Thousands of Minnesota couples are legally married, yet the state refuses to honor their marriage licenses. Under legislation introduced on Monday, Minnesota would grant the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples that were legally married in other states.
Currently gays and lesbians can legally marry in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Marriages performed in California prior to the passing of Proposition 8 would also be covered under the bill. Thousands of Minnesota couples have taken a trip to one of these states to marry, mostly for the feeling of having that marriage certificate.
But under HF 1740, those couples could find real relief. If the bill passes — and survives a likely veto from Gov. Tim Pawlenty — those couples would find 515 new rights and responsibilities that state law currently denies them. One such couple is Jerry and Travis Fladmark.
Last August they took a trip to California to marry while it was still legal. They have been together for more than 14 years and had a wedding ceremony in Minneapolis 12 years ago.
“It felt amazing to get married in California,” said Jerry. “At first we just thought, ‘Oh, it’s just a piece of paper.’ But then we realized that is much more than that.”
The couple went to San Francisco to tie the knot. “We didn’t really feel the full effect until we were in the city hall with the commissioner and then it hit,” he said. “Tears started flowing all around, and you just realize how special that moment really is. It was so nice to say we were married!”
The Fladmarks made it to California just in time. Three months later California voters passed Prop 8, effectively ending same-sex marriage in that state.
HF 1740 would make their California license valid in Minnesota by repealing language that says same-sex marriages in other states are void. The bill maintains language barring the state from marrying Minnesota couples and will not honor same-sex marriages from other countries.
“We are excited about any progress we can make toward full equality in Minnesota,” said Jerry. “This is really just a basic question of fairness. The very specific question of fairness and recognition for GLBT couples legally married in other states is the type of legislation most Minnesotans just think is common sense in this day and age.”
While the bill faces a likely veto, it has a powerful supporter in House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, who is a co-sponsor along with Reps. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley; Diane Loeffler, DFL-Minneapolis; Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis; Leon Lillie, DFL-North St. Paul; Rep. Joe Mullery, DFL-Minneapolis; and Linda Slocum, DFL-Richfield.














12 Comments »
Comment posted March 17, 2009 @ 11:28 am
This bill should NOT be passed. It’s wrong and essentially endorses same-sex marriage in a backdoor manner. Most Minnesotans are against gay marriage and it shouldn’t be legalized in this or any other manner unless it’s first taken to the voters.
Comment posted March 17, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
This bill should pass.
Equality is a matter of fairness and civil rights.
Comment posted March 17, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are civil rights that are endowed by the creator. They should not be subject to a popular vote.
Live and let live.
Comment posted March 17, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
“Most Minnesotans are against gay marriage and it shouldn’t be legalized.” Um, excuse me? Last I checked Minnesota is one of the bluest states in the Union and most Minnesotans actually do support equal rights for homosexuals.
Comment posted March 17, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
If you’re 18 and a commie it’s because you have a heart
If you’re 30 and still a commie it’s because you don’t have a brain.
Looks like the anti gay people here don’t have a heart or a
Comment posted March 17, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
I don’t get it, and I never will!!! What are people so very afraid of? Are they so insecure about themselves or their place in this world that they just can’t handle the LGBT community having equal rights? I think blueJ said it best!!!
Comment posted March 17, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
Heterosexual privilege is an interesting concept. It’s the idea that homosexual (homogenderous) people have to gain permission to live equally – just like children have to ask parents’ permissions. It’s the same type of privilege that used to keep blacks in the back of the bus. Hetero-privilege a mindset that when revealed, and understood, shows the ugly side of ones self. Denying liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and equality is criminal. At the same time, to never offer any alternative with these measures live civil unions is criminal as well. When one can look to another country for freedom, that seems odd considering we are supposed to be the country of freedom. Sad.
Comment posted March 17, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
This bill will thankfully be turned down in committee by the DFL Legislature. We do not want to follow Wisconsin and other states and pass this abomination of a bill. We need to stop looking at differences, see there is no boogyman and accept same-gender marriages as normal and move froward as a society. It is common sense old-time conservatism to take responsibility for your own relationships. If you think your marriage/relationship is threatened by what your neighbors or those you never even know do than it is on rocky ground for other reasons. So the MFC should pull back this bill and push one proposed by John Marty to allow Same-Gender marriages in the state.
Comment posted March 18, 2009 @ 7:15 am
i live in Massachusetts. we have allowed same sex couples to marry for a while now, and as far as i can tell, our state didn’t melt into a pit of lava.
just an FYI – equal rights are equal rights.
marriage is a matter of law, not religion.
if people want to get married, of any race, any sex, any financial class, they should be allowed to. you can’t offer rights for just some and not all.
Comment posted March 31, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
> This bill should NOT be passed. It’s wrong and essentially endorses same-sex marriage in a backdoor manner. Most Minnesotans are against gay marriage and it shouldn’t be legalized in this or any other manner unless it’s first taken to the voters.
Well, the same question was just taken to the voters of Vermont, who approved it, and it’s being vetoed by the Republican governor, so there goes that argument. The rights of all are supposed to be protected against the tyranny of the majority. If a majority of all voters in a given election decide they just plain don’t like Jews, blacks or women and strip their rights, is THAT OK as an expression of the majority?
Comment posted December 7, 2009 @ 12:55 am
I want to know one main question? As long as these people are NOT trying to marry “US”, what is the freaking problem? One thing is for sure..gays and lesbians are more capable of being honest in their vows, and being for one another, than a STRAIGHT person will EVER be! They deserve to be completely happy just like anybody else!
Comment posted December 7, 2009 @ 1:01 am
To “Catholicformarriage>> what about the priest that is gay? Are you trying to say that it’s ok for him to do what he does, but not for nobody else? DON’T BE A HYPROCRIT! Because one thing is for sure, with all of the stuff that the catholic priests have been accused of doing everytime that I turn around, I am glad to be Baptist!
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment