Same Sex Couples In Montana Argue For Same Rights As Opposite Sex Married Couples, Wyoming Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Advances Again In Senate, Maryland Legislators Push For Same Sex Marriage Legislation, Lame Homemade Homophobia Doritos Advertisements Will Not Air During Super Bowl Or At Any Other Time, British Homophobic Christian Hotel Owners Appeal Discrimination Decision

An attorney for six same sex couples seeking the same legal protections as opposite sex married couples asked a judge Tuesday to order Montana to establish civil unions, domestic partnerships, or some other system to ensure they are not denied those rights, the Associated Press reports. District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock heard arguments today in a Helena court room, the first hearing of what is almost certain to be a lengthy legal process that will ultimately be determined by the state Supreme Court. The six same sex couples say that are not asking for the right to marry, but that they want to be able to make decisions about families’ health care, inheritance and burial, and are allowed to file joint tax returns, among other issues. They argue that the denial of those rights violate the state’s constitution’s equal protection and privacy clauses. Their attorneys today asked Judge Sherlock to grant an injunction and require the state to create the statutory framework to afford them those protections. Their case appears to rest in part on how the Montana Constitution’s marriage amendment, which defines marriage as that being between a man and woman, is interpreted. State solicitor Anthony Johnstone argued that Montana cannot extend spousal benefits to same sex couples since those benefits are limited to married opposite sex couples by definition. According to Johnstone, the marriage amendment passed by voters in 2004, in conjunction with the separation of legislative and judicial powers, means that Judge Sherlock should dismiss the lawsuit. He added that the state Legislature is able to create a new, separate class for couples regardless of sexual orientation, but that is a policy choice for the state to make, not the courts. James Goetz, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said that argument undermines the state’s case, and that either the constitutional amendment prohibits the extension of benefits to gay couples or it does not, but the state cannot have it both ways.

Meanwhile, in Wyoming, according to the Star-Tribune, a proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage advanced in the Senate, “In an initial vote, senators voted 21-9 in favour of Senate Joint Resolution 5, which defines marriage as only between two people of the opposite sex. That’s one vote more than the two-thirds majority needed to pass the bill if it comes up in a final vote in the Senate.” The bill now must pass two additional votes in the Senate, before heading to the House, where its passage is not certain. Should the resolution pass both the Senate and House with a two-thirds majority, it would be submitted to Wyoming voters in a 2012 state-wide referendum.

Legislators from the Maryland House and Senate formally began their push for same sex marriage Tuesday, the Baltimore Sun reports that those assembled invoked comparisons to civil rights battles and to generational shifts in attitudes. House freshman Keiffer Mitchell, holding a pen used by Governor Spiro Agnew to sign the law allowing interracial marriage, said “History will record where we stood.” House Majority Leader Kumar Barve said that the Senate bill “goes to the very core what it means to be an American,” adding that “Twenty years from now I look forward to the day when young people will say ‘What was the big deal?’” The bill, sponsored by Majority Leader Rob Garagiola and Senator Rich Madaleno, was introduced last week and to date has 18 sponsors. 24 are required for final passage, although the bill is certain to be subject to a filibuster. Garagiola said that supporters are working “very, very hard” to secure the votes to overcome that obstacle.

Despite the reports Monday to the contrary, Frito-Lay, the parent company of Doritos, confirms that two seemingly offensive gay-themed advertisements will not air during the Super Bowl, according to a report by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. The ads were in fact two of over five thousand ads submitted by members of the public to the company via its Crash the Super Bowl contest, and that they were not selected among the finalists by a panel of judges. The premise behind both ads, which actually appeared in November on the company’s YouTube channel, are that Doritos are so delicious they can turn any man gay. Frito-Lay Director of Public Relations Chris Kuecnhemeister said that the two ads have no chance of airing during the Super Bowl or at any other time, and adds that the contest’s judges sought to “identify spots that were appropriate for everyone” and “observe a level of respect for everybody.” He added that he is meeting with the company’s legal team to investigate how to remove the two ads from the aforementioned YouTube channel.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, the Christian owners of a Cornwall hotel who contend that unmarried couples should share a room have appealed a ruling that found they unlawfully refused a request by a gay couple for a double room, reports the BBC. Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy of Bristol said the incident in September, 2008 was “direct discrimination” and a judge agreed, awarding them each 1,800 pounds in damages.