Harris Himes

Harris Himes, pastor of the Big Sky Christian Center in Hamilton, Mont., turned himself in Wednesday morning after learning that there was a warrant for his arrest, reported the Missoulian.

District Judge James Haynes issued bench warrants on Tuesday for Himes and James "Jeb" Bryant after attorneys for the state Office of the Commissioner of Securities and Insurance filed six felony charges against the two.

The charges included theft, fraud, conspiracy to commit both, failure to register a security and failure to register as a salesman of same.

According to court records, Himes and Bryant claimed to own a business, Duratherm Building Systems, and promised at least one investor a large return on his $150,000. But the investor claimed to have never received any returns or confirmation of sale, nor could he get his money back.

The Missoulian

On Thursday, Himes told KGVO Radio that he is "without sin or guilt with regard to this unnamed person" and that he believes gay and pro-abortion activists are behind the charges.

Himes is likely the most well-known anti-gay activist in the state of Montana. He is president of the conservative group Montana Eagle Forum, and as a Montana state bar certified attorney, Himes performs pro bono work on behalf of the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund.

Wet Paint Studios beautifully chronicled the event with this amazing piece of film:

From the Wet Paint Studios’ description:

“You Are Loved” is a documentary chronicling Montana Pride -- celebrating the diversity of all walks of life. The documentary explores what it means to be an LGBTQI in Montana, a rural state of not even a million people. The response from the community in Bozeman, MT was overwhelming, and without it, this documentary would not be possible. Enjoy the show!"

ACLU

Plaintiffs in Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana

The suit, filed in July 2010 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of seven gay couples in Montana, said the state failed to offer legal protections to same-sex couples and their families, and claimed that same sex couples are being denied their rights of privacy, dignity and the pursuit of life’s basic necessities as provided for in the Montana Constitution.

On April 19, District Court Judge Jeffrey Sherlock’s ruled: “...in spite of this Court’s sympathy for the plight of the Plaintiffs this court finds that the state’s motion to dismiss should be granted.”

The Montana Constitution guarantees that all people, including gay and lesbian couples, should be treated equally and fairly, the ACLU said.

This case presents fundamental issues of privacy and equal protection that need to be resolved by Montana’s highest court.

“The couples we represent knew there might be some bumps along the way, but they are committed to seeing this case through so that they and all same-sex couples and their families can get the protections they need but are currently denied to them in Montana,” said ACLU of Montana Legal Director Betsy Griffing.

“Our constitution requires that the state treat couples in committed relationships fairly and equally regardless of whether they are same-sex or different-sex couples.”

via: ACLU

A recent poll, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for the American Civil Liberties Union, found that 53 percent of Montana voters favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into domestic partnerships which include the same rights given to married couples. Only 40 percent oppose such partnerships.

Recently released 2010 U.S. Census numbers show 2,295 Montana same-sex households –- a 54 percent jump since 2000. All are at risk without the legal protection of domestic partnerships.

Plaintiffs in Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana (via ACLU)

The suit, filed in July 2010 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of seven gay couples in Montana, said the state failed to offer legal protections to same-sex couples and their families.

The ACLU asked the First Judicial Court in January to recognize same-sex couples as domestic partnerships in Montana to guarantee protection of their rights.

Judge Jeffrey Sherlock's ruling, filed April 19, states: "...in spite of this Court's sympathy for the plight of the Plaintiffs this court finds that the state's motion to dismiss should be granted."

"This court finds that to be an inappropriate exercise of this Court's power. Primarily it would violate the separation of powers contained in the Montana Constitution."

The suit, Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana, claimed that same sex couples are being denied their rights of privacy, dignity and the pursuit of life’s basic necessities as provided for in the Montana Constitution.

Because there is a constitutional amendment in Montana barring same-sex marriage, the couples in the lawsuit are seeking the protection of state-recognized domestic partnerships, similar to those in place in several other states.

The state Attorney General's office argued in the case that the marriage amendment binds the court and is now included in the state constitution.

The measure, House Bill 516, would prohibit local municipalities from enacting ordinances that include, as a protected class from discrimination, any groups not included under the Montana Human Rights Act -- the Act currently does not include protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Sen. Jon Sonju said he moved the measure back to committee because it doesn't have the support of Senate leaders, and was doubtful the measure would make it back to the Senate floor.

