Judge dismisses challenge to gay marriage barriers

  • Article by: ABBY SIMONS , Star Tribune
  • Updated: March 8, 2011 - 11:16 PM

Hennepin County judge said a 1971 state Supreme Court ruling and state law prohibit same-sex marriage.

  • 68
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
playerMar. 8, 11 9:40 PM

Dufresne wrote, "Same-sex marriage will not exist in this state." Sounds more like the opinion of a conservative Catholic than a wise judicial opinion. Shame on you judge.

TerrellBrownMar. 8, 11 9:46 PM

Apparently the judge has no interest in basic civil rights. It's amazing that South Africa is now ahead of this country on any civil rights issue.

thatchioMar. 8, 11 9:47 PM

Government shouldn't be involved in marriage period, whether gay or straight. So until the State gets out of the marriage business, it should allow allow anyone to enter into a marriage. All those a fan of limited government should support gay marriage, as government shouldn't be providing one group (even if it's a majority) more benefits than any other group. That said, if your religion is interfering with your ability to govern, Repubs, then agree that the State should do away with marriages and allow people to record their civil contracts (straight or gay) that outline various rights they wish to convey.

jdesutterMar. 8, 11 9:48 PM

Wow, good job Mary Dufresne - you've given someone for bigots and homophobes to look up to. You cited a 40 year old legal reference. 40 years ago women couldnt get abortions, a majority of the country looked down on interracial marriage and people thought polyester was cool. Apparently Mary Dufresne doesn't know when to use CURRENT logic and law.

thekhanvictMar. 8, 11 9:51 PM

Why does the government even recognize church marriages?? If people want to get married in church that's fine. But any couple (gay or straight) that wants the government tax benefits of marriage should have to apply for a civil union. Then marriage is between a man and a woman to the religious hate mongers, but all people can still have the same benefits. The government should not recognize church marriages any more than it recognizes church baptisms - it's called separation between church and state.

whatsupheyMar. 8, 11 9:53 PM

The one thing that has always bothered me, even when I was a Liberal Democrat is that the left always has to go threw the court system to get their ideas or agenda passed. It is never popular enough to pass on it's own merit. Lawyers and Judges always have to do because the Average America either doesn't like it or doesn't agree with it. What does it truly say about any political party that has the American Bar Association as either the #1 or #2 contributor? This is why liberals love the Supreme Court and need more liberals on it. Nothing the left wants could ever be put into law without lawyers. That is sad, very sad.

swmnguyMar. 8, 11 9:53 PM

Civil marriage should be abolished. Have as few or as many religious marriages as you want; that's your business. For civil purposes including taxes, property registration, social service benefits calculations, etc., we should register households. And it's nobody's business who all is in a household. This business of putting a Civil stamp of approval on religious marriages is very destructive to all of us, regardless of orientation. It was a well-intentioned idea but the flaws are too harmful.

sonjalangMar. 8, 11 9:53 PM

I am disappointed. The article says, "Dufresne also rejected the argument that the couples' religious freedoms are violated by the state's refusal to recognize their church-sanctioned unions." To me, this is a serious argument. As long as the state allows a religious marriage to be a substitute for a legal justice-of-the-peace marriage (the justice is a representative of the gov't), the state is discriminating about which religions' marriages will be recognized, and which religions' marriages will not. Unless the state starts requiring all marriages to be done by a justice of the peace, I believe there is an excellent basis for appeal of this decision. And in that case, the state will be violating freedom of religion because the state's choices on who gets married will be based on religious lobbying.

sopholMar. 8, 11 9:54 PM

Oh please , a district court judge decides? Gays will commit to relationships; its a stereotype that most gays are promiscous and hang out at the questionable clubs. Most want stability and have solid lives like others. Other countries have gay marriage and they are doing just fine. It's not a life choice for most, it's determined at birth.

jasperu2Mar. 8, 11 9:58 PM

Fully 50% of all marriages end in divorce already and a same sex couple marrying is a threat to marriage ????????. Hummmmmmm... Forgive me while I laugh out loud !!!!!!


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters






question of the day

Poll: Grade the Timberwolves season

Weekly Question