Their loss of extra tax revenue.

Just because they want it ain't good enough.

*

This shows how not only homo-agenda pushers get their way, but all manner of leftist agenda pushers get their way, commonly with the assistance of the ACLU. Crosses taken down from hilltops and on private property, 10 commandments prohibited from courthouses, Nativity scenes verboten from parks, Boy Scouts renting city, county or state facilities (and fixing them up, and paying money) getting kicked out, no prayers at meetings (because one professional atheist protests) and so on - the freedoms of speech, religious expression, association - all destroyed by judges. The left knows that they cannot win with votes, so they do an end run and get leftist lawyers and judges to rule against the primitive knuckledragging hoi polloi who still believe in God and morality.

Another point is that the destruction of traditional aka "Real" marriage and family is one of the stated goals of the homosexual agenda pushers, and since the natural family is the bedrock of human civilization, the attack on marriage is a blow to the heart. Fortunately this is an intelligent and worthy judge.

*

Four times out of five, a female judge will be bat-brained liberal.


Also, while I was looking up threads for quotes, I came across this one from circa 2002:
"McGreevey to support same sex benefits bill" (new window)

Freep Impact: Also, while I was looking up threads for quotes

My hat is off to you sir. Saves me the trouble of peering under that particular rock myself...

feckingmorons: POA, Durable POA, Medical Surrogate, Advanced directives, Living will... yeah but do you really want your doctor and nurse on the phone with the hospital lawyer or do you want them taking care of your relatives.

And why make one segment of the population have to jump through the same worn hoops again and again, when we've shown (via marriage!) that it's easy to have a "one stop shop" paper that does it all (namely, marriage!).

itazurakko: Freep Impact: Also, while I was looking up threads for quotes

My hat is off to you sir. Saves me the trouble of peering under that particular rock myself...

feckingmorons: POA, Durable POA, Medical Surrogate, Advanced directives, Living will... yeah but do you really want your doctor and nurse on the phone with the hospital lawyer or do you want them taking care of your relatives.

And why make one segment of the population have to jump through the same worn hoops again and again, when we've shown (via marriage!) that it's easy to have a "one stop shop" paper that does it all (namely, marriage!).

And why the hell should one person's personal beliefs (especially a judge's) dictate what another person can or cannot do?

The good news? District judges in Montana are elected. Link.

This is the kind of thinking that has led Montana to be a leader in uhh... buffalo production. I kind of doubt it will really big a problem in the near future though... the gays are going to get marriage rights nationally, it's gonna happen... there's no point in fighting it.

This is why my gay friends moved to Canada. They were (probably rightfully) afraid that if some shiat went down, the backwoods side of the family would come swooping in.

Congrats, Canada. You got two awesome productive to society people who'll be citizens sooner or later (they got married in Canada and commitment-ceremonied in Michigan).

It's funny, though - mentioning the 'not being able visiting your loved one in the ICU' issue has actually given people debating with me about gay rights pause. Likewise with bans on gay adoption. You really think an orphanage or rotating through foster homes is better for a kid than having two mommies or daddies? Really? Well, let's check what the AMA says....

itazurakko: And why make one segment of the population have to jump through the same worn hoops again and again, when we've shown (via marriage!) that it's easy to have a "one stop shop" paper that does it all (namely, marriage!).

Because Jesus, that's why!

In related news, there are gay people living in Montana.

Where is that lovable governor with the cute bill branding skit?

Inquisitive Inquisitor:

Because Jesus, that's why!

No. Because dumbass people, that's why!

/Christian
//can't stand people who make the world think Christian = moronic jackass

It sounds like the judge was basically correct--the law defines marriage between a man and a woman, and so to extend marriage benefits to non-married people doesn't make too much sense.

Being gay, I hate having to say stuff like that, but the problem isn't the judge--it's the law.

/well maybe it's partly the judge.

itazurakko: And why make one segment of the population have to jump through the same worn hoops again and again, when we've shown (via marriage!) that it's easy to have a "one stop shop" paper that does it all (namely, marriage!).

He was just asking a question, not implying that they had to because whargarble.

I was wondering too.

Point being, if they can already get all that done, why not just allow it as a given for a marriage.

But no, no, no, assume I'm a homo-hater and want them all to burn as well....militant biatch.

austerity101: It sounds like the judge was basically correct--the law defines marriage between a man and a woman, and so to extend marriage benefits to non-married people doesn't make too much sense.

Being gay, I hate having to say stuff like that, but the problem isn't the judge--it's the law.

/well maybe it's partly the judge.

Yeah, I hate having to agree with that reasoning as well. But, the problem has always been the law and I think most of the effort has been spent on changing those laws. That a judge refuses to legislate from the bench isn't the real issue here, that's not something they are supposed to do anyway.

