Mont. Court: Gays Due Benefits Others Get

[Rose Siding]

HELENA, Mont. -- A divided Montana Supreme Court declared Thursday that the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection extends to gays, and ruled that the state university system must offer same-sex couples the same health benefits available to heterosexual ones.

In a 4-3 decision, the justices struck down the university's policy of denying benefits to employees' gay partners.

The high court said the policy violates the Montana Constitution's guarantee of equal protection because unmarried heterosexual partners could get the benefit by signing a common-law marriage affidavit, while unmarried gay partners could not.
...
"These two groups, although similarly situated in all respects other than sexual orientation, are not treated equally and fairly," the court said.

In a dissent, Justice Jim Rice said the court had radically altered common-law marriage in Montana, and reached "the dewpoint of duplicity" in contending it did not do so.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-montana-gays,0,4950202.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

[evil genius]

1. i must say i'm pleasantly shocked

that came out of Montana. Who'da thunk it? I'm really impressed.

[havocmom]

5. Don't assume much of anything about Montana. We are an odd lot

with a pretty liberal, freedom loving tradition.

We were ahead of the pack in sending women to Congress.

Labor movements were BIG here. Workers made some noise that got noticed.

We just voted to legalize medical marijuana, thumbing our noses at Ashcroft, who you recall, resigned shortly after the election. I like to think he left office rather than try and send in the Federalies to spank us for our recent votes. I think he's a-scared of us! :D

We just elected a DEM governor.

We are not as red a state as most of the nation would believe.

We have a Senator who is in the forefront of the fight to loosen trade with Cuba.

Montana is not the bastion of wingers many people think. Some of the more vocal winger stuff you hear about here are actually people from other places who come here thinking it is some Aryan wonderland. The locals pretty much dislike that sort of thing.

Not all the school districts want to teach creationism. There are a lot of folks who want religion kept out of schools and there are people in very small communities who have fought to maintain separation of church and state sponsored education.

Come see us sometime.

hm

[sandnsea]

9. People from other places

I keep saying local Montanans got all confused thinking pain in the ass out of staters were liberals when they were really gated community conservatives. (Not to mention the Aryan nutballs) If we can move forward on truly healthy and sustainable forest and logging practices, I think Montana would go Dem until the righties figured out some other wedge issue. And alot of other western states would too.

[Prodemsouth]

10. They just handed them the best wedge issue ever.

Just like the Mass court help give Bush and Rove a wedge issue. This is what these rulings are about. Look at the judges and their rulings in past, and who appointed them - you will find that things don't add up.

[sandnsea]

13. I disagree

Montana truly is a live and live kind of place. I knew more out gay people there than when I lived in California even. Kind of like the people in the tsunami I guess. When you face life and death and harsh weather, you keep your priorities straight. Who's banging who isn't so important when it's -40 and your heat just went out or your car just broke down or your kid's missing. It isn't like a tornado or hurricane either, -40 is there, year after year after year.

[Prodemsouth]

20. Maybe it is maybe it isn't. I don't know. The thrust of my argument is

this is being done to sell the American public at large on The constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Still I think you will find out just how progressive Montana is next election cycle.
I got flamed when I suggested the same thing when the Mass court made its ruling (that the they were giving Bush and Rove a wedge issue). Many people said I was wrong then too.

[LiberalFighter]

25. Wouldn't an amendment banning gay marriage be unconstitutional?

Especially considering that the Montana court ruled on an equal rights basis.

[Prodemsouth]

26. Depends on how the US Supreme Court ruled or if Montana has such an

amendment already, I don't know. I do I know I would not trust the current Supreme Court to such a ruling.

[Divine Ms Q]

35. -40

Yeah, but we don't have the humidity, so it really only feels like -20. :crazy:

[Orangepeel]

18. well if so, so be it.

civil rights in the 60's were a pretty big wedge issue. that didn't make (southern) democrats wrong for pursuing it. What's right is right.

I don't agree that there's an ulterior motive behind the courts decision. I'm choosing to believe there are just some good judges left. But if I'm wrong, I'll take it anyway.

[Prodemsouth]

24. You could also be wrong and be worse off than you were before.

Some of these state admendments overturned domestic partnerships in cities. The right will argue that any little window could be used to expand to complete gay marriage, so in this federal admendment you could very well see: no civil unions, no domestic partnerships, no nothing.

