Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Montana moves to block patriots' lawsuit

The Helena Independent Record reports that an amendment to Montana's constitution is flawed:

Montana's attorney general has asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by seven gay couples seeking the same rights as married couples in making decisions about their family's health care and finances.

Attorney General Steve Bullock says the Montana Constitution limits spousal benefits to married couples.

The constitution defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Bullock says in his motion to dismiss the case that the court does not have the jurisdiction to extend spousal benefits beyond that definition.

The American Civil Liberties Union claims the state is violating the couples' rights to equal protection by denying them those benefits.

District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock has set a Jan. 25 hearing on the motion to dismiss the case.

The neighbors are out of town and could not be immediately reached for comment.


“Courts may not exercise the power to enact laws and revise, alter or amend the constitution,” Bullock said. Such policymaking power belongs to the Legislature and the people of the state, he added.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the seven gay Montana couples in the lawsuit, said the couples aren’t challenging the 2004 initiative that added the marriage definition to the state constitution.

But the ACLU claims the state is violating other parts of the constitution — the right to equal protection, privacy and dignity — by denying gay couples in committed relationships the legal protections enjoyed by married couples.

The plaintiffs are asking Sherlock to impose an injunction that requires the state to give gay couples the legal status and statutory framework that gives them those protections.

ACLU of Montana legal director Betsy Griffing said the marriage amendment should be more narrowly construed than the way Bullock is interpreting it.

“It doesn’t provide an exception to the other rights (in the constitution), especially the right to privacy and equal protection,” Griffing said.

The ACLU plans to respond to Bullock’s motion to dismiss by Dec. 10.

Just moments ago in an interview conducted over the fence in my bathrobe, one of the plaintiffs, Nancy Owens, agreed that AG Bullock, considered a front-runner in the 2012 Democratic gubernatorial primary, would alienate a strategic portion of his base by moving to dismiss this lawsuit believing the State would win it. More likely that the amendment defining marriage would not stand scrutiny.



Erin said...

Have you seen this exchange?

larry kurtz said...

Hi Erin. Yes. Both Dr. Newquist and Thad follow ip. Maybe we can get some clarification.

Anonymous said...

Anger about Messerlee. Understandable.
They need to understand this man was pushed into the offense. Cops have been getting away with killings like this for a long time. Blacks in the South know this all too well. Each time they were all confident the Blue Shield would protect them, and it did. The difference is in many IF NOT MOST of these cases they were rogue cops who the Gods tempted. They did it intentionally thinking they were "earning", knowing they would get away with it. They were the ones whom the Gods disliked, while the Messerlees of the world who get caught are being punished, feedback reserved for those the Gods have interest in keeping.
There are those in the ghetto whom are singled out, targets of the community whom everybody hates. The rogue cops in the South who are guilty of these kind of killings have been reincarnated into roles like this. It's just one of the clues the Gods offer to the community. Lucky for those preditors the ghetto has been an ignorant community, but I think that might be changing.

Of course there could be anoher possibility:::::Due to the history and resulting legacy of hatred for the Gods, since I am guarenteed a spot on the next Planet Earth I will be the original "bad seed":::The Lucifer-figure of the next reality. Unlike Christian dogma, he may just represent the solitary target of the God's ire early, a disgruntled asshole who pissed the Gods off, the proverbial "apple" of the next reality, beginning the process which leads planets to where we are today. A crucial figure in any planet's history, he represents the "beginning of the end".

People, especially liberals give W a very hard time.
Don't forget what I say:::Everything today is both good and evil. The Gods have positioned it as such as we have become increasingly disfavored, confusing the enviornment.
Republicans and conservatives as well, only they fall more on the good side while their adversaries fall more on the evil side, quite contrary to the God's positioning.
Yes, W's evil is illustrated in the United State's efforts in Iraq, and the "Red State"r's who believe we were "earning" are among the worst of them.
If conservatives fall on the side of good, Fox News falls on the side of evil. They pander to the type of trash my brother is, the kind of trash who thinks their war mongering efforts "earn" for them and all others who think like them.
Anyways, it is positioned that W trashed the economy before he left office. Selfish it didn't happen while he was in office, granted, but economic turmoil is a motivator. It's not cancer, mind you, but many have begun praying hard because of their experinces in this event, and it says something about those affected as opposed to those sheltered from affect.
One day just as they will allow vaccines to diseases, especially AIDS, encouraging deviacy the likes which hasn't been seen since the 70s, they will allow cures for cancer, MS, COPD, alcoholism, etc.
Women's diseases will be last. Just as research into women's diseases receive the least amount of funding so is it justified their cures come last, and both for the same reason:::They have the most favor, and the Gods use their diseases as a motivator to pray and find the path. As such they get God's benefit as long as they are willing to offer it.