Posted on Fri, Dec. 31, 2004

Gays win case in Montana

The Associated Press

HELENA, Mont. — A divided Montana Supreme Court declared Thursday that the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection extends to gays.

It 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 court said the university violated 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.


--Now don't get to mad (to the conservatives here.)  Montana still doesn't allow same-sex marriage, and they still haven't gotten rid of the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage passed during the November 2, 2004 general election.  But if this can pass, I ask how much longer before a liberal judge in Montana throws at the will of the vast majority of people that live in the state of Montana who passed the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage!?  I love this judge-dictatorship we have in America....not.

"The democrats use the courts to pass the agenda they can't get through congress or at the ballot box." -Rush Limbaugh

I have to say that I agree with the Montana Supreme Court on this issue.

That university has no business granting benefits to unmarried hetero partners.  Once they did that, they opened themselves up for a sexual discrimination lawsuit.

Entities that offer "shackup benefits" must offer them to ALL shackups, not just hetero.

Mind you... I am not a proponent of gay marriage.  If the University had been sued because they provided benefits to hetero MARRIED couples, and none to unamrried homosexual couples, then my opinion as to the ruling would be different.

I have to say that I agree with the Montana Supreme Court on this issue.

That university has no business granting benefits to unmarried hetero partners.  Once they did that, they opened themselves up for a sexual discrimination lawsuit.

Entities that offer "shackup benefits" must offer them to ALL shackups, not just hetero.

Mind you... I am not a proponent of gay marriage.  If the University had been sued because they provided benefits to hetero MARRIED couples, and none to unamrried homosexual couples, then my opinion as to the ruling would be different.


I agree 100% with what you just wrote.  If the heterosexuals were married, it would be different.  I just wonder how much longer before Montana's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is thrown out, if it is.  It seems like the first step towards it. 

Like Louisiana, they voted 78% for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in that state.  Thrown out by ONE (1) judge.  If that isn't a dictatorship, I don't know what is.  Stench from the bench.  So far none of the 11 state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage passed on election day have been thrown out, not even the ones in Oregon and Michigan.  But they are trying, especially here in Georgia.

I wonder if they'll extend these benefits to unmarried ranchers and their sheep???

Posted on Fri, Dec. 31, 2004

Gays win case in Montana

The Associated Press

HELENA, Mont. — A divided Montana Supreme Court declared Thursday that the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection extends to gays.

It 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 court said the university violated 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.


--Now don't get to mad (to the conservatives here.)  Montana still doesn't allow same-sex marriage, and they still haven't gotten rid of the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage passed during the November 2, 2004 general election.  But if this can pass, I ask how much longer before a liberal judge in Montana throws at the will of the vast majority of people that live in the state of Montana who passed the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage!?  I love this judge-dictatorship we have in America....not.

"The democrats use the courts to pass the agenda they can't get through congress or at the ballot box." -Rush Limbaugh


Yeah, well Ruck fush.  He advocates daily for a rich-white-male-Republican-christo-fascist-George W. Bush dictatorship. 
It seems to me that right-winger have already gotten more than they dreamed of a generation ago, but it is not enough, and it won't be until the American social contract is rolled back to 1901.
Cheers to the Supreme Court in that most red state of Montana!


It says a lot that you consider a victory for gays a "thumbs down."
::)

Aw, Hell, did them homosexuals win? sheesh!

Seriously dude, thumbs down to equal benefits?

I love this judge-dictatorship we have in America
Where is the dictatorship?

What the judges did was uphold the ideals that the US people have democratically decided upon, namely equal rights.  If the electorate wants unfair treatment, they can vote for it but until then, the judges are simply ruling for the agreed upon laws.
The whole reason we have a legal system is to prevent every individual from ignoring the laws they like for others but find inconvenient for themselves (or vice versa)

Where is the dictatorship?

What the judges did was uphold the ideals that the US people have democratically decided upon, namely equal rights. 
When Congress confirms the fascist clowns Bush appoints to the federal courts the only ideals to be upheld will be those of corporate executives and reactionary preachers.  Bush will get to appoint at least one, and maybe as many as four far-right justices to the Supreme Court.  Every judge or justice Bush gets to appoint is another nail in the coffin of American democracy.  If the Bush inauguration goes unchallenged this week (and it will), Bush himself will be the coffin lid.
:o

Where is the dictatorship?

