Earlier this week, the Montana Supreme Court made an initial determination in a case seeking a court order that the state’s failure to offer the incidents of marriage to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. The majority of the court concluded the ACLU had erred in failing to mention which laws they believed were unconstitutional. Presumably they believed an open invitation to the courts to make new laws was enough.
The majority opinion takes seven pages of a 133-page document, a concurrence brings the total to 23, but on page 23 things really begin to get interesting. There, two judges dissent. Actually they join a 110-page dissent that follows but their caveats are amusing:
These two judges join the dissenting opinion only to paragraph 179. The material after that is a fulmination against the state’s marriage amendment, which was expressly not challenged in this case.
Why the caveats? Here are some of the more colorful passages in the dissent:
I’m not making this up and these are only some of the more colorful passages. There’s plenty more ad hominem and amateur theology on display throughout the opinion.
Just for perspective, note once more that this is a dissent from a decision saying the ACLU must specify which laws it is challenging as unconstitutionally depriving same-sex couples of the incidents of marriage.