“We feel ecstatic that we are making progress and have done something really tangible in the process,” Duluth resident Jesse Dykhuis told the Duluth News Tribune. She and her partner, Lindzi Campbell, are among several couples gearing up to sue the state. “While we were there, our phones were just exploding with text messages of support from people.”

Doug Benson and Duane Gajewski, a couple from Minneapolis who have been together for 20 years, are helping to spearhead the lawsuit. They, along with Dykhuis and Campbell and one other couple, were denied marriage licenses on Friday. Benson said the clerk at the counter didn’t understand what was going on.

“Where’s your bride?,” “I don’t get it,” and “You can’t do that in Minnesota,” Benson recalled about the initial confusion when two men applied for a license. “We finally called for the supervisor, who did get it and was prepared with copies of the state’s discriminatory marriage statutes, which he handed out to all three couples.”

But some staff at the county office were supportive. “You go get them!” shouted one employee as the couples left.

The lawsuit is being organized by Marry Me Minnesota, a nonprofit group started by Benson. He says Minnesota’s DOMA law is uniquely vulnerable.

“It was passed by the Legislature in the same manner that the state’s recent ‘concealed carry’ gun law was passed,” Benson told the Minnesota Independent in January. “That law was overturned by the Minnesota Supreme Court because of the manner in which the bill was passed (by being attached as a rider instead of a stand-alone bill).”

Marry Me Minnesota has retained the law firm Mansfield, Tanick and Cohen — the same firm that brought that case against the concealed-carry gun law and won. A formal lawsuit is expected to be filed later this spring.

Hennepin County commissioners learned Thursday that they’ll have to pay $500,000 to stop the stink from the county’s downtown garbage burner from entering the new, county-sales-tax-funded, open-air Minnesota Twins stadium next door.

It’s exactly the kind of thing environmental activist Leslie Davis predicted when he sued for further environmental study of the Twins’ ballpark plans.

The full cost of stadium-related mitigation at the incinerator, including moving the entrances for trucks that dump as much as 1,200 tons of garbage each day, is $2.3 million. The stadium, known as Target Field, will seat 40,000 people — or about 40 seats for every local job eliminated by Target Corp. on Tuesday.

The final Environmental Impact Statement for the Twins ballpark (pdf) downplayed the odor problem from the garbage burner (known both as the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center and the Hennepin Energy Resource Company, in either case taking the acronym HERC):

HERC odors were not detected very frequently in the neighborhood … The County also researched the use of odorants to neutralize or mask odors from the tipping hall but decided that more passive approaches to odor mitigation, such as the installation of high-speed fabric doors and management of the volume of waste in the tipping hall, would be more beneficial.

Ironically, Davis was in court on Wednesday to press a complaint against the county commissioners for having him arrested more than two years ago while attempting to speak before them about the Twins ballpark. From his Earth Protector Web site:

SPECIAL NOTE – January 28, 2009
I was in federal court today against Hennepin County on their Motion to Dismiss my Complaint against them for abusing me and arresting me on August 22, 2006. I had gone there in 2006 to testify on the Twins Ballpark matter and the security people, at the behest of Commissioner Johnson, attacked me and arrested me. I did absolutely nothing wrong and I think the judge will recognize that once he reviews the video of the meeting. I hope that he will deny their Motion and allow me to go forward to the discovery stage. Hennepin County’s pleadings and statements are totally untrue.

Disclosure: In the early 1990s, I testified in court as a witness for the plaintiffs in a lawsuit Davis filed under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act against the City of Minneapolis and the Federal Reserve Bank to require further environmental study of the Fed’s plans for a new headquarters (now built) on the Minneapolis central riverfront.

As many as 10 same-sex couples plan to file a lawsuit soon against the state of Minnesota for the right to marry. It’s a controversial move, one that some in the gay and lesbian community think is ill-timed, but those couples who are putting their money on the line — and their lives under a microscope — say the time is always right to fight for equality.

I sat down with Doug Benson, founder of Marry Me Minnesota, a nonprofit group that formed last year and is helping organize the lawsuit. Benson and his partner are also part of the planned suit.

Birkey: Why did you decide to sue the state of Minnesota?

Benson: My civil rights are being violated by the state of Minnesota. The injustice of our state government denying thousands of same-gender families across this state their constitutional right to the security, advantages and responsibilities associated with legal marriage cries out for a court challenge. The state has no compelling or even rational interest in denying this right, dividing Minnesotans into those with rights and those without. We should all have the same rights. The courts can put an end to the injustice in short order, and as citizens it is our right and our responsibility to petition the courts to do that.

Duane and I first tried to get legally married in our hometown of Duluth 16 years ago. We continue to see the need to challenge the state’s discriminatory marriage laws. Last year we had a discussion with two other couples we are friends with who had expressed a strong desire to sue the state for marriage rights. We believed that a group of litigants consisting of three couples, one with children, would present a strong case and we decided to seek counsel.

