Jack Baker and Michael McConnell

For other people named Jack Baker, see Jack Baker (disambiguation).

Jack Baker is an early gay activist in the state of Minnesota. He is known for being a founding officer of the first gay student group in America and the first openly gay person elected to be the student body president of a major university. He and his lover, Michael McConnell, were the first American gay couple to demand government recognition of gay marriage and the first gay couple to establish a legal relationship via adult adoption.

Student activism

On May 18, 1969, (pre-Stonewall), the group Fight Repression of Erotic Expression (FREE), was founded at the University of Minnesota. It was the first organization for Gay students in the United States. Jack Baker was its first President.

In 1971, Baker ran for President of the student body at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities campus. His theme, "Student Control over Student Concerns," urged students "to search out a new self-respect."

Baker attracted interest in his campaign with a poster that showed him crouched in casual jeans and lady's high-heeled pumps. The punch line was "Put Yourself in Jack Baker's Shoes". As a well-known gay activist, he was attacking sexism and homosexism in one daring move. Distributed widely on campus, the poster attracted much attention. Most copies were stolen, only to reappear in dorm rooms. Later, some were offered for sale.

Regents were stunned when Jack Baker won the election. He was the first openly gay person to be elected as student body president at any major university. Worse, he had proven his point that an openly gay person could be elected to public office in the United States. Surely, this was a "first" on many levels, a pre-view of the future.

As student body president, Baker called on the legislature to appoint a student to the Board of Regents. Meanwhile, Baker persuaded the Regents to allow students to sit on Regent committees, and to start a student-run bookstore. He had also proposed that the University purchase a local FM radio station, and build student-owned and operated apartments. After Baker graduated from law school, the Governor signed a law requiring one Regent to be a student.

Baker was re-elected easily in 1972, something no other U of M student body president had ever done. Baker's sexual preference was never a major issue. Focusing on campus issues, he campaigned on the need to complete projects he started. Baker was re-elected with 43% of the vote in a 9-way race.

Gay marriage — the beginning

Main article: Baker v. Nelson

When Baker and McConnell became betrothed on March 10, 1967, McConnell insisted that they become married legally. It was Baker's 25th birthday. An experienced engineer with an MBA, he decided he would get a law degree to learn how to keep his promise. The University of Minnesota enrolled him into the Law School for the fall quarter 1969.

The required legal research course was first on his list. While on winter break, Baker decided to test his research skills. He was anxious to learn what would be required to obtain a marriage license. To his surprise, it took Baker only 10 minutes to find his answer. What the statute did not say Minnesota's marriage statute did not restrict marriage to just one man and one woman. What the statute did say As amended in 1941, this is the full text: "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. Lawful marriage hereafter may be contracted only when a license has been obtained therefor as provided by law and when such marriage is contracted in the presence of two witnesses and solemnized by one authorized, or whom the parties in good faith believe to be authorized, so to do. Marriages subsequent to April 26, 1941, not so contracted shall be null and void." Elsewhere, same-sex couple was not included in the list of reasons that a court could use to void a marriage. A demand for Full Equality So, on May 18, 1970, McConnell's 28th birthday, the pair applied for a marriage license in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Learning how to marry was the reason Baker went to law school, and fulfilling his promise to McConnell seemed so easy. Theirs would be the first demand for government recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States, perhaps the entire world. We "intended, literally," Baker later told an overflow crowd at the University of Winnipeg (Canada), "to throw a monkey wrench into the works." They succeeded.

