Today the Montana Supreme Court ruled against six couples petitioning for equal rights benefits allowed for opposite sex couples. Now in the motion filed for the plantiffs weren’t asking for same sex marriage but did feel that they were entiled to those benefits the government allows to straight couples. Here’s more from the (AP):
The Montana Supreme Court on Monday rejected an “overly broad” request that gay couples be guaranteed the same benefits as married couples.
The court wrote in Monday’s 4-3 decision Monday that a lower court was within its discretion when it earlier dismissed the request. But the Supreme Court left the door open for the gay couples to modify their request and try again.
A Helena district court judge dismissed the six couples’ case last year after state prosecutors argued that spousal benefits are limited by definition to married couples. A voter-approved amendment in 2004 defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Popular VideoThis young teenage singer was shocked when Keith Urban invited her on stage at his concert. A few moments later, he made her wildest dreams come true.
District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock based his ruling in part on the state’s marriage amendment and also said that an order to force state lawmakers to write new laws would violate the separation of powers.
The majority justices upheld that decision. The court wrote that the gay couples want the court to intervene “without identifying a specific statute or statutes that impose the discrimination they allege.”
James Goetz, the attorney for the couples, said in April arguments before the high court that his clients were not asking to for the right to marry. But they are entitled to make the same decisions about their families’ by Text-Enhance">health care and finances as married couples under the Montana Constitution, and the state’s refusal to expressly provide those rights is discriminatory, he said.
Assistant by Text-Enhance">attorney general Mike Black responded that the couples’ demands were overly sweeping and they do not cite the specific laws that would have to be changed.
Popular VideoThis young teenage singer was shocked when Keith Urban invited her on stage at his concert. A few moments later, he made her wildest dreams come true:
How can the judge claim that the motion was too vague in description? If the plantiffs were simply asking for those same benfits and had adequate proof of how they qualify then it isn’t vague. It’s prejudive. Making the claim that because of the same sex marriage ban in Montana is also reason for the decision is contradictory because it sets a statute that these loving couples don’t have the same rights. These are what these couples were asking for:
— Inheritance rights, and the ability to make burial decisions and receive by Text-Enhance">workers compensation death benefits.
— The right to file joint tax returns, claim spousal tax exemptions or take property tax benefits.
— The right to make health care decisions for a spouse when that person cannot.
— Legal protection in cases of separation and divorce, including children’s custody and support.
To me the ruling of course is discriminatory and dances around in this circular logic that can only be described as one thing:bullshit. Let’s hope that most of these situations can be cleared up when the Supreme Court rules on DOMA and Prop 8 next year. .