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
No comments:
Post a Comment