The bill would have nullified Missoula’s 2010 ordinance that protects its LGBT citizens from employment, housing and other forms of discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

It would also prohibit other Montana cities from establishing laws to prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The bill passed in the state House on Feb. 22 by a vote of 60-39, and approved by the Senate Local Government Committee on March 18.

Rep. Kristin Hansen (R-Havre), the bill's author, said it was necessary to stop Missoula and other cities from establishing their own criteria for protecting people from discrimination.

Hansen called the Missoula law protecting LGBT citizens from discrimination "an unconstitutional ordinance that infringes on the state's authority."

Opponents claim the bill is targeted against the gay community and interfered with local a government's rights to govern itself.

“Localities have the right and the legal ability to go beyond the Montana Human Rights Act,” said the Montana Human Rights Network, in a statement last month. “The Montana Human Rights Act sets the floor. It does not set the ceiling. Cities have the authority to establish ordinances and policies that protect and value members of their communities that have faced a history of discrimination.”

And yet lawmakers in Texas, Kansas and Montana, have either failed, or face opposition, in removing the unconstitutional laws from their state's criminal code.

Although the so-called sodomy laws cannot be enforced legally, civil rights advocates say they should be removed from the books because they create a climate favorable to discrimination, harassment, bullying, and hate crimes.

In Texas, State Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) has sponsored legislation to repeal the state's sodomy law, which has been unenforceable since the 2003 Supreme Court decision. Her colleague, Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) has introduced an identical bill.

"There is archaic language in our code that is used against our citizens today," said Farrar.

The Austin American-Statesman reports:

"By leaving it on the books, you create the potential for abuse," said Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project , which is representing two gay men who were kicked out of an El Paso restaurant in 2009 for kissing in public.

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas could not stop people of the same sex from engaging in sexual activity. Today, the Texas Penal Code still states that it is a Class C misdemeanor to engage in "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex" — just after a line explaining that the law is unconstitutional.

Gay rights legislation is a tough sell for Texas lawmakers. In 2005, voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Rep. Wayne Christian (R-Center), said he would be hesitant to change the law, because it "better reflects the views of a lot of citizens" as it is. Republicans hold 101 of the 150 seats in the Texas House, a super-majority that allows them to easily control legislation.

In Kansas, the House Judiciary Committee was considering legislation last week designed to cleanup the state’s criminal code, when the panel’s top Republican and Democrat removed a provision that would have repealed the law that criminalizes gay sex.

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports:

Thomas Witt, state chairman of the Kansas Equity Coalition, said the decision by Rep. Lance Kinzer (R-Olathe), and Rep. Jan Pauls (D-Hutchinson), to remove a provision repealing the law from a cleanup bill sent a harsh message to homosexual couples living in Kansas.

He said House leadership should remove Kinzer as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and oust Pauls from her position as ranking Democrat on the panel. [...]

"Representative Pauls' endorsement of an unconstitutional statute that's used to threaten and discriminate against law-abiding Kansas citizens is an outrage," Witt said.

"Jan Pauls was trusted to be a judge before becoming a state representative and should know better than to support unconstitutional laws," said Jon Powell, chair of the Hutchinson chapter of the Kansas Equality Coalition

Both lawmakers said the repeal seemed unnecessary since the law wasn’t being enforced.

And as we reported earlier, a Montana legislative committee on March 18 killed a bill that would have decriminalized homosexual sex. The bill would have removed language from Montana Code which defines “deviate” sexual relations as sexual contact or sexual intercourse between two persons of the same sex.

Via The Montana Capitol Report:

This bill would remove the outdated language in our criminal code that makes homosexual acts a felony. This law has already been ruled unconstitutional by the Montana Supreme Court and similar laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

By all rational accounts, this bill should have been easy, since it only cleans up our criminal code to fit the current law. Unfortunately, all but one of the Republicans on this committee allowed their personal biases to overrule their respect for the rule of law and they voted to kill this bill.

During a hearing on the bill, GOP lawmakers equated homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia.

The Montana Supreme Court struck down that state’s sodomy law in 1997, six years before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The state of Oklahoma also has not yet repealed it's homosexual conduct laws, and the state legislature has taken no action since the 2003 Supreme Court decision to remove the law from its criminal code.

KAJ-TV reports:

Representative Kris Hansen's bill would prevent local governments from protecting certain classes of people who are not protected under state law. Legislators amended the bill to apply only to local ordinances and not to resolutions or policies.

The measure would effectively nullify the city of Missoula’s 2010 ordinance that protects its LGBT citizens from employment, housing and other forms of discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The 2009 Montana Human Rights Act does not include protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Opponents say the bill is targeted against the gay community and would meddle with a local government's right to govern itself.