Birkey: How will the lawsuit work?

Benson: This is how I understand it: The case will be filed in District Court [in the coming months]. There will be a trial and a judgment. That judgment will most likely be appealed by either side. It will be heard by the Appeals Court, and a judgment will be rendered. That judgment will most likely be appealed by either side to the [Minnesota] Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may or may not hear the case, but if they do, the Supreme Court justices are not there to enforce their ideology or prejudices. They are charged with upholding the principles of the Constitution. If they do that, regardless of who appointed them, we will win.

One aspect of Marry Me Minnesota’s lawsuit against the state will be to challenge the state’s DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] law, which was passed in 1997. This law, among other things, prohibits the state from recognizing same-gender marriages obtained in other jurisdictions. Overturning this law would make it possible to have our out-of-state marriages recognized as legal here in Minnesota.

And, the DOMA law has a problem. It was passed by the Legislature in the same manner that the state’s recent “concealed carry” gun law was passed. That law was overturned by the Minnesota Supreme Court because of the manner in which the bill was passed [by being attached as a rider instead of a stand-alone bill].

Our law firm, Mansfield, Tanick and Cohen, is the law firm that brought that case against the concealed-carry gun law and won. They will take their experience and expertise in winning that lawsuit and apply it to our case against the state’s DOMA law.

We meet with the law firm this week to chart the course.

Birkey: Is a legal challenge necessary? Could marriage equality be sought through the Legislature?

Benson: It needs to be done in both places so the two avenues of redress work synergistically. It worked in California and it can work here. Unfortunately for California, they also have initiative and referendum. We don’t.

Birkey: How did you personally feel about the passing of Prop 8, the voter initiative in California that took away marriage rights for gays and lesbians?

Benson: Disgusted and actually the same thing I have felt for any of these anti-gay referenda … dismay that the rights of a minority have been put to a popular vote in the first place. The courts really need to step in and stop that practice. Allowing voters to decide on whether or not their neighbors will have the same rights as they do is just crazy.

Birkey: What types of couples have expressed interest?

Benson: We have couples both male and female, younger and older, with and without children, legally married in other jurisdictions and not. One couple just celebrated their 35th year together!

Birkey: Have you encountered any resistance from members of the LGBT community, or are community members nervous about your strategy?

Benson: Sixteen years ago the establishment activists in the metro [area] were saying it isn’t the right time to fight for our rights in court. They’re still saying the same thing. There hasn’t been an identifiable advance in gay rights in this state during that period. That fact, plus wide spread discontent over the lack of progress, bolsters our resolve to move forward with the suit, with or without the blessing of establishment organizations.

As citizens, we have to fight even though we may not be assured of victory. We have to believe we can win. If everyone waited for an absolute guarantee of success before they tried to change things, nothing would ever happen. The truth is, we don’t know what the outcome of this suit will be, and neither does anyone else, no matter how much they may profess to be able to predict the future. We could win it all or have a partial victory or be turned away. Whatever happens, it will advance the cause of marriage equality in Minnesota by showing our opponents and supporters alike that we’re willing to fight for our rights and our families with all means available.

Birkey: How would you respond to religious right folks who criticize using the courts to seek equality?

Benson: The courts exist to protect the rights of individuals. The instant the religionists perceive any bias directed at them, they’re in court.

Birkey: Do you think you will see marriage equality in your lifetime?

Benson: Yes … and soon, in the courts or the Legislature. It’s coming.

But by Bloomberg News’ account, the deal helped Wal-Mart avoid a potentially much bigger price tag of $2 billion which could have followed from an order Judge Robert King Jr. issued in the case last summer.

Elias told a news conference this morning of the case in Beltrami County (where officials have already provided the names Franken seeks) in which an elderly woman’s absentee ballot was rejected because her current stroke-impaired signature didn’t match the signature on file.

Pressed for more examples, Elias and campaign spokesman Andy Barr declined, refusing even to enumerate how many such cases it had learned of, responding that learning about more such cases was the point of the lawsuit.

Another reason counties reject absentee ballots is improper witnessing, Elias noted — a point confirmed by Beth Fraser, director of government affairs at the Minnesota Secretary of State’s office, who also said in an interview with the Minnesota Independent that late-arriving absentee ballots get rejected.

UPDATE: Barr tells Minnesota Public Radio that the Franken campaign had gotten the Beltrami County story wrong and the unnamed woman’s absentee ballot had been rejected for improper witnessing, not a signature mismatch.

Only about a dozen counties have so far complied with the Franken campaign’s data requests, Elias said. Among the counties denying Franken the names are Minnesota’s largest, Hennepin and Ramsey in the Twin Cities. Elias said the campaign had learned from officials at unspecified counties that the Coleman campaign was also seeking the data, and he invited Coleman to join the suit. If the counties don’t comply, Elias said further legal action could follow.

