GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Montana House Candidate Believes In Creationsm

There has been a lot of talk in political circles over the special election in Georgia's 6th congressional district, but not much about another special election that is upcoming for Montana's at-large congressional seat which was vacated when Ryan Zinke became Secretary of the Interior.

The most prominent Republican candidate in the special election to replace Zinke is Greg Gianforte, who is a tech millionaire who has used money from his family foundation to support the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old, Huffington Post reports.

Just in time for today's Godless Wednesday, The Friendly Atheist has published an excerpt of an interview with a reporter where Gianforte "doubles down" on his creationist views:

MAUK: Your position on evolution has come up in past campaigns because of your support, primarily, of the Glendive museum. Do you personally believe in evolution?
GIANFORTE: I personally believe, as many Montanans do, that God created the Earth.
MAUK: But do you believe, personally, in evolution?
GIANFORTE: I believe that God created the Earth. I wasn’t there, I don’t know how long it took. I don’t know how he did it exactly. But I look around me at the grandeur in this state and I believe that God created the Earth.
MAUK: And so evolution is not something that you believe in?
GIANFORTE: Um, I think I’ve answered your question.

I believe everyone running for public office should be asked, "Do you believe the Earth is less than 4 billion years old?" and if they give some weasly answer like "I wasn't there" or "I don't know" or "I am not a scientist" they should be asked "What other undisputed scientific facts do you not know or personally believe in? Do you believe the Earth is round? Do you believe the Earth revolves around the Sun? Do you believe in the germ theory of disease? Do you believe in antibiotic resistance?"

FYI, the March for Science is happening this Saturday April 22 in Washington, DC  and around the country and the world.

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: "Religiously Unaffiliated" Are A Plurality In 13 States!

The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) has set up an American Values Atlas website which allows you to see the geographic distribution of the various polling data they have collected about Americans.

One result that gladdens my heart is the news that the percentage of what PRRI called "religiously unaffiliated" (and who I would call "godless") is now 22% of Americans overall, and among younger people it is closer to 34%.

In fact, in numerous states (13) a plurality of respondents are godless! Some of those states are Oregon (37 percent), New Hampshire (35 percent), Washington State (33 percent), Vermont (32 percent) and Montana (29 percent).

That's all the geographic-based data on godlessness for today!

And Now There Are 34! Montana Joins The Marriage Equality Majority

Wow! Montana today joined the rest of the Ninth U.S. Circuit when a federal judge issued a ruling striking down the Treasure state's ban on same-sex marriage. One key excerpt from the ruling in Rolando v. Fox is:

The Court hereby DECLARES that Montana’s laws that ban same-sex marriage, including Article XIII, section 7 of the Montana Constitution, and Montana Code Annotated section 40-1-103 and section 40-1-401, violate Plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court PERMANENTLY ENJOINS the State of Montana and its officers, employees, agents, and political subdivisions from enforcing Article XIII, section 7 of the Montana Constitution, Montana Code Annotated section 40-1-103 and section 40-1-401, and any other laws or regulations, to the extent that they prohibit otherwise qualified same-sex couples from marrying in Montana, and to the extent that they do not recognize same-sex marriages validly contracted outside Montana. This injunction shall take effect immediately.

That makes it pretty clear that same-sex couples can get married in Big Sky Country now! (There is no stay on the order.) The Democratic Governor of Montana Steve Bullock praised the decision while the Republican Attorney General (named defendant) Tim Fox announced that he would appeal the decision (presumably to the Ninth Circuit, which has already ruled that marriage equality is required under federal law, and then to the Supreme Court, which has previously refused to issue stays on the effect of marriage equality rulings from the 9th Circuit.

Another key quote from the ruling is:

Montana’s laws that ban same-sex marriage impose a “disfavored legal status” on same-sex couples. The time has come for Montana to follow all the other states within the Ninth Circuit and recognize that laws that ban same-sex marriage violate the constitutional right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the laws. Today Montana becomes the thirty-fourth state to permit same-sex marriage.

And so it goes...

Hat/tip to Equality Case Files.

9th Circuit Refuses To Reconsider Sexual Orientation Discrimination Ruling

Big news from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals! The now fully staffed court has denied a sua ponte request to reconsider their important ruling in SmithKline Beecham. That case is the about juror discrimination where the 9th Circuit ruled that sexual orientation is not a valid characteristic for removing a potential juror, by declaring that sexual orientation is a suspect classification that requires heightened scrutiny. A majority of judges on the 26-member court agreed that an en banc hearing was not warranted, while the three most conservative members of the court signed on to a 10-page decision dissenting in the decision of the court. Neither of the parties in the underlying dispute had asked the court to review the question of what standard of review sexual orientation should receive, that was instigated by an anonymous member of the 9th Circuit. The fact that the decision is now final means that in order to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the 9th Circuit's jurisdictional area, an exceedingly persuasive reason has to be given. As  Joe Jervis says, this will almost certainly lead to marriage equality in the states of the 9th Circuit which do not have it yet: Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana and Nevada.

SCOTUS Blog also discusses the implications of the permanence of SmithKline:

 Of the twelve federal appeals courts to confront the issue, ten have taken the position that challenges to laws which allegedly discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation should be analyzed only by the least-demanding standard — that is, “rational basis” review.   Using that standard, at least some courts have upheld bans on same-sex marriage. 

[...] 

In the cases now awaiting Ninth Circuit review, state officials are attempting to defend same-sex marriage bans only in the Idaho case.  State officials in Oregon and Nevada have given up the defense of such bans, and Hawaii has moved on its own to allow such marriages.   Because the panel’s decision in the SmithKline decision is now binding in that circuit, in the wake of denial of en banc review, it sets the standard for judging the state bans throughout the geographic region included in the Ninth Circuit.

The other appellate court to decide sexual orientation should receive heightened scrutiny is the 2nd U.S. Circuit, which did so in their ruling which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in Windsor v United States, a decision the Supreme Court upheld last year (but did not address the level of review question).

There Are Only 5 States Whose Marriage Equality Bans Are Not (Currently) Being Challenged In Court

This is an interesting factoid. There are currently only 5 states where bans on same-sex marriage are NOT currently being challenged in court (North dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Georgia, and Montana). There are 17 states that have marriage equality right now. There are 30 states with more than 65 lawsuits (44 of which are federal cases) pending against their bans on same-sex marriage, according to Lambda Legal, reports the Washington Post:

Heterosexual-only marriage is safe in just five states, for now at least.   

Gay marriage is now legal in 17 states and bans are being challenged in 30, according to the latest count from Lambda Legal, a pro-gay marriage organization. (Hawaii and Illinois allow gay marriage, but legal technicalities  to aspects of their laws are still being ironed out in the courts.) The five states with bans on gay marriage that stand unchallenged are: Alaska, Georgia, Montana, North Dakota  and South Dakota.  

The five unchallenged state gay marriage bans may not stand for long. Already, a South Dakota couple has plans to challenge their state ban. And  the Supreme Court could soon weigh in.

It's unlikely the Supreme Court will really weigh in on the marriage equality question before the end of the 2014-15 term, and that's only if one of the appellate cases (the first of which was heard on Thursday in Denver before the 10th U.S. Circuit) rockets to their docket before the end of this year, which certainly is possible.

I think the 5 states that currently do not have marriage equality lawsuits says more about the lack of
organized LGBT infrastructure in those states than whether there are people who would benefit if those bans were also removed.

Lambda Legal Files Marriage Equality Lawsuit In Arizona!

Good news out of Arizona regarding LGBT equality! Lambda Legal has filed a lawsuit seeking to gain the right to marriage for same-sex couples in Arizona.

In the lawsuit, Lambda Legal, joined by pro bono co-counsel from Perkins Coie LLP, argues that the Arizona constitutional amendment and state statutes barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  

The lead plaintiffs, Nelda Majors, 75, and Karen Bailey, 74, of Scottsdale, have been together for more than 55 years, and together have raised two children, Karen’s great grand-nieces Marissa and Sharla, as their own daughters since the girls came into their home as toddlers. Marissa is now 15 and Sharla 21. 