/totally in favor of legalizing gay marriage
/and a whole host of other fun things ;)

austerity101: It sounds like the judge was basically correct--the law defines marriage between a man and a woman, and so to extend marriage benefits to non-married people doesn't make too much sense.

Being gay, I hate having to say stuff like that, but the problem isn't the judge--it's the law.

/well maybe it's partly the judge.

Thats why it we have judges, so they can look at something like this and go "Wow, this law violates the equal protection clause of the united states constitution, I guess any state law that says otherwise is unconstitutional."

Montana, a bastion of freedom and liberty to do what the christians want.

...an amendment to the Montana Constitution that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman...

Enshrining bigotry into your constitution. How very progressive of you Montana.

If two people, that you don't know and will never meet, can ruin your marriage just by they themselves getting married, then your marriage wasn't worth shiat to begin with. The problem isn't them, it's you.

Wouldn't reciprocal power-of-attorney documents work?

Leave Montana, it's got it's benefits, but it's mostly a hick filled shiathole.

Yeah, that judge is a moron. To be fair, Bozeman and Missoula (5th and 2nd largest cities, respectively) passed ordinances that added sexual orientation to the list of protected classes, thus removing discrimination in housing, employment, etc. The overwhelmingly conservative legislature also killed a bill that would overrule those ordinances.

We may have our share of backwards folks (the three R's: Retirees, Regressives & Rednecks), but there are still a majority of us that believe that however someone wants to live their life is their own business. In addition to having dumbshiat judges, we also have legal medical cannabis, progressive public land policy and none of that regressive sales tax stuff.

Also, for those of you who think that Montana is like this:


It's actually more like this:



And we have none of this:


:P

wingnutx: Wouldn't reciprocal power-of-attorney documents work?

No... well, that's pretty much the ruling here... he ruled that gays cannot enjoy the rights conferred by marriage. He didn't just stick with the whole "no marriage" thing... the opinion states that because the constiution bars gay marriage, it is inferred that the gays cannot be conferred the rights normally subsequent to a marriage. His logic is that it's up to the voters and the legislature to fix this massive equal protection violation, and not really his job.

A power of attorney would take all of about ten minutes to draft and execute. Much less headache and potential heartache doing a POA compared to a marriage.

People keep telling me the western mountain state Republicans are live and let live libertarian in inclination, distinct from the more authoritarian fundie Southern Republicans.

So, yeah.

ronin7: austerity101: It sounds like the judge was basically correct--the law defines marriage between a man and a woman, and so to extend marriage benefits to non-married people doesn't make too much sense.

Being gay, I hate having to say stuff like that, but the problem isn't the judge--it's the law.

/well maybe it's partly the judge.

Thats why it we have judges, so they can look at something like this and go "Wow, this law violates the equal protection clause of the united states constitution, I guess any state law that says otherwise is unconstitutional."

Montana, a bastion of freedom and liberty to do what the christians want.

Wouldn't that be more the realm of the state or US supreme courts as opposed to a district judge?

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.

While I agree gay civil-union/married/whatever couples ought to enjoy those rights, I think this judge wasn't necessarily opposed to them. I read the (short article about the) decision as the judge saying, Hey... this is what the law says: (a) these rights are only for married couples, (b) gay couples can't be married, therefore (c) gay couples can't have these rights. I'm interpreting the law as it is. If you want to make these changes, a courtroom isn't the place to make them. You have to change the laws first.

montuckiak: And we have none of this:

You don't have Photoshop?

montuckiak:
Also, for those of you who think that Montana is like this:

It's actually more like this:

And we have none of this:

I've been in Montana. It's not all mountains and scenic lakes. Great Falls was mostly flat land surrounded by scrub and long, boring highways where you could drive 80 mph because, frankly, you'd go insane with boredom otherwise.

/and I would drive a recreational vehicle
//actually, I think I will need two wives

I'm in a long-term hetero relationship, and *I* want to 'destroy traditional marriage.'

We've had to hire two lawyers now to make all the arrangements for living will, power-of-attorney, etc, etc. And still, none of it might matter if one of us ends up in the hospital. Suing after the fact is cold comfort when your loved one dies and you couldn't be there because some nurse decided not to let you in because your relationship wasn't 'blessed' by some church.

Equal rights, or none at all, biatches.

blazemongr: 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.

While I agree gay civil-union/married/whatever couples ought to enjoy those rights, I think this judge wasn't necessarily opposed to them. I read the (short article about the) decision as the judge saying, Hey... this is what the law says: (a) these rights are only for married couples, (b) gay couples can't be married, therefore (c) gay couples can't have these rights. I'm interpreting the law as it is. If you want to make these changes, a courtroom isn't the place to make them. You have to change the laws first.

