Recent Posts

There, I fixed it

by Joe Bodell on November 9, 2012 · 4 comments

Per Jeff’s previous post on pushing for true marriage equality in Minnesota, here’s Minnesota Statute 517.03:

517.03 PROHIBITED MARRIAGES.
Subdivision 1.General. (a) The following marriages are prohibited:
(1) a marriage entered into before the dissolution of an earlier marriage of one of the parties becomes final, as provided in section 518.145 or by the law of the jurisdiction where the dissolution was granted;
(2) a marriage between an ancestor and a descendant, or between a brother and a sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by adoption;
(3) a marriage between an uncle and a niece, between an aunt and a nephew, or between first cousins, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood, except as to marriages permitted by the established customs of aboriginal cultures; and
(4) a marriage between persons of the same sex.
(b) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage or its termination are unenforceable in this state.

Want marriage equality? All the Legislature has to do in January is write and pass a bill that looks like this:

“Minnesota Statute 517.03 shall be amended as follows:

517.03 PROHIBITED MARRIAGES.
Subdivision 1.General. (a) The following marriages are prohibited:
(1) a marriage entered into before the dissolution of an earlier marriage of one of the parties becomes final, as provided in section 518.145 or by the law of the jurisdiction where the dissolution was granted;
(2) a marriage between an ancestor and a descendant, or between a brother and a sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by adoption;
(3) a marriage between an uncle and a niece, between an aunt and a nephew, or between first cousins, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood, except as to marriages permitted by the established customs of aboriginal cultures; and
(4) a marriage between persons of the same sex.
(b) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage or its termination are unenforceable in this state.

There, I fixed it. Good policy meets good politics — or have we already forgotten that the problem in 2010 was depressed turnout among the DFL base? Want to give the choir a reason to show up and sing their faces off? Here’s our chance.

Jeff Rosenberg November 9, 2012 at 8:15 pm

Now we don’t need to worry about this taking up our legislators’ valuable time. Vote Yes on the Bodell Bill, and we’re done.

Globe199 November 9, 2012 at 9:14 pm

This is definitely a good start, and if it’s all they can get done, then it’s still huge progress.

But I would like to see a bolder, simpler bill: get the state out of the marriage business.  The state (or county) can issue civil union licenses between any two people.  The word “marriage” will exist nowhere in any state statute.

The end.

EP Dem November 9, 2012 at 9:49 pm

Your lips to Tom Bakk’s ears, Joe.  He sounds dead set against any “policy ideas” being brought up in the legislative session.

give2attain November 10, 2012 at 9:21 am

So when will the Progressives want to strike through lines 1, 2 & 3?  They seem to be belief based exceptions also…

Thoughts?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: