New Minnesota bill would be biggest step forward

Posted by Kromey at 4:13pm May 17 '13
You must sign in to send Kromey a message

...for marriage equality yet! (Stupid title box characters limits...)

Minnesota legislature is currently considering two different and distinct bills on the subject of marriage equality:

The first, H.R. 1054, is simply your "traditional" gay-marriage bill that redefines marriage under state law to be between any two consenting adults (i.e. gender is removed). Nothing particularly special about it now that the gay-marriage train has left the station and it's just a matter of time now until it's everywhere. It's still not true "marriage equality", however -- just like all the other marriage "equality" bills, it's only for gay marriage.

But the second, H.R. 1805, would be the first law that truly brings marriage equality to this nation by doing something so simple it's ludicrous no one's done it yet: It gets government the hell out of marriage altogether!!

Instead, under this bill, Minnesotans (Minnesotoans? Minimans?) would be able to enter into "civil union contracts", which grant all the same benefits as marriage does today; "marriage" would be stricken from all of the state's laws entirely, replaced by "civil unions" and "civil union contracts".

Marriage A civil union, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract between a man and a woman two individuals, recognized by the state of Minnesota, to which the consent of the parties individuals, capable in law of contracting, is essential.

Lawful marriage may be contracted only between persons of the opposite sex and only A civil union contract is only valid when a license has been obtained as provided by law and when the marriage civil union 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.
[Strike-throughs show text of the existing law removed or replaced by underlined text.]

I'm not really sure on the point of removing the bit about the union being "solemnized by one authorized", I guess to make it more like any other private contract between two individuals?

So how is this "true equality", as opposed to the "fake" equality of gay marriage bills? Well for starters, there's no limit on how many contracts a person can enter into -- meaning that, unless there's some buried stipulation somewhere in Minnesota law that would restrict a person to only one civil union contract, Minnesota would be the first state where polygamous unions would be legal!

And, contrary to the bullshit "slippery slope" argument of the homophobes out there, it still doesn't open the door to animal or child marriages, because only those 18 or older and "of sound mind" can enter into a contract. When was the last time you saw a dog or a goat sign a contract?

Why shouldn't every state -- or every free country, for that matter -- follow the example that Minnesota H.R. 1805 is striving to set?

So, Bob's pointed out I didn't read far enough into things, and this really isn't TRUE marriage equality after all -- just gay marriage plus renaming "marriage" to "civil union".

Still, I'd like to have a discussion about what I originally thought this did, namely to get government out of marriage altogether and allow anyone (of legal age and sound mind, of course), and any number of anyones, to enter into civil unions. Please discuss!

RE: "just" gay marriage: I'm not trying to diminish that part at all, it's still a positive step in the right direction. It's just a much smaller step than the leap forward I thought Minnesota was starting out on.