What the judges did was uphold the ideals that the US people have democratically decided upon, namely equal rights.  If the electorate wants unfair treatment, they can vote for it but until then, the judges are simply ruling for the agreed upon laws.
The whole reason we have a legal system is to prevent every individual from ignoring the laws they like for others but find inconvenient for themselves (or vice versa)


EXACTLY!

The courts are there to make sure that laws passed through the legislature do not compromise the ideals set forth in the constitution... The supreme law of the land. If the courts say that "all men are created equal" means that everyone shall enjoy equal rights and privileges than that shall be the law... and no collective decision of wealthy devils and the proletarian fools who follow them, influenced by propaganda no doubt, will compromise that and ruin it for posterity. That is why the courts are there... to make sure that the legislation in this country doesn't stray too far from the constitution. To maintain a degree of consistency in the law, lest cultural trends and swayings should negate the core principles of American democracy.

The democrats know the courts are there last chance for an America like...Canada.  That is why the democrats fight so hard over judicial appointees.  They want these mini-dictatorships, and they don't want any kind of reform to take some of that power away.  When one judge can overthrow a state amendment passed by over three-fourths of the voters, we got a problem.  Louisiana should impeach that judge and vote for there state constitutional amendment again, before the democrats take DOMA (passed by Bill Clinton) to the US Supreme Court.

Let's see:

Was the gay marriage in Massachusetts legalized by:

A. A state referendum, let everyone vote.
B. State legislature.
C. Forced down Massachusett's citizens by a one-judge majority.

One guess per person.

One also wonders why the democrats in  Massachusetts are fighting so hard against a vote on keeping the gay marriages going in 2006.  Hmm....

Do you hate homosexual people, GWBush2004 - if so, why?

Do you hate homosexual people, GWBush2004 - if so, why?




Not you too.  I thought only the American democrats played that game.  No, I don't.  I support gay civil unions, but what I don't support is gay MARRIAGE, and about two-thirds of America agrees with me on the marriage question.

Do you hate homosexual people, GWBush2004 - if so, why?



No, guys like GWB don't hate homosexuals, they hate liberals, including but not limited to:
1. Activist judges*
2. Trial lawyers**
3. College professors with leather elbows on their tweed coats.
4. Hollywood actors who aren't Mel Gibson, Clint Eastwood, or Charleton Heston.
5. Feminazis.
6. Bigtime journalists who write for the New York Times.
7. Public school teachers who support the union.
8. Kennedys
9. African-Americans who still think there's racism in America.
10. White Americans who still think there's racism in America.
11. Rappers.
12. Rocker of the Bruce Springsteen variety.
13. Network Anchors not on FOX News.
14. Uppity progressives from move-on.org or the ACLU...
15. Uppity Muslims

And so on and so on and so on.

No, they don't hate gays.  I just can't think of any gays they like, but that doesn't mean they don't like gays.  Oh, here's a homosexual GWB probably likes: Andrew Sullivan.

The democrats know the courts are there last chance for an America like...Canada.


More like the America set forth in the Constitution, actually. You know, a place of freedom and equal rights for all. Not a place where some people can do a certain thing but others cannot.


That is why the democrats fight so hard over judicial appointees.  They want these mini-dictatorships, and they don't want any kind of reform to take some of that power away.  When one judge can overthrow a state amendment passed by over three-fourths of the voters, we got a problem.  Louisiana should impeach that judge and vote for there state constitutional amendment again, before the democrats take DOMA (passed by Bill Clinton) to the US Supreme Court.


Blah blah blah.... The courts are just horrible until they agree with you, right? Judges are also representatives of the electorate. Some of them are actually elected, and others are appointed by elected officials. When a community elects someone to an office whose authority allows them to appoint judges, they need to keep that authority in mind before they cast their vote. They are put there to do a job, and that is to uphold the supreme law of the land: the Constitution. The meaning of the Constitution does not change with the ebb and flow of cultural trends, and nor should power allotted to the judges who are there to uphold it. The mere suggestion that they should is bafflingly idiotic.

I'm sure the budding right-wing, fascist state would do well to have the courts' powers stifled so that the oligarchs can do whatever they want without reproach. What scares me most about it are the hoards of zealous dittoheads like you, GW, who are so content to aid in the process. Do you ever disagree with the right-wing authority? If not, then THAT is where we have a problem. Not with judges who are doing their jobs and operating well within their rights.

