Montana Politics

Anti-Gay Tim Fox Not Anti-Gay Enough for Montana GOP

When Tim Fox ran unsuccessfully for Attorney General in 2008, you couldn’t get more conservative. He was the standard bearer when it came to far-right Republican politics. It’s 7 years later and how times have changed.

Attorney General Tim Fox’s  response to the Supreme Court decision in favor of equal marriage was predictable.  “The nation’s highest court has spoken on this matter, and though I disagree with the ruling, it is now the law of the land,” Fox said. Until the ruling last Friday, Fox had been trying to appeal U.S. District Court Judge Morris’ decision to void Montana’s gay marriage ban.

Apparently, in today’s Montana GOP, defending a discriminatory law isn’t enough. You have to be stupid, inflammatory, and vicious. Even worse, you have to sound like a Texan!

Representative Monforton (R-Bozeman) took to Twitter today to call out Attorney General Tim Fox for not sounding like “an actual GOP Atty Gen” and linking to a press release from Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas.

In the press release, Paxton calls the Supreme Court “lawless” and defends bigots who refuse to do their jobs and issue marriage licenses. Monforton, who represents the dominant wing of the Montana GOP, is endorsing this kind of destructive behavior and shaming Fox for being surprisingly level-headed and reasonable. Moreover, Monforton signals just how far to the right the Republican Party has shifted since 2008. Even Fox has to be befuddled.

2020 is sure to be a fascinating year in Montana Republican politics. Assuming Governor Bullock trumps Greg Gianforte, Fox is all but certain to run for Governor, which may explain why hehas taken some subtle swipes at retirement-hating Gianforte. Watching him battle the Monfortons of the world will be especially interesting.

If you appreciate an independent voice holding Montana politicians accountable and informing voters, and you can throw a few dollars a month our way, we would certainly appreciate it.


Click here to post a comment

Please enter an e-mail address

  • I think the marriage issue should be handled the way its done in the UK. You get a marriage license at the county or JP. If you want, the JP can perform the ceremony. Done. If you are all about the religious thing you then go to the church and do the whole dress, minister, music, big hullabaloo thing. Everyone has to do the JP/license thing. Church thing is optional – the way it should be.

    JP cannot refuse license because of “religious beliefs” since a marriage is a legal thing – not a religious one. If you need a religious blessing – that is your choice – nothing to do with the JP. None of this business of the JP refusing to issue a license. If one did – throw that sucker in the clink or fire them for not doing their job!

  • When the state got into the marriage business then equal protection applied to all. Does the government need to be in the marriage business in the first place?

Support Our Work!

Calamity Jan

Subscribe Via E-mail


What Industry Will Republicans Prop Up with Corporate Welfare Next?

Follow us on Twitter

Send this to a friend