In the present case ... Plaintiffs do not seek a declaration that any particular statute is unconstitutional or that its implementation should be enjoined. Rather, Plaintiffs seek a general declaration of their rights and seek orders enjoining the State to provide them a “legal status and statutory structure” that protects their rights.... Broadly determining the constitutionality of a “statutory scheme” that may, according to Plaintiffs, involve hundreds of separate statutes, is contrary to established jurisprudence.The majority held that plaintiffs could file an amended complaint more narrowly challenging specific laws.
Justice Nelson filed a strong 108-page dissent, saying in part:
The problem ... is that this Court has chosen to punt. And in simply kicking the can down the road, the Court has denied Plaintiffs the dignity, respect, fairness, justice, and equality to which they are entitled—foremost as human beings, and legally under Montana’s Constitution.... Sexual orientation is a big deal to those who demand that their personal religious beliefs, their Bible’s abhorrence, and their partisan ideology concerning homosexuality must apply to everyone else, across the board, no exceptions. But future generations—indeed, most young people today—will not fear, much less honor, the sexual-orientation taboo.... [T]he taboo will die because the scare tactics, propaganda, and misinformation of those who would hang on to the maledictions and stereotypes have proven to be so patently false, malicious, and absurd. Most decent people just hate being lied to.As part of his dissent, Justice Nelson concluded that Montana's "Marriage Amendment,"-- the provision in the state constitution barring the recognition of same-sex marriage-- is invalid:
Montana’s Marriage Amendment is an unconstitutional attempt to enforce a sectarian belief (held by some) through Montana’s secular law.... Indeed, the Marriage Amendment is undisputedly grounded in religious doctrine. That much is apparent not only from the federal district court’s findings, but particularly from the fulminations of numerous religious organizations in the present case, led by the Montana Catholic Conference, against the prospect that gay, lesbian, and bisexual Montanans might enjoy some measure of legal protection for their relationships. If homosexuality and same-sex relationships were not a religious issue, it is highly doubtful that any of these amici would be so actively involved in this case.Justices Cotter and Wheat filed a brief separate opinion concurring with most of Justice Nelson's dissent, but refusing to join the portion of the dissent dealing with the Marriage Amendment because plaintiffs did not challenge that amendment. They also disagreed with certain other language in Justice Nelson's opinion.
The Montana Supreme Court also published a Synopsis of the Case. AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]
