That's why Minnesota needs a Marriage Protection Amendment

Giving her perspective on the dismissal of Marry Me Minnesota's lawsuit challenging Minnesota's DOMA law, attorney Chris Tymchuck reports a comment by Judge Mary DuFresne in her decision that not so subtley affirms advocates' strategy for legalizing same-sex marriage in Minnesota...

The Judge wrote that until Baker v. Nelson is overruled or Minnesota’s “mini-Doma” law is repealed, “Same-sex marriage will not exist in this state.”

Tymchuck's perspective is reinforced by Minnesota Independent's Andy Birkey, reporting on the response of Doug Benson, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit...

The couples plan to appeal shortly, Benson said. He added that the decision amounted to a pass by the lower court which thinks the Minnesota Supreme Court will have to decide the case. The highest court had weighed in almost four decades ago in Baker v. Nelson, which ruled that the state could ban gay marriage. The plaintiffs are hoping that enough laws and attitudes have changed that the court would overturn that precedent. (Emphasis added.)

Dismissal of the Marry Me Minnesota lawsuit does not eliminate the threat to marriage. It only buys a little more time to protect the definition of marriage in Minnesota's state constitution.

For Sotomayor, there's precedent and then there's same-sex marriage

From the Family Research Council
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has promised to be bound by the Court's existing precedents. This is a convenient way to pledge fidelity to the abortion-on-demand regime of the Court's decisions without appearing to take sides ideologically. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) caught her in a contradiction, however, by asking about Baker v. Nelson--the first American court case ever to assert a right to same-sex "marriage."

The Minnesota Supreme Court refused to redefine marriage in a 1971 decision, and when the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, it was "dismissed for want of substantial federal question." This kind of dismissal "is a disposition on the merits" and "constitutes a binding precedent," as one textbook puts it. Liberals don't like to admit that the U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that the U.S. Constitution does not create a right to same-sex "marriage"--and Sotomayor refused to be pinned down by this "binding precedent" either.

She distinguished Baker from cases like Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut (dealing with abortion and contraception), saying that "those cases have holdings that are not open to dispute," while downplaying the Baker precedent by saying that "the meaning of that dismissal is actually an issue that's being debated in existing litigation."

Her pledge at another point to approach same-sex "marriage" with "an open mind" is a bad sign when Supreme Court precedent has already shut the door to it. This afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced he would vote against Judge Sotomayor's confirmation. While the nominee tried to distance herself from her liberal activist ideology and record, those things stand, however artfully she tried to obscure them. For that reason, I commend Sen. McConnell for his leadership.

Sotomayor questioned on Minnesota ruling prohibiting homosexual marriage

Sen. Chuck Grassley R-Iowa, questioned Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor on Baker v. Neslon, a 1971 Minnesota Supreme Court ruling prohibiting homosexual marriage.

Sotomayor asked for more time to review the ruling.

CLICK HERE to see CNN video.