Sen. Dibble ‘concerned’ about gay marriage lawsuit

Andy Birkey

May 11, 2010

Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, is one of three openly gay members of the Minnesota Legislature. He weighed in on Tuesday’s announcement that three Minnesota couples are suing the state for the right to marry. “I am concerned, though, that court and statutory precedent, and the lack of a sufficient constitutional foundation might make the likelihood of a successful outcome remote,” he said. “In that case, the prospect of further cementing precedence that is negative for our families is very real.”

Here’s Dibble’s full statement:

Sen. Dibble: Comments on marriage lawsuit

State Senator Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, released a statement regarding today’s lawsuit filed in Hennepin County District Court that challenges the state’s Defense of Marriage Act:

“It is understandable that this lawsuit would be filed, given the pain, frustration and hardship for those families who are unable to fulfill basic responsibilities to each other because of deficiencies that currently exist in Minnesota state law. I am concerned, though, that court and statutory precedent, and the lack of a sufficient constitutional foundation might make the likelihood of a successful outcome remote. In that case, the prospect of further cementing precedence that is negative for our families is very real.”

“There is occasion for optimism about reform. That is why I have been working in conjunction with citizens and colleagues on a number of legislative policy efforts that provide solutions – several of which have passed the Senate and House – to chip away at those legal barriers to families’ basic ability to take care of each other. With every problem we are able to solve, we are one step closer to providing a permanent remedy to inequities that face Minnesota same-sex couples.”

Two items of legislation moving through the legislature this year include Senate File 2764, which allow wages due to a deceased employee, which currently are payable to surviving spouses, to be paid to surviving domestic partners. Senate File 341 would allow surviving domestic partners to make decisions about funeral arrangements and disposition of remains upon a partner’s death. The House and Senate have acted favorably on Senate File 341.

As a gay Minnesotan, married to my husband of nearly ten years, I find the outpouring of obvious animosity from OutFront Minnesota ’s representatives and State Senator Scott Dibble toward a group of same-sex couples challenging the state’s discriminatory marriage laws in court, to be very troubling. I should think they would be as thrilled as I am that after 40 years of bad law on the books with regard to marriage equality, that it is finally being challenged. Let’s remember that when the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against marriage equality in 1971, not a single state in the union had civil rights protections for GLBT people, not one religion would marry same-sex couples, and gay people were actually still considered mentally ill by the American Psychological Association. We are light years from that terrible time and a challenge to this bad court decision is long overdue. Why would any gay rights organization, through media attacks, try to foul these citizens’ attempt to end discrimination after the battle has been engaged? Do they want this case to fail?

Yesterday, I was even more horrified to read quotes from Senator Dibble to the Associated Press regarding his opinions about the case. He believes that the only way marriage equality will advance is through the legislature. I spoke with Senator Dibble, asking him what he was going to do to advance marriage equality today. His response was “Probably not much.” I also asked him if he had read the case, complaint or summons. His answer was “No.” I find the fact that he chose to make public comments without even so much as looking at the case reckless and irresponsible. Senator Dibble has authored and co-authored bills to give some rights, but none have been enacted into law. He wants to see and incremental approach “with one or two a year”. Project 515 has listed the 515 laws that currently discriminate against our families. With his approach we would do one a year for 515 years? How long should I plan on living to see full equality?

I write these things not to bash these organizations, the senator or divide the community, but to inform our community and help these organizations and our elected officials understand that their approach is not helping our families or the case. If you want to see marriage equality in Minnesota we need to be united, even if we don’t agree on the path. We need to talk about how our families are affected by the discrimination we face daily. Then we need to come up with stratagies to defeat that discrimination. Trying to destroy each others work and efforts will only hinder us or even set us back. All of us should be supporting and pushing everyday for full equality and nothing less.

http://www.startribune.com/local/93410259.html

http://www.startribune.com/local/93887899.html

2 COMMENTS

David Strand May 14, 2010 At 2:57 am

It would be nice if Sen. Dibble, Outfront and other dissenters would explain how and why they feel the Minnesota Judicial system is so horribly broken as to be unable to do the job judicial systems are supposed to do our system of government. Aside from a very dated precedent in a similiar case, is it the elected supreme court that subjects justices to electoral pressure that inhibits their ability to see the clear denial of equal protection in this case?

If it is true that the courts are so likely expected to fail in fulfilling their presumed role of protecting the rights of the minority in this case isn’t it likely true in many cases and something systemic that needs to be addressed?

Why, Sen. Dibble, are our courts here in MN SOOOO broken?

Or is this partially projection. The court has made some poor decisions in the past but the world has changed alot since the ruling in Baker V. Nelson.

Sexual orientation was not only not commonly understood as a suspect class at the time, the term had not even yet come into legal useage as evidenced by the “affectional preference” terminology used in the initial nondiscrimination ordinance in Minneapolis passed shortly AFTER Baker vs. Nelson failed.

Suspect class status of people of minority sexual orientation has been increasingly established in local, state and federal law as well as in state and federal jurisprudence.

So, the precedent is old and under jurisprudence and legal developments since Baker v. Nelson, seems quite undefensible.

So the other conclusion is that something is desperately wrong with MN’s judicial system in which case we ALL have a problem which needs to be addressed.
Matt King May 17, 2010 At 8:47 pm

As a gay Minnesotan, married to my husband of nearly ten years, I find the outpouring of obvious animosity from OutFront Minnesota ’s representatives and State Senator Scott Dibble toward a group of same-sex couples challenging the state’s discriminatory marriage laws in court, to be very troubling. I should think they would be as thrilled as I am that after 40 years of bad law on the books with regard to marriage equality, that it is finally being challenged. Let’s remember that when the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against marriage equality in 1971, not a single state in the union had civil rights protections for GLBT people, not one religion would marry same-sex couples, and gay people were actually still considered mentally ill by the American Psychological Association. We are light years from that terrible time and a challenge to this bad court decision is long overdue. Why would any gay rights organization, through media attacks, try to foul these citizens’ attempt to end discrimination after the battle has been engaged? Do they want this case to fail?

Yesterday, I was even more horrified to read quotes from Senator Dibble to the Associated Press regarding his opinions about the case. He believes that the only way marriage equality will advance is through the legislature. I spoke with Senator Dibble, asking him what he was going to do to advance marriage equality today. His response was “Probably not much.” I also asked him if he had read the case, complaint or summons. His answer was “No.” I find the fact that he chose to make public comments without even so much as looking at the case reckless and irresponsible. Senator Dibble has authored and co-authored bills to give some rights, but none have been enacted into law. He wants to see and incremental approach “with one or two a year”. Project 515 has listed the 515 laws that currently discriminate against our families. With his approach we would do one a year for 515 years? How long should I plan on living to see full equality?

I write these things not to bash these organizations, the senator or divide the community, but to inform our community and help these organizations and our elected officials understand that their approach is not helping our families or the case. If you want to see marriage equality in Minnesota we need to be united, even if we don’t agree on the path. We need to talk about how our families are affected by the discrimination we face daily. Then we need to come up with stratagies to defeat that discrimination. Trying to destroy each others work and efforts will only hinder us or even set us back. All of us should be supporting and pushing everyday for full equality and nothing less.

http://www.startribune.com/local/93410259.html

http://www.startribune.com/local/93887899.html

Comments are closed.