[stevedeshazer]

19. Yup.

Montana is unjustly maligned.

I met Brian Schweitzer in 2002. His campaign is a perfect example of what can be done in Montana and other states to win votes away from the radical right.

As for the naysayers who would have others see social progress as some kind of a setback, I guess all of us who stand for equal rights for all just ought to get in the back of the bus. :eyes:

This occasional visitor to Montana has always been impressed.

For every Marc Racicot, there's a Jeannette Rankin. :)

[Prodemsouth]

29. Oh yeah the lady that was against fighting the Nazis. One Dem gov who

ran with a Republican, take over of the Senate and maybe the house does not make Montana Sweden- Jeeze. BTW- if he were nationally known many here would be calling him a Repug lite, DINO, etc.

[stevedeshazer]

34. Your post makes no sense

Help me out here, what is the Sweden reference about?

Please...got a link for the Nazi reference?

[Prodemsouth]

37. Goggle Ms. Rankin and you should find any numerous articles

that said she voted against World War 2 authorization. She claimed Roosevelt provoked the war. On the Sweden remark I was being sarcastic: Many people in Montana seem to feel because it was good to Dems in a election year when many state were not, that they have got some type of progressive paradise going there.

[stevedeshazer]

40. I'm well aware of Jeannette Rankin's opposition to war

In the case of WWII, I don't share her belief. However, being the only congressman to vote against war is not an indefensible point of view.

As for Montana, the Dems won there on a statewide level.

I haven't talked to any Montanans that think that their state is a "progressive paradise". Most people, including my family who live there, are more or less independent.

[havocmom]

38. Um, no, Ms Rankin voted against our entery into WWI not WWII

It was the 'rich man's war' she objected to fighting, not Nazis. Better get that history book out, you are a bit off.

And having a GOP (of the old school) running mate is a damned good step towards reminding people we need to work together. Used to be done and can be again.

Insisting on absolute partianship is to practice the teachings of the Newt. That isn't what you are favoring, is it?

[Prodemsouth]

41. Yes she did! as a US Rep! you need to get your history book out

Don't even need to do that, google- Rankin and WW 2 and see what you find. And if you are honorable you will come back and say you were wrong.

[havocmom]

45. Missed the WWII

my reading on her decades ago focused on WWI Thanks for the correction. Phew, glad I checked here instead of finishing my plumbing emergancy tonight. Hate to have you insisting I was not honorable if I failed to show up! LOL

[Stephanie]

43. Both! She was a pacifist and voted against both!

Sorry friend, you are off. She was awesome. I have long admired her. Let me tell you about a woman I met a few times, Frieda Fleigelman, who actually knew and worked with her! What a legacy!

[havocmom]

46. Thanks Steph

:)

[Stephanie]

42. When I was growing up it was a Dem state

With a proud progressive tradition. Jeanette Rankin. Mike Mansfield.

I'm homesick!

[gratuitous]

2. The dewpoint of duplicity, Justice Rice?

Uhm, if "equal protection" isn't meant to apply to all citizens, doesn't that mean the forces that would deny citizens their rights arbitrarily are already engaging in duplicity?

Tell you what, though. As long as gays aren't entitled to all of the benefits of our society, what say we stop taxing them?

[Zhade]

17. Can't stop taxing us - too many Republicans would come out of the closet.

The fundies would have to abandon the GOP. No way the Republicans would actually allow that to happen.

[xchrom]

3. how is extending equal protection

radically altering anything?
jim rice is speaking out of the top of his head.
this will cause a tsunami in montana -- but it's the right thing to do.

[Prodemsouth]

4. These courts are doing what Mass Court did - help the right wing.

The judges in Mass court were not only Repug appointed but had ruled against gays rights at one time. This is to set the stage for A constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage and to help repugs nothing more. If you are gay in Montana and work at that University enjoy these "benefits" while you can.

[Rose Siding]

7. What would you propose as an alternative?

This doesn't seem like a "radical" decision. Don't a majority favor equal rights, short of marriage?

[Prodemsouth]

8. Were did you find the word "radical" in my post. Look for the right to say

Activist judges are advancing the gay agenda in Montana, (they will not tell you about the rulings details or get real specific. Have they ever had to get specific?) Not just liberal Mass if it can happen in Montana it can happen in your state. Same thing for the recent adoption ruling in Ark. It is frustrating to see good people drive on to a bridge that is going to collapse and not say anything because you fear some one will get mad.