The reaction was swift and angry. Baker and McConnell had provoked a debate that would transform the planet. It would rage worldwide for several decades. In the United States, same-sex marriage became an issue in the election for President during 2000 and 2004. During 2008, the Associated Press declared same-sex marriage to be "an issue that some consider second in national importance only to the presidential election." As the world became more accepting, the Catholic Church felt the need to declare it to be one of "five non-negotiable issues". Unashamed and unafraid The Hennepin County Attorney instructed the Clerk of Court to deny them a license. He then asked the grand jury to indict the Rev. Roger Lynn, a Methodist minister who solemnized the marriage. They refused. Undaunted, Baker and McConnell sued in District Court and lost. They appealed to the state Supreme Court. Baker learned through the law school grapevine that the Minnesota Supreme Court had been corrupted. So, he decided not to wait for the final decision. In August, 1971 — before the final decision was issued — the couple applied for and was awarded a marriage license in Blue Earth County, Mankato, and were married on September 3, 1971, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. They immediately claimed legal marriage rights. Without objection, McConnell's employer, the Hennepin County Library ignored the County Attorney and enrolled Baker as a member of McConnell's family health insurance. In spite of state laws that later forbid such practices, Baker continued to be covered by McConnell's family health insurance until he opted for Medicare coverage early in 2008.

Gay marriage — a corrupted court

At its meeting of Dec. 4, 1970, the board of the Minnesota Newspaper Association unanimously agreed to set up a press council. Robert M. Shaw, its manager, wanted to cure "ethical problems" among newspaper editors and publishers. A "time-honored tradition of lying about their circulation", "gouging" and "double billing" were some of the practices that especially bothered him.

The schemers didn’t want just anyone to manage their press council. "In selecting its first chairman, the [press] council turned to the judiciary — both for the prestige a judge would command and for his or her ability to manage controversy." Unequal justice Shaw approached Associate Justice C. Donald Peterson. The prestige of the Supreme Court wasn’t Peterson’s to give, but Shaw suspected that Peterson, a former legislator, would bargain for it anyway. He would receive public flatery from newspaper publishers, which would be helpful during his re-election campaigns. Justice Peterson considered the offer. He agreed to become the chairman and president of the Minnesota Newspaper Association's press council shortly after he was assigned to write the opinion in Baker vs. Nelson. The services of Justice Peterson were advertised for "mediation of disputes which may arise regarding the conduct of the press". The schemers ignored the Code of Judicial Conduct, which said, "A judge shall not act as an arbitrator or mediator or otherwise perform judicial functions in a private capacity unless expressly authorized by law" (emphasis added). With no statutory authority, Justice Peterson operated the Minnesota Newspaper Association's press council inside the chambers of the Supreme Court. He used Court letterhead, staff and equipment. The Board of Directors of a newly-incorporated "Minnesota Press Council" listed Associate Justice C. Donald Peterson as its president. Abuse of power A corrupted news industry sought respectability by purchasing the prestige of an associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Baker and McConnell could not compete with the naked grab for power openly displayed by the Minnesota Newspaper Association. Their appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court was rejected on October 15, 1971. The question posed was whether Minnesota statutes forbid same-sex marriage (they did not). Ignoring the question posed, Justice Peterson instead cited the Book of Genesis. Arguing essentially that "You're wrong because you can't be right", his opinion in Baker vs. Nelson ended with the conclusion that Minnesota "does not recognize" same-sex marriage. His decision is regularly cited in gay marriage challenges. Increasingly, other courts see his arguments as unpersuasive. U.S. Supreme Court An appeal of the Minnesota decision to the U.S. Supreme Court was dismissed on October 10, 1972. The high court said the issue lacked "a substantial federal question". Public criticism Justife Peterson was disregarding legal ethics in order to promote journalistic ethics. Some in the news industry were appalled. One example: "The Minnesota Press Council is a self made organization dedicated to resolve differences between the media and individuals. C. Donald Peterson, Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court chairs the ad hoc committee. I oppose a justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court being a member of this committee. "First of all, the Press Council is a private club with special interests to favor. C. Donald Peterson chairs this private club, which raises a question of his ability to serve justice on any question of freedom of speech vs. the privacy of an individual. "Secondly, we tax payers are getting ripped off on Justife Peterson. We are payng his big salary and he is applying his time to serve the private interests of the news media."

