1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

This should be fun: Montana judge says no on gay rights

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by printdust, Apr 22, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. printdust

    printdust New Member


    Doubtful the activists will find their way to Montana. It's like navigating Afghanistan. Better to stay safe in Frisco, New York, Chicago.
  2. secretariat

    secretariat Active Member

    Why should this be fun? Explain.
  3. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    Not as simple as the thread title suggests. According to the judge, he couldn't rule for the gay couple because of the state constitution defines marriage as being between a man and woman.

    "The gay couples weren't asking for the right in the lawsuit to marry, which the Montana Constitutional defines as between a man and a woman. Rather they wanted to be able to make burial, health care and other decisions, while enjoying such benefits as jointly filing taxes."

    The actions in the second sentence come with marriage. I don't think heterosexual couples who aren't married have the right to make burial and health care decisions or can jointly file state taxes.

    A state judge doesn't have the authority to rule a constitutional amendment as unconstitutional.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page