User:Y6f&tP4z/sandbox: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
←Replaced content with ' == References ==' Tag: Replaced |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
On October 15, 1971, the [[Minnesota Supreme Court]] in ''[[Baker v. Nelson]]'' affirmed a court clerk's [[#Lawsuit to obtain a marriage license|refusal]] on May 22, 1970<ref>It "is the opinion of this office that you should not issue the license for marriage to the applicants Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell on the grounds that under the law of the State of Minnesota, as the same presently exists, two male persons may not enter into the contract of marriage." |
|||
* Source: Letter addressed to Gerald R. Nelson, Clerk of District Court, from George M. Scot, County Attorney, pages 6-7 (May 22, 1970). |
|||
* Copies: [https://www.mncourts.gov/Find-Courts/Hennepin/Records-Center-Hennepin.aspx#tab02CopiesofCourtRecords Minnesota Judicial Branch], Hennepin County District Court, Fourth Judicial District, File No. 671379. |
|||
* Access: McConnell Files, "Full Equality, a diary", (volume 2ab), Tretter Collection in GLBT Studies, [[University of Minnesota|''University of Minnesota Libraries'']].</ref> to issue them a marriage license in [[Hennepin County]] for the sole reason that it would undermine "the entire legal concept of our family structure in all areas of law"<ref>"The consequences of an interpretation of our marriage statutes which would permit males to enter into the marriage contract could be to result in an undermining and destruction of the entire legal concept of our family structure in all areas of law." |
|||
* Source: Letter addressed to Gerald R. Nelson, Clerk of District Court, from George M. Scot, County Attorney, page 6 (May 22, 1970). |
|||
* Copies: [https://www.mncourts.gov/Find-Courts/Hennepin/Records-Center-Hennepin.aspx#tab02CopiesofCourtRecords Minnesota Judicial Branch], Hennepin County District Court, Fourth Judicial District, File No. 671379.</ref> (despite this not being identified in Minnesota law<ref name="Marriage law">"Minnesota Statutes Annotated", ''West Publishing Co.'' (1970) |
|||
* Chapter 517.01: Marriage a civil contract. "Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential." |
|||
* Chapter 517.03: Marriages prohibited. [The list of prohibited marriages did not include parties of the same gender.]</ref> as a reason for prohibiting such a marriage). Their appeal to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] in [[Baker v. Nelson#Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court|October 1971]] was accepted{{efn|name=opinion|The U.S. Supreme Court was required to accept an appeal of a state court's opinion as a matter of right, a practice that the ''[[Supreme Court Case Selections Act]]'' ended in 1988 (Public Law 100-352, 100th Congress).}} but later dismissed on October 10, 1972. Though the [[Baker v. Nelson#Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court|"precise issue"]]<ref>"Questions Raised by This Appeal Are [[Mootness|Moot]]". |
|||
* Source: October Term, 1972: "Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Brief" by George M. Scott, County Attorney, Page 7 |
|||
* Access: McConnell Files, "America's First Gay Marriage" (binder #3), Tretter Collection in GLBT Studies, ''University of Minnesota Libraries''.<!-- That's a very strange sentence from the county attorney, as it appears to acknowledge the validity of the Blue Earth County marriage, but the U.S. Supreme Court's dismissal was later used as precedent for refusal of recognition of same-sex marriage. The wording of the dismissal did not refer to the county attorney's motion to dismiss, [yes, it did] and so it does not seem to have had the effect of actually confirming the rationale that the case was moot. The county attorney's assertion that the case was moot may therefore only be a distraction. [Wrong! That section was precisely crafted by a law professor who was hired by the County Attorney. It's not helpful to project history the way one assumes it probably outa shoulda happened.] --></ref> was not disclosed, their marriage contract, lawfully obtained but never invalidated,<ref name="National Archives" /> affected the decision. |
|||
Revision as of 11:25, 20 March 2024