Montana judge rules against gay couples seeking equal rights

It wasn't even about getting marriage.

Judge rules against gay couples seeking rights

A Helena judge has ruled against six gay couples seeking the same legal protections as married couples.

He says the question of granting gay couples the benefits, without allowing them to get married, is best left to the legislative process.

The gay couples weren’t asking for the right to marry in the lawsuit against the state. Rather they wanted be able to make burial, health care and other decisions, while enjoying such benefits as jointly filing taxes.

Why there is even a debate on that shocks me. EQUAL RIGHTS TO EVERYONE... All men are created equal... except in Montana?

Even though I find homosexuality repugnant, there should be equal protection under civil law. They should be entitled to the same legal, civil benefits as anybody else.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Judges are human beings just like the rest of us. Just because they wear a robe, bang a gavel and have a special title does not make them exempt from things like prejudice, bias and religious intolerance. As far as we have come as a race we are still only just beginning to approaching the starting line.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Even though I find homosexuality repugnant, there should be equal protection under civil law. They should be entitled to the same legal, civil benefits as anybody else.

that's refreshing on two fronts; a homophobe who knows the word "repugnant" AND is willing to adhere to the principles of our nation. I won't get into your personal feelings about the gays, you're free to get the "willies" from two dudes touching "willies." i'm just glad to hear an anti-gay person admit that their personal feelings shouldn't trump the constitution. our nation was intended to be a bastion of freedom and tolerance, a safe haven for oppressed peoples from all over the world, even if they are gay muslims who hate 24 and American Idol.

reply to post by Vitchilo


when will we learn that amendments to state constitutions defining marriage as "between one man and one woman" do nothing to "stop" homosexuality? just like not having the laws doesn't encourage the "spread" of homosexuality. So if the laws aren't preventing people from being gay, and they don't actually benefit straight people, then they are there for the sole purpose of judging and punishing gays. homophobes don't want "those darn gays" getting the same treatment as them, because they want the state to sanction their superiority complex. any way you slice it, it is wrong, unconstitutional and against core American values to deny one group of people the same benefits that another gets, simply for belonging to the other group.

you can't make a case against homosexuality without bringing up your religion, or hiding it behind a phrase like "morally reprehensible." at its root, however, the anti-gay movement is a christian movement.

I'm American, not Christian and this is NOT a Christian nation. any one who thinks otherwise will need two things to prove it; documentation from the Founders declaring America as a Christian state and my dead body. until then, keep your church the hell away from my State!

reply to post by RicoMarston


I totally agree with you on this, and it's not just personal feelings that trump the Constitution all too often - religious views seem to somehow take precedent in a nation that supposedly has a "separation of church and state."

reply to post by Vitchilo

All men are created equal

Well if they are men who are not attracted to say...I dunno women, that would suggest they arent equal now wouldn't it?

Sorry couldn't resist.

Originally posted by RicoMarston

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Even though I find homosexuality repugnant, there should be equal protection under civil law. They should be entitled to the same legal, civil benefits as anybody else.

that's refreshing on two fronts; a homophobe who knows the word "repugnant" AND is willing to adhere to the principles of our nation. I won't get into your personal feelings about the gays, you're free to get the "willies" from two dudes touching "willies." i'm just glad to hear an anti-gay person admit that their personal feelings shouldn't trump the constitution. our nation was intended to be a bastion of freedom and tolerance, a safe haven for oppressed peoples from all over the world, even if they are gay muslims who hate 24 and American Idol.

Personally, as a gay person, I agree that it doesn't matter what his personal feelings are. I wouldn't attack anybody who supports my civil rights. To me, that's the true form of someone who just wants the right to feel and think their own way without oppressing others in the process. I think it should be respected, not attacked. I'm sorry the poster feels that way about gayness, and if I thought it would make a difference, I would love a chance to sit down with him as a human being and talk about it. But if he doesn't want to, it's really none of my business. I think straight sex is pretty gross, is that wrong? And I wouldn't want somebody getting in my face and demanding that I think and feel a certain way about anything, you know? What matters about his opinion is that he's not using it to hurt anybody.

reply to post by sepermeru


fer sher as soon as your beliefs go from thoughts in your head to action against another, you have failed. if you think the gays are wrong, start a blog! an ad campaign! a not-for-proft! don't usurp our laws and freedoms so that you won't feel creepy when you think about a gay man being able to legally ID the body of his deceased partner. that goes both ways though, and it's nice to see a gay person who doesn't want to cram anything down anybody's throats. there are two gay jokes in the previous sentence, for anyone keeping score.

You can hire a lawyer and get those rights (like a medical power of attorney) etc all set up regardless of you are married to someone or not.

This case was about spousal benefits. You can't be a spouse unless you're married.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
You can hire a lawyer and get those rights (like a medical power of attorney) etc all set up regardless of you are married to someone or not.

This case was about spousal benefits. You can't be a spouse unless you're married.

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

Can you explain how what you're saying matches with that? I believe this ruling means that they can't, in fact, legally do any of that in their state. Medical power of attorney has very limited application, doesn't it? I could be wrong about that.

They have to first resolve the marriage issue though.

They cannot simply grant them the same expemptions and benefits that heterosexual married couples get because they aren't married.

When Montana allows for gay marriage, then they can have the benefits. I understand where the judge is coming from. It's out of his hands.

If I wanted a grant for a single parent to go back to school, wouldn't I have to first have a child? The benefits have pre-requisites. Single people cannot receive married couple benefits. That's not what they're there for.

The gay marriage debate is an entirely different issue.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
He says the question of granting gay couples the benefits, without allowing them to get married, is best left to the legislative process.

The gay couples weren’t asking for the right to marry in the lawsuit against the state. Rather they wanted be able to make burial, health care and other decisions, while enjoying such benefits as jointly filing taxes.

Why there is even a debate on that shocks me. EQUAL RIGHTS TO EVERYONE... All men are created equal... except in Montana?

Men and Women, irrespective of the state of residence or their sexual preference, have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS I have as a heterosexual male. A gay man, just like me, can marry a woman, and a gay woman just like my wife, can marry a man. Is that too simple for some of you to fess up to? A gay man can do what I can do, and a gay woman can do what my wife does.

Anyone can assign "power of attorney"- the 2nd cousin twice removed from the neighbor's security dog's trainers' nephew's best friend can administer anything... if the paperwork is in place.

And I don't find "jointly filing taxes" as a benefit for any family with both parents working. If both "parents" work, "separate filing" is far better in the long term. Or are you sayin "gays" aren't financially savvy?

reply to post by abecedarian


Oh, please, don't be so goofy. Obviously people have the right to marry the man or woman they love, not just any random person. Can you explain how gay men and women have the same right you do to marry the person you love?

I seriously doubt that if somehow you were only allowed to marry someone of the same gender, you wouldn't feel it was unfair. Maybe you'll try to claim that now just to be contrary, but even if it were true, you would be extremely unusual.

Originally posted by sepermeru
reply to post by abecedarian

 

Oh, please, don't be so goofy. Obviously people have the right to marry the man or woman they love, not just any random person. Can you explain how gay men and women have the same right you do to marry the person you love?

I seriously doubt that if somehow you were only allowed to marry someone of the same gender, you wouldn't feel it was unfair. Maybe you'll try to claim that now just to be contrary, but even if it were true, you would be extremely unusual.

edit on 22-4-2011 by sepermeru because: edit button is my best friend

The point was that they have (gay man or woman) the rights myself and wife have (hetero man or woman) to marry someone of the opposite sex. Nothing more. I see plenty of people of opposite sex marrying out of convenience and I see same-sex marriages seeking to do the same. Call me bad but I only call them as I see them.
Power-of-attorney, living trust and the like, along with the concept of "civil union" accomplish most, if not all, of the same things "marriage" does. One can choose who determines "pulling the plug" in cases of terminal illness and such with the "power-of-attorney", who receives benefits and such- the "benefactor" on the life insurance policy.... C'mon. legal grounds are already established for assigning legal jurisdictions in just about every state.

There is no reason to "redefine" a legal term here. Defining a "new" term is what should happen.
But that's not enough, is it?

reply to post by abecedarian


Yes, some people marry for reasons other than love. Can you show how gay men and women have the same right a straight person does to marry for love, regardless?

Wait, now you're talking about not redefining the term. I thought we were talking about how gay men and women have the same rights already. Is it the same, or is it different but that's okay? It seems like you're having it both ways, at the moment. I'm not sure you've thought this through very logically.

reply to post by sepermeru


I actually believe he has thought it through. I've heard this argument from many anti-gay people before...and frankly, the more times I hear it, the more insulting I realize it is...basically this guy would be happy if all gay people would just pretend to be straight so he doesn't have to be "erked" out by the idea of 2 men in love. Obviously, he is against equality, but he's saying it in a smart-alec-y way that's just obnoxious because its basically making a joke of the whole thing, kicking people when they are down...."Sure gay people can enjoy all the same rights as straight people so long as gay people lock themselves in the (proverbial) closet and pretend to be straight!!"

Just. Asinine.