Gay Marriage Amendment Finally Gets Press Scrutiny

The press is finally moving beyond covering the political intrigue of the proposed constitutional amendment (in Minnesota) to ban gay marriage and beginning to look at what the amendment actually says. It doesn't only propose writing into the Minnesota constitution a ban on same-sex marriage, it would also make constitutionally illegal "its legal equivalent." Those words would not only make same-sex civil unions illegal, the rights of non-married straights could be open to challenge. The benefits provided by businesses to non-married partners might be challenged. The wording is dangerously vague, and finally getting some attention.

Yesterday, Kate Parry, the "reader's representative" for the Star Tribune said that the newspaper was doing its readers a disservice by not educating on this issue:

Same-sex marriage already is illegal in Minnesota; the bill would build the prohibition into the state Constitution by defining marriage and its legal equivalent as "the union of one man and one woman."

The phrases "same-sex marriage" or "gay marriage" have shown up regularly in coverage. But the equally important phrase "its legal equivalent" was scarce until about a week ago, after the newsroom's style committee raised concerns that the description of the bill being used was incomplete.

Now some stories have referred to "same-sex marriage or civil unions," but still have not explained the potential scope of "its legal equivalent."

Those three words significantly expand the proposed amendment beyond the "ban gay marriage" shorthand most use, according to Jill Hasday, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, who specializes in constitutional, family and discrimination law.

Those words mean the amendment would "clearly include domestic partnerships and civil unions" as well as same-sex marriage, she said. It also allows for judicial interpretation of other rights often associated with marriages that could be banned, she added. This has potential impact on adoptions, inheritance and many other issues facing gay couples, Hasday said.

"Even if you don't like gay marriage, to add this is going to create endless litigation on what exactly is a right of marriage," Hasday said.

The newspaper hasn't polled Minnesotans on these issues for nearly a year, but past polls have shown that while a majority of Minnesotans oppose gay marriage, they're less certain how they feel about civil unions. It makes a difference to some whether the amendment is crafted narrowly or broadly.

The newspaper has not made this clear, allowing the language to spin in a direction favoring those who want to see the amendment on the ballot. It's more likely to get there if lawmakers and citizens believe it applies only to marriages. But that's not the case, and the newspaper needs to quit implying that it is, through the language it uses -- not to defeat or support the bill, but to make sure everyone knows exactly what's up for a vote.

Today, the St. Paul Pioneer Press has a front-page article tackling it:

It won't ban gay marriage, because that's already banned. But a marriage amendment to the Minnesota Constitution could change some other things, legal experts believe.

The amendment's broad language will open the door for legal challenges to the benefits and arrangements that unmarried couples — gay and straight — use for themselves and their families, experts say.

"It's not simply outlawing same-sex marriage; it does more than that," said Beverly Bales, a law professor at the University of Minnesota.

Health care coverage for unmarried partners could be challenged, especially at state-funded institutions like the U. Minneapolis' domestic-partnership registry might not survive. Even legal contracts between unmarried partners might face challenges, some scholars say, affecting health care directives, insurance claims and financial arrangements — although others dismiss that concern.

But mostly, legal experts in Minnesota are hard-pressed to say what the reach of the amendment would be, because its language is broad and the courts haven't yet addressed the specifics.

This is a mean-spirited and dangerous bill, and its supporters know that in all likelihood this is their last chance for passage (Republicans lost 13 state House seats in the last election and given their low standings in the polls will likely lose the House of Representatives in the next election), so it is important to expose it for what it is right now.