Slog
News & ArtsThursday, July 22, 2010
Homo Meet the Gay and Lesbian Couples Who Are Suing the State of Montana
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:01 PM
The ACLU filed a lawsuit today in Montana on behalf of gay and lesbian couples...
Seven committed same-sex couples today filed a lawsuit against the state of Montana for failing to provide legal protections to same-sex couples and their families in violation of the Montana Constitution's rights of privacy, dignity and the pursuit of life's basic necessities and its guarantees of equal protection and due process. The goal of this lawsuit is ensure that same-sex couples are able to protect their families with the same kind of legal protections that opposite-sex couples are offered through marriage. Because there is a constitutional amendment in Montana barring marriage for same-sex couples, the couples in the lawsuit are seeking the protection of state-recognized domestic partnerships, similar to those in place in several other states.
You can meet the couples here. And there won't be any protest from defenders of marriage because these same-sex couples aren't seeking the right to wed. All they're demanding is that the state of Montana recognize domestic partnerships. So, again, we can expect no protests from the defenders of marriage... right? And if defenders of marriage should protest or attempt to block domestic partnerships for same-sex couples—like they did in Hawaii—all the folks who are constantly urging gays and lesbians to be reasonable and settle for civil unions or domestic partnerships will loudly condemn the defenders of marriage for being unreasonable... right?
2
Hooray to the lawyers working with ACLU on this, both in Bozeman and at San Francisco-based Morrison & Foerster (my favorite little enormous global law firm ever). Another donation to the ACLU coming right up.
5
@3: Conversation between two friends of mine, discussing land usage several years ago.
A: Why can't people farm where they can, and live where crops won't grow?
B: Because nobody wants to live in Montana!
A: Why can't people farm where they can, and live where crops won't grow?
B: Because nobody wants to live in Montana!
6
Oh, come on, what with half the glaciers melted, it's quite nice there.
Let me get my parka and fuzzy hat on.
Let me get my parka and fuzzy hat on.
7
I actually know quite a few people who live in Montana. But you're basically right - there are more people in Seattle than there are in the entire state.
8
@7, Montana has just about exactly 1,000,000 people in it -- up more than 10% from 2000. Seattle is at 602,000 as of 2009, probably not much more than that now, up about 7%. Montana's not only larger than the City of Seattle, it's growing faster. Hmm.
12
@9, if your father's English teaching didn't cover the colloquial, I'd say it definitely was wasted.
13
Which, of course, is what I was using, Vooodooo, but I know better than to argue with Fnarf when he gets in one of his moods.
14
No, he just taught people how to speak correctly. Be sure to tell the 30 years worth of his students that their knowledge is a waste. Keep in mind, he was teaching at the equivalent of a Juvie Hall for emotionally disturbed students with at least 3+ years deficiencies in subject areas. So those communications you have with them might get a little heated. Also, don't bring up Moby Dick. Since they all read it, you'll just appear ignorant on the subject compared to them.
15
@14, you've never heard me speak, and my English is better than yours. And I don't give a stuff about "Moby Dick". So spare me the lecture. You're not qualified to correct my usage, which is flawless, regardless of what Dear Old Pappy did or didn't do.
16
I am looking at number 8. There seems to be some evidence to the contrary. You happen to be correct in that I haven't heard you speak, so i have to go with the evidence I do have. It just happens to point to you not being particularly skilled. Which is sad, because it has forced me to interact with you for entirely too long. Being nearsighted and waiting on new glasses, it looked like your avatar was a Nosferatu (the shadow of the hat looking like sunken eye sockets and the hand looking like a malformed nose) and not some sparkley pussy vamp, but it's just a picture of a kid with a gun.
Severe Butthurt. Symptoms: Acting like a pissy little queen when you are proven wrong, without acknowledging any mistakes. Treatment: Tall glass of Ammonia with a Bleach Chaser. To be taken as a suppository. Be sure to self medicate.
Severe Butthurt. Symptoms: Acting like a pissy little queen when you are proven wrong, without acknowledging any mistakes. Treatment: Tall glass of Ammonia with a Bleach Chaser. To be taken as a suppository. Be sure to self medicate.
21
@19 Hope you have a chance to make your appeal to some open minded ears. You're in the right and the other side knows it.
I just feel bad because this is the chance for a state level government official to Grandstand for the Republicans at the expense of you and your co-plaintiffs and your families' expense.
I just feel bad because this is the chance for a state level government official to Grandstand for the Republicans at the expense of you and your co-plaintiffs and your families' expense.