The end justified the means Robert J. Sheran, a former legilator, was appointed Chief Justice on 18 Dec. 1973. Just three months later, the Minnesota Newspaper Association incorporated its press council. Documents filed with the Minnesota Secretary of State, confirmed that the corporate office of Minnesota Newspaper Association's press council was located inside the chambers of the Minnesota Supreme Court. An application for tax-exempt status, which was filed with the Internal Revenue Service, also identified the Minnesota Supreme Court as the registered office of the Minnesota Press Council. Chief Justice Sheran later explained why he allowed Associate Justice Peterson to operate his private mediation service inside the chambers of the Supreme Court. He sought a detailed code of standards governing the collection, control and dissemination of news. Specifically, Chief Justice Sheran wanted "a measure of restraint on the media in the exercise of their power and responsibilities". He was willing to use the powers of his office to ensure that the restraint was "self-imposed" and "generated from within." News reporters were not impessed. One pointed out that "such a code already exists" Another said, "Our model code was never adopted." Others "felt that the suggested code correctly included the ethics of management, but they were not about to stand up and say so with management observing." The personal agenda of the Chief Justice was paramount, regardess of what the law said. Recognition of same-sex marriage was, to him, a distraction. Government officials remain silent Chief Justice Sheran appointed a former president of the Minnesota State Bar Association to Chair the Board of Judicial Standards. Conveniently, Justice Sheran's friend could not see a conflict of interest with the Minnesota Newspaper Association's press council operating unlawfully, at tax-payer expense, inside the chambers of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Neither the staff nor appointed officials within the Supreme Court’s enforcement bureaucracy dared to question the conflict of interest. Outside the judiciary, officials who should have objected, did not. Justices compete for public flattery Justice Peterson served as Chairman of the Minnesota Newspaper Association's press council for nine years. During that entire time, the press council operated from its corporate office located inside the chambers of the Minnesota Supreme Court. It was not until Baker complained about a "naked grab of power" that the Minnesota News Council was forced to move it corporate offices elsewhere. "For reasons yet to be explained," Baker pointed out, "the Court refused to disqualify Justice John Simonett, president of the Minnesota News Council, a private arbitration group whose registered office is located in the court's chambers." In 1981 Chief Justice Douglas K. Amdahl decided not to evict the private mediation service. Instead, he allowed it to continue to operate inside the Supreme Court. An election was near, and he needed help. The Minnesota State Bar Association later explained why his desperate act did not succeed. "In 1984, Chief Justice Douglas Amdahl raised [only] about $8,000 in his successful state Supreme Court race against challenger Jack Baker." The downfall came in 1987, when Chief Justice Amdahl was reprimanded by the Board on Judicial Standards for soliciting $5,000 from West Publishing Company. His lifetime of service ended in disgrace. Let the voters decide File:2002-Jack Baker-003.png Statement of Jack Baker mailed to all attorneys in Minnesota In 2002, Baker challenged the re-election of Paul H. Anderson as Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. He argued that Justice Anderson ignored the canons of ethics and allowed a private mediation group to use his name in exchange for public flattery. The Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA) mailed Baker's statement, right, to all attorneys in Minnesota, along with a ballot to vote their preference. More than 14,900 ballots were mailed, but only 3084 were returned. Well over 79.3% of the attorneys in Minnesota refused to endorce the etical misconduct of Justice Anderson. The MSBA proclaimed on its website that "MSBA members overwhelmingly prefer incumbents." Baker complained that the MSBA had "crossed the line into the area of untruthfullness". Only after the news media filed untruthful stories did the MSBA admit on its website that only the members "who voted" preferred the incumbents. Baker received 31% of the vote, the highest vote total a challenger has ever received. (No challenger has ever defeated an incumbent Minnesota Supreme Court Justice in a reelection bid.) Anderson spent $88,000 on his re-election campaign; Baker spent less than $100 on his campaign.

