Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

Baker v. Nelson - 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971)

Rule:

Minn. Stat. § 517 does not authorize marriage between persons of the same sex and such marriages are prohibited.

Facts:

Petitioners, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, both adult male persons, made application to respondent, Gerald R. Nelson, clerk of Hennepin County District Court, for a marriage license, pursuant to Minn. St. 517.08. Respondent declined to issue the license on the sole ground that petitioners were of the same sex, it being undisputed that there were otherwise no statutory impediments to a heterosexual marriage by either petitioner. The petitioners filed a writ of mandamus that was quashed by the trial court. The trial court ruled the clerk was not required to issue a marriage license and specifically directed the license not be issued. The petitioners appealed from that order, arguing that the absence of an express statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages in Minn. St. c. 517 evinced a legislative intent to authorize such marriages. The petitioners also argued that, Minn. St. c. 517, so interpreted, was unconstitutional. 

Issue:

  1. Did the absence of an express statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages in Minn. St. c. 517 evince a legislative intent to authorize such marriages? 
  2. Was Minn. St. c. 517 unconstitutional? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The court noted that Minn. St. c. 517, which governed “marriage,” employed that term as one of common usage, meaning the state of union between persons of the opposite sex. The court held that it was unrealistic to think that the original draftsmen of the marriage statutes, which dated from territorial days, would have used the term in any different sense. Therefore, Minn. St. c. 517 did not authorize marriage between persons of the same sex and that such marriages were accordingly prohibited. Anent the constitutionality of Minn. St. c. 517, the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment was not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. Accordingly, the order was affirmed.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates