Wednesday Quick Takes

Montana’s Attorney General Tim Fox says marriage equality will “irretrievably” destroy his right to self-government  

Joe.My. God reports this week that fifteen attorneys general, including MT AG Tim Fox, have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in which they try to claim that a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage will “irretrievably” destroy their right to self-government. From the brief:

The Constitution takes no sides on same-sex marriage, and therefore leaves the issue up to the free deliberations of state citizens. The fact that Americans have reached different conclusions about this novel question is not a sign of a constitutional crisis that requires correction by this Court. It is rather a sign that our Constitution is working as it should. In our federal system, this issue must be resolved by the “formation of consensus” at the state level. To resolve it instead through federal judicial decree would demean the democratic process, marginalize the views of millions of Americans, and do incalculable damage to our civic life in this country.

Fox and friends acknowledges that there are “constitutional guarantees” on the equal application of marriage laws, but that somehow those guarantees do not apply to LGBT Americans.

#MTLeg Week in Review

Here’s the latest weekly Youtube updates from Montana Democratic legislators.  This week’s update is from Rep. Margie MacDonald and Sen. Brad Hamlett:

 

Representing the People Means Different things to Some Lawmakers

noland

While many legislators were representing their constituents by paying close attention to issues being debated in on the House Floor yesterday, Rep. Mark Noland (R-Bigfork) was perusing his TEA Party “Honor or Dishonor” score on the Lewistown TEA Party webpage. 

Share

8 Comments on "Wednesday Quick Takes"

  1. Mr. Fox, please get a life. You are a sick man.

  2. How can the government deny people the right to enter into a legal contract?

  3. I am no lawyer, but the problem, I think, with that brief is that if it were followed to it’s logical conclusion, the court would have to overturn Loving v. Virginia, and that shipped has sailed a long time ago.

  4. hmm, so a remaining purpose, might be to
    take votes away from Greg, now!

  5. The Constitution doesn’t mention gay rights specifically but, our laws do mention that no law can be made by a lawmaker based on their personal religious beliefs, which is what they are doing. In my oppinion, and I have legal rights to this opinion, any law made based on religious bigotry and hatred is null and void and the US people do not have to follow that illegal law.

    Also, our laws do give people freedoms from religious bigotry so yes, religious bigotry against the LGBT community is covered under the US Constitution.

    `nuff said

  6. The Constitution doesn’t mention gay rights specifically but, our laws do mention that no law can be made by a lawmaker based on their personal religious beliefs, which is what they are doing. In my opinion, and I have legal rights to this opinion, any law made based on religious bigotry and hatred is null and void and the US people do not have to follow that illegal law.

    Also, our laws do give people freedoms from religious bigotry so yes, religious bigotry against the LGBT community is covered under the US Constitution.

    `nuff said

  7. Equal protection under the 14th should cover it. Why should government be in the marriage business in the first place?

Comments are closed.