[jdj]

14. the ruling in Arkansas was on fostering kids, gays can already

adopt there.

But I do have my cynicism about these sudden rulings in conservative states. We shouldn't draw up our behinds just because they might say something, but it is odd.

[Rose Siding]

16. What would you propose as an alternative?

[Prodemsouth]

22. Sorry to answer your question I haven't really thought about it because

I am not gay. But I do know the way the right works and that they have a ends means approach to things.

[Rose Siding]

27. I'm not gay either but empathizing for a moment...

if I were facing a great injustice, I would want the courts to uphold my rights.

I would already be prepared for the opposition to be as nasty as always, but I would welcome each point of victory.

I would be offended if moves in the direction of fairness were met with dire predictions of a future precarious situation. The original injustice, set right by the judgement, was the first dangerous bridge.

[Prodemsouth]

28. Some may be offended by a lack of a realistic understanding of the

situation especially if it is not going to personally effect you. You and I have that luxury, the gays I know don't.

[Rose Siding]

30. You seem to have a strong opinion about this, but no alternative

Is that realistic? I read in the thread that you've had discussions about this before so I'm confused about why you wouldn't have developed any ideas about how to promote justice outside of the courts.

You have gay friends -or at least know gays- Do you would want them to be able to enjoy the same things in life that are available to you? Actually belonging to the group targeted with discrimination isn't a prerequisite to promoting the end of that discrimination.

[Prodemsouth]

31. Of course I want gays to enjoy the same things I do- I think since you

asked me that it is fair I ask you that- Do you want gays to have the same rights as yourself. Of course you do.
THink of the USA today as it really is. Ask these questions: What are the best ways to pursue my rights? How will straight people react- this is important weather gays, you or me like it or not. It is a fact of life. Will this advancement - create a backlash that could result in a losing of certain rights?
You aren't doing anyone any good pretending things are different than they really are. I asked my gay neighbor to look at this site back during the Mass ruling post- he is the type of gay man that knows what is said when other gays leave the room and he agreed with me.
I do have a strong opinion because I was right the last time. And as in the last time my arguments were mostly with idealistic straight people. They can do nothing but come on this board and complain and cry after these amendments are passed- but does it personally effect them -No. But it does effect real people.

[Rose Siding]

36. Of course you may ask

Maybe this wasn't clear enough to discern my meaning: "if I were facing a great injustice, I would want the courts to uphold my rights"

What that meant was that if anyone is being unjustly discriminated against (refering to the current topic of benefits being accessible to gays), the court should step in to protect them.

So the court has rectified a basic injustice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the alternative that you seem to advocate -that I asked you about before- is laissez faire, status quo, and "don't rock the boat", because the backlash of incremental changes will surely be worse than any current gains. Is that right?

[Prodemsouth]

39. Look- I have spent enough time with this thing- Don't believe me! again!

When we are all here again crying at the end of another evening about some hideous reaction which has only made things worse, don't worry you can walk away from it. You can still feel real idealistic. You are better than other Americans, you are more progressive, you are a thinking America- you are more European, more cosmopolitan, you are like Grace from Will and Grace. The rest, I guess, will have to suffer the consequences.

[Rose Siding]

44. LOL Peace n/t

[TheWraith]

23. So?

"Look for the right to say... Activist judges are advancing the gay agenda in Montana"

They say that if anyone does anything other than try to hang gays.

[TheWraith]

21. How's that?

Granted, the Repub's don't feel the slightest shame for their hypocrisy in trying to overrule states' rights, but how else will this come about? The logical path for it to take is a ruling based on the state constitution, challenged in federal court, with--hopefully--the original ruling being upheld. It's not like we have any hope of putting it through Congress.

[Rockholm]

33. Wrong. The Mass SJC helped equality for gays to marry.

Our republicans are democrats everywhere else. (exemption Mitt Romney). We in Mass have great court system. Our judges are fine. One of the SJC judges lives across the street from me.

[stevedeshazer]

6. Can't wait to hear the Radical Right on this one...

"...the policy violates the Montana Constitution's guarantee of equal protection..."

So, it is unconstitutional to discriminate against a class of people in Montana.

This could be a big step. It's easy to bash "whiny liberals" in Massachusetts, California, and Oregon, where in the last year gays were legally married. But it's hard for the extremist right to pin this on Montana.

Look for the "activist judge" meme in a newspaper, on your radio, or your teevee VERY soon.

[HockeyMom]

11. Domestic Partnerships

My niece and her now husband lived together for 10 years before they decided to marry. During that time, SHE covered him for medical benefits under Domestic Partership.

My mother-in-law was a widow and her boyfriend, a widower, moved in together. Didn't want to marry because of losing SS. I am sure if Domestic Parternships were around about 10 years ago, they would have opted to that too.

Straight couples benefit too under those laws. But I am sure that the "religous" don't like that either.

[jdj]

12. Is this a set up???

Are puke-heads fanning the flames???

Because we just won the right to foster kids in Arkansas...

and now this...

It's seems kind of suspicious.

[Prodemsouth]

15. It is- you are right. Do research on the judges, who appointed them and

the way they have ruled in the past- it will not add up. Mass ruling was a set up also to help Bush and Rove. I got flamed crispy brown when I tried to tell people that before the election here last time- I stayed away for months.

[ldf]

32. the mass. ruling was irrelevant

the gop was going to use this issue anyway because it is THE huge issue for rabid rightwing fundametalist freaks.

if massachusetts hadn't made the ruling, they would have pumped it up some other way.

there was nothing else for them to run on. the election was always going to be against us queers, because we queers are, in their opintion, the most reprehensible part of the base of the democratic party.

they can't scream "nigger" anymore, but "fag" is still ok.

and quite frankly, if the democratic party washes it's hands of their gay constituency, you will win nothing.

we are tired of being the scapegoat. people can either do what is right, or be held accountable. dump us and watch us sit at home next election. not to mention the money that we won't donate.

[Ediacara]

49. Uh.....

The justices to the Montana Supreme Court are elected by the people to terms of (I think) four years. If there is a vacancy, the governor appoints a judge, but that judge is elected (or rejected) in the next general election.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. I'm having trouble understanding some of the replies to this post.

I am not pointing my finger at anyone in particular, but I don't understand how on earth a vote in favor of some degree of gay couple rights is a bad thing in any way, shape, or form. It is a step forward, pure and simple.

Someone postulated that it was some sort of nefarious right wing plot to elevate gay rights, once again, to national prominence. There are further postulations that the Mass SC ruling was a similar provocation of the right to further their agenda.

What would be acceptable and beyond reproach? A ruling by a totally gay state supreme court? A ruling by a totally Democrat state supreme court? I for one will take such rulings as I can get them. The right doesn't need such rulings to run their campaigns of hate based fear mongering. If they have no rulings to hold up as examples they'll just make something up. Its easy, really. <sarcasm on> We all know just how sleazy every gay person is. </sarcasm>

We need to start somewhere. Mass got the ball rolling. I'm very pleased to see that a state perceived as being blood red made the next move. Celebrate this, don't deride or question it. I agree that a healthy dose of cynicism is a good thing, but it can't be allowed to get in the way of what may well be a crack to be exploited for our side.

[truthpusher]

48. And there was this yesterday!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1107377

[Ediacara]

50. I'm gay and in Montana!

I have insight!

Actually, a lot of posters don't really understand what this ruling entails.

In Montana, it is illegal for gays to marry, both in civil law, and recently amended to the Constitution by voter initiative.

This has nothing to do with gay marriage despite what Jim Rice says.

This lawsuit was three years in the making. Two couples where one partner was employed by the University of Montana sued the Montana University System (MUS) so their partners could get health insurance. Soon after filing the lawsuit, one of the couples had their house broken into, the door barricaded from the inside, and then the house was set on fire. They got out ok, but the Missoula police were very hesitant to call it a hate crime, even though it was clearly an arson where the occupants of the house were meant to be stuck inside.

Then Fred Phelps' mob showed up. They were outnumbered about 50 to 1. They were not on University property, but instead standing on the sidewalk in front of a private home. The homeowners threw eggs at them. I laughed a lot (then I got a parking ticket :-( ).

Anyway, long story short, this ruling is ONLY about the MUS extending benefits to gay partners. One can make the logical assumption that this will probably involve all state employees eventually, but so far as I know, it's technically just the MUS at this time.

This doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage, which is still illegal, no matter what Jim Rice thinks.