Gay marriage — punishing the victim

In June 1972, at the State Convention of the DFL (Democratic) party, Baker guided a small group of gay delegates. The DFL Gay Rights caucus lobbied the Convention to adopt a Party platform plank calling for "legislation redefining marriage as a civil contract between any two adults." They prevailed.

File:1972 DFL plank.png Plank as offered by the DFL Gay Rights caucus and approved by the convention The Associated Press judged the DFL platform that included the GAY RIGHTS plank, right, to be the fourth top story of 1972. It was the first time any major U.S. political party voiced support for gay marriage. Bigotry Surprisingly, party officials repudiated the plank, and the DFL never again supported full equality for gay men and women. Its endorsed candidates for a seat in the U.S. Congress consistently rejected the plank. Senator Hubert Humphrey He called the DFL Gay Rights caucus "the crazies." Later, he became Vice President. Senator Wendell Anderson While Governor, not only did he denounce the plank, he went further. Governor Anderson encouraged DFL candidates to threaten their opponents with lawsuits. Gay voters and their friends did not appreciate his hateful comments. Baker warned the Governor that gay men and women would retaliate in the voting booth. Having resigned as Governor to fill a vacant seat in the Senate, the voters rejected his bid for election to a full term. Senator Walter Mondale Previously, he served as Attorney General. Nevertheless, "I find it difficult to understand or accept the idea of marriage between people of the same sex," he wrote. "In human and religious terms, to me marriage has always involved the special and sacred relationship between husband and wife in the formation of a family and for the raising of children." Later, he became Vice President. Senator Paul Wellstone He announced that "after much soul-searching", he would vote against federal recognition for same-sex marriage — i.e., vote for the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] — because he believes "marriage is an instittion reserved for a man and a woman."

Trickery Nowadays, politicians are more sophisticated. Rather than oppose same-sex marriage, they use one of two tricks. Either they say nothing and expect gay party regulars to vouch for them. Or they use double talk. Recall that President Bill Clinton campaigned as a friend of gay men and women. After the election, he signed "Don't ask, don't tell" into law. Later, a White House statement said that President Clinton would also sign DOMA because he "has long opposed same-sex marriage." The question for a member of Congress who claims to favor equal human and civil rights is, "Will you vote in favor of a bill that seeks to repeal DOMA? Anything short of "yes" is trickery. Senator Amy Klobuchar Previously, she served as the Hennepin County Attorney (MN). While running for election, she opposed same-sex marriage. Later, she confirmed her opposition. "I do support the idea of allowing civil unions", she said. Among other things, they would "enable people to visit their loved ones in the hospital when they are sick." A reply asking if she would vote for a bill that rescinds DOMA merited only an automated response that said little more than "Thank you for taking the time to e-mail me. We have received you message." Rep. Keith Ellison In October, 2008, his website proclaims support for "equal human and civil rights for gay ... people". There's less there than meets the eye. Equal human rights is not the same as full equality. The latter includes gay marriage, the former refers to domesticated partners in civil unions. As an attorney, he should know that separate and unequal is NOT the American way. Courage Baker and McConnell dared to apply for a license to marry on 18 May 1970. Finally, after more than 26 years, a DFL-endorsed candidate for U.S. Congress — Martin Sabo — stood tall to defend full equality for gay men and women. Rep. Martin Sabo Of Minnesota's eight representatives, he was the only one to vote against DOMA in July 1996. More than 12 years would pass before another DFL-endorsed candidate for U.S. Congress — Al Franken — would follow his lead. Earth to "our friends": The sky did not fall, and Martin Sabo was elected for another term. Candidate for Senate, Al Franken In October, 2008, he became the first DFL-endorsed candidate for U.S. Senate to dare to defend the inherent right of full equality for gay men and women. In the voters guide published in Minnesota's largest newspaper, Al Franken declared that he "supports legalizing same-sex marriage"