“Karen and I have been together since 1957,” Majors said.  “We’re a committed, loving family, have raised two amazing girls together, have seen each other through thick and thin, in sickness and in health. After five decades together, we want to celebrate and affirm our deep love for each other as other couples do, before our friends and family, through marriage. We’re also getting up there in years. I want to know that, should anything happen to me, there would be no question about Karen being allowed to be with me at the hospital, and vice versa. If we were married, there would be no question and we both would feel more secure.” 

“Arizona’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples serves no legitimate state interest, brands these loving couples and their children as second-class citizens, and encourages private bias and discrimination,” Pizer said. “And because the State does not even offer a lesser status such as civil union or domestic partnership, these loving couples live every day with the uncertainty that their families and relationships lack even basic protections.”

The name of the lawsuit is Majors v. Horne. As I have said, repeatedly, the fact that in the 9th U.S. Circuit (Washington, California, Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada and Montana) laws in these states that classify based on sexual orientation must receive heightened scrutiny that they are not violating the equal protection rights of LGBT people makes it very likely that bans on same-sex marriage in these states are toast. The deadline to appeal the decision that declared sexual orientation subject to heightened scrutiny passed last Friday, and this lawsuit I'm sure is a consequence of that decision.

Saturday Politics: Only 9 (D) Senators Not For Marriage Equality

Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware

Last week's Supreme Court arguments in two marriage equality cases forced a number of Democratc senators gave a number of Democratic senators the opportunity to clarify their position on support for marriage equality for same-sex couples. In addition to Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), her colleagues Mark Begich (D-AK), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Jon Tester (D-MT), Mark Warner (D-VA) from red (Alaska, North Carolina, Montana) or purple states (Virginia).

There are still nine members of the Democratic caucus in the United States Senate who still have not endorsed marriage equality:

• Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. Up for reelection in 2018.
• Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Up for reelection in 2018.
• Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida. Up for reelection in 2018.
• Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. Up for reelection in 2018.
• Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware. Up for reelection in 2018.
• Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana. Up for reelection in 2018.
• Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Up for reelection in 2014.
• Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Up for reelection in 2014.
• Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota. Won't run for reelection in 2014.
  

There are three Senators from blue states who have are on this list: Casey of Pennsylvania (who is anti-choice, so is known to be an outlier on social issues in the Democratic party), Nelson of Florida, and Carper of Delaware. The most curious of these is Tom Carper because not only is Delaware a blue state, but recent polls have shown that a majority of respondents in Delaware support marriage equality 54% to 37%. Two-thirds of Democratic voters nationwide support marriage equality so it is very curious why a Democratic senator from a Democratic state would not announce his support for marriage, especially when he does not have to face the voters for 5 more years?

Inquiring minds want to know!

This Idiot Thinks Homosexuality Is Illegal In Montana

State Representative Ken Peterson (R-MT)

There's been some very anti-gay legislation popping up in Montana recently and a lot of it is either propagated or facilitated by Representative Ken Peterson, a conservative Mormon Republican who controversially chairs the Judiciary Committee. The Montana legislature has (unsuccessfully) attempted to ban local municipalities from enacting local LGBT equality ordinances and refused to remove Montana's legally unenforceable sodomy law from the statute books.

As Zack Ford reports at Think Progress' Wonk Room, Rep. Peterson thinks that "homosexuality is still a crime in Montana":

Peterson argues there are still at least two prosecutable offenses: 1) The “recruitment” of non-gays and 2) public displays of same-sex affection:

— Homosexuals can’t go out into the heterosexual community and try to recruit people, or try to enlist them in homosexual acts. ‘Here, young man, your hormones are raging. Let’s go in this bedroom, and we’ll engage in some homosexual acts. You’ll find you like it.’
— In my mind, if they were engaging in acts in public that could be construed as homosexual, it would violate that statute. It has to be more than affection. It has to be overt homosexual acts of some kind or another… If kissing goes to that extent, yes. If it’s more than that, yes.

Zack goes on to detail the multiple ways in which such views, if reflected in actual public policy, would violate the Constitution (First Amendment, multiple Supreme Court decisions such as Lawrence v Texas and Romer v Evans).