“Localities have the right and the legal ability to go beyond the Montana Human Rights Act," said the Montana Human Rights Network, in a statement last month.

"The Montana Human Rights Act sets the floor. It does not set the ceiling. Cities have the authority to establish ordinances and policies that protect and value members of their communities that have faced a history of discrimination.”

The bill passed along party lines in a 5-4 vote in the Senate Local Government Committee, and now it's headed to the Senate floor for further debate. The bill passed in the House last month.

Also on Friday, a Montana legislative committee killed a bill that would have decriminalized homosexual sex -- keeping a law on the books that was ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court in 1997, and the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.

The bill, introduced Wednesday in the House Judiciary Committee by State Senator Tom Facey (D-Missoula), would have removed language from Montana Code which defines "deviate" sexual relations as sexual contact or sexual intercourse between two persons of the same sex.

Via the Montana Capitol Report:

This bill would remove the outdated language in our criminal code that makes homosexual acts a felony. This law has already been ruled unconstitutional by the Montana Supreme Court and similar laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

By all rational accounts, this bill should have been easy, since it only cleans up our criminal code to fit the current law. Unfortunately, all but one of the Republicans on this committee allowed their personal biases to overrule their respect for the rule of law and they voted to kill this bill.

Throughout Wednesday's hearing on the bill, GOP members constantly equated homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia. In fact, one opposing witness of the bill went so far as to say all pedophiles are either gay or bisexual.

Proponents of the bill, who have worked multiple legislative sessions, said that this hearing was the most disgusting hearing they have seen in their years at the Capitol.

The bill previously passed the Senate in a 35-14 vote.

In 1997, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the state's sodomy law, ruling that sexual activity between consenting adults of the same-gender would no longer be illegal.

The Montana ruling came six years prior to the 2003 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down that state's sodomy law, and invalidated similar laws across the country.

Yet 15 years later, the law criminalizing homosexual acts remains in Montana's criminal code, even though it is unenforceable.

Meanwhile, there was plenty of homophobia to go around in the Montana legislature on Friday...

In the state Senate, a bill that would prohibit local municipalities from enacting ordinances that include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes from discrimination, passed its first hurdle.

HELENA, Mont. -- The Montana State House Judiciary Committee on Monday approved a bill that would prohibit local municipalities from enacting ordinances that include, as a protected class from discrimination, any groups not included under the Montana Human Rights Act.

The measure, House Bill 516, would effectively nullify the city of Missoula's 2010 ordinance that protects its LGBT citizens from employment, housing and other forms of discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The 2009 Montana Human Rights Act does not include protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

"After decades of the state failing to protect LGBT Montanans, the House Judiciary Committee decided this morning to take away the right of localities to protect their own residents," said the Montana Human Rights Network, in a statement.

"Localities have the right and the legal ability to go beyond the Montana Human Rights Act. The Montana Human Rights Act sets the floor. It does not set the ceiling. Cities have the authority to establish ordinances and policies that protect and value members of their communities that have faced a history of discrimination."

The committee voted 13-7 to endorse the bill, authored by Rep. Kristin Hansen (R-Havre).

The GOP majority on the committee also voted to table HB 514, which would have expanded the expand Missoula’s anti-discrimination ordinance statewide. The move to table that measure came after a motion to pass the bill failed.

Hansen's bill now goes to the full House for its consideration and a vote.

Update: 2/22/11: On Tuesday afternoon, the Montana state House passed a bill which overturns Missoula's anti-discrimination ordinance by a vote of 60-39. The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.

At issue are House bills 514 and 516, both centered around an April 2010 Missoula ordinance enacted to protect LGBT citizens from employment, housing and other forms of discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

House Bill 514 seeks to expand Missoula's anti-discrimination ordinance statewide, extending protection based on gender identity or sexual orientation throughout Montana.

But House Bill 516, sponsored by Rep. Kristin Hansen (R-Havre), would have the opposite effect, and seeks to prohibit local governments from enacting ordinances or other policies like Missoula's that include, as a protected class from discrimination, any groups not already included under current state statute.

The Montana Human Rights Act statute does currently include protections for LGBT citizens.

Hansen's bill would repeal the Missoula ordinance, and prohibit other local governments from passing similar ordinances in the future.

On Friday, opponents of Hansen's bill came from across the state to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, but the Republican majority attempted to limit testimony on both sides of the issue to ten minutes.

