On Feb 22, 2004, at 11:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would argue gun ownership is only a limited civil right (in the context
of the 2nd Amendment's inclusion of a well-regulated militia - which
several Supreme Courts have ruled makes gun regulation constitutional.
That's why we have it today.).
Amendment One and it's Minnesota equivalent, Art. I Sec. 3, is also a limited civil right, though befuddled members of the bench can't figure out what's obscene.
<snip>
The Supreme Court has held abortion (for now) is a limited constitutional
right. It - unlike gay marriage - has been litigated repeatedly.
For now. Abortion is not mentioned in the U.S. nor Minnesota Constitutions.
On the
other hand, gay marriage - and whether such a civil marriage right flows
from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing equal protection
under the law - not been adjudicatd by ANY Supreme Court.
Wrong. The 14th Amendment was passed to ensure that black people enjoy the same rights as whites under the law. There is <no> historical precedent for same sex marriage in Anglo-American jurisprudence, nor in our culture. The judges and petty officials are making it up as they go along.
You can certainly withhold your taxes as civil disobedience - many have,
but you will be doing it in direct contradiction of settled Constitutional
law, unlike the SF gay marriage folks, who are acting in the absence of
constitutional guidance.
I quoted the applicable section of the Minnesota Constitution. If the Minnesota Supreme Court chose to ignore it in Doe v. Gomez, it is their failure as jurists,
not a defect in the Constitution, nor of the existence and enumeration of a right.
There is no absence of "constitutional guidance". We are dealing with renegade officials, acting outside of their constitutional authority and the law.
<snip>
My points above were merely to set up my (still unanswered) locally
specific question: how hospitable is the Minnesota constitution, and since
Mpls is probably the most likely city to do this, what would be the
penalties for local officials and how much would this cost the city at the
state legislature?
If the Hon. Rybak or other local official issues marriage licenses to same sex couples, it would be a direct and absolute violation of the Minnesota Statutes:
------
517.01 Marriage a civil contract. Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent
of the parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential.
Lawful marriage may be contracted only between persons of the opposite sex and only when a license has been obtained as provided by law and when the marriage is contracted in the presence of two witnesses and solemnized by one authorized, or
whom one or both of the parties in good faith believe to be authorized, so to do.
[...]
517.03 Prohibited marriages.
Subdivision 1. General. (a) The following marriages are prohibited:
[...]
(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. [...]
------
His Honor, the Mayor - or other public official - would be prosecuted:
------ 609.43 Misconduct of public officer or employee. A public officer or employee who does any of the following, for which no other sentence is specifically provided by law, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both: (1) intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law; or (2) in the capacity of such officer or employee, does an act knowing it is in excess of lawful authority or knowing it is forbidden by law to be done in that capacity; or (3) under pretense or color of official authority intentionally and unlawfully injures another in the other's person, property, or rights; or (4) in the capacity of such officer or employee, makes a return, certificate, official report, or other like document having knowledge it is false in any material respect. ------
Don't get any ideas about suing the Mr. Rybak or any other official for denial of rights under subdivision three: there is no pre-existing statutory or common law right for same sex marriage.
You have been so advised, be guided accordingly.
Neal Krasnoff Loring Park
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
