Did Minnesota come up with the great compromise re: Gay Marriage?

[stpauler]

Next week, Minnesota is set to legalize gay marriage by redefining how the government recognizes ALL marriages. HF 1054 was passed yesterday by the House and it has the Senate and Governor’s backing. The text of the bill is what really could help change the landscape and the divisiveness (cleaned up for ease of reading):

Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 517.01, is amended to read:
2.2517.01 MARRIAGE A CIVIL CIVIL MARRIAGE CONTRACT.
A civil marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties, capable in law of
contracting, is essential. A lawful civil marriage may be contracted only between only when a license has been obtained as provided by law and when the civil 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. Marriages subsequent to April 26, 1941, not so contracted shall be null and void.

This is essentially changing ALL marriages into “civil marriages” which changes what the government actually recognizes versus what a religious institution recognizes. Speaking of which, the bill went into detail to avoid the predictable “slippery slope” argument about religion’s role:

363A.26 EXEMPTION BASED ON RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION.
Nothing in this chapter prohibits any religious association, religious corporation, or
religious society that is not organized for private profit, or any institution organized for educational purposes that is operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious association, religious corporation, or religious society that is not organized for private profit, from:
(1) limiting admission to or giving preference to persons of the same religion denomination; or
(2) in matters relating to sexual orientation, taking any action with respect to education, employment, housing and real property, or use of facilities. This clause shall not apply to secular business activities engaged in by the religious association, religious corporation, or religious society, the conduct of which is unrelated to the religious and educational purposes for which it is organized.; or
(3) taking any action with respect to the provision of goods, services, facilities, or
accommodations directly related to the solemnization or celebration of a civil marriage that is in violation of its religious beliefs.

It seems like this is as close as a win-win for both sides as possible.

[John_Mace]

I don’t think so. All government sanctioned marriages are “civil marriages”. You are conflating the terms “civil union” and “civil marriage”.

The state would not have necessarily recognized all “religious marriages” before, either, since some churches performed SSM and polygamous marriages.

Additionally, I bet not one anti-SSM person considers this bill a “compromise”.

[Hamlet]

@John_Mace

I don’t think so. All government sanctioned marriages are “civil marriages”.

I think this is kinda the point. I think it’s the anti-SSM people who are conflating the term “marriage” as used by the legal system and pretending it means everything it means to them personally. A civil marriage has fuck all to do with love, ability to reproduce, or which body part goes where, it has to do with the multitude of different legal determinations of the government that are affected by the relationship. The problem isn’t with the governments, it’s with the people who cry about the meaning of the word marriage.

[stpauler]

@John_Mace

I don’t think so. All government sanctioned marriages are “civil marriages”. You are conflating the terms “civil union” and “civil marriage”.

Currently in Minnesota, all marriages are “marriages”. So, there’s no legal conflation of the two. On top of that, the bill voted down by the house just prior to this was the Republican-introduced civil union bill.

@John_Mace

Additionally, I bet not one anti-SSM person considers this bill a “compromise”.

After listening to the congresspeople speak yesterday about how that language changed their mind on the bill, I’d take that already won bet.

[John_Mace]

@stpauler

Currently in Minnesota, all marriages are “marriages”. So, there’s no legal conflation of the two. On top of that, the bill voted down by the house just prior to this was the Republican-introduced civil union bill.

And why was that? Because more legislators wanted “marriage”, not “union” to be recognized by the state.

After listening to the congresspeople speak yesterday about how that language changed their mind on the bill, I’d take that already won bet.
[/QUOTE]

Anyone who voted for this bill cannot be called “anti-SSM”, since that implies recognition of SSM by the state, which is exactly what this bill does.

[Rhodes]

I’m no expert, but this sounds like a great compromise to me. Even if it’s not so much of a compromise as it is a clarification; Government will issue civil marriages, and religions can accept whatever people they want and solemnize any marriages they want. Exactly, I suspect, how it’s always been, except the “civil” aspect of marriage is a civil contract between two persons with no mention of gender. I like it, because maybe it will silence the morons who keep saying “Marriage was invented by religion!!! Government should never have gotten involved in marriage!!1!”