Via the Montana Capitol Report:

Democrats on the committee objected and even presented rules that require the public be able to at least verbally state their opposition to the bill. The Republicans on the committee ignored the rules, and refused to let opponents of the bill testify.

In response to the GOP actions, Rep. Diane Sands (D-Missoula) took to reading the names of every opponent (all 50+) of the measure and asked them to stand and be acknowledged.

Let’s be clear on what happened ... Republicans decided there wasn’t enough time to listen to people who were possibly being stripped of their rights. However, since the beginning of the legislative session, the Republicans have given full and fair hearing to the following bills:

• SB 112 – Which allows makes a hand thrown spear a legal form of hunting.
• HB 278 – Which allows every city to create their own militia.
• SJ 2 – Which urges the United States to withdraw from the United Nations.
• HB 205 – The “Birther Bill.”
• HB 384 – Which allows people to carry concealed weapons in bars, banks and churches.

These are bills, which are either unconstitutional, based on conspiracy theories or seriously threaten our public safety, that they think are worthy of their time, however they believe bills that strip rights from Montanans aren’t worthy of full hearings. It says a lot about the priorities of the Republican Majority in the Montana Legislature.

Montana's legislative rules state that any person wishing to offer testimony to a bill must be given an opportunity to do so orally or in writing.

Not surprisingly, conservative religious groups turned out en masse to support Hansen's bill to repeal Missoula's anti-discrimination ordinance.

After a 2010 with few marriage equality measures contested outside the courtroom, 2011 will likely see a number of battles state by state across the country.

Three states plus the District of Columbia are facing the prospect of losing marriage equality, an additional seven states could start the process of amending their state constitutions to ban marriage equality, five could gain marriage equality.

Here are the key states to watch.

States that could lose marriage equality:

New Hampshire:

LGBT advocates have considered New Hampshire -- with a new, veto-proof Republican majority -- one of this year’s most serious battlegrounds.

But House Majority Leader Rep. D.J. Bettencourt (R-Salem) said January 13 that repealing the state’s year-old marriage equality law is not a Republican priority in 2011. The party wants, instead, to focus on jobs and the economy.

But Bettencourt refused to say he would discourage the introduction of repeal bills. And gay marriage opponents Kevin Smith, executive director of the far-right group Cornerstone Action, and State Rep. David Bates (R-Windham), told the Associated Press they still plan to pursue a repeal.

The executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry, Mo Baxley, said in a statement that she was “pleased” the repeal is not a priority for Republicans but added that her organization is continuing its planned efforts to preserve the existing law.

Iowa:

Republicans in the legislature plan to introduce a bill to pursue a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, in response to a 2009 ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court that made marriage legal for same-sex couples.

The change must be approved by two successive legislatures and then ratified by voters. Republicans control the House 60-40, but Democrats have a 26-24 edge in the Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) has said he would block a vote on such a bill.

Several Republican legislators also want to begin impeachment proceedings against the remaining four of the seven justices who joined in the unanimous marriage ruling. The other three justices lost retention elections last November, after right-wing groups campaigned to oust them.

Impeachment would require a simple majority in the House and a two-thirds majority in the Senate, but the judges would be removed immediately if impeached by the House and could be reinstated only if found not guilty after a Senate trial. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told The Cedar Rapids Gazette that Democrats would “shut the place down” if necessary to block an impeachment effort.

Update: On Feb. 1, The Iowa state House passed House Joint Resolution 6, an amendment that seeks to repeal the state’s marriage equality law, and deny any form of legal recognition for gay couples. The bill now moves on to the Iowa Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D) has vowed to fight attempts to pass the amendment.

Washington, D.C.:

A coalition of local anti-gay activists led by Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Maryland has been pushing for a referendum on the district’s year-old marriage equality law.

D.C. courts and the district’s Board of Election ruled last year that this would violate a district prohibition on referenda related to the city’s Human Rights Act -- which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. Jackson has asked the Supreme Court to consider the case.

Update: On Jan. 18, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would not hear Jackson's appeal.

States that could win marriage equality:

Rhode Island:

Newly elected Governor Lincoln Chafee (I) expressed his support for marriage equality during his inauguration speech January 4. Legislators introduced marriage equality bills in both the House and Senate on January 6.

Democrats hold large majorities in both chambers, and House Speaker Gordon Fox (D), who is openly gay, is a cosponsor of the bill. The bill may face a bigger struggle in the Senate, where Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed opposes marriage equality.

