[A]lthough the Council attempts to cloak its interest in the nomenclature of organizational injuries and interest, the alleged interest is simply the expression of a desire that the DOMA as written be obeyed. The Council believes that same-sex marriage would harm society, but the Court finds no precedent equating societal non-economic harm to a private organization's injury-in-fact.The Council had argued that if DOMA is struck down, it will have to divert resources to a campaign to restore a ban on same-sex marriage. Yesterday's Minnesota Independent reported on the decision.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Traditional Marriage Group Cannot Intervene In DOMA Challenge
In Benson v. Alverson, (MN Dist Ct., Nov. 24, 2010), a Minnesota state trial court denied a motion filed by the Minnesota Family Council seeking leave to intervene in a lawsuit challenging Minnesota' Defense of Marriage Act. Plaintiffs in the case are three same-sex couples and the minor children of one of the couples. The Council is organized to defend traditional marriage, based on Judeo-Christian principles. The court concluded that lobbying for a law does not give an organization a sufficient interest to be entitled to intervention as of right. In addition, the court concluded that the Council lacks standing to intervene in the case: