Posted on 07/01/2024 5:44:45 AM PDT by Red Badger
S.A. McCarthy @pipesmoknpapist S.A. McCarthy is a news writer at The Washington Stand.
A Montana judge is striking down a state law defining “sex” as either male or female, claiming that the law violates the Montana State Constitution.
In an order issued on Tuesday, Montana District Court Judge Shane Vannatta, the first Montana judge to openly identify as homosexual, declared Senate Bill 458 to be facially unconstitutional according to Montana state law.
The legislation, passed by the Legislature in 2023 and signed into law by Gov. Greg Gianforte, a Republican, revised state law to declare:
In human beings, there are exactly two sexes, male and female, with two corresponding types of gametes. The sexes are determined by the biological and genetic indication of male or female, including sex chromosomes, naturally occurring sex chromosomes, gonads, and nonambiguous internal and external genitalia present at birth, without regard to an individual’s psychological, behavioral, social, chosen, or subjective experience of gender.
According to the law, “female” is defined as “a member of the human species who, under normal development, has XX chromosomes and produces or would produce relatively large, relatively immobile gametes, or eggs, during her life cycle and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of those gametes,” and “male” is defined as “a member of the human species who, under normal development, has XY chromosomes and produces or would produce small, mobile gametes, or sperm, during his life cycle and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of those gametes.”
A number of LGBTQ+ plaintiffs challenged the law in December, arguing that the legislation’s language is facially unconstitutional and that its content is discriminatory to those who identify as LGBTQ+ in Montana.
While Vannatta did not address the second series of arguments, he did rule that the law’s language makes it unconstitutional. According to Article V, Section 3 of the Montana State Constitution, all bills, “except general appropriation bills and bills for the codification and general revision of the laws, shall contain only one subject, clearly expressed in its title.”
The state argued that the law’s title—“AN ACT GENERALLY REVISING THE LAWS TO PROVIDE A COMMON DEFINITION FOR THE WORD SEX WHEN REFERRING TO A HUMAN…”—constitutionally exempts the legislation from the constitution’s “single subject rule.”
Vannatta wrote, “In oral argument, the State contends that the language of this constitutional provision must be interpreted as providing three different exceptions to the single subject requirement: general appropriation bills, bills for the codification of the laws, and bills for the general revision of the laws.”
Quoting the Montana Supreme Court, Vannatta responded, “The legislature’s use of the conjunctive ‘and’ clearly indicates an intent to establish two mandatory prerequisites.”
“For a bill to be exempt from [the ‘single subject rule’] requirements it must be for both the codification and general revision of the laws. The title does not also state the Bill is ‘for the codification’ of the law,’” the judge wrote. Claiming that SB 458’s content does not codify law, he added, “Furthermore, simply adding ‘for the codification’ of the law language to the title does not exempt the Bill from the Single Subject Rule requirements.”
Vannatta further wrote, “The State does not address the fact that ‘sex’ has more than one definition. … The title does not indicate that the body of the Bill provides a common definition for ‘sex,’ meaning ‘gender,’ and not ‘sex’ meaning ‘sexual intercourse.’ The meaning for the word ‘sex’ is not clearly expressed in the title.”
He continued, “The title of S.B. 458 does not clarify what meaning of ‘sex’ is intended and does not indicate that the words ‘female’ and ‘male’ are defined in the body of the Bill. The title does not give general notice of the character of the legislation in a way that guards against deceptive or misleading titles.”
The Montana judge’s decision has already drawn criticism from conservatives. Sean Southard, a spokesman for Gianforte, said, “Words matter. And this administration is committed to ensuring words have meaning, unlike this judge, who apparently needs a dictionary to discern the difference between a noun and a verb.”
“This is a clear example of judicial activism. In S.B. 458, the Montana Legislature provided a well-defined meaning of ‘sex,’ and then District Judge Shane Vannatta, by a unilateral pronouncement, simply determined the definition ‘unconstitutional,’” explained former Rep. Jody Hice, senior vice president at Family Research Council, in comments to The Washington Stand. “By so doing, he assumed the role of chief ‘legislator’ while rendering the elected body of representatives ineffective.”
“The judge’s actions are intolerable. Legislating from the bench should be reprimanded; it should never be approved or accepted as the final word,” Hice continued. “Judicial fiat not only undermines our system of three equal branches of government, it also weakens our Republic as a whole.”
Originally published by The Washington Stand
Let's turn back to God - and save this nation!
And this “judge” graduated from a real law school? And one wonders why respect for the “law” has descended to the level of the respect that one has for journalists?
Good grief talk about nit-picking.
Judicial activism is becoming more apparent everyday that it will be our nations downfall.
So these activist types find it outrageous that we would pass a law to clarify that there are only two sexes.
In a world in which over 50 gender identities have been discovered so far, I suppose it does seem outrageous to them to say that there are only two sexes.
amazing how the only gay judge in the just “happened” to end up with this case!
judge shopping should be unconstitutional
No queer judges, no female judges, no foreign-born judges......
in other news:
Montana judge strikes down Newton’s law
An anti-science Montana judge says what?
Calls the law “racist”, with no explanation why
Montana. Steers and Queers. We know who this judge ruminates with
You can start by throwing this idiot out of office. it is not fit to be a judge.
I was thinking the same thing - the one Judge that’s gay in all of Montana gets to decide on this case. Do you think this judge might just have an agenda? Maybe he hand picked this case. Either way, justice is not blind in this situation.
“the term ‘gender’ is defined as “each of the classes (masculine, feminine, and sometimes neuter) into which nouns, pronouns, and adjectives are divided; the division of nouns, pronouns, and adjectives into these different genders”
Years ago, when filling out forms with my basic personal details (name, age, address etc.), the choice of male or female would be listed under the heading: “Sex.”
I thought confess state or local enacted the laws and judges had oversight at trails. How did judges get the authority to create or eliminate laws at their discretion? This queer judge certainly has an overwhelming reason to declare the decision he did.
The Hon. Shane A. Vannatta is a judge for the 4th Judicial District Court of Montana. He was appointed to the bench by former Governor Steve Bullock on February 5, 2019, filling the newly-created judicial position by the 2017 Legislature.
Why republicans do this is beyond me.
TYPICAL EVIL DEMOCRAT!
MONTANA JUDGE STRIKES DOWN GOD’S LAW!
This was a carefully worded law.
I appreciate that the lawmaker knew enough about biology to include “under normal circumstances” and “unambiguous genitalia.”
Why?
Because for a very small percentage of the population, there are people born XXY, XYY, X+partial X, or suffer from genetic conditions that cause ambiguous genitalia. These folks deserve our compassion. They didn’t ask for the cards they were given, no one groomed them or made them that way; they are as God created them.
The judge is an agenda pusher and it has nothing to do with the law or science.
Remove them from the bench and appeal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.