[stpauler]

@John_Mace

And why was that? Because more legislators wanted “marriage”, not “union” to be recognized by the state.

Because separate but equal is inherently not equal. And the state redefined how it recognizes marriage in toto.

@John_Mace

Anyone who voted for this bill cannot be called “anti-SSM”, since that implies recognition of SSM by the state, which is exactly what this bill does.

Actually, no. It implies SSCM by the state which is exactly what this bill does.

[Ambrosio_Spinola]

@stpauler

Actually, no. It implies SSCM by the state which is exactly what this bill does.

But civil marriage has always been the only thing that a state has ever done. Whether you’re married in the eyes of any religious tradition is not relevant to getting your license at the courthouse if you meet the state’s requirements for it. If changing the language makes some representatives feel better about casting their vote then that’s fine, but that doesn’t make it a “compromise”.

It also doesn’t address states like mine, which have amended their constitutions to bar not only same-sex marriage, but any form of civil union or any marriage-like relationship whatsoever.

[ctnguy]

Adding the word “civil” before marriage is the great compromise, when Minnesota law already defines marriage as “a civil contract”? Are there state legislators so dim that this actually made a difference?

[stpauler]

@Ambrosio_Spinola

But civil marriage has always been the only thing that a state has ever done. Whether you’re married in the eyes of any religious tradition is not relevant to getting your license at the courthouse if you meet the state’s requirements for it. If changing the language makes some representatives feel better about casting their vote then that’s fine, but that doesn’t make it a “compromise”.

Again. No it hasn’t, not by Minnesota’s current definition.

Minnesota state Representative David FitzSimmons (R-Albertville) will propose changing all references to “marriage” in state law to “civil marriage,” according to media reports. He will propose the change as an amendment to the same-sex marriage bill set to hit the House floor Thursday.

“What this does with placing ‘civil’ in front of ‘marriage’ is that it only highlights again that this is not talking about is necessarily the marriage that’s takes place in your church or synagogue,” Fitzsimmons told MPR. “This bill is about the civil aspects and the government relations aspects of marriage.”

And back to **John Mace’s **point:

Freshman Republican Representative David FitzSimmons, a Republican, offered the change, but he has not said if the change would make him more likely to vote for the bill.

And with that change, FitzSimmons (R) did vote green (yes)

[DrFidelius]

@ctnguy

Adding the word “civil” before marriage is the great compromise, when Minnesota law already defines marriage as “a civil contract”? Are there state legislators so dim that this actually made a difference?

Well, yes there are. But this is more of a lawyers covering their butts with verbiage than anything else (or so it seems to me).

[ctnguy]

@Ambrosio_Spinola

But civil marriage has always been the only thing that a state has ever done. Whether you’re married in the eyes of any religious tradition is not relevant to getting your license at the courthouse if you meet the state’s requirements for it. If changing the language makes some representatives feel better about casting their vote then that’s fine, but that doesn’t make it a “compromise”.

@stpauler

Again. No it hasn’t, not by Minnesota’s current definition.

The state hasn’t literally used the term “civil marriage” in its laws before, but the concept that the state is involved in has always been civil marriage. They’ve added the word, they haven’t changed the meaning.

[John_Mace]

@stpauler

Because separate but equal is inherently not equal. And the state redefined how it recognizes marriage in toto.

No, it didn’t. No marriage that was recognized before is not recognized now, so no change to any existing, state-recognized marriage.

Actually, no. It implies SSCM by the state which is exactly what this bill does.

Semantics. No actual legal change was made other than adding same sex couples to those allowed to have their marriages recognized by the state.

[Inner_Stickler]

Sure it’s a compromise. It’s the best kind of compromise, one where my side doesn’t actually give anything up.

[redtail23]

There was no compromise.

The substantive change was to remove the language added in 1997 to forbid marriage between individuals of the same sex.

Tossing the word “civil” in front of “marriage” a couple of times was completely meaningless in any legal sense.