Maryland:

Marriage equality bills are pending in both houses of the legislature, and supporters now form majorities on the key judicial committees that must first approve them.

State Senate Minority Leader Allan H. Kittleman, however, said he will introduce a bill to allow civil unions for both same- and opposite-sex couples.

Update: On Jan. 18, Kittleman announced he will step down as minority leader after Republican colleagues told him they would not support his civil unions bill.

On Jan. 21, Senate Majority Leader Rob Garagiola (D) introduced the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. The legislation would permit same-sex couples to marry but would not require churches to perform the unions.

New York:

Although Republicans have a two-seat majority in the State Senate, Empire State Pride Agenda Executive Director Ross D. Levi said in a press release that LGBT advocates have “picked up at least two ‘yes’ votes.” Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo has said he would sign a marriage equality bill if it reaches his desk.

Update: On Jan. 17, New York state Sen. Thomas Duane (D-Manhattan), the Senate's biggest booster of gay marriage, said he'll introduce legislation "within weeks" to legalize same-sex marriage, and will push for a vote before the end of June.

All three of the above states already recognize marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions.

New Jersey:

The state Supreme Court last June refused to hear a case that claimed the state’s civil union law did not provide full equality. It said the case must first go through the trial court process.

Jennifer Pizer, National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, said a trial court attempt is “a sensible next step for us to consider.”

Lambda Legal and state LGBT rights group Garden State Equality are also working on another round of marriage equality legislation, although Pizer could not yet share any details.

California:

The case to overturn Proposition 8, the state ban on same-sex marriage, is in a rather unusual spot.

It is awaiting a decision from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, but the appeals panel said January 4 that it could not render a decision on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 until the California Supreme Court rules that there is some state law or authority to justify giving the Yes on 8 proponents of the initiative legal standing to appeal the case in federal court on behalf of California voters.

Pizer said that a 9th Circuit decision against Proposition 8 would have “a massive positive effect nationwide” as marriage equality became a reality on both coasts.

She also noted there are “serious efforts underway now” for potential ballot measures in 2012 to secure marriage equality in Maine, Oregon, and Washington.

States that could win civil unions:

Hawaii:

Acting House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro, who is openly gay, told KITV on Jan. 10 that he wants to pass a civil union bill early in the session. The Hawaii legislature is almost the same as the one that passed such a civil union bill last year only to see it vetoed by outgoing Republican Governor Linda Lingle.

Current Governor Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat and long-time supporter of equal rights for gays, has said he would support a new bill.

Update: On Jan. 28, the state Senate passed a civil unions bill that would grant same-sex and heterosexual partners essentially the same protections, rights and benefits currently extended to married couples. The measure moves to the state House, where, leaders said they expect it to pass by a wide margin.

Illinois:

The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act passed in the Illinois state Senate on Dec. 1 after passing in the House the previous day. The civil unions bill will provide the same spousal rights to same-sex partners when it comes to surrogate decision-making for medical treatment, survivorship, adoptions, and accident and health insurance.

Update: On Jan. 31, Gov. Pat Quinn signed the civil unions bill into law. Gay and lesbian couples will be able to have their unions legally recognized by the state effective June 1, 2011.

Montana:

Montana bans same-sex marriage under the state constitution, but the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a case on behalf of seven couples to try and gain the protection of domestic partnerships.

Colorado and Delaware will also likely see civil union bills introduced.

States that could ban marriage equality:

Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wyoming have statutes that prevent same-sex couples from obtaining marriage licenses, but efforts to protect those bans from legal challenges are expected through proposed constitutional amendments.

Lambda’s Pizer noted that anti-gay groups may wait until 2012 to do seek introduction of such measures in hopes of using them to rally conservative voters to turnout during a presidential election year.

This year, though, Wyoming State Rep. Cathy Connolly (D), the only openly gay member of the legislature, plans to introduce a bill for full marriage equality and one for civil unions, while Republican legislators are planning to reintroduce a defense of marriage law.

Update: On Jan. 20, the Wyoming state House advanced legislation to prohibit recognition of out-of-state gay marriages, while a Senate committee approved a resolution aimed at a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The House measure passed on its first hearing with 34 out of 60 votes.

And New Mexico Attorney General Gary King issued a non-binding opinion January 4 stating that same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions would likely be recognized in the state.

Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of Freedom to Marry, said that this year, “we have the chance to really make some important strides in key states.” He stressed that wins in the states will help sway public opinion and move marriage equality forward on a federal level as well.

