The 2012 ballot isn’t the only place where a raging debate on same-sex marriage is taking place in Minnesota. Three same-sex couples filed an appeal in July in their bid to overturn Minnesota’s Defense of Marriage Act, and groups on both sides of the issue have filed paperwork with the court offering strongly worded arguments on the issue of marriage equality.

A Hennepin County district court judge dismissed a suit by the couples — Duane Gajewski and Doug Benson, Lindzi Campbell and Jesse Dykhuis, John Rittman and Tom Trisko–  in March. The judge said that until the Minnesota Supreme Court overturns Baker v. Nelson, a 1971 case that said same-sex couples cannot marry in Minnesota, “same-sex marriage will not exist in this state.”

So the couples are taking their case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals with hopes that they can get it heard before the Minnesota Supreme Court.

“The appellants challenge MN DOMA and the obstacle it poses to the appellants’ enjoyment of 515 separate laws that confer tangible benefits upon married couples and their families, and relieve the injuries the appellants face in taxation, inheritance, powers of attomey, health care, and child rearing, amongst other matters,” the court filings for the couples read.

Attorneys for the couples argue that the 1971 Baker decision doesn’t apply, arguing that the current case is about recognizing marriages performed in other states.

“Resting on its interpretation of the Book of Genesis for its holding, the Baker Court turns aside an early bid by a same-sex couple seeking to marry under Minnesota law,” court filings said. “Notwithstanding the state’s protests to the contrary, and notwithstanding the district court’s reluctance to rule contrary to Baker in spite of its stated misgivings, Baker does not determine the outcome of this case. In addressing the claims of same-sex couples lawfully married in other jurisdictions, this court may grant the appellants relief from MN DOMA, regardless of Baker.”

In a bit of a twist, the Minnesota Family Council filed a brief saying that Baker is a “decisive” case. That differs from MFC’s public statements that judges are likely to rule in favor of same-sex marriage and that a constitutional amendment barring it is necessary.

“[T[he Minnesota Supreme Court’s Baker decision is undoubtedly binding and controlling here,” MFC’s attorneys wrote. Those attorneys are from the Alliance Defense Fund, a group founded by prominent religious right groups including James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and the American Family Association, an organization that has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“The State Supreme Court in Baker squarely rejected the argument ‘that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons’ under the federal constitution. That same conclusion… applies under the state constitution,” they wrote.

The Family Council brief also argued that lesbians, gays and bisexuals do not constitute a “suspect class” because they do not lack political powerlessness — “such individuals wield tremendous power” — and it contends that sexual orientation can change.

Finally, the group argues that same-sex couples should not be granted marriage rights because they cannot reproduce.

“Sexual relationships between opposite-sex couples have a normative procreative capacity, only those relationships provide children with their mother and father. Same-sex couples, in contrast, can neither procreate without intervention by a person of the opposite sex nor give children a home with both a mother and a father,” the brief said.

The Minnesota Atheists also filed a brief in the case, arguing that laws barring rights for same-sex couples are inherently religious in nature and should be overturned.

“These clerics and their followers are, of course, entitled to their beliefs. But, they should not be allowed to impose their theocratic views in the secular laws of this state,” the brief reads. “There is no compelling secular reason to deny civil marriage to same-sex couples; there are only religious justifications.”

The Minnesota Atheists point to hearings in May on a proposed constitutional amendment that would bar same-sex marriage where every testifier had a strong religious background and testified based on religious belief.

“This religious viewpoint, running deeply through DOMA, clashes with secular science and medicine. For example, the American Psychiatric Association “supports the legal recognition of same-sex unions and their associated legal rights, benefits, and susceptibilities, and opposes restrictions on those rights, benefits and responsibilities,” the brief said.

The group also took issue with the Minnesota Family Council’s assertion that marriage should remain between opposite-sex couples because same-sex couples cannot reproduce.

“This argument makes no sense. The state does not impose any fertility requirements on couples getting married, imposes no test whether the parties can conceive, and does not disallow marriages for women who are beyond child bearing age or men who are impotent, sterile, or have had a vasectomy.”

The timeline for the case is up to the court and could well bleed into the debate over the constitutional amendment as it gears up next year leading to the November elections.

