Posted by Bob Janova at 4:26pm May 17 '13Polygamy is still illegal. You didn't read the whole proposal. The rules about marriages survive the name change:
517.03 PROHIBITED MARRIAGES AND CIVIL UNION CONTRACTS.
3.13 Subdivision 1. General. (a) The following marriages and civil union contracts
3.14 are prohibited:
3.15 (1) a marriage or civil union entered into before the dissolution of an earlier marriage
3.16 or civil union contract of one of the parties individuals becomes final, as provided in
3.17 section 518.145 or by the law of the jurisdiction where the dissolution was granted;
3.18 (2) a marriage or civil union between an ancestor and a descendant, or between
3.19 a brother and a sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by
3.20 adoption; and
3.21 (3) a marriage or civil union between an uncle and a niece, between an aunt and a
3.22 nephew, or between first cousins, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood,
3.23 except as to marriages permitted by the established customs of aboriginal cultures
(emphasis mine)
It's actually no more radical than any other redefinition of marriage, except that it changes the name, leaving 'marriage' to the religions as a legally meaningless ceremony. You could argue that that's a good thing in itself, but nothing fundamental is changing here.
1054 presumably makes very similar changes to the law, except it doesn't change the word 'marriage' to 'civil union'.
Even more not different:
10.3 Sec. 12. [517.24] EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAW AND IN OTHER
10.4 JURISDICTIONS.
10.5 To the extent that the term "marriage" is given legal effect in federal law or the
10.6 law of another jurisdiction, a Minnesota civil union is the equivalent of a marriage and
10.7 individuals who have entered into a civil union contract shall be treated as "spouses" or
10.8 shall be treated as "husband" and "wife" for purposes of application to those laws.
So it's explicitly the same thing as a marriage with a different name.
Incorrect - Bob Janova