Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Letter to Houston Chronicle, AP WashPost

Houston Chronicle
Washington Post
AA

To the Editors:

On March 15 (Page A3), the Houston Chronicle ran an article about the recent court victory for gay couples in California. The article was originally written for the Washington Post and someone addended to it a brief summary of national gay marriage legislation and court decisions. The summary was attributed to the Associated Press. That summary omitted Minnesota, the state where the battle for gay marriage began back in 1971.

California Superior (Trial Court) Judge Richard Kramer wrote in the recent decision: "Same sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled virtually the opposite back in 1971 (Baker v Nelson) arguing Minnesota can forbid gay marriage because: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation an rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."

Furthermore, in 1972, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to review the Minnesota decision for lack of a "substantial Federal question."

I hope the Chronicle, the Washington Post and the Associated Press will all make note of this pioneering gay marriage litigation in future reporting, particularly in chronologies with an historical perspective.

If the California Supreme comes to a different decision than Minnesota, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will be forced to address this issue. Federal potentates from the prez to the members of Congress have made it a substantial Federal question.

(Baker and McConnell's website is www.may-18-1970.tabcat.com/Quest.html)

CA rules opposite of MN on same-sex marriage

California judge rules opposite of Minnesota Supreme Court on gay marriage issue

By Tim Campbell

(timcampbellxyx@yahoo.com)

On March 14, California Superior (Trial Court) Judge Richard Kramer wrote: "Same sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled virtually the opposite back in 1971 (Baker v Nelson) arguing Minnesota can forbid gay marriage because: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation an rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."

Furthermore, in 1972, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to review the Minnesota decision for lack of a "substantial Federal question"

If the California Supreme comes to a different decision than Minnesota, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will be forced to address this issue. Federal potentates from the prez to the members of Congress have now made gay marriage a "substantial Federal question."

McConnell v USA 2004 dismissed

Federal judge dismisses Baker and McConnell’s suit against USA and IRS

By Tim Campbell
(Email: timcampbellxyx@yahoo.com)

On January 3, 2005, United States District Judge Joan N. Ericksen ordered the dismissal of Jack Baker and Mike McConnell’s lawsuit against the United States and the Internal Revenue Service. That lawsuit sought a refund of $793.28 of taxes paid by the couple to the IRS and a declaration that McConnell is a "lawfully married citizen…entitled to be treated the same as every other married Minnesotan similarly situated."

Judge Ericksen’s opinion grants two facts that Baker and McConnell now allege: first, that the federal court for Minnesota gave the couple permission to amend the 1976 lawsuit McConnell v Nooner to include IRS issues; second, that McConnell never filed that amended lawsuit.Nonetheless, Ericksen rules in this order that "… the Court addressed the claims in the seconded (sic) amended complaint as if it had been filed." (Underscore added.)

Ericksen reasons: "In federal court, an action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court, Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, in contrast to Minnesota State Court, where an action is commenced by service of a complaint, Minn. R. Civ. P. 301. Therefore, the service of the second amended complaint on the IRS is irrelevant."

Some think that within the federal chain of jurisdiction for this case, Judge Ericksen was the official most likely to give Baker and McConnell a fair hearing. She is a Minnesota native, went to law school here just after Baker was elected student body president at the University of Minnesota. She is also a recent divorcee and active with feminist lawyers in Minnesota.

On the downside, she also is a Republican who was made a federal judge just two years ago by President Bush.Unfortunately, as far as the most substantial issue in the case is concerned, Ericksen ruled that her Magistrate’s opinion "as holding that Minnesota does not recognize or permit same-sex marriage is fair." (Underscore added .)

Background

Baker and McConnell launched the world-wide drive for gay marriage in 1970 when they applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis. A Hennepin County clerk refused to issue them that license. The couple sued. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that it was ok for that clerk to refuse Baker and McConnell a marriage license because same-sex marriage was not specifically authorized by Minnesota law.

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review that decision "for want of substantial federal question." That ruling could have meant the Supreme Court thought the issue was either not substantial or not a federal one. Marriage laws traditionally were left to the states until the question of interracial marriage came up.

Meanwhile, but prior to the Minnesota Supreme Court decision about gay marriage, Baker and McConnell went to Mankato, Minnesota, got a marriage license and were married by an appropriate minister. The marriage was registered with the State.Subsequently, using that marriage license, Baker and McConnell tried to get veterans benefit. Again, the Minnesota Supreme Court slapped them down. However, the same decision that denied Baker and McConnell veterans benefits left a foot in the door for the couple to sue for income-tax benefits.

The couple did not file that lawsuit until recently May 2004. The current decision is the result of the 2003 lawsuit.

Baker and McConnell website: www.may-18-1970.tabcat.com/Quest.html