Copyright May 18, 2004 by Ken Bronson. All rights reserved.
Contents
| About the author |
Copyright May 18, 2004 by Ken Bronson. All rights reserved.
|
Contents
| About the author |
The Clerk of District Court had formally declared on May 22 that he was "unable to issue the marriage license" requested by Jack and Michael.He was responding to a memorandum signed by George M. Scott, Hennepin County Attorney, which had arrived earlier that day.
Jack (l) and Michael (c) review a legal brief prepared by their attorney, R. Michael Wetherbee (r).
Jack told The Advocate that the arguments of the County Attorney were easily refuted. But, he added "its not going to be so easy for us, we think." Work had already begun on a "Brandeis Brief," an extensive memorandum with "as much sociological data and what-have-you as we can get into it."
Jack's effort was helped initially by the Law School's Legal Aid Clinic and a fellow student serving as attorney of record. "My classmates in the Law School all are supporting me 100%," he said. "They're a little upset with the county attorney's opinion ... you know, `Who the hell does he think he is?'."
After The Advocate published this interview, and perhaps because of it, the Legal Aid Clinic reneged on its promise of help. See, "The University of Minnesota Law School sells its soul for money". Jack and Michael were now forced to hire a private attorney, an expense they could ill afford.
November 1970
The first round ended on November 18. During the hearing, Jack, Michael and their attorney, R. Michael Wetherbee, attempted to invoke the U.S. Constitution. The Judge noted that they failed to invite Minnesota's Attorney General, as required by law when the constitutionality of a state statute is questioned. He would base his decision, he said, solely on Minnesota law. District Judge Stanley Kane then upheld the refusal of the Clerk of Court to issue a marriage license to persons of the same sex.
"As long as the state blesses the marriages of impotent men or infertile women - for companionship - then why should not the state offer these same legal benefits to couples of the same sex, who also marry for companionship?"
In his ruling Judge Kane stated that Minnesota's marriage law "is not to be read in isolation from the other laws governing the marriage relationship in the areas of divorce and annulment, probate and property law, inheritance and tax laws and regulations, and notably the law governing the rights and privileges of married women." In this overall view, he continued, "it must be concluded that the legislature did not intend to authorize or permit such marriages."
On December 2, Judge Kane denied a request to re-open the case, even though the Attorney General had been invited to participate in the hearing. His decision required a whole new lawsuit in order to argue the constitutional merits of the case.
When the petition was re-filed, the Attorney General was given proper notice, but his office declined to intervene. Because the County Attorney agreed to the basic facts, the case moved quickly. Finally, on January 8, 1971, Judge Tom Bergin rejected the constitutional arguments and specifically ordered the Clerk of Court not to issue the license.
|
Contents
|
Full and absolute equality |