court.

[Hobbs]

I don't see how the 14th Amendment applies.

[jackfaire]

"A special elevated position" Really? That implies it isn't something we have spent years saying everyone should be doing. Growing up that is the life plan isn't it get married to a member of the opposite sex? Doesn't seem special or elevated to me if everyone's doing it.

[Ghel]

Maybe he wants to return marriage to what it was in biblical times. When women were considered property, and belonged to either their father or husband. When fathers could arrange marriages for their daughters at any age. When the punishment (HA!) for raping an unmarried woman was to be forced to marry her.


14th Amendment? Are you talking about the equal protection clause? The reason for the rush to get DOMA passed?

[Hobbs]

What's DOMA?

Oh, and as aforementioned, I don't see how the 14th Amendment applies

[jackfaire]

What's DOMA?

Defense Of Marriage Act

[Hobbs]

Oh, I see now. How does it apply to the 14th though?

[smileyeagle1021]

Darn, not in before Smiley...do you stalk these same-sex threads?

No, I don't stalk them... I have a 6th sense that tells me whenever a thread goes up regarding homosexuality

If marriage is as sacred as people seem to state it is, then why is the divorce rate so high? Why do we have the kitschy lame Vegas chapels?

Why were there money handlers in the Temple at Jerusalem?
It doesn't matter how sacred or unholy something is, someone will try to make money off of it. As for divorce, all I can say is hypocrisy.

What's DOMA?

Oh, and as aforementioned, I don't see how the 14th Amendment applies

as has been mentioned, DOMA is the so-called defense of marriage act.
Now for the 14th amendment. The text of the Amendment reads

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

The supreme court decided in Loving V. Virginia that marriage was one of those rights.
Ergo, if marriage is a right (or even privilege) guaranteed to citizens of the United States, then it must be open to all citizens, including homosexuals. It can be argued that it is open because a gay man is still permitted to marry a woman (or a lesbian woman to a man), however prior to Loving V. Virginia the argument was that it was open to both blacks and whites because any black person could marry another black person of the opposite sex. The court moved it in the direction of saying that people should be able to marry whom they please with the decision that restricting it within race was wrong. It is not much of a stretch to then remove the restriction for opposite gender.