Montana court rejects gay couples’ equal benefits
By By Matt Gouras
Topics: From the Wires, News
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — The Montana Supreme Court on Monday rejected an “overly broad” request that gay couples be guaranteed the same benefits as married couples, but left the door open for advocates to modify their case and try again.
The plaintiffs promised to do so, declaring they are “on the right side of history” and will inevitably win.
The court wrote in Monday’s 4-3 decision Monday that a lower court was within its discretion when it earlier dismissed the request.
In that earlier decision, a Helena district court judge dismissed the six couples’ case last year after state prosecutors argued that spousal benefits are limited by definition to married couples. A voter-approved amendment in 2004 defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock based his ruling in part on the state’s marriage amendment, and said that an order to force state lawmakers to write new laws would violate the separation of powers.
The majority justices upheld that decision. The court wrote that the gay couples want the court to intervene “without identifying a specific statute or statutes that impose the discrimination they allege.”
But the high court also said the legal complaint can be changed and re-filed with the lower court if it specifically cites state laws that are unconstitutional.
“It is this Court’s opinion that plaintiffs should be given the opportunity, if they choose to take it, to amend the complaint and to refine and specify the general constitutional challenges they have proffered,” Montana Supreme Court chief justice Mike McGrath wrote for the majority.
The advocates said the new legal filings would be coming.
“We are on the right side of history here. This is a discrimination case. In other civil rights cases people have not given up, and we won’t,” said James Goetz, an attorney for the couples. “There is just no question, and the court did not hold otherwise, that these statutes are discriminatory. If we have to go back step by step and prove it statute by statute, that is what we will do.”
He said “people continue to suffer discrimination as the courts move in their deliberative ways.”
The advocates argue the legal rights they seek would not be barred by the voter-approved definition of marriage since they are not seeking specifically the right to marry.
One dissenting justice, however, noted the state is citing the marriage amendment in its legal arguments.
And Justice James Nelson, in a lengthy 109-page dissent, wrote that he thinks the marriage amendment itself unconstitutionally conflicts with fundamental rights. He said the marriage amendment was a religious-based attack meant to demean homosexuals.
“But future generations — indeed, most young people today — will not fear, much less honor, the sexual-orientation taboo,” Nelson wrote. “Indeed, a not-too-distant generation of Montanans will consign today’s decision, the marriage amendment, and the underlying intolerance to the dustbin of history and to the status of a meaningless, shameful, artifact.”
Among the rights the couples are asking for in the lawsuit filed in 2010:
— Inheritance rights, and the ability to make burial decisions and receive workers compensation death benefits.
— The right to file joint tax returns, claim spousal tax exemptions or take property tax benefits.
— The right to make health care decisions for a spouse when that person cannot.
— Legal protection in cases of separation and divorce, including children’s custody and support.
Social conservatives who oppose granting those rights, and who supported the marriage amendment, lauded the high court for rejecting the request.
“The people of Montana believed in traditional marriage when they passed the Montana marriage amendment, and they’re not willing to consider any laws that will weaken marriage,” said Jeff Laszloffy, president of the Montana Family Foundation and author of the marriage amendment.
The Montana attorney general’s office argued throughout the case that the plaintiffs need to cite specific laws they believe are unconstitutional.
“The majority opinion recognized that orderly resolution of the plaintiff’s claims would require consideration of specific statutes, as is the typical manner in which constitutional challenges to statues are resolved,” assistant attorney general Michael Black said in a statement.
The Montana ACLU, involved in the case from the start, said the Supreme Court decisions leaves open a path to victory for the advocates. Plaintiffs in the case expressed optimism.
“We’re encouraged by the decision because the justices said that we could pursue the protections we are seeking,” said Mary Leslie, who was unable to apply for death benefits after a partner was killed. “Legal protection is essential, not just for our families, but for all same-sex couples. We won’t stop until every loving couple is treated fairly.”
Related Stories
More Related Stories
-
El Salvador court delays ruling on abortion case while woman's life hangs in the balance
-
UK officials: Radical Islam behind London attack
-
Pa. governor "can't find" any Latinos to work in his administration