I think you should put down the Hannity books for a while and read a couple of dystopian novels just to give yourself a preview of the future you're helping to build, because unchecked power given to the executives and the legislation is a danger that will lead us right toward such a fate.

Not you too.  I thought only the American democrats played that game.  No, I don't.  I support gay civil unions, but what I don't support is gay MARRIAGE, and about two-thirds of America agrees with me on the marriage question.


No game, Bush. I just wanted to know where you stand and understand where you are coming from.  ;)

I don't care whether you need two-thirds of America to agree with you, Bush. You believe in something because you know it is right not because you are in the majority.  :)

That is a lot of people to hate, Max.


No, they don't hate gays.  I just can't think of any gays they like, but that doesn't mean they don't like gays.  Oh, here's a homosexual GWB probably likes: Andrew Sullivan.


Is Andrew Sullivan a republican?

That is a lot of people to hate, Max.

Is Andrew Sullivan a republican?

Well, he's part of the fifth column in the so-called liberal media who is not explicitly Republican, but incurs constant attacks upon liberals and Democrats whilst defending vociferously the military-industrial complex.  He used to be the editor The New Republic (of late the "New Republican) magazine.  Now he's an obnoxious, whiny, p*ssant blogger.  And yes, he's an openly gay man who is HIV positive.  A little more about Sullivan:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020408&s=alterman

In my rather discombobulated list I was trying to express that, since it is no longer acceptable for bigots to openly hate on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation alone, bigots express their hatred more selectively.

They claim they don't hate all blacks, just blacks with certain political views.  They don't hate all Muslims, just anti-Western Muslims, they don't hate all immigrants, just illegal immigrants.  Even the most rabidly anti-Gay Christian funnymentalists emphasize the "love the sinner, hate the sin" caveat (oh sure, we all see through that one like cellophane!)
In America today, the people you can hate with the most impunity are "liberals."  But they don't hate all liberals, just the liberals who don't keep their mouths shut. 


Now, the right-wing likes to say that it is Christian conservatives who get the most unguarded hate.  This is true, but only in a few selected areas of the country.  If you live in my town of Amherst, Mass., and you are a Christian conservative, you may feel a sense of unwarranted hostility toward you.  The same can be said for other lefty hubs, such a Berkeley, Manhattan, Hollywood, Cambridge, or Ann Arbor.  However, this hostility is defensive.  Liberals have been told their values are most unwelcome in most of the country, so they are relegated to a few urban and academic fortresses.   The conservatives were most pleased with the county-by-county map which showed about 93% of all counties in the country voting for Bush in the last election.  They called it their mandate, proof that the heart of America was beating for them.  Yet the very next month, the Christian conservatives and their media boosters were bleating about the liberals and the gays oppressing them by outlawing Christmas.
Thus they have it both ways.  America is 93% Republican "red" when it is convenient, and when it suits their propaganda needs, America is under siege from the powerful liberal elites emanating from New York, L.A., D.C., and New England.

In this past election, I, as a native New Englander, came to understand that my home has been viciously marginalized by the Conservative Baptist power base of the South, the denizens of which constantly spit venom about that oppressive Northeastern liberal establishment elite...which has been powerless for 25 years.
::)

BTW, I don't want to jump to any conclusions about the judicial victory for gays in Montana.  The northern Planes and Rockies--of which Montana is comprised--are among the reddest areas of red America.

Well, he's part of the fifth column in the so-called liberal media who is not explicitly Republican, but incurs constant attacks upon liberals and Democrats whilst defending vociferously the military-industrial complex.  He used to be the editor The New Republic (of late the "New Republican) magazine.  Now he's an obnoxious, whiny, p*ssant blogger.  And yes, he's an openly gay man who is HIV positive.  A little more about Sullivan:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020408&s=alterman


Thanks for the info, Max. I can understand his confusions with the Catholic church. It is a shame he is HIV positive. I wouldn't wish that on anybody. 

I didn't know Andrew Sullivan was HIV-Positive. That's terrible for anyone, regardless of background.

However, I do pose a question. Would he accept the Conservative thought that his illness coincides with his lifestyle? Or, would he blame that on the liberals pushing for more health care options/help for other HIV and AIDS patients worldwide?

Tanya