In response to a complaint by four homosexual couples, Montana Attorney General Tim Fox said yesterday that the complaint should be dismissed and marriage should remain defined as a union between one man and one woman. The couples, who were being represented by the ACLU, claim the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Montana, which passed in 2004 by 67% of the voters, denies them equal protection under the law. Three of the couples were married in other states, while one wants to be married in Montana.

In his response, Fox denied several of the plaintiff’s claims that he said consisted of arguments or conclusions of law that don’t require a response. He also said that last summer’s ruling at the U.S Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor reaffirm that the definition and regulation of marriage is within the authority and realm of the separate states. He went on to say that Montana’s recognition of marriage as between one man and one woman does not constitute or impose an unconstitutional stigma or second-class citizenship on persons in same-sex relationships.

From our perspective, it’s nice to see an attorney general who is actually fighting to uphold the will of the people. Montana’s Marriage Amendment wasn’t a piece of law passed by narrow margin in the Montana Legislature. It was a constitutional amendment passed by an overwhelming margin in a direct vote of the people. Marriage between one man and one woman is critical for the health of the nation and the well being of children. The people get it, it’s too bad that a growing number of liberal judges don’t.Same-sex couples claim that they are in committed, loving relationships and just want the happiness and security that marriage brings, but government has never had a vested interest in the happiness of couples. The only reason it’s involved in marriage is for the sake of the children and the important role that well-raised children play in the long term health of the nation. Even in liberal California, the people voted to uphold marriage between men and women.

So where do we go from here? At this point, any decision rendered in this case will probably be moot because so many other cases are ahead of it in the pipeline. We already have cases teed up for the U.S. Supreme Court and this case hasn’t even gotten its first hearing. In the Ninth Circuit alone, Idaho already has a case before the Court of Appeals. This makes the ACLU of Montana a little late to the party, but they are doing it to make a point.

We expect a full-court press on all facets of the Homosexual Agenda when the Montana Legislature reconvenes in January. The possibilities include same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, same-sex civil benefits, sex education in schools that contains homosexual components, and inclusion of homosexuals, bisexuals, transvestites, and binary or gender fluid people in the Montana Human Rights Act. For the 99.9% of people who have never heard term “gender binary,” it means people who don’t identify with either sex, they float back and forth between the two on any given day. The Bible says that God created them male and female, and we at the Montana Family Foundation will continue to uphold God’s design for marriage and for the family. It’s a battle we feel is worth fighting.