It was written here: I think civil unions are a good idea, and they should also be available to opposite-sex couples. However, if one institution is available only to straight people and another is available to gay people, you wind up with another "separate but equal" situation, like in the early days of the civil rights movement. As long as the institutions are separate, there will be a temptation to favor one over the other.
<and> 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 adjudicated by ANY Supreme Court. As I mentioned earlier, SF seeks a court verdict in the context of the constitution (California's guarantee of rights, in this case.) <then> If Minnesota's marriage statutes are unconstitutional, there's no reason why Mayor Rybak couldn't challenge them. For example, there are still sodomy statutes on the books in this state, but that doesn't mean they're enforceable. <and> Mayor Newsom's strategy is risky and confrontational, but there's no reason a Minneapolis city attorney couldn't go into court on Monday morning and file a claim for a declaratory judgment. My guess is the issue will be settled in the SCOTUS before too long. [TB] Mayor Newsom and Mayor Livingstone (London) have the intestinal fortitude to do what is right, I'm not sure Mayor Rybak does. Rybak took Freedom to Marry Day a couple of weeks ago and encouraged people to come to City Hall and sign up for the City's Domestic Partnership registry, a registry that is meaning less. I'm not sure why anyone cares how I define my family. The problem is when marriage under it's current definition allows hundreds of rights under various federal, state and local laws. Marriage itself has evolved over the centuries. Polygamous marriages have in earlier years been allowed, even in this country. In some countries they exist today. At one point marriage was entirely a civil function, then the church figured out there was money to be made and decided to get into the act. Civil disobedience? Rosa Parks committed an act of civil disobedience and became a national hero. Mayor Newsom may become one too. Rybak? He's to busy trying to figure out how to keep is car out of a snow bank. What seems to be forgotten here is that laws which violate the constitution are not valid. Vermont's Supreme Court recognized the problem, in Massachusetts the court figured out (possible due to the Vermont experience) that a separate category (civil unions) doesn't cut it either. I see no reason why we can't have leaders in Minneapolis too. Terrell Brown 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