Here’s video from today’s press conference at Franken campaign headquarters in St. Paul. It begins with spokesman Barr summing up a series of debunked reports about the vote count, followed by attorney Elias’ description of an improperly rejected absentee ballot and the campaign’s lawsuit to learn whose absentee ballots were rejected.

Neilson will conduct evidence gathering on Wednesday — the day after the election — on Franken’s claim that a non-partisan watchdog group called Coleman the “fourth most corrupt Senator according to a bipartisan watchdog group.”

The Franken campaign contends that the Coleman lawsuit is a distraction from a lawsuit filed last Monday alleging that Coleman friend Nassar Kazeminy asked a business partner to funnel money to Coleman and his wife through her job at a Minnesota insurance agency.

Touting Judge Neilson’s decision Monday, Franken spokesperson Andy Barr said, “We always thought Senator Coleman’s lawsuit was a smokescreen to divert attention from the sworn affidavit in Texas that Norm Coleman’s close friend Nasser Kazeminy conspired to funnel $100,000 to Senator Coleman. The smoke is starting to clear.”

Pat Kessler, WCCO’s political reporter, says he’s been approached countless times by the Franken crew over the months of the campaign with hot angles regarding some supposedly untoward Coleman activity or another, (that’s SOP, of course), but got nothing from Team Franken on this one. “Not a thing. I think they were surprised by it,” says Kessler.

And given the general clumsiness of the Franken campaign to date does Kessler think they are capable of playing something with this kind of Ted Stevens-style payola with a championship poker face? “Uh, no, I don’t.”

He emphasizes that any bombshell that drops in the final days of a campaign has [to] be viewed “with extreme skepticism”, which is not at all the same thing as dismissing it. If not a byzantine move by the DNC, someone, for example, could be using the glare and pressure of the final hours of the campaign to squeeze Coleman’s pals for a quick settlement on a wholly bogus claim.

EDITOR’S NOTE
The Democratic Senate [sic] Campaign Committee is running TV ads featuring a Star Tribune reporter questioning Sen. Norm Coleman about a lawsuit noted in this report. The video in the ad was filmed without the knowledge or consent of the Star Tribune.

The original video shows Strib reporter Paul McEnroe trying to ask Coleman about the first lawsuit filed in Texas this week as Coleman left a St. Cloud cafe Tuesday. See the original video here. See the DSCC’s ad – and the halting count of specially-moderated reader comments at startribune.com – after the jump.

Online, editors have tagged Strib stories on the Coleman-cash allegations with this unusual warning in red type:

Due to the sensitive nature of this story, comments will be reviewed before being published.

UPDATE: As of 11:15 a.m. today, 156 reader comments had survived the Strib’s special moderation — but that number hadn’t changed for at least two hours.

UPDATE: As of 12:35 p.m., reader comments – the most recent of which carries a timestamp of 4:42 p.m. yesterday, on a story last updated yesterady at 11:04 p.m. — have dropped by one, to 155. That suggests startribune.com does indeed have a moderator at work, but one who has so far focused his or her efforts on removing reader comments about this “sensitive” story rather than allowing any new comments to appear.

UPDATE: At 8:30 p.m., still stuck at 155. Apparently the Star Tribune will not permit further online reader comment about today’s article, just as the newspaper banned its columnists from commenting about the election. Strib editors will allow themselves to publish the editor’s note, but it’s not clear why they saw a need, since the DSCC ad below refers only to “reporters” and makes no mention of the Star Tribune.

Here is the text of her affidavit for the Court:

I began working on Tim Walz’s campaign for the United States House of Representatives in Minnesota’s First Congressional District in March, 2006, as Campaign Manager.

Over the next four months, I contacted the Secretary of State’s office several times with general questions on how to file and specific questions regarding the rules for Nominating Petitions in Lieu of Filing Fee.

I called the Secretary of State’s office once in April 2006, two or three times in May 2006 and two or three times in June 2006.

I was told by different persons in the Secretary of State’s office on at least two occasions that Nominating Petitions in Lieu of Filing Fee require 1000 signatures and that the petition must be signed between July 4, 2006 and July 18, 2006. The written information which they sent me and that they published on the official website confirmed this.

Because I was so advised, the Walz Campaign decide [sic] to pay the $300 filing fee and not take the chance of trying to secure 1000 signatures during the filing period.

Further Affiant sayeth not.

[signed] Kerry M. Greeley

A copy of the affidavit is on p. 15 of the Supplemental Memorandum in Support for Order to Show Cause on the Louis H. Reiter vs. Mary Kiffmeyer case webpage.

The question now comes to: Was the Secretary of State’s Office playing political favorites or is it merely incompetent?