-
London machete attack could be linked to terrorism
-
Conservative group blames military sexual assault on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal
-
Lois Lerner, IRS disaster
-
Donald Rumsfeld worried that marriage equality will lead to polygamy
-
Experts: Fox News spying scandal a game-changer
-
San Francisco Giant Jeremy Affeldt apologizes for homophobic past
-
9-year-old slams Rahm over Chicago schools
-
Stockholm riots rage for third day
-
Wall Street firm's "Golden Pitchbook" is totally sexist, full of lies
-
Must-see morning clip: Toronto's eccentric and allegedly crack-smoking mayor
-
Federal court strikes down Arizona abortion ban
-
Jodi Arias: I deserve a second chance
-
Oklahoma residents return home to pick up the pieces
-
Florida man with connection to Tsarnaev killed by FBI
-
FBI identifies 5 Benghazi suspects
-
Here come the tornado truthers. Already
-
Peace Corps to allow gay couples to volunteer together
-
Moore officials: Funds for "safe rooms" were held up by red tape
Featured Slide Shows
The week in 10 pics
close X- Share on Twitter
- Share on Facebook
- Thumbnails
- Fullscreen
- 1 of 11
- Previous
- Next
-
Lisa Montgomery embraces her nephew Thursday after a tornado tore apart her home in Cleburne, Texas. The twister killed six people and destroyed entire swaths of the North Texas town.
Credit: AP/LM Otero -
Jack McMahon, the defense attorney for abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, speaks outside the Criminal Justice Center in Philadelphia Tuesday. His client was convicted of killing three babies in his clinic, and will serve multiple life sentences.
Credit: AP/Matt Rourke -
A photo taken Monday captures Vice President Joe Biden's response to a Milwaukee second-grader's innovative proposal to end America's epidemic of gun violence. This guy!
Credit: AP/Jenny Aicher -
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., flanked by a grouper-eyed Michele Bachmann, addresses the IRS' admission that it targeted Tea Party groups in advance of the 2012 election. In an op-ed for CNN Thursday, the Kentucky senator slammed the president for his faux outrage.
Credit: AP/Molly Riley -
Ousted IRS chief Steven Miller is sworn in on Capitol Hill Friday. Miller testified before the House Ways and Means Committee on the extra scrutiny the agency gave conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.
Credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite -
Attorney General Eric Holder pauses as he testifies on Capitol Hill before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday. Holder is under fire, among other things, for the Justice Department's gathering of phone records at the Associated Press.
Credit: AP/Carolyn Kaster -
O.J. Simpson sits during an evidentiary hearing at Clark County District Court in Las Vegas, Nev., Thursday. Simpson, who is currently serving a nine-to-33-year sentence in state prison for armed robbery and kidnapping, is using a writ of habeas corpus to seek a new trial.
Credit: AP/Las Vegas Review-Journal/Jeff Scheid -
Major Tom to ground control: On Sunday astronaut Chris Hadfield recorded the first music video from space, a cover of David Bowie's "Space Oddity."
Credit: AP/NASA/Chris Hadfield -
When it rains it pours. President Barack Obama speaks during a news conference Thursday with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, inexplicably inspiring an #umbrellagate Twitter meme.
Credit: AP/Jacquelyn Martin -
A smoke plume rises high above a road block at the intersection of County A and Ross Road east of Solon Springs, Wis., Tuesday. No injuries were reported, but the the wildfire caused evacuations across northwestern Wisconsin.
Credit: AP/The Duluth News-Tribune/Clint Austin -
Recent Slide Shows
- Share on Twitter
- Share on Facebook
- Thumbnails
- Fullscreen
- 1 of 11
- Previous
- Next
Related Videos
Most Read
-
Oklahoma senator: Tornado aid "totally different" from Sandy aid
Jillian Rayfield
-
Tornado survivor to Wolf Blitzer: Sorry, I'm an atheist. I don't have to thank the Lord
Mary Elizabeth Williams
-
Horrifying new trend: Posting rapes to Facebook
Mary Elizabeth Williams
-
Facebook's hate speech problem
Mary Elizabeth Williams
-
Inhofe and Coburn: Red state hypocrites
Joan Walsh
-
Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia
Andrew Leonard
-
Brad Pitt keeps breaking his silence on how boring marriage to Jennifer Aniston was
Daniel D'Addario
-
GOP attorney general candidate tried to force women to report miscarriages to police
Katie Mcdonough
-
Beltway scandal machine breaks, knows nothing about America
Joan Walsh
-
Jaron Lanier: The Internet destroyed the middle class
Scott Timberg
Popular on Reddit
links from salon.com

21 points22 points23 points | 2 comments

9 points10 points11 points | comment
From Around the Web
Presented by Scribol
- The daily gossip: Paris Hilton is releasing another album, and more
- WATCH: Suspect defends brutal beheading of London man in broad daylight
- Are Democrats finally serious about filibuster reform?
- 6 ways credit cards can be good for your finances
- Why gay marriage advocates feel cheated by the immigration bill


Comments
0 Comments