The thing is, the anti-monogamy a-holes argue that marriage isn't a right, nor is it a set of rights... they argue that it's a special thing and that it's ok to deny it to some people (gays, or if you're in the south, apparently they want to deny it to black people again) because it's not actually a basket of rights. Here, they say "oh wait, it's a basket of rights... we banned you from the basket, so now you get no rights."

The argument they made runs absolutely contrary to any concept of equal rights under the law and contrary to the arguments they've made about marriage... it isn't the ruling that bugs me, it's the inconsistent hypocrisy and tortured logic needed to support it.

montuckiak: Also, for those of you who think that Montana is like this:
3.bp.blogspot.com

It's actually more like this:

I find both pictures absolutely stunning.

Strangely enough, when I was last in the hospital, my black neighbors (I'm white) claimed to be my relatives, and were accepted to my bedside without question, and were made privy to my confidential medical information and test results. No ID check, no paperwork required. I know they were just concerned about me, but WTF? Gay couples can't get even this?

ronin7: Thats why it we have judges, so they can look at something like this and go "Wow, this law violates the equal protection clause of the united states constitution, I guess any state law that says otherwise is unconstitutional."

Yeah, that's why I conceded that the judge is partly at fault here. Would that have been so difficult? I hate thinking that judges are unfairly biased this way--shouldn't they always be a disinterested party and look at fair implementation of laws?

I suppose I'm an idealist.

austerity101: ronin7: Thats why it we have judges, so they can look at something like this and go "Wow, this law violates the equal protection clause of the united states constitution, I guess any state law that says otherwise is unconstitutional."

Yeah, that's why I conceded that the judge is partly at fault here. Would that have been so difficult? I hate thinking that judges are unfairly biased this way--shouldn't they always be a disinterested party and look at fair implementation of laws?

I suppose I'm an idealist.

They were fairly implementing the law, as the law is written. It's not within the purview of a district court judge to determine whether the law itself is legal. That's what the supreme court is for.

The nice thing about Montana is that you can drive through it in a day and not see jack shiat.

90% of the people that I've met from there are moronic bible-thumping hate mongers. I'm sure there are nice places there, but none of them are located off I-90.

I also don't understand why it's anyone's business who (read: not WHAT) you marry. If two people love each other and want to get married, why should anyone stop them? I don't understand how anyone thinks it's ok to treat gays like second-class citizens.

That, however, is an entirely different discussion for another thread.

SpaceyCat: Would power of attorney cover most of those?

\not the point, I know

1) some not all (like the right to file taxes jointly.) There are some benefits that just can't be arranged by private contract.

2)Assholes can decide to ignore those directives (this case resulted in Obama signing a directive on visitation rights.

I really don't get the homo-haters. Why do you care? I'm straight, I've known gays, it hasn't hurt me a bit.

It seems like the religious types are the worst. They ignore all the "everyone is a sinner" and "do unto others" parts of the bible when it comes to gays.

This guy found out his daughter had a girlfriend, so he killed the girlfriend and her mom. Yeah, that'll show 'em some family values there.

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/Police__Texas_Man_Killed_Daughters_Girlfrie nd _Girlfriends_Mother_120311759.html

As a person who grew up here, then ended up having to move back after being away for 7+ years, I am telling you all to avoid this place like the plague.

Not because of any gay rights thing, but because here it is April 21st and when I went to the store a couple hours ago, the door to my car was frozen shut. fark everything about this weather.

On a more related note, this state actually does have its fair share of progressives and there was even talk of Montana possibly going blue during the last presidential election. Sadly, we were one of the states bitten by the teaparty bug during the last midterms leading to a bunch of complete retards getting into state level house and senate.

This legislative session has been almost a complete joke. It's like a room full of children flinging monkey poo at each other.

JuggleGeek: I really don't get the homo-haters. Why do you care? I'm straight, I've known gays, it hasn't hurt me a bit.

It seems like the religious types are the worst. They ignore all the "everyone is a sinner" and "do unto others" parts of the bible when it comes to gays.

This guy found out his daughter had a girlfriend, so he killed the girlfriend and her mom. Yeah, that'll show 'em some family values there.

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/Police__Texas_Man_Killed_Daughters_Girlfrie nd _Girlfriends_Mother_120311759.html

I feel like the next person I see eating shellfish and wearing a poly-cotton blend shirt should be stoned to death. I mean, if you're going to take part of Leviticus so damn seriously, why not go whole hog?

austerity101: /well maybe it's partly the judge.

Interestingly, he also apparently ruled in favor of decriminalizing homosexual sex. (new window, 6th paragraph) Plus, he's a District Court judge, so this probably isn't the last we've heard of this case.