Judge overturns Montana's gay marriage ban


#1

Federal judge Brian Morris overturned Montana’s gay marriage ban today.

U.S. District Judge Brian Morris ruled that Montana’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to between a man and a woman violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

“This Court recognizes that not everyone will celebrate this outcome,” Morris wrote. “This decision overturns a Montana Constitutional amendment approved by the voters of Montana. Yet the United States Constitution exists to protect disfavored minorities from the will of the majority.”


#2

Of course. Whenever a state votes and approves a state constitutional amendment recognizing the natural state of marriage as requiring a man and a woman, a district court must naturally override the will of the people. God created them male and female, but that was a constitutional error which must be corrected.

It’s interesting. I don’t think that there has yet been passed a U.S. Constitutional Amendment making same sex marriage a right. And the authors of the 14th Amendment certainly did not intend to make same sex marriage a constitutional right. (They would be quite appalled to hear of it.) Even the SCOTUS in deciding Loving did not intend to make same sex marriage a constitutional right. But suddenly it’s in there. Why? Because some judge decided to put it there. Pretty simple. Can we all say “judicial fiat?”


#3

There has certainly not been passed a U.S. Constitutional Amendment exempting States or the people from the equal protection and due process clauses. Neither the States nor the people are permitted to vote away those guarantees until such an amendment is passed.

Who cares? They didn’t intend for non-property owners and women to vote either among a very long list of other things. They’re dead and our society has progressed beyond the mores of the 18th century.


#4

I say leave it to the states to decide, looks like Montana has decided.


#5

Monsters. Before you know it they’ll be allowing pedophilia and bestiality. This is what happens when you have a culture of death, waste, arrogance, pride, and an ‘anything goes’ attitude. Truly abhorrent.


#6

=EmperorNapoleon;12506928]There has certainly not been passed a U.S. Constitutional Amendment exempting States or the people from the equal protection and due process clauses. Neither the States nor the people are permitted to vote away those guarantees until such an amendment is passed.

The 10th Amendment covers that. So once again, this court’s ruling is unconstitutional, as are all the rulings that overturn bans on marriage.

The Equal Protection Clause has nothing to do with marriage regardless of what Loving or any other court decision thereafter claims

Due process also nothing do to with so-called gay “marriage”.

Who cares? They didn’t intend for non-property owners and women to vote either among a very long list of other things. They’re dead and our society has progressed beyond the mores of the 18th century.

I cannot help but grin every time a social progressive calls Catholic morality outdated. The fact is these morals, along with natural law, cannot be changed by a American court.


#7

A U.S. District Court does not consist of people who democratically represent Montana.

Not that the gay “marriage” activists care, of course. Any way they can to get what they want and what they erroneously think is best.

One way or another, they’ll be proven wrong.


#8

Oh, there’s already arguments for some of that stuff.


#9

Yes, but not in the way you think. “…nor prohibited…”

Fascinating that this argument is still being made even after failing every time it has been tried in federal Court.

Catholic morality and “natural law” are irrelevant in this discussion as they don’t have anything to do with what actually governs this country; the U.S. Constitution.


#10

Well it seems like an uphill battle, to prove them wrong without using our theology.


#11

It was called by the 4th Cir in Bostic in a dissenting opinion ipse dixit or simply just “because he/she says so”. This does not fit logic to me because when it comes to amending the federal constitution there’s a process to do it. If the definitions change from time to time as a “living constitution” why do we need an amendment system?

Tanco in the 6th Cir. is different. The appeals courts are now split. In the 6th Cir. they said it’s up to the voters. Traditionally marriage has been a right of the states to define. SCOTUS will need to decide.

Bill


#12

What district court was this? In what Circuit court jurisdiction?

Bill


#13

Indeed allowing consensual relationships between two adults of the same sex logically results in the non-consensual rape of kids and animals.


#14

Latta V Otter —F.3d— 9th Cir. 2014. The district court judge had no choice I can see.

Bill


#15

Praying for our country and our world…
:gopray:


#16

Nope, it’s still a valid argument here in Michigan.
The 6th Circuit Court found it to be a valid argument and our State Amendment to not be a violation of the 14th Ammendment


#17

The 6th Circuit sidestepped the 14th Amendment and attempted to establish a right of the people prohibited by that amendment. It will undoubtedly be overturned by the Supreme Court.


#18

I, for one Catholic, congratulate Montana on overturning the ban on gay marriage. I would hate to live in a nation where the laws are governed by Catholic moral theology.


#19

Your so negative. You don’t know that. Scalia is an originalist. Ginsburg though…whew.


#20

Considering that hospital visitation rights for same sex couples and such depend on whether gay marriage is legal or not, I think that this ruling was the best ruling all around for a nation in which our laws are based on reason and not religion.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.