Doug Benson, one of plaintiffs in the case, said, “Even if our opponents’ anti-gay marriage amendment is defeated by the voters in November 2012, our law suit will still be needed to get rid of the current Minnesota DOMA statute from 1997. We will continue to carefully move our case forward in the courts, using every argument and resource at our disposal to overturn the statutory ban on same-sex marriage.”

But the lawyers for the Minnesota Family Council warn that if the case is successful, gay marriage will be forced on everyone.

“No provision of the Minnesota Constitution gives individuals the right to redefine marriage and force that definition on everyone else,” the ADF’s Jim Campbell said in a statement.

Her Sunday-only column this week took aim at atheism and what she perceives as its detrimental impact on society. She argues that without faith in God, people have no basis to form a moral framework. As a society we are embracing atheism, she writes, “[b]ut before we do, we would be wise to consider the potential consequences.”

Such as? Bloodshed. “The French Revolution, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union — all sought to replace Judeo-Christian ethics with reason, and ended in massive bloodletting,” she wrote. “In ancient Rome, disabled babies were left on hilltops to die.”

Her column sparked outcry from many atheists who say that faith in a Judeo-Christian God does not form the basis for people’s compassion, sense of equality, ethics and morals. People do.

Craig A. James, author of The Evolution of Religion, responded to Kersten’s column on his blog, The Religion Virus:

Her argument presupposes that God exists and gave us our morality, and presupposes that without God there will be no morality. But if you drop the presupposition, that is, assume God does not exist, then the Bible itself proves that Kersten is wrong! The Bible (and many other supposedly God-inspired writings) is full of all sorts of great moral lessons (and some terrible ones, too), and since these were written by men and women, not God, it proves that humans can be moral without divine guidance.

George Francis Kane, public relations officer for the Minnesota Atheists, said that equality is inherently a secular concept:

Atheists base their moral judgments on the actual effects of actions on peoples’ lives, rather than principles religion claims to know with certainty. The religious conception of equality that Kersten touts is equality before the god of the Bible, and is not realized until the afterlife. Equality before the law is a secular concept that could only arise when the legitimacy of government is based in the consent of the governed, rather than divine election. Atheists demonstrate compassion no less than that of Christians, but based upon quality of life rather than unbending absolutes.

PZ Myers, a Minnesota biology professor and recent winner of the Humanist of the Year Award, responded to Kersten on his blog Pharyngula:

I always like how these doctrinaire promoters of “Judeo-Christianity” primly declare that they have such moral authority, when their faith has such a poor track record of promoting morality. Christians have advocated slavery, have murdered people for the awful crime of miscegenation, have decreed that people who don’t have the kind of sex they prefer are second-class citizens. Christians are thieves, murderers, rapists, and jay-walkers; it seems that having a belief in a transcendent authority actually doesn’t equate to being necessarily law-abiding and ethical or even, shocking as that may be, immune from the temptations of their natures.

At issue are the scheduled events involving the Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, a prominent civil-rights pastor, and the Rev. Rick Warren, whose statements about same-sex marriage and abortion have created an uproar among progressives.

“Under the Establishment Clause, Plaintiffs have a right to view their government in action without being forced to confront official endorsements of religious dogma with which they disagree. This is especially the case when that dogma stigmatizes them in the process,” reads the lawsuit. “Being forced to confront such religious dogma as the price to pay for observing a governmental ceremony is a substantial burden upon Plaintiffs’ rights of Free Exercise as well.”

The suit says that the planned religious services will impinge on the freedoms of some Americans. “One cannot freely live as an adherent to a religious ideology when the government uses its ‘power, prestige and financial support’ to impose a contrary religious doctrine while such individuals are observing its ceremonies.”

August Berkshire, president of Minnesota Atheists, issued a statement Tuesday, stating the organziation is “pleased to accept a personal invitation from Michael Newdow to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. The swearing in of a president is a secular event. The oath of office is in the U.S. Constitution and it contains no religious references. It is unfortunate that while Barack Obama campaigned on a theme of unity, the very act of becoming president will serve to divide Americans along religious lines.”

The lawsuit is expected to be filed this week in United States District Court for the District of Columbia.