By Doug Grow
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Published May 20, 2004
Long before gay marriage became a sizzling contemporary issue, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell were receiving a Minnesota marriage license and saying their vows before a Methodist minister.
In 1971, that license and marriage were invalidated by the state and, over time, the couple slipped -- or got pushed -- into the background of the gay rights movement.
But on Tuesday, the 34th anniversary of their first attempt to file for a marriage license, Baker and McConnell were making news again. They filed suit in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, claiming that the Internal Revenue Service has violated their right to due process by refusing to allow them to file a joint tax return.
"Their suit is based on the fact they've had an enduring relationship after having a license granted by the state in a marriage solemnized by a clergyman," said attorney Larry Leventhal, who is assisting the couple in the suit.
The suit revolves around the tax return that McConnell filed for 2000. In 2003, he attempted to amend that return by changing his status from single to married, filing a joint return. They say the changed status meant that the IRS owed a refund of $793.28.
But, they say, the IRS rejected that claim with a blunt letter: "The Federal Government does not recognize same-sex marriages."
However, McConnell and Baker believe that the IRS never ruled on the validity of their license, which predates such things as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. They argue that their efforts to marry should not have been blocked in the 1970s because same-sex marriage was not specifically prohibited by state or federal law.
This all gets pretty technical. And it doesn't help that Baker and McConnell aren't talking. Though once the subject of articles in national publications, the two have had an aversion to the media for years.
But one thing is clear: They're on their own in this action. Despite being pioneers in gay-rights causes, Baker and McConnell have been isolated from most gay activist groups for a long time. According to one longtime gay leader, Baker, especially, is seen as "too far out there."
According to Tim Campbell, a longtime friend of the couple and the publisher of the defunct newspaper GLC Voice, civil-rights organizations have refused to support this effort to gain legal standing for gay relationships.
"This suit is both symbolically powerful and legally meaningful," said Campbell, who left the Twin Cities several years ago and now lives in Houston. "It's too bad others aren't there for them."
But most involved in gay issues seem to see this case as a loser that might serve only to fan the flames of bigotry.
"The fundamental proposition seems to be that they have a valid marriage license," said Phil Durand, an attorney for Out-Front Minnesota, a gay activist organization. "I don't know that there's anyone who would agree that they do."
In fact, shortly after their September 1971 wedding, an assistant county attorney in Blue Earth County said the license issued was invalid "because the bride was not a woman." (Hennepin County, where the two resided, always had refused to issue a marriage license.)
Making that wedding more uncomfortable for many gays, then and now, is that weeks before their wedding, McConnell adopted Baker, who took the name Pat McConnell. (It's thought that Blue Earth County issued a marriage license on the assumption that Pat was a woman. Baker and McConnell always have said the adoption simply was about giving their relationship "legal status.")
Less than a month after the headline-making wedding, the state Supreme Court said that Minnesota law prohibited same-sex marriage. The court rejected the Baker-McConnell claim that because the Minnesota Constitution didn't reject same-sex marriage, it must accept it.
"As old as the book of Genesis," wrote one justice of a heterosexual understanding of marriage.
Baker and McConnell never have accepted that ruling. Campbell, who also ended up isolated from many in the gay community for being too confrontational, believes the two have a chance to win on the issue.
"The Supreme Court already has bit the bullet on the tough one," Campbell said. "It's against the law to discriminate based on the sexual behavior of people. If the court has accepted gay sex, it shouldn't have difficulty with long-term gay relationships."
No matter the outcome, this suit marks a new coming out for Baker and McConnell. Campbell indicated that the timing has little to do with the rest of the national gay-marriage debate.
After going head-to-head with so many cultural values decades ago, Baker and McConnell decided to step back and wait, Campbell said.
"Battle fatigue," said Campbell, citing one of the reasons Baker and McConnell seemed to fade.
There were many battles.
In addition to their efforts to marry, Baker became the first openly gay student body president at the University of Minnesota. (One of his campaign posters is remembered by some as hilariously cutting-edge: "Put yourself in Jack Baker's shoes," the poster read. He was pictured in high heels.) Baker would go on to successfully challenge efforts to block him from taking the Minnesota bar exam because of questions about his "moral character." McConnell had to go to court to win a position as a University of Minnesota librarian.
Then came the slow fade from public view.
Baker has popped into headlines on occasion. As recently as 2002 he ran for the state Supreme Court. "My vision: Equal justice for all God's children. No exceptions, no excuses," he wrote in a short campaign essay in the Star Tribune. He was trounced by incumbent Paul Anderson.
McConnell, who ended up in the Hennepin County library system, has been a key player in the design of the much-praised new Brookdale library.
But all along, Campbell said, there was a plan to wage more battles.
"The idea was to wait for a generation that we helped educate and enlighten," Campbell said. "When that generation moved into positions of power, it would be time to act again."
The generational change has come, Campbell said. So Baker and McConnell are back in the fray.
At least some Twin Cities activists believe they should have waited for another 10 years.
Doug Grow is at dgrow@startribune.com
© Copyright 2004 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
RESPONSE: Some of Doug Grow's remarks were tacky
By Tim Campbell
May 21, 2004
Doug Grow's May 20 column about McConnell vs USA was curious and perhaps unprofessional. On the good side, Grow did report the news event. The people who usually report on federal court matters for the Star Tribune did not.
Jack Baker, McConnell's legal counsel, referred to Grow's apologetic phone call after the column appeared in all its glory using the metaphor of a sticky "tar baby." Here are a few on my own thoughts on the column. Let me start with the smallest and work up.
First, Grow starts three paragraphs with the word "But..." Not professional!
Second, Grow complicates the story unfairly by bringing up the adoption issue as perhaps discrediting. Back in the '70s, the only thing gay couples could do to protect their parteners was adoption. Unprofessional spin, Doug.
Second, Grow quotes anonymous sources at least attacking Baker and McConnell. Look: <
Then, Grow closes his column with this anonymous reference as his bottom line: "At least some Twin Cities activists believe they (Baker and McConnell) shoud have waited for another ten years." Who in heaven does Grow mean? Other old Dinosaurs?
Professionally, Grow should have named these people or foregone the citations.
The most important issue, however, is this: Grow takes a few swipes at Baker and McConnell for not wanting to talk to the press about the lawsuit. The IRS and the Bush administration aren't talking about it either.
Grow apparently never even attempted to talk to the appropriate people on the the other end of the lawsuit. The Internal Revenue Service and the Bush administration. Grow is guilty of applying a major double standard in his column.
To me, the IRS contention that "The federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages." under the Bush administration seems to me blatantly unconstitutional. Particularly now that Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage.
The last time Baker and McConnell got to the Supreme Court, the Warren Burger bunch declared their complaint lacked a "substantial federal question."
I think everyone today can see the gay marriage question is both substantial and federal.
I am very curious to know how a president who bills himself as a "compassionate conservative" can justify denying McConnell and Baker joint income-tax return benefits. My God, they've been together thirty-eight years now. It clearly dignifies what we call marriage.
My bottom line is this. The Bush administration's stance is clearly conservative. I refuse to call it compassionate.
Tim Campbell
timcampbellxyx@yahoo.com
blog: www.timcampbellxyx.blogspot.com
Baker-McConnell web site: www.may-18-1970.org
Fan Club email: firstgaycouplefanclub@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment