We always knew it was going to be a journey with bumps and curves in the road. So did our when they signed on to sue the state of Montana for domestic partnership recognition.
This week our lawsuit, , hit a pothole when Montana District Court Judge Jeffrey Sherlock ruled against us and in favor of the state's motion to dismiss the case. But make no mistake, the wheels are still on the car, and we are still traveling hopefully toward a future where all loving, committed couples are treated with dignity, fairness and respect, and have the same rights to care for one another as opposite-sex married couples.
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see on their website and on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.
We were disappointed in Judge Sherlock's ruling, and so were our clients. But their and our spirits and determination are still strong.
"This is just a first step on one of the roads to victory. This is a bump, not a loss," wrote plaintiffs in a message to their fellow "fabuliffs" and ACLU staff. "We do know we are right, and many many other people of all colors, stripes, majorities and minorities, Democrats, Independents and even Republicans know we are right. And we shall prevail, for sure in our grandchildren's lives, probably in our children's, maybe in ours. Let's all try to meet up in Bozeman for PRIDE weekend and march with all kinds of pride. Best to everyone -- we are in this however long it takes. Thank you for being who you are and thanks to the ACLU staff for standing proud with us."
Wrote plaintiff (with his usual quick wit): "The next time you're in the state capitol, stop and ponder the statue of my hero Jeanette Rankin ... She knew of a time when the thought of a woman voting was unthinkable. Now the concept of denying women the vote is laughable. So shall it be with our cause. (I just hope it happens before I'm dead and gone and somebody's pondering my statue, not that I'll have one, but if I do it'll be a good-looking one). "
Judge Sherlock said in his that he sympathized with our plaintiffs. He stated that "there appears little doubt that Plaintiffs have been subject to private prejudice, discrimination, and even violence in Montana. The State also does not dispute the economic and emotional harm often suffered by the Plaintiffs due to their sexual orientation."
Still, Judge Sherlock said that to order the Montana Legislature to enact a statutory framework establishing domestic partnerships would be a violation of the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches of government.
Judges in Vermont and New Jersey ruled otherwise. When faced with similar sets of facts, that is exactly what they did - ordered their state's legislatures to right the violation of same-sex couples' constitutional rights by establishing a framework, such as domestic partnership registries, for same-sex couples to obtain the same protections as marriage.
We have 60 days from the date of the ruling to decide whether to appeal.
In the meantime, we hope that you will join us in our work to educate the public about domestic partnerships and to change hearts and minds on the issue. Please sign our and the ACLU.
Learn more about LGBT rights: Subscribe to our newsletter, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court CasesWe Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases
State Supreme Courts interpret laws that impact some of the most intimate parts of our lives. Communities have a right to know what’s on the docket. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Civil Liberties
New ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency MeasuresNew ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency Measures
NEW YORK — Nearly half of all state supreme courts across the country fail to regularly post new cases they are considering, with only six meeting four key transparency measures already implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new report published today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The report identifies significant steps that state supreme courts should take to inform the public about their cases, which have only grown in importance as the federal judiciary has become more hostile to protecting core rights and advocates have turned to state protections and state court litigation in response. Based on an analysis of the practices and policies of the highest courts in each state, including D.C., the report “Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency: How Does Your State Stack Up?” ranks each state supreme court in five tiers based on compliance with four key transparency measures. These measures include posting new cases online in a timely manner, providing timely information about legal issues presented by cases, making dockets accessible and free for the public, and making merits briefing accessible and free for the public. “State courts regularly hear — and are the final word on — cases affecting abortion rights, voting rights, criminal justice reform, and more. Yet, in many instances, the highest state courts do not provide meaningful public access to information about cases affecting the rights and liberties of millions of people. We urge state supreme courts to bring more transparency to the critical work they do,” said Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “In the face of a federal judiciary increasingly unwilling to protect core rights and an incoming administration that threatens to exacerbate that problem, state courts are an important defense for our liberty. They should be leaders in transparency, too,” said Bridget Lavender, Skadden Fellow with the Initiative. The report emphasizes that state courts “play an outsized role” in many parts of the law, but their ability to “guard our liberties depends in significant part on whether those courts adopt transparent processes.” It further highlights that state supreme courts have led the way on enormously consequential decisions in recent years. In particular, some state supreme courts have recognized the right of same sex couples to marry, and did so long before federal courts. They have also declared the death penalty unconstitutional under state law despite contrary federal law, protected access to reproductive health care as a right even as that right was being stripped away at the federal level, and provided more robust protection to people subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. The report urges state supreme courts to take action to improve their transparency practices, taking notes from the courts that have already implemented these measures. It notes that regularly posting new cases and the issues they represent, and providing timely access to dockets and merits briefing allows the public, the press, and the legal community to track cases as they unfold, identify cases with statewide consequences, and understand what’s at stake. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political EnemiesACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political Enemies
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the House of Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would grant Donald Trump and his handpicked secretary of the Treasury power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. “Passing this bill would hand the incoming Trump administration a dangerous new tool it could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, which is why Congress must block H.R. 9495 before it’s too late.” While there is a 90-day “cure” period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process. The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations. This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as "support," making it virtually impossible to clear its name. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The letter also explains that the groups do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed, these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own, and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it could be sent immediately to President Biden for his signature. -
News & CommentaryNov 2024
Civil Liberties
Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.
Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.