Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My responses interspersed in bold.
-------------
The plaintiffs promised to do so, declaring they are “on the right side of history” and will inevitably win ("On the right side of history" is the latest catch phrase. It's one of those statements that sound profound and noble but really means nothing. If you google it you will find that it proliferates the web, with almost every citation related to gay issues. Gay marriage advocates latched on to the phrase and it didn't take long until every leftist was using it.
So are they "on the right side of history?" Depends on what part of history one embraces. If we're talking about 6000 years of recorded history, the law, morality, biology, and the perpetuation of the human race, well, the gay rights issue is definitely not on the right side of history. If, however, we link gay rights to the struggle for civil rights by African Americans {a dubious link in my opinion}, then it is not so much history as it is a break from history. That is, blacks have a long history of being persecuted and abused. It is only relatively recently that the trends of history have been broken and African Americans have gained their rightful status. Gays, by this attempted association, want also to break with history, not be on the right side of it.).
The court wrote in Monday’s 4-3 decision that a lower court was within its discretion when it earlier dismissed the request.
In that earlier decision, 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 (So the lower court's ruling was based on the same logic I used above. But as I also mentioned, what is sought by gays is remedied by entering into a contract. Of course, this presently-available remedy does nothing to advance the cause. The cause is not about rights or fair treatment, it's not about toleration or acceptance, and frankly, it's not even about celebration. The real objective is to wipe out religious, traditional morality from the face of the earth. Ultimately, gay marriage is not about love, it is about hate, hate towards those who oppose the gay lifestyle, hate towards those who would have a different opinion, hate towards those who embrace religion and its precepts.).
District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock based his ruling in part on the state’s marriage amendment, and 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.” (This is a rare event. The justices are concerned about separation of powers. This is laudable. The justices recognize the limits of their authority. But I am surprised that the plaintiffs didn't bother to take the time to identify the egregious laws. That would seem to be a basic step.)
But the high court also said the legal complaint can be changed and re-filed with the lower court if it specifically cites state laws that are unconstitutional.
“It is this Court’s opinion that plaintiffs should be given the opportunity, if they choose to take it, to amend the complaint and to refine and specify the general constitutional challenges they have proffered,” Montana Supreme Court chief justice Mike McGrath wrote for the majority. The advocates argue the legal rights they seek would not be barred by the voter-approved definition of marriage since they are not seeking specifically the right to marry.
One dissenting justice, however, noted the state is citing the marriage amendment in its legal arguments.
And Justice James Nelson, in a lengthy 109-page dissent, wrote that he thinks the marriage amendment itself unconstitutionally conflicts with fundamental rights. He said the marriage amendment was a religious based attack meant to demean homosexuals (His complaint has nothing to do with the law and how it should be applied. The Constitution of Montana, in Article XIII, Section 7, reads, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." So, Judge Nelson, where specifically in this short statement is religion and the demeaning of homosexuals?).
“But future generations — indeed, most young people today — will not fear, much less honor, the sexual-orientation taboo,” Nelson wrote. “Indeed, a not-too-distant generation of Montanans will consign today’s decision, the marriage amendment, and the underlying intolerance to the dustbin of history and to the status of a meaningless, shameful , artifact.” (Do you notice the demeaning statements, the attempt to disenfranchise and marginalize the people of Montana the majority of whom voted for this amendment? His statements reek of moral indignation, which leads us to wonder why he thinks his morality should be adopted over anyone else's. Indeed, he is one of a very select few people in Montana who possesses the power to impose his morality. Amazingly, he even thinks that the court has the right to judge the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment!) Among the rights (I think this term "rights" is being misused. These are privileges that are being sought. Rights can only be safeguarded or violated, not established or created) the couples are asking for in the lawsuit filed in 2010:
Social conservatives who oppose granting those rights (Again, these are not constitutional rights we are talking about, they are privileges, they are contractual rights facilitated by law and established by mutual agreement of parties), and who supported the marriage amendment, lauded the high court for rejecting the request.
“The people of Montana believed in traditional marriage when they passed the Montana marriage amendment, and they’re not willing to consider any laws that will weaken marriage,” said Jeff Laszloffy, president of the Montana Family Foundation and author of the marriage amendment (This may be true, but the problem isn't really that traditional marriage is under attack {although it is}, it is that government has involved itself in marriage at all. Marriage is a religious institution which has been co-opted over time by the government. If one searches the word "marriage" in the Montana Code Annotated, one will find 182 results. These laws regarding marriage simply means that the state has made marriage a matter of legislation, not religion. The ideal solution is to get the state out of marriage altogether. Let the churches marry those whom they deem eligible, and restrict the state to its proper venue: law. If additional laws are needed regarding contracts, then pass them. But those things should not come to bear on marriage).
The Montana attorney general’s office argued throughout the case that the plaintiffs need to cite specific laws they believe are unconstitutional.
“The majority opinion recognized that orderly resolution of the plaintiff ’s claims would require consideration of specific statutes, as is the typical manner in which constitutional challenges to statues are resolved,” assistant attorney general Michael Black said in a statement.
The Montana ACLU, involved in the case from the start, said the Supreme Court decisions leaves open a path to victory for the advocates. Plaintiffs in the case expressed optimism.
“We’re encouraged by the decision because the justices said that we could pursue the protections we are seeking,” (Wow, that is optimism. They lost the case, but are so happy.) said Mary Leslie, who was unable to apply for death benefits after a partner was killed (Unfortunately, we don't know what sort of death benefits are being referred to. Life insurance names beneficiaries according to the owner's preferences, so that isn't it. Private pension systems generally also allow the owner to name whomever. Frankly, I can't think of a "death benefit" situation where an account owner cannot name his or her beneficiary of choice.). “Legal protection is essential, not just for our families, but for all same-sex couples. We won’t stop until every loving couple (Should non-loving couples not be treated fairly?) is treated fairly." (I would surmise that most of the problem is not due to the law, but to the negligence of parties involved who didn't take the time to protect their interests by implementing a contract. Or even, it is possible that they deliberately chose not to do so in order to create an issue and a subsequent lawsuit. Maybe I'm too cynical, but since we see people faking hate crimes, it wouldn't surprise me at all it some gay couple somewhere decided to "take one for the team" in order to gin up sympathy.)
The court wrote in Monday’s 4-3 decision that a lower court was within its discretion when it earlier dismissed the request.
In that earlier decision, 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 (So the lower court's ruling was based on the same logic I used above. But as I also mentioned, what is sought by gays is remedied by entering into a contract. Of course, this presently-available remedy does nothing to advance the cause. The cause is not about rights or fair treatment, it's not about toleration or acceptance, and frankly, it's not even about celebration. The real objective is to wipe out religious, traditional morality from the face of the earth. Ultimately, gay marriage is not about love, it is about hate, hate towards those who oppose the gay lifestyle, hate towards those who would have a different opinion, hate towards those who embrace religion and its precepts.).
District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock based his ruling in part on the state’s marriage amendment, and 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.” (This is a rare event. The justices are concerned about separation of powers. This is laudable. The justices recognize the limits of their authority. But I am surprised that the plaintiffs didn't bother to take the time to identify the egregious laws. That would seem to be a basic step.)
But the high court also said the legal complaint can be changed and re-filed with the lower court if it specifically cites state laws that are unconstitutional.
“It is this Court’s opinion that plaintiffs should be given the opportunity, if they choose to take it, to amend the complaint and to refine and specify the general constitutional challenges they have proffered,” Montana Supreme Court chief justice Mike McGrath wrote for the majority. The advocates argue the legal rights they seek would not be barred by the voter-approved definition of marriage since they are not seeking specifically the right to marry.
One dissenting justice, however, noted the state is citing the marriage amendment in its legal arguments.
And Justice James Nelson, in a lengthy 109-page dissent, wrote that he thinks the marriage amendment itself unconstitutionally conflicts with fundamental rights. He said the marriage amendment was a religious based attack meant to demean homosexuals (His complaint has nothing to do with the law and how it should be applied. The Constitution of Montana, in Article XIII, Section 7, reads, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." So, Judge Nelson, where specifically in this short statement is religion and the demeaning of homosexuals?).
