Montana same-sex marriage ban overturned, effective immediately

[Pako]

Montana's ban on same-sex marriage was struck down Wednesday afternoon by a federal judge who called the ban unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Brian Morris did not stay his injunction, which means state officials could begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately.

In 2004, Montana voters passed an amendment to the state Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Read More...

 

[Parker]

Good. The government needs to either treat everyone equally or get out of marriage altogether. Hopefully it will be legal in the remaining states fairly soon.

 

[Joel]

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/

That map's quite a thing to see. It's really cool to see this all unfolding, I was too young to really understand when this happened in Canada. Doesn't feel like it was that long ago that you'd look at a map like this and only see Massachusetts and Vermont/Maine/New Hampshire. Now it's more than half the states and most of the highly populated ones save Texas.

 

[AnthonyD1993]

in the 6th Circuit of the United States (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee) a ban is still in place. Sadly, here in Michigan, the hardcore religious wingnuts (which is ironic since they challenge anyone who says gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, but when they get called out, they say that the world has a war against religion) are trying hard to keep Michigan's marriage ban that took place in 2004 on the books. I hope that the Supreme Court looks at the case and strikes down the ban. After all, human rights should NEVER be decided via ballet.

 

[Imari]

After all, human rights should NEVER be decided via ballet.

Could be worse, it could be pistols at dawn.

 

[Daniel]

"Which state is going to be last? Who could it possibly be, Mississippi? We don't know. We don't know, Mississippi. It could be anyone, Mississippi."

 

[FoolKiller]

Kentucky might throw this on to a national scale, if the Supreme Court is willing to hear the case. They refused to hear a case where gay marriage bans were being struck down, but this is a case where a gay marriage ban has been upheld. It should be interesting.

It should be noted that the governor had to find outside counsel because the Attorney General refused to defend the state in this case.

http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...sex-marriage-may-head-supreme-court/19241295/

 

[Liquid]

It should be noted that the governor had to find outside counsel because the Attorney General refused to defend the state in this case.

I know this sounds incredibly naive given what happens on a federal level, but the state are actually going against the AG? That far? It should be an interesting case indeed.

 

[FoolKiller]

I know this sounds incredibly naive given what happens on a federal level, but the state are actually going against the AG? That far? It should be an interesting case indeed.

The governor decides how the state officially progresses in a legal battle. Initially, the AG defended the state in court as it was a ballot initiative. He represented the will of the voters. They lost that case. The governor asked him to appeal the verdict and the AG refused, saying that he did his duty to represent the state, but refuses to do more because he disagrees with the law. As the AG is elected separate from the governor and does not represent the governor he could not be forced to do more.

It should also be noted that the governor is retiring at the end of next year (nothing to lose) and the AG is running for governor on the Democratic ticket. It is the same guy who got spanked by Rand Paul, so he needed some brownie points with the voters and the ballot initiative wouldn't pass today.