22
Surely parents in Helena Mont who are struggling as is to keep their children from being instructed thru a proposed sex education program that teaches first-graders about gay "love" and fifth-graders the different ways people have intercourse, will be thrilled with this.
Domestic partnerships has always been used, wherever they have been implemented, as nothing more than a temporary stepping stone by gay advocacy groups and their lawyers, a dishonest artifice used by those whose true intention is the full dismantling of traditional marriage. The summer might be a time of rest and relaxation for the family but not for the lobbies, in fact their preferred sneak attack seasons are precisely when everyone else is resting.
Domestic partnerships has always been used, wherever they have been implemented, as nothing more than a temporary stepping stone by gay advocacy groups and their lawyers, a dishonest artifice used by those whose true intention is the full dismantling of traditional marriage. The summer might be a time of rest and relaxation for the family but not for the lobbies, in fact their preferred sneak attack seasons are precisely when everyone else is resting.
23
@16, you sure do use a lot of words to say "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm going to fuss over things anyways".
There's not a blessed thing wrong with my post @8. You don't like "just about exactly", I gather; maybe you'd prefer "purt' near exactly"? If you think that's inappropriate usage in an informal setting, you're full of shit, Miss Manners.
That's not butthurt, that's just the way the world works.
And look, you brought back Loveschild. You're attracting flies, please move away. No, further.
There's not a blessed thing wrong with my post @8. You don't like "just about exactly", I gather; maybe you'd prefer "purt' near exactly"? If you think that's inappropriate usage in an informal setting, you're full of shit, Miss Manners.
That's not butthurt, that's just the way the world works.
And look, you brought back Loveschild. You're attracting flies, please move away. No, further.
24
God, please save me from your people! It's hard for them to see truth when they're involved in cranial-rectal inversions. They bear false witness! They dissemble!
Amen.
Amen.
25
Geez, Seattle people, if I didn't know better I'd think you were snobs... Bozeman is totally cool (although, perhaps, that term isn't...) and Montana is beautiful. I'm still registered to vote in Wyoming, Mike from the lawsuit, if you need any phone calls made to western legislators...Good luck.
Loveschild: Try to remember that ignorance is not bliss. And to paraphrase, other people/nations/cultures/sexualities aren't failed attempts at being you, they are valid in their own right. How does same-sex marriage "dismantle" your marriage? I'm a straight woman, and two women got married at our cabin last weekend...as far as I can tell, my marriage is still intact, and is only stressed by my husband's propensity to make a squirrel-like midden on his side of the bed out of dirty clothes and fast food bags, not by the fact that people of the same sex are getting it on, somewhere in the neighbourhood. You are, as my kids would say, a dumbass.
Loveschild: Try to remember that ignorance is not bliss. And to paraphrase, other people/nations/cultures/sexualities aren't failed attempts at being you, they are valid in their own right. How does same-sex marriage "dismantle" your marriage? I'm a straight woman, and two women got married at our cabin last weekend...as far as I can tell, my marriage is still intact, and is only stressed by my husband's propensity to make a squirrel-like midden on his side of the bed out of dirty clothes and fast food bags, not by the fact that people of the same sex are getting it on, somewhere in the neighbourhood. You are, as my kids would say, a dumbass.
26
The hubris and delusion that is necessary to believe that the world must be tailored to one's personal interest and comfort zone astounds me. What selfishness! Justice and equality is indeed offensive to the greedy "Christian".
27
hey danny if the homos agree to stop at DP you'd have a deal but since DP is just a step to perverting marriage no dice.
see how that works?
see how that works?
32
montana is far more gay-friendly than one might think. i spent summers with my grandparents at flathead lake, where two lesbian couples were their neighbors. nobody batted an eye, or shunned them. they were born and bred Montanans, so perhaps if they had been out-of-towners acceptance and friendship might not have been forthcoming, or if it had been two gay men. why would anyone still live in Montana? the cleanest air i've ever breathed, the slower pace of life, the breathtaking scenery, and of course, the never-ending sky. and don't forget, mr. adrian ryan is from butte (ha ha, i said butte), and i was born in polson on the shores of beautiful flathead lake.
33
I often struggle with how ridiculous it seems that there are so many lawsuits in the U.S. However, this is one of those cases that regardless of the success will continue to challenge the laws that seek to discriminate not just against minority groups (i.e. gays), but similarly discriminate, as Dan so often reminds us, against straights as well.
Michigan voters in 2004 passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage or any "similar union" as opposite marriage, thus banning same-sex marriage AND civil unions, and banning legal recognition of same-sex marriages or similar unions.
