THEY IZ NIBBLIN ON MY BRAIN! »« Quantum is just a metaphor

Incremental progress

Minnesota has a “defense of marriage” act on the books, which prohibits gay marriage. Several gay families have challenged the law; their case was dismissed last year. However, it went before the Minnesota Court of Appeals today, and they have ruled favorably: the case was unfairly dismissed, and has now been tossed back to the lower courts.

Minnesota has not overturned the ban on gay marriage yet, but has won the right to challenge the law in court. It’s a step forward, at least. If you want to help out, Marry Me Minnesota is looking for donations.

Comments

  1. The Dancing Monk says

    How does “Defence of Marriage” equate to “Ban marriage for people we don’t approve of”?

  2. Ray, rude-ass yankee says

    But, but, we have to protect gay people from marriage! Don’t you see? It’s already too late for us straight folks. Get away while you still can!!!

  3. marcus says

    @me #4 I mean “Haven’t they suffered enough already?!”
    Here’s to the day we can all suffer happily together, and equally, under the protection of the Constitution.

  4. chigau (同じ) says

    Mawwiage. Mawwiage is what bwings us togethaw today. Mawwiage, that bwessed awwangement, that dweam within a dweam…

  5. rork says

    Your citizens are going to vote on putting no same-sex marriage into your constitution soon, right?
    That’s what we did in Michigan, and by the same methods, with 59% of the vote in 2004.
    We both live in states where the constitution can be changed when the wind changes, and the wind has changed, so lets legalize marriage between 2 humans that way.
    I think we could do that now in Michigan, except that we are idiots, and care about whether it is called marriage or a civil-union. Seriously.

  6. chigau (同じ) says

    marcus @8
    If there really was liberty and justice for all, everyone could be the Princess!!!1!!

  7. says

    Isn’t this bloody stupid. You can have a prayer banner taken down with little court action because it breaks the laws on religion in government. However religion in government based marriage laws (a much more obvious breaking of the constitution) has to be debated endlessly, and individually, in each state in a massive game of court ping pong.

  8. says

    chigau (同じ), I realize that’s a line from a movie (one I never could sit through), but why is it considered okay to make fun of people who have difficulty speaking?

  9. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden Molly Ivins says

    I feel that this is an important issue & I do activism – in my teaching, in my parenting, etc. – to try to challenge the horrendously ridiculous status quo.

    However, I have challenged larger organizations over & over again to make an equal protection argument based on the fact that trans people can marry and that our marriages **look** gay.

    In some states the trans marriages that are legal are marriages based on our original birth certificates, in some states the trans marriages that are legal are the ones based on our amended birth certificates…although in a few states, most notably but not only Texas, courts have ruled that any marriage that involves a trans person is illegal, that there is no person, of any gender, that a trans person can legally marry.

    But in most states, trans people can marry either the people that had the same legal sex assigned at birth OR people that had a different legal sex assigned at birth. The thing is, if you go by the first, the fundies still consider that gay marriage b/c they believe you can’t ever “really” change gender role, while the vast majority consider the 2nd gay b/c it leads to people with men’s names and masculine clothing marrying people with men’s names and masculine clothing.

    Equal protection that allows the appearance of gay marriage but not actual gay marriage is fundamentally illogical. This means it can’t pass even the rational basis test – the lowest level of scrutiny – if you have a lawyer with the examples and the skill to truly make a court understand where the lines are being drawn and how illogical and arbitrary those lines are.

    But those larger organizations don’t say, “No, we won’t do that because we’re worried it would lead to a backlash against trans relationships,” (which is an argument that I don’t find entirely convincing – our relationships are constantly under threat and educating about the problems may create problems in the short run but can only help in the long run – but is at least an argument that I can respect).

    No, those larger organizations say, “We don’t want to ‘muddy the waters’,” or use other euphemisms that, taken as a whole and in context, clearly communicate: we don’t want to associate our mildly respectable gay selves with you truly weird trans people.

    If they can’t bear to be seen in the same context with me and the people I love, with me and my spouse, then they aren’t an organization to whom I wish to give my money.

    It creates an unfortunate conflict for me, because I would like to support these orgs, but I haven’t yet found one willing to use legal trans marriage in their legal cases or even in their PR/ advocacy/ lobbying.

    If my marriage is that repulsive to them, they just can’t have my support, no matter how good their cause.

    If anyone knows how Marry Me, Minnesota treats trans marriage, I would love to find that they are different and that I can finally donate to a mainstream organization. If you know of another mainstream marriage equality organization, I’d love to know about those as well.

  10. chigau (同じ) says

    coleslaw @14
    That scene in the movie is not mocking people who have difficulty speaking, it is mocking an actual British accent.

  11. beergoggles says

    #15,
    When you say:
    “But those larger organizations don’t say, “No, we won’t do that because we’re worried it would lead to a backlash against trans relationships,” (which is an argument that I don’t find entirely convincing”

    and

    “No, those larger organizations say, “We don’t want to ‘muddy the waters’,””

    Can u provide links? I’d like to have a better idea of which those organizations are. Thanks!

  12. rork says

    #15
    The biologist have no doubt always asked just how laws define the sex of a person (and how many categories are there), since it seems like a ridiculous task, though for many it might seem without difficulty.
    Then there’s the question: why does the state care so much about my genitals? Is there compelling interest?

  13. carbonbasedlifeform says

    In Princess Bride, Andre the Giant has an actual speech impediment, and it is not considered to be the least bit funny.