ACLU, Montana couples test state's constitution, GOP stupidity

The American Civil Liberties Union and six of fourteen Montana couples have been litigating Donaldson and Guggenheim v. Montana since last July in the wake of Montana's adoption of the Bush-era Defense of Marriage Act. Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock is a Democrat and gubernatorial hopeful:

STATUS: State filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs responded with a request for summary judgment, asking the judge to rule in their favor without a trial.

A Basin couple is party to the suit:

Nancy and M.J. own their home together and have health care directives, but they still worry that the paperwork they have filled out won’t protect them in an emergency. In 2001, Nancy was diagnosed with breast cancer. While she was undergoing treatment, Nancy was concerned the hospital might not share Nancy's information with MJ, even though they had been in a stable, committed relationship for over ten years at the time. Although Nancy was able to convince the hospital to share her information with MJ, the couple worries that another hospital could easily take a different approach.

From the Helena Independent Record:

“You don’t get to deny those rights based on a policy that infringes on the Montana Constitution,” said Bozeman attorney James Goetz, who spoke for the plaintiffs Tuesday. The question appears to hinge in part on how the Montana Constitution’s marriage amendment, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, is interpreted. A similar case was decided in New Jersey in 2006 in which that state’s Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is not a constitutional right, he said. The Legislature legalized domestic partnerships as a result. The plaintiffs want to see a similar result in Montana.

The straight Republican mostly male dominators in the Montana Legislature have been getting neutered by the governor, the MSM, and the blogs all session long. A Missoula ordinance affirming the civil rights of non-breeders came under attack by GOP lawgivers citing Montana law. The Missoula Independent describes the homophobocism thus:

In fact, at least one lawmaker, Rep. Ken Peterson, R-Billings, an attorney, argues that the archaic law may still apply in certain situations. According to Peterson, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, there are at least two prosecutable offenses—felonies punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine. One is the "recruitment" of non-gays. "Homosexuals can't go out into the heterosexual community and try to recruit people, or try to enlist them in homosexual acts," Peterson says. He provides an example: "'Here, young man, your hormones are raging. Let's go in this bedroom, and we'll engage in some homosexual acts. You'll find you like it.'" Peterson hasn't actually seen this happen, he says, because "I don't associate with that group of people at all... I've associated with mainstream people all my life."

My guess is that Ken is six feet under and has sex with large rodents.

A rumored special legislative session could become a frothing Republican shitstorm if Judge Sherlock strikes down Montana's voter initiated law defining marriage during the interim.

The neighbors are in Paris and were not immediately available for comment.