Gay marriage — the IRS

In 2003, Baker decided that the courts had matured sufficiently to deal sensibly with the issue of same-sex marriage. The couple amended their individual 2000 returns, replacing them with a single joint return. The IRS rejected their claim, citing the Defense of Marriage Act. They sued in federal court for a refund of $837, which was the excess of taxes each paid on individual returns. The U.S. District Court ruled that the Minnesota decision applied retroactively to their marriage license. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision on July 17, 2006. A 39-year quest for full equality came to an abrupt end in February 2005, as Baker was preparing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Wayward radiation melted Baker's left ear drum when the CyberKnife® center targeted 300 rads to seal a vein above the ear. Its Medical Director, Dr. Bellairs, insisted that no radiation was aimed at the left ear drum. Dr. Levine, labelled that assertion “untrue”. As explained by Dr. Levine, “there is an umbrella effect along each beam” of what CyberKnife® refers to as “targeted radiation”. A series of errors led to brain damage. Baker was forced to abandon his betrothal promise to obtain for McConnell a marriage that is legally-recognized in Minnesota. A wise one once said: Love heals all. For Baker, that is certainly true. His lifemate guided him through a recovery that continues to be slow, painful and unresolved. Baker would have asked the high court a single, simple question: (1) if no court had terminated their lawfully-licensed, fully-executed contract of marriage, and (2) if no court had terminated the rights of property that vested on September 3, 1971, how can they be denied their right to share in marital benefits? The only argument offered by the courts is, you're wrong because you can't be right. He continues to insist that separate and unequal is not the American way.

Gay adult adoption

Baker and McConnell were adult males. They were each capable in law of contracting, and Minnesota statutes did not forbid them to contract marriage with each other. There was no legitimate reason why a license to marry should be denied, yet it was.

McConnell was persistent. He wanted to ensure that no member of his family could inherit any of his property. If a Clerk of Court could concoct an impediment to marriage where none existed, what would stop courts from inventing more excuses? And what would stop bigoted judges from ignoring instructions in his will? He wanted all of his property to go to Baker, and he wanted a legal guarantee.

Baker suggested adoption as an alternative, until the right to marry had been affirmed. He consulted third year law students. None could see any legal reason why McConnell could not adopt Baker. One offered to handle the paperwork.

The judge assigned to hear the petition invented a special rule that did not exist in the statutes. He refused to approve the adoption unless everyone in McConnell's family who might inherit his property consented. That caused needless aggrivation among adults, who saw no reason to get involved.

Eventually, the judge admitted that state law did not forbid the adoption of one adult male by another. In August, 1971, the District Court of Hennepin County issued a decree, granting the petition. It is believed to be the first adult adoption between an openly gay couple.

The Clerk of Court was not happy. He leaked unsigned copies of the decree to news reporters, in defiance of laws that required adoption proceeding to remain private. The judge later confirmed to news reporters that he had signed the decree, but denied that he had leaked confidential court documents. Truth is, both broke the law. Baker's privacy was violated by bigoted court officials who objected to his life style.

The decree of the District Court allowed Baker to assume the name Pat Lyn McConnell, a combination of names that relate to the family. A copy of the decree was attached to the application for permission to take the Bar exam. The Minnesota Supreme Court chose to disregard the decree and to identify Baker by his given name on the certificate of admission to the Bar. No reason was given. Since all members of the Court approved Baker's admission to the Bar, an appeal would serve no useful purpose.

In Minnesota, it is not illegal to use an assumed name. Here are three of the names that Baker used at different times during his career: Richard J. Baker, Jack Baker, Pat Lyn McConnell.

Current status

They remain committed to each other, and continue to live in a modest home in South Minneapolis. McConnell is currently a Coordinating Librarian for Library Services in the Hennepin County Library system, which recently absorbed the Minneapolis Library system. Baker is largely retired from his corporate law practice. He is active in the Lyndale Neighborhood Association, and writes occasional articles for local newspapers.

Additional research

• Baker-McConnell website (may be down)
• Photo of 1970 filing for marriage license
• info on student body president election & Baker-McConnell marriage
• GLBTQ encyclopedia article on same-sex marriage referencing the case