MT judge rules against gay couples seeking rights

[Steve Hanson]

MT judge rules against gay couples seeking rights

MT judge rules against gay couples seeking rights - Yahoo! News

HELENA, Mont. – A Montana judge on Thursday rejected a lawsuit that sought to extend to gay couples the same legal protections as married couples, saying in his decision that he can't grant the benefits partly because of the state's voter-approved constitutional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of the gay couples, arguing that the guarantees in the Montana Constitution of equal protection, privacy and dignity should require the state to afford the legal rights to the gay couples. The ACLU said it plans to appeal the case to the Montana Supreme Court.

The gay couples weren't asking for the right in the lawsuit to marry, which the Montana Constitutional defines as between a man and a woman. Rather they wanted to be able to make burial, health care and other decisions, while enjoying such benefits as jointly filing taxes.

The attorney general's office has countered in court that Montana can't extend spousal benefits to gay couples because those benefits are limited to married couples by definition since Montana voters in 2004 approved the marriage amendment.

 

[George Costanza]

Mean spirited bastards.

 

[Grace]

they wanted to be able to make burial, health care and other decisions, while enjoying such benefits as jointly filing taxes.

I don't understand WHY anyone would want to take this away from them. Is it that much to ask for? No.

 

[iggy pop]

How will this effect DADT?

 

[martybegan]

MT judge rules against gay couples seeking rights

MT judge rules against gay couples seeking rights - Yahoo! News

HELENA, Mont. – A Montana judge on Thursday rejected a lawsuit that sought to extend to gay couples the same legal protections as married couples, saying in his decision that he can't grant the benefits partly because of the state's voter-approved constitutional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of the gay couples, arguing that the guarantees in the Montana Constitution of equal protection, privacy and dignity should require the state to afford the legal rights to the gay couples. The ACLU said it plans to appeal the case to the Montana Supreme Court.

The gay couples weren't asking for the right in the lawsuit to marry, which the Montana Constitutional defines as between a man and a woman. Rather they wanted to be able to make burial, health care and other decisions, while enjoying such benefits as jointly filing taxes.

The attorney general's office has countered in court that Montana can't extend spousal benefits to gay couples because those benefits are limited to married couples by definition since Montana voters in 2004 approved the marriage amendment.

The killer was probably the filing jointly on taxes request. all the others could be defined by normal contract law.

 

[Sunni Man]

Good for that Judge

 

[Two Thumbs]

Judge up held the state law.

If they don't like the law, they can work to change it or as Reagan said "vote with thier feet" and move.

Hooray for states rights!

 

[Spoonman]

Judge up held the state law.

If they don't like the law, they can work to change it or as Reagan said "vote with thier feet" and move.

Hooray for states rights!

Absolutely. The federal government has been trampling all over them lately

 

[George Costanza]

Judge up held the state law.

If they don't like the law, they can work to change it or as Reagan said "vote with thier feet" and move.

Hooray for states rights!

Absolutely. The federal government has been trampling all over them lately

Yeah, that damn federal government. We all thought when they got done in Selma, Alabama in the 1960's, that would be the end of it, but it looks like they're starting up again.

When are those bastards going to leave us states alone so we can practice as much institutionalized bigotry as we want?

 

[Gadawg73]

they wanted to be able to make burial, health care and other decisions, while enjoying such benefits as jointly filing taxes.

I don't understand WHY anyone would want to take this away from them. Is it that much to ask for? No.

Because the Bible says so.
Who cares about the US Constitution?

 

[Gadawg73]

I remember states' rights here in Georgia in the late 50s and 60s.
A great thing for sure.

 

[George Costanza]

I remember states' rights here in Georgia in the late 50s and 60s.
A great thing for sure.

You're joking, right?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Mean spirited bastards.

Right. The judge should have just made up law right on the spot.

they wanted to be able to make burial, health care and other decisions, while enjoying such benefits as jointly filing taxes.

I don't understand WHY anyone would want to take this away from them. Is it that much to ask for? No.

Because the Bible says so.
Who cares about the US Constitution?

Gay rights are in the Constitution?

 

[Sunni Man]

Judge up held the state law.

If they don't like the law, they can work to change it or as Reagan said "vote with thier feet" and move.

Hooray for states rights!

Absolutely. The federal government has been trampling all over them lately

Yeah, that damn federal government. We all thought when they got done in Selma, Alabama in the 1960's, that would be the end of it, but it looks like they're starting up again.

When are those bastards going to leave us states alone so we can practice as much institutionalized bigotry as we want?

Most blacks hate it when people try to align their heroic civil rights struggle with the gay perverts agenda.

 

[Gadawg73]

Mean spirited bastards.

Right. The judge should have just made up law right on the spot.

I don't understand WHY anyone would want to take this away from them. Is it that much to ask for? No.

Because the Bible says so.
Who cares about the US Constitution?

Gay rights are in the Constitution?

Where in the Constitution does it distinguish between gay and straight?
Where is there any mention of marriage or a definition of it under equal protection of the law?
The US Constitution is a document founded on the rights of the people and tells the government WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.

 

[Gadawg73]

Absolutely. The federal government has been trampling all over them lately

Yeah, that damn federal government. We all thought when they got done in Selma, Alabama in the 1960's, that would be the end of it, but it looks like they're starting up again.

When are those bastards going to leave us states alone so we can practice as much institutionalized bigotry as we want?

Most blacks hate it when people try to align their heroic civil rights struggle with the gay perverts agenda.

Most whites in the south use the word ****** and want blacks picking cotton instead of sitting as a Supreme Court justice. I R not a fan of the "most" doctrine".
Most might cut it amongst Sunnis and Muslims but you are in the United States of America.
Majority mob rule does not count here.

 

[Sunni Man]

Mob rule??

Where in the U.S. is this happening???

 

[Two Thumbs]

Judge up held the state law.

If they don't like the law, they can work to change it or as Reagan said "vote with thier feet" and move.

Hooray for states rights!

Absolutely. The federal government has been trampling all over them lately

Yeah, that damn federal government. We all thought when they got done in Selma, Alabama in the 1960's, that would be the end of it, but it looks like they're starting up again.

When are those bastards going to leave us states alone so we can practice as much institutionalized bigotry as we want?

Exactly.

Black people were changing the situation on thier own, taking great pride in the huge steps they were making then the Fed sticks it's nose in and fucks everything up.

Good to see you understand

 

[Gadawg73]

Mob rule??

Where in the U.S. is this happening???

If we allow majority rule we end up with mob rule.
We are not a democracy, we are a nation of laws as a republic.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Mean spirited bastards.

Right. The judge should have just made up law right on the spot.

Because the Bible says so.
Who cares about the US Constitution?

Gay rights are in the Constitution?

Where in the Constitution does it distinguish between gay and straight?
Where is there any mention of marriage or a definition of it under equal protection of the law?
The US Constitution is a document founded on the rights of the people and tells the government WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.

I think in Aritcal 10 it basically states that the states are free to cover what ever the Constitution does not cover.

Do you get this upset when states restrict access to fire arms?

If not

move along