Subscribe to our RSS feed
Follow us on Twitter
Tim Reardon (right) with Eric and daughter Tess (Photo: Project515.org)
Tim Reardon thought he and his partner, Eric, had prepared everything they needed in the event one of them died. But when Eric lost his struggle with brain cancer, Tim discovered that a single mistake in the expensive legal documents the couple had drafted meant that Eric’s dying wishes would not be granted. Because marriage is prohibited for couples like them, Tim and Eric didn’t get the rights regarding end-of-life decision-making automatically granted to legally married couples.
“I had no right to make decisions about Eric’s remains. I felt betrayed and angry. After all, we had lived out our commitment to each other and commitment to Tess,” he said, referring to his daughter, who turns 6 this year. “We had done what we were supposed to do to protect our family.”
Minnesota legislators are introducing legislation to fix that inequality. Spearheaded by Project 515, a group dedicated to shining a light on the 515 ways it says Minnesota discriminates against same-sex couples, the Final Wishes Act would give same-sex couples equal opportunities to carry out the desires of their partners. Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon, DFL-Duluth, and Rep. Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, introduced the legislation on Thursday.
Rep. Erin Murphy discusses the Final Wishes bill at a Thursday press conference.
“This proposed legislation focuses on real issues that affect Minnesota families every day,” said Murphy. “Particularly at a time when families are struggling, our laws should not unduly add stress, financial hardship or even homelessness to the problems families face.”
Laura Smidzik, executive director of Project 515, said the bill would give same-sex couples the automatic right to make end-of-life choices for each other. “Same-sex couples often try to replicate these rights with legal documents that are sometimes ignored. This bill eliminates a costly and often ineffective legal document to make an after death decision.”
Project 515 is also drafting legislation to address other areas where Minnesota law presents challenges for same-sex partners. When a partner in a same-sex couple is wrongfully killed, for example, the surviving partner would have the legal recourse, as lawfully married couples in Minnesota automatically do, to sue the wrongdoer. When a partner in a same-sex couple passes on and there is a lien on the couple’s shared property, the state can seize the property. A widowed spouse can legally maintain that residence so long as the couple were married.
“Minnesota families need to know that our laws will treat them fairly, especially during times of sadness and mourning,” said Project 515’s Smidzik. “Pursuing revisions to some of the 515 laws that discriminate will help us build stronger families and households in our state.”
With a DFL-majority supportive of these issues, the bill has a shot in the Legislature. Bill supporters say they will be working with Gov. Tim Pawlenty to persuade him to sign the bill should it pass. “We do believe that he does value equality for Minnesota citizens,” said Smidzik.
Leave a comment
Become a fan on Facebook
8 Comments »
Comment posted January 23, 2009 @ 4:11 am
You know, there’s a real simple way to fix this inequity; a way that would not tie up the Legislature for weeks on end, writing a bill, then debating the bill, then re-writing the bill to appease the debaters, submitting the bill to subcommittees, yadda, yadda, yadda.
The simple way? Permit same gender couples to enter into the civil contract of marriage.
Marriage rites are performed by churches, who may place any restrictions on those rites the deem appropriate.
Marriage rights are granted by the government to two persons who agree to be seen by the government as a single unit for taxation, debt, and other contractual obligations entered into during the marriage. There is no requirement, in any state, that the couple produce offspring.
If a couple only have the rite… the don’t get the rights.
Comment posted January 23, 2009 @ 9:44 am
Eric,
I think you have a great idea, but you would have to to apply it across the board. The state could do unions, and a persons church could do marriages. We would have to separate the two activities for all unions, which seems like a god separation of church and state anyway. So, the state could license and sanction civil unions, and your church, if you so choose, could sanctify marriages. Tht does seem like too common sense of a solution though.
Alec
Comment posted January 23, 2009 @ 10:43 am
The radical homosexuals will never rest until they have shoved their perversion down the throats (pun intended) of the vast normal majority. As long as churches would be allowed to say NO to sanctifying their sham state “weddings”, they will scream discrimination and drag churches into court. Freedom of conscience will be dead.
Comment posted January 23, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
If this thing passes, I’m going on a “death watch” for every wealthy guy in the state.
When one dies, I’ll just head on over to the bank and declare myself that guys “partner” and empty the account.
Comment posted January 23, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
Icecycle. Interesting. So you’re telling us that you plan to commit fraud. I don’t think it will work. Few happily partnered gay men are as homophobic as you.
RD: “The radical homosexuals will never rest until they have shoved their perversion down the throats (pun intended) of the vast normal majority.”
You do not speak for the vast normal majority. Most Minnesotans support equality for same-sex couples, even if they oppose gay marriage.
You do speak for a bigoted minority, however. A minority that is thankfully fading quickly.
Comment posted January 23, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
Andy, and MNIndy, thanks much for covering this.
Comment posted January 27, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
It is time for the state to get out of the marriage business. Let outside organizations define marriage however they want….did you know that the Catholic church won’t recognize a Protestant marriage? Let the religions define whatever they want, that way they can fight with each other over what is a “real” marriage. I’m not even sure that there needs to be a civil union of any sort. If there are compelling reasons to have a “partner agreement” I suppose that would be ok, but most of what passes for marriage law is a holdover from English common law (as in, determining parentage, inheriting land, etc.), all things that can be done more effectively through some other vehicle. Finally, can we get rid of the requirement to have a “solemnizer” perform a “ceremony”? If I want to get married in MN I have to pay some internet minister or government official to mumble some words, I can’t just sign the agreement. How does that serve any public interest?
Comment posted January 28, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
“vast normal majority” hah! Maybe get out of Forest Lake sometime.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment