Gay Marriage | Gay Marriage Quotes | Law - Gay, LGBT | Law Enforcement | Montana

Montana Attorney General Asks Court To Uphold State's Gay Marriage Ban

Tim fox montana

On July 17th, Montana attorney general Tim Fox asked a federal court to uphold the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in response to an attempt to overturn the 2004 law, reports Great Falls Trubine

In May, four couples filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the ban denies same-sex couples the protections and benefits of marriage afforded to other residents of the state.

According to Los Angeles TimesFox said that Montanans made their decision in 2004 when they voted for a constitutional provision that “only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." 

Democratic Governor Steve Bullock has expressed his support for the plaintiffs.

Speaking to Great Falls Tribune, Jim Taylor, legal director of Montana’s American Civil Liberties Union, said that the case could take up to a year to resolve.

Same-sex marriage is legal in nineteen states and the District of Columbia. Bans that have been overturned in other states continue to make their way through the courts.

In June, Bozeman, the fourth-largest city in Montana, voted 4-0 to pass an LGBT non-discrimination ordinance, becoming the fourth city in the state to do so.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Why do they think their ban is special? Many of the bans in court or struck down already, have been voter approved. That doesn't make them right.

    Posted by: JEFF YORK | Jul 21, 2014 1:16:18 PM


  2. Majority rule does not trump the Constitution.

    Posted by: Chuck Mielke | Jul 21, 2014 1:56:09 PM


  3. At this point, it's just unashamed meanness. They know they're going to lose, and want to drag out the pain as long as they can.

    Posted by: Randy | Jul 21, 2014 5:44:24 PM


  4. Politicians do political calculations. And the Repidiots are in a double bind. Their base is constantly shrinking but they want to be elected. They can change parties, like Crist of FL, or they can pander like this turd to their remaining voters who will show up at primaries and general elections, in off years, in the rain, sleet, snow, flood, whatever "not caused by global warming weather event du jour and get voted for [kinda like a facebook "like"] and then even get elected.

    And if you need to "play to the base" [remarkably similar to going for the lowest common denominator], you have a script to follow. That's another way Christie blew it, he DIDN'T fight his court case. NOW he says he'd "roll it back" if elected, but how exactly does THAT work? How do you "roll back" a court case? Pass a new law? That makes gay and lesbian couples become "unmarried". Not even in this usofa would that fly. That is just basic unfairness.

    But this troll will fight the rear guard action losing battle. The AG of NV said, in the light of Windsor AND SmithKline v. Abbott Labs in the 9th that there was no argument against SSM that would get by them. She folded, faced with court rulings that interlock so tightly as to preclude a reasonable challenge. AK, MT, ID and AZ will all be facing that gauntlet, and they'll all lose or decide not to fight.

    It would be VERY interesting if the 9th simply DOESN'T grant hearings on SSM cases from them, and doesn't stay them. Sure, Kennedy [the 9th's supervising Justice] or the full Supremes might well stay, but if the 9th is basically saying "We've decided this, get over it." then there are 4 more wins and the idiots didn't even get another hearing, much less the en banc option.

    We'll get another round of "judicial overreach" [compared to making Corporations "people" AND giving THEM religious freedom, REALLY? Compared to deciding who won the Presidency when there was an active recount running that might well have changed the outcome, REALLY?] complaints and other hand-wringing, but the faster the Supremes decide this the better. I expect to win. Kennedy is going to ask "But what about the children?" again and vote w/ the Libs. End of this year or by next June.

    Then I wonder how they'll try and start chipping away at it. "No SSM after the 1st trimester"? "Protesters can protest at SSM w/ no buffer zone"? "Their religion believes white symbolizes purity and that SS couples must have had sex so that they won't rent us white tuxes or sell us white gowns"? Did I miss any? Sure, but they are just turning off the kids and that takes us back to square one. Their base is declining.

    Posted by: ben~andy | Jul 22, 2014 2:36:09 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Airliner Carrying Tom Daley and Dustin Lance Black Makes Emergency Landing in Russia: VIDEO« «