Spousal benefits are limited by definition to married couples, and the Montana Constitution defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, said Attorney General Steve Bullock.

The court does not have the authority to require the state to extend spousal benefits beyond that definition, Bullock said in his motion to dismiss.

The suit, Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana, claims same sex couples are being denied their rights of privacy, dignity and the pursuit of life’s basic necessities as provided for in the Montana Constitution.

Because there is a constitutional amendment in Montana barring same-sex marriage, the couples in the lawsuit are seeking the protection of state-recognized domestic partnerships, similar to those in place in several other states.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), under Montana law, it is possible for same-sex couples to be barred from visiting their partners in the hospital and to be left out of conversations about emergency medical care. Montana inheritance laws refuse to recognize same-sex couples, and can leave surviving partners with nothing if their partners die without valid wills.

The suit, filed in July by the ACLU on behalf of seven same-sex couples, seeks a mechanism such as the domestic partnership laws adopted by several other states to provide similar protections for committed same-sex couples.

Read the Attorney General's brief here (PDF).

The party adopted the official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal, a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997.

The platform includes this point under "Crime":

Homosexual Acts: We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.

Montana GOP executive director Bowen Greenwood said that has been the position of the party since the state Supreme Court struck down state laws criminalizing homosexuality in 1997 in the case of Gryczan v. Montana. [AP]

Montana Human Rights Network organizer Kim Abbott said the GOP platform statement does not represent the attitudes of most Montanans, and it shows that the party is out of touch with the prevalent view of the people they are supposed to represent.

Ravndal

The Big Sky Tea Party Association's board of directors voted Sunday to remove Tim Ravndal as president of the Helena, MT chapter after it learned of a volatile post on the online social networking site. [Helena Independent Record]

The newspaper documented this exchange, which has since been removed from Ravndal's page:

Tim Ravndal: "Marriage is between a man and a woman period! By giving rights to those otherwise would be a violation of the constitution and my own rights"

Keith Baker: "How dare you exercise your First Amendment Rights?"

Dennis Scranton: "I think fruits are decorative. Hang up where they can be seen and appreciated. Call Wyoming for display instructions."

Tim Ravndal: "@Kieth, OOPS I forgot this aint America no more! @Dennis, Where can I get that Wyoming printed instruction manual?"

Dennis Scranton: "Should be able to get info Gazette archives. Maybe even an illustration. Go back a bit over ten years."

The comments between Ravndal and Scranton appear to reference the 1998 gruesome slaying of 21-year-old University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard, who was beaten, tied to a fence post and left for dead. Witnesses testified during the trial that Shepard was targeted because he was gay.

Ravndal made the comment July 23 on his Facebook page in regard to a Billings Gazette article about an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit over rights for same-sex couples.

On his Facebook page Friday, Ravndal issued this apology: "I made a mistake and commented on a post that implied that I condone violence against another human being. Nothing could be farther from the truth."

Plaintiffs in Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana.
Source: ACLU

The suit, Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana, claims same sex couples are being denied their rights of privacy, dignity and the pursuit of life’s basic necessities as provided for in the Montana Constitution.

Because there is a constitutional amendment in Montana barring same-sex marriage, the couples in the lawsuit are seeking the protection of state-recognized domestic partnerships, similar to those in place in several other states.

According to the ACLU, under Montana law, it is possible for same-sex couples to be barred from visiting their partners in the hospital and to be left out of conversations about emergency medical care. Montana inheritance laws refuse to recognize same-sex couples, and can leave surviving partners with nothing if their partners die without valid wills.

"It's unfair for same-sex couples who have made commitments and formed families to be treated by the state like legal strangers," said Betsy Griffing, Legal Director for the ACLU of Montana. "Lesbian, gay and bisexual Montanans are valuable and productive members of society who should be treated fairly if their partner is in the hospital or dies without a will."

The suit seeks a mechanism such as the domestic partnership laws adopted by several other states to provide similar protections for committed same-sex couples.

The plaintiffs (pictured, clockwise from top-left) are: MJ Williams and Nancy Owens of Basin; Denise Boettcher and Kellie Gibson of Laurel; David Wilson and Casey Charles of Missoula; Mary Leslie and Stacey Haugland of Bozeman; Mike Long and Rich Parker of Bozeman; Jan Donaldson and Mary Anne Guggenheim of Helena; and Gary Stallings and Rick Wagner of Butte.