Montana Judge Strikes Down Law Defining Male and Female

Not sure what you all learned in elementary school, but we learned that the two biological sexes that exist today are male and female. Sadly, many conservatives are now shaking their heads at a Montana judge who has taken it upon himself to strike down a state aw that basically affirmed the same. But there’s a twist. Judge Shane Vannatta, who happens to be the first openly homosexual judge in Montana, didn’t strike down the law because of what’s in it. He made an incredibly technical decision based on the way the title was written.

Say what now?

The law in question, passed by the Republican-controlled legislature, stated unequivocally that “there are exactly two sexes, male and female.” It seems that in today’s world, even stating basic biological facts requires legislative action. But apparently, even that isn’t enough to withstand judicial scrutiny.

Judge Vannatta’s ruling focused on the title of the bill, arguing that it wasn’t specific enough to meet the state’s constitutional requirements. The judge wrote, “The title does not give general notice of the character of the legislation in a way that guards against deceptive or misleading titles.” One might wonder if the judge would have found the title “An Act to Confirm Water is Wet” equally perplexing.

This ruling is part of a broader trend we’re seeing across the country, where activist judges and progressive lawmakers are attempting to redefine fundamental aspects of human biology and society. It’s as if we’ve entered a twilight zone where stating obvious truths is now considered controversial or even discriminatory.

The law was part of a series of measures passed by Montana’s legislature aimed at protecting traditional values and biological realities. These included a ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors – a move that many conservatives view as necessary to protect vulnerable children from irreversible medical procedures.

Predictably, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Montana celebrated the judge’s decision. Alex Rate, the ACLU’s legal director, hailed the ruling as a victory for constitutional protections against legislative overreach. It’s worth noting that the ACLU seems to have a rather flexible view of what constitutes “overreach” depending on whether the legislation aligns with their progressive agenda.

Governor Greg Gianforte, who supported the law, emphasized the importance of clear and meaningful language in legislation. It’s a sad state of affairs when we need laws to define what “male” and “female” mean, but here we are. The governor’s office has indicated they may appeal the decision, setting the stage for what could be a prolonged legal battle over biological reality.

This case highlights the ongoing culture war surrounding gender identity and biological sex. On one side, we have conservatives who believe in the immutability of biological sex and the importance of maintaining clear definitions in law and society. On the other, we have progressives who argue for a more fluid understanding of gender and sex, often at the expense of biological reality.

The implications of this ruling extend far beyond Montana. If laws defining biological sex can be struck down on technicalities, what’s next? Will we need to pass laws affirming that the sky is blue or that gravity exists? The slippery slope argument has never felt more relevant.

Moreover, this ruling raises questions about the role of the judiciary in shaping social policy. Judge Vannatta, appointed by a Democratic governor and confirmed by voters, has effectively overturned a law passed by the people’s elected representatives. While judges certainly have the authority to strike down unconstitutional laws, one has to wonder if this decision was truly based on constitutional grounds or personal ideology.

The controversy surrounding this ruling also underscores the importance of judicial appointments. As we’ve seen at the federal level, the ideology of judges can have far-reaching consequences on law and policy. Conservative voters would do well to remember this when casting their ballots in judicial elections.

As we move forward, it’s clear that the battle over biological reality and gender identity is far from over. Conservatives will need to be vigilant in defending scientific truth and traditional values in the face of an increasingly activist judiciary and a progressive movement that seems determined to redefine basic aspects of human existence.

In the meantime, perhaps Montana legislators should consider reintroducing the bill with a more specific title. How about “An Act to Affirm that Humans, Like Most Mammals, Come in Two Sexes: Male and Female, No Matter How Much Some Folks Wish Otherwise”? It might not pass constitutional muster, but at least it would be clear.

This is seriously a bizarre ruling. It should serve as a wake-up call for conservatives, but we’re honestly not sure the majority is paying enough attention to care. Doing what we can to preserve the realities of biology is critical to protecting our children from ideologies that can be considered harmful. We need to continue to work hard, take strategic steps via our legal system, and continue to elect officials who understand how important each of these issues is. 

Don’t lose hope. The truth will always be on our side. This judge may have bene using his position to serve as an activist, but human biology will always be what it is. 

But now we want to know what you think. Did the judge over-step or did he really have a legal reason for striking down the law? Send a message when you have a chance and let us know.