Today is a great day for Montana and its citizenry:
The Montana Supreme Court Tuesday upheld parental rights for a Missoula woman who'd been part of a same-sex couple that cared for two adopted children, saying she's entitled to joint custody of the kids.
Supporters of the 6-1 decision hailed it as a victory for all parents, regardless of their marital status or sexual orientation.
"This is a victory for families in all shapes, sizes and colors," said Betsy Griffing, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana.
Justice James Nelson also issued a special concurrence, in which he wrote a blistering denunciation of discrimination against homosexuals.
"Naming it for the evil it is, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is an expression of bigotry," he wrote. "Lesbian and gay Montanans must not be forced to fight to marry, to raise their children and to live with the same dignity that is accorded heterosexuals."
I've uploaded the decision (pdf) to LiTW for your reading pleasure.
Kudos to Justice Nelson, who confronted head-on the elephant in the room: bigotry. There's more of this kind of stuff from Nelson in another Dennison report:
"I remain absolutely convinced that homosexuals are entitled to enjoy precisely the same civil and natural rights as heterosexuals, as a matter of constitutional law," he wrote....
Nelson said the case shows that until the courts recognize homosexuals as "equal participants with heterosexuals in our society with exactly the same civil and natural rights, lesbian and gay citizens will continue to suffer homophobic discrimination."
"Regrettably, this sort of discrimination is both socially acceptable and politically popular," he wrote. "Sadly, this case represents yet another instance in which fellow Montanans, who happen to be lesbian or gay, are forced to battle for their fundamental rights to love who they want, to form intimate associations, to form family relationships, and to have and raise children - all elemental, natural rights that are accorded, presumptively and without thought or hesitation, to heterosexuals."
Personally, I think it's time to address the stain on Montana's constitution - Article XIII, section 7 - enacted in a fit of momentary delusion stoked by social conservatives, that singles out one particular group and, with malice, denies them access to a public institution that the rest of us enjoy.
Again, let's turn to Justice Marshall's perfect summation of marriage:
Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. "It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition.
And we know how legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts wreaked havoc with that state's institution! That divorce rates shrunk to pre-WWII levels in Massachusetts means that divorce lawyers there are suffering profound economic losses...
Fighting for gay marriage has nothing to do with "gay rights" - but everything to do with human rights. Fighting for gay marriage does not threaten "traditional" marriage - but reaffirms it. Fighting for gay marriage is not part of some mysterious "homosexual agenda," it isn't about "special" rights for a small group, it's about protecting everybody's rights, straight or gay, married or single, by reaffirming that the state has no business regulating the intensely personal and private compact made by any two consenting adults, by reaffirming that the formation of relationships and families should be left unmolested by law, and that, at its core, marriage is about love.
So who's with me? Let's reverse the ban! |