After the election, , Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm stated that same-sex domestic partner benefits (e.g., "spousal" health insurance coverage) for public employees were in question and the matter would likely be interpreted by the courts. For three years, it bounced like a yo-yo in the Michigan court system as the ACLU and others challenged the constitutional amendment that threatened to end same-sex benefits.
When the Michigan Supreme Court interpreted the amendment to end all same-sex benefits in Michigan in 2008, most businesses and institutions had already been offering "Other Eligible Individual" benefits instead. These benefits are defined by each employer but cover one person (regardless of gender) who is cohabiting with the employee and is not related to the employee.
As a result of the efforts to block same-sex commitment recognition in Michigan, same-sex partner employment benefits continue, but now opposite gender partnerships are now eligible for benefits regardless of marital status. Unmarried opposite-sex couples who cohabit and are not related are now eligible for the benefits that had to be redefined to continue offering benefits to same-sex domestic partners.
In the past, most employers would NOT allow benefits for straight employees with long-term live-in partners unless they married because state law allowed them to be married if they chose to do so. Thus, the biggest change in workplace benefits from the amendment has been that employers who want to allow employees to be able to get coverage for their same-sex domestic partners (whose union can't legally be recognized in Michigan) also have to cover unmarried straight couples (who can legally marry).
Of course, most employers require 6 months of cohabitation for an Other Eligible Individual. An employee can marry an opposite-sex stranger, who would be eligible for spousal benefits immediately after the ceremony. Go figure.
An interesting side note, in 2004, Catholic dioceses in Michigan donated more than $1 million to promote the amendment, and Christian conservative churches donated more than $300,000. For the price of "saving marriage" in Michigan, those churches could have made a huge impact on the lives of those individuals affected by Michigan's current record high unemployment, high foreclosure rate, and increased levels of poverty throughout the state.
More...
Michigan voters in 2004 passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage or any "similar union" as opposite marriage, thus banning same-sex marriage AND civil unions, and banning legal recognition of same-sex marriages or similar unions.
After the election, , Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm stated that same-sex domestic partner benefits (e.g., "spousal" health insurance coverage) for public employees were in question and the matter would likely be interpreted by the courts. For three years, it bounced like a yo-yo in the Michigan court system as the ACLU and others challenged the constitutional amendment that threatened to end same-sex benefits.
When the Michigan Supreme Court interpreted the amendment to end all same-sex benefits in Michigan in 2008, most businesses and institutions had already been offering "Other Eligible Individual" benefits instead. These benefits are defined by each employer but cover one person (regardless of gender) who is cohabiting with the employee and is not related to the employee.
As a result of the efforts to block same-sex commitment recognition in Michigan, same-sex partner employment benefits continue, but now opposite gender partnerships are now eligible for benefits regardless of marital status. Unmarried opposite-sex couples who cohabit and are not related are now eligible for the benefits that had to be redefined to continue offering benefits to same-sex domestic partners.
In the past, most employers would NOT allow benefits for straight employees with long-term live-in partners unless they married because state law allowed them to be married if they chose to do so. Thus, the biggest change in workplace benefits from the amendment has been that employers who want to allow employees to be able to get coverage for their same-sex domestic partners (whose union can't legally be recognized in Michigan) also have to cover unmarried straight couples (who can legally marry).
Of course, most employers require 6 months of cohabitation for an Other Eligible Individual. An employee can marry an opposite-sex stranger, who would be eligible for spousal benefits immediately after the ceremony. Go figure.
An interesting side note, in 2004, Catholic dioceses in Michigan donated more than $1 million to promote the amendment, and Christian conservative churches donated more than $300,000. For the price of "saving marriage" in Michigan, those churches could have made a huge impact on the lives of those individuals affected by Michigan's current record high unemployment, high foreclosure rate, and increased levels of poverty throughout the state.
34
Domestic Partnership?
Like Washington State has?
And so Dan foreswears forever and ever any attempt to legalize homosexual marriage in Washington State?
Like that?
Is that how it works?
Like Washington State has?
And so Dan foreswears forever and ever any attempt to legalize homosexual marriage in Washington State?
Like that?
Is that how it works?
35
@22 - This Helena, MT parent and resident is thrilled with the work of the ACLU and the Helena School District. I'm so sick and tired of living in country where Fox News creates a story that champions intolerance and bigotry rather than appreciating that information and acceptance are the fundamental elements of a moral society.
37
@34: Reading comprehension FAIL.
Also, I've been hearing that I should disregard what you say, seeing as you suck cocks.
Also, I've been hearing that I should disregard what you say, seeing as you suck cocks.
38
Someone do me a favor and correct Loveschild's grammar for me. I'm too lazy to bother with such an atrocious example of chewed-up English.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (40) RSS