“But future generations — indeed, most young people today — will not fear, much less honor, the sexual-orientation taboo,” Nelson wrote. “Indeed, a not-too-distant generation of Montanans will consign today’s decision, the marriage amendment, and the underlying intolerance to the dustbin of history and to the status of a meaningless, shameful , artifact.” (Do you notice the demeaning statements, the attempt to disenfranchise and marginalize the people of Montana the majority of whom voted for this amendment? His statements reek of moral indignation, which leads us to wonder why he thinks his morality should be adopted over anyone else's. Indeed, he is one of a very select few people in Montana who possesses the power to impose his morality. Amazingly, he even thinks that the court has the right to judge the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment!) Among the rights (I think this term "rights" is being misused. These are privileges that are being sought. Rights can only be safeguarded or violated, not established or created) the couples are asking for in the lawsuit filed in 2010:
1) Inheritance rights, and the ability to make burial decisions and receive workers compensation death benefits.
2) The right to file joint tax returns, claim spousal tax exemptions or take property tax benefits.
3) The right to make health care decisions for a spouse when that person cannot.
4) Legal protection in cases of separation and divorce, including children’s custody and support. (As mentioned above, all of these things can already be achieved by entering into a legal contract.)
Social conservatives who oppose granting those rights (Again, these are not constitutional rights we are talking about, they are privileges, they are contractual rights facilitated by law and established by mutual agreement of parties), and who supported the marriage amendment, lauded the high court for rejecting the request.
“The people of Montana believed in traditional marriage when they passed the Montana marriage amendment, and they’re not willing to consider any laws that will weaken marriage,” said Jeff Laszloffy, president of the Montana Family Foundation and author of the marriage amendment (This may be true, but the problem isn't really that traditional marriage is under attack {although it is}, it is that government has involved itself in marriage at all. Marriage is a religious institution which has been co-opted over time by the government. If one searches the word "marriage" in the Montana Code Annotated, one will find 182 results. These laws regarding marriage simply means that the state has made marriage a matter of legislation, not religion. The ideal solution is to get the state out of marriage altogether. Let the churches marry those whom they deem eligible, and restrict the state to its proper venue: law. If additional laws are needed regarding contracts, then pass them. But those things should not come to bear on marriage).
The Montana attorney general’s office argued throughout the case that the plaintiffs need to cite specific laws they believe are unconstitutional.
“The majority opinion recognized that orderly resolution of the plaintiff ’s claims would require consideration of specific statutes, as is the typical manner in which constitutional challenges to statues are resolved,” assistant attorney general Michael Black said in a statement.
The Montana ACLU, involved in the case from the start, said the Supreme Court decisions leaves open a path to victory for the advocates. Plaintiffs in the case expressed optimism.
“We’re encouraged by the decision because the justices said that we could pursue the protections we are seeking,” (Wow, that is optimism. They lost the case, but are so happy.) said Mary Leslie, who was unable to apply for death benefits after a partner was killed (Unfortunately, we don't know what sort of death benefits are being referred to. Life insurance names beneficiaries according to the owner's preferences, so that isn't it. Private pension systems generally also allow the owner to name whomever. Frankly, I can't think of a "death benefit" situation where an account owner cannot name his or her beneficiary of choice.). “Legal protection is essential, not just for our families, but for all same-sex couples. We won’t stop until every loving couple (Should non-loving couples not be treated fairly?) is treated fairly." (I would surmise that most of the problem is not due to the law, but to the negligence of parties involved who didn't take the time to protect their interests by implementing a contract. Or even, it is possible that they deliberately chose not to do so in order to create an issue and a subsequent lawsuit. Maybe I'm too cynical, but since we see people faking hate crimes, it wouldn't surprise me at all it some gay couple somewhere decided to "take one for the team" in order to gin up sympathy.)
No comments:
Post a Comment