However, since a large number of people do not comprehend that fact and this pointless gesture evidently reassures them enough to make the important change, I applaud it.

Here’s what was changed. Please note that the “compromise” you mention changes things like MARRIAGE A CIVIL CONTRACT to CIVIL MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Wow, that really makes a difference, don’t it?

2.1 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 517.01, is amended to read:
2.2517.01 [del]MARRIAGE A CIVIL[/del] CIVIL MARRIAGE CONTRACT.
2.3A civil marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract between
2.4[del]a man and a woman[/del] two persons, to which the consent of the parties, capable in law of
2.5contracting, is essential. [del]Lawful[/del] A lawful civil marriage may be contracted [del]only between[/del]
2.6[del]persons of the opposite sex and[/del] only when a license has been obtained as provided by law
2.7and when the civil marriage is contracted in the presence of two witnesses and solemnized
2.8by one authorized, or whom one or both of the parties in good faith believe to be authorized,
2.9so to do. Marriages subsequent to April 26, 1941, not so contracted shall be null and void.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Doesn’t this just prove the argument was always about labeling, never about meaning?

[stpauler]

@John_Mace

No, it didn’t. No marriage that was recognized before is not recognized now, so no change to any existing, state-recognized marriage.

So? It doesn’t have to exclude to change. That’s a throwaway argument that is without logic.

@John_Mace

Semantics. No actual legal change was made other than adding same sex couples to those allowed to have their marriages recognized by the state.

Y’know, legality can, and in this case is, about semantics. As pointed out, the exact semantics were a determining factor for at least one vote.

[John_Mace]

@stpauler

So? It doesn’t have to exclude to change. That’s a throwaway argument that is without logic.

There was no actual change, so no, it’s not a “throw-away argument”.

Y’know, legality can, and in this case is, about semantics. As pointed out, the exact semantics were a determining factor for at least one vote.

You can call this a compromise all day long, but it’s a meaningless semantic undertaking. It changes nothing from a legal standpoint. The law would be exactly the same with or without “civil” in there. No one who voted for this bill wants the state to deny recognition to same sex couples because recognizing same sex marriage is exactly what the bill does.

[stpauler]

@John_Mace

There was no actual change, so no, it’s not a “throw-away argument”.

If the meaning did not change, there would not have been a need to create a new definition that trumped the previous one.

Sec. 7. [517.23] MEANING OF CIVIL MARRIAGE.

Wherever the term “marriage,” “marital,” “marry,” or “married” is used in Minnesota statute in reference to the rights, obligations, or privileges of a couple under law, the term includes civil marriage, or individuals subject to civil marriage, as established by this chapter. A term subject to this definition must also be interpreted in reference to the context in which it appears, but may not be interpreted to limit or exclude any individual who has entered into a valid civil marriage contract under this chapter.

@John_Mace

You can call this a compromise all day long, but it’s a meaningless semantic undertaking. It changes nothing from a legal standpoint. The law would be exactly the same with or without “civil” in there. No one who voted for this bill wants the state to deny recognition to same sex couples because recognizing same sex marriage is exactly what the bill does.

Please use your uncited arguments to negate my cited points where I show where a Republican who inserted that exact language voted for it with it.

If you’re suddenly claiming that semantics and the language used re: marriage/civil marriage/civil unions is solely semantic and is not a compromise, it shows that you have not paid attention to the last ten years of arguments re: SSM.

[John_Mace]

@stpauler

If the meaning did not change, there would not have been a need to create a new definition that trumped the previous one.

Please use your uncited arguments to negate my cited points where I show where a Republican who inserted that exact language voted for it with it.

If you’re suddenly claiming that semantics and the language used re: marriage/civil marriage/civil unions is solely semantic and is not a compromise, it shows that you have not paid attention to the last ten years of arguments re: SSM.

Please show me what difference this bill would have had, from a legal standpoint, if the word “civil” had not been in there. There is none.

The “compromise” people have been talking about, quite a bit on this very MB, is to eliminate the word “marriage” and call everything a “civil union” leaving “marriage” to the churches.