Lawrence ruled all sodomy laws unconstitutional so whether or not Montana or Kansas or other states repeal their extant sodomy laws, any prosecutions (or persecutions) based on those statutes would be thrown out by a court instantaneously. Romer said that laws based primarily on animus (against the LGB community) are presumptively unconstitutional, so the idea that "homosexuality" can be criminalized directly violates these legal principles.

It seems to me one should test Rep. Peterson's resolve and have a KISS-IN in Missoula, Montana. Any takers?

Montana House Passes Anti-LGBT Civil Rights Bill 60-39

Wow. What will the impact of of the 2010 election of hundreds of Republican state legislators on the rights of LGBT people be around the country? Probably a detrimental one.

The State House of Montana just passed the most anti-gay bill in the nation by a vote of 60-39 which would prevent any local entity from enacting local civil rights ordinances which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (Note, this is a more extreme anti-LGBT public policy position than the state of Utah and the Mormon Church.) There was only one such ordinance in the state, in the college town of Missoula, Montana. And it was only enacted last year!

From The Missoulian ("Bill to nullify Missoula's equality ordinance receives backing in House"):

Missoula's Democratic legislators were infuriated by the passage of House Bill 516, by Rep. Kristin Hansen, R-Havre. Her bill passed 60-39 and faces a final House vote before heading to the Senate.


Sixty Republicans voted for it. All 32 Democrats voted opposed it, joined by seven Republicans. One Republican was absent.


[...]


As sponsor, Hansen said HB516 would prohibit local governments from enacting ordinances or policies that seek to protect residents from real or perceived discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender as Missoula did through an ordinance and Bozeman through a policy.
She said the Missoula City Council adopted the ordinance and provided an enforcement mechanism that fell outside of that in the Montana Human Rights Act.


"It would apply retroactively to the city of Missoula's ordinance in order to keep all businesses and all entities on a level playing field," Hansen said. "All discrimination claims will have to go through the human rights procedures as designated by the Montana Human Rights (Commission)."


[...]


"Our community is filled with possibly the biggest gay and lesbian population in the state," said Rep. Ellie Hill, D-Missoula. "We are a community with the University of Montana. We have a lot of young people. We passed this ordinance because we wanted to protect our own citizens, our own people. You don't have to agree with it." 

Sands said she is proud to be part of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and told the House: "There are thousands of ‘us' living in Montana. We are your neighbors, your work colleagues, we are part of your families, we sit in the pew next to you at church, and we serve in elective offices with you." 

Along with other LGBT Montanans and their families, Sands said she was claiming her constitutional right to equality and justice under Montana's constitutional provision that says: "The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws." 

"It doesn't say, except for gay people," she said.

The bill  is reminiscent of Colorado's Amendment 2 which was struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans by a 6-3 vote in 1996. However, that was an anti-gay voter initiative (which overturned local gay rights ordinances in Boulder, Aspen and Denver) while this is a legislatively enacted measure which still needs to go through the upper body and be signed into law by Governor Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat.  The notion that the state is trying to enact a uniform enforcement procedure for discrimination is a transparent fiction. Obviously, the Montana Human Rights Act does NOT include sexual orientation and gender identity and the same Republicans voted to kill a measure which would have added those characteristics. Presumably, Schweitzer will veto the measure if it reaches his desk but has not made a public statement on the measure so far.

Montana Same-sex Couples Sue State For Recognition

The Montana ACLU sued the state today on behalf of seven same-sex couples to obtain state recognition of their families under the law.

From the press release:

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

"Mary Anne and I are part of a family unit, bonded by love and mutual respect and a desire to share in a close relationship that benefits not only us, as partners, but our wider family and the entire community," said Jan Donaldson, a Helena nurse, of her 27-year relationship with her partner, pediatric neurologist Mary Anne Guggenheim. "We depend on one another, in all aspects of our life together. We want to be able to do that with grace and dignity and to feel secure that our relationship will be respected. We want our relationship to be recognized for what it clearly is – a loving commitment of responsibility worthy of security and protection by the state."

Montana law automatically grants married opposite-sex couples safeguards upon which they can depend in times of need. But, 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. Today's lawsuit seeks a mechanism such as the domestic partnership laws adopted by several other states to provide similar protections for committed same-sex couples.

"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."

Hat/tip to TowleRoad