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.
