Same-sex marriage has been recognized in Montana since the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana ruled the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on November 19, 2014 in Rolando v. Fox. The previous month, the plaintiffs had asked the court to declare the ban unconstitutional following the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decisions in Latta v. Otter and Sevcik v. Sandoval. District Court Judge Brian Morris ruled for the plaintiffs on November 19, legalizing same-sex marriage in Montana. The state appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit, but before that court could hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all same-sex marriage bans in the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges, mooting any remaining appeals.
Montana had previously denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1997 and in its State Constitution since 2004. Polling suggests that a majority of Montanans support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, with a 2024 Public Religion Research Institute poll showing that 66% of respondents supported same-sex marriage.
Legal history Restrictions In 1997, the Montana Legislature passed a ban on same-sex marriage and any "contractual relationship entered into for the purpose of achieving a civil relationship".
On November 2, 2004, Montana voters approved Initiative 96, a state-initiated constitutional amendment that prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage, as well as anything "identical or substantially similar to marital status", such as civil unions or domestic partnerships, in the state of Montana.CNN: Election 2004 - Ballot Measures, accessed April 7, 2011. In 2025, Representative Zooey Zephyr introduced a resolution to repeal the constitutional ban. If approved, the measure would be placed on the ballot for approval by voters. The measure was heard in committee in February and March 2025, but was tabled on March 23.
Lawsuits Rolando v. Fox Four same-sex couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and local attorneys filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Great Falls on May 21, 2014, challenging the Montana Constitution's definition of marriage as the "union of one man and one woman" and related statutes. The plaintiffs in the suit, Rolando v. Fox, were three couples (Shauna and Nicole Goubeaux, Ben Milano and Chase Weinhandl, and Sue Hawthorne and Adel Johnson) who had married in Hawaii, Iowa, and Washington, respectively. A fourth couple, Angela and Tonya Rolando, were denied a marriage license by the Cascade County Clerk of Court. Governor Steve Bullock expressed support for the plaintiffs. Attorney General Tim Fox defended the state. On October 15, citing the recent decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Latta v. Otter and Sevcik v. Sandoval, which ended bans on same-sex marriage in Idaho and Nevada, the plaintiffs asked the court for summary judgment. Their brief compared the texts of Montana's ban with those of Idaho and Nevada and used the Latta decision to counter the state's arguments. U.S. District Court Judge Brian Morris ruled for the plaintiffs on November 19, 2014, and his injunction against the state's enforcement of its ban on same-sex marriage took effect immediately. He wrote:
Among the first couples to marry were Tonya and Angela Rolando, plaintiffs in Rolando, who filed marriage paperwork and were married at the Cascade County Courthouse on Thursday morning, November 20. Leslie Burgess and Serena Early were the first couple to be issued a marriage license in Missoula County. Former Supreme Court Judge James C. Nelson officiated at the wedding of Linda Gryczan and Constance Enzweiler, a couple for 31 years, who were the first to marry in Helena, the state capital, on November 20. Governor Bullock welcomed the court ruling, saying, "Today's decision ensures we are closer to fulfilling our promise of freedom, dignity, and equality for all Montanans. It is a day to celebrate our progress, while recognizing the qualities that bind us as Montanans: a desire to make a good life for ourselves and our families, while providing greater opportunities to the next generation. I have instructed my administration to quickly take all appropriate steps to ensure that we are recognizing and affording the same rights and responsibilities to legally married same-sex couples that all married Montanans have long enjoyed." Senator John Walsh said, "Today's overdue court ruling reflects our Montana values of individual freedom, fairness and equality. I believe every Montanan – our sons, daughters, friends and family – should live free of discrimination", and Senator Jon Tester also welcomed the court decision, saying, "I applaud today's ruling. It aligns our laws with our values and is a big step forward for our state. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry denies them happiness and equal protection under the law." Representative Steve Daines said he was "disappointed that an unelected federal judge ha[d] ignored Montanans' voice".
Attorney General Fox announced plans to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit. At the request of all parties, the Ninth Circuit suspended proceedings in the state's appeal on February 9, 2015, pending action by the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell that laws depriving same-sex couples of the rights of marriage violate the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, striking down all same-sex marriage bans in the country and mooting the state's appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Donaldson v. State of Montana In July 2010, seven same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the state, contending that even with the ban on same-sex marriage, the State Constitution's guarantees of privacy, dignity, and the pursuit of life's basic necessities and its guarantees of equal protection and due process require the state to offer same-sex couples the same rights and protections it offers to different-sex couples through marriage. A state district court heard oral arguments in January 2011 in the case, Donaldson v. State of Montana.Billings Gazette: "Gay couples argue for same rights as wedded people," January 25, 2011, accessed April 14, 2011 The city of Bozeman backed their suit.KTVM: "Bozeman Commission Backs Same-Sex Couples," September 27, 2010 , accessed April 14, 2011 The court ruled against the plaintiffs on April 19, 2011,Independent Record (Helena): Matt Gouras, "Judge rules against gay couples seeking rights," April 21, 2011, accessed April 21, 2011 and the plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, appealed that decision to the Montana Supreme Court on August 4, arguing that the marriage amendment did not preclude providing rights other than the name "marriage" to same-sex couples.KTVM.com: Lauren Maschmedt, "ACLU Takes Same-Sex Case To State Supreme Court," August 4, 2011 , accessed August 4, 2011 On December 17, 2012, that court in a 4–3 decision denied the plaintiffs' request to find Montana's entire "statutory scheme" unconstitutional, but invited them to renew their suit in district court by specifying the statutes they were challenging.
Developments after legalization
On February 18, 2025, Representative Bob Phalen introduced a resolution to the Montana House of Representatives urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. The measure failed to pass a Senate committee by a 4–4 vote, and was tabled 6–2 on March 3, with Republican senators Vince Ricci, Barry Usher and Sue Vinton joining Democratic senators Cora Neumann, Andrea Olsen and Laura Smith in voting to table the motion. It was likely to encounter significant civil opposition if passed, as the majority of Montana residents support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage according to polling. Indeed, multiple residents testified in committee against the measure, including a spokesperson from the Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence who accused lawmakers of turning the Montana Legislature into "a time machine [...] because I honestly feel like we've gone back 20 years." Representative Zooey Zephyr spoke of her marriage in testifying against the resolution, "She started reading her vows, that very sacred moment where someone who loves you dearly makes a promise in all the ways that they will love you for the rest of your life. That is the most special moment in my life I've had so far. And when the 'I do's' happened and we kissed, my 9-year old stepson said that moment was the happiest he ever was, because that was the moment I became his stepmom for real." Spokespeople from MassResistance and the Montana Family Foundation testified in support of the resolution, spending most of their testimony incorrectly stating that homosexuality was a "choice" and that same-sex couples were unable to raise children. These claims are refuted by scientific studies, which show that homosexuality is a natural and normal variation in human sexuality, that sexual orientation is not a choice, and that children of same-sex couples fare just as well as the children of opposite-sex couples.
Native American nations The Indian Civil Rights Act, also known as Public Law 90–284 (; , , ; ; ; ), primarily aims to protect the rights of Native Americans but also reinforces the principle of tribal self-governance. While it does not grant sovereignty, the Act affirms the authority of tribes to govern their own legal affairs. Consequently, many tribes have enacted their own marriage and family laws. As a result, the Rolando ruling and the Supreme Court's Obergefell ruling did not automatically apply to tribal jurisdictions.
The Law and Order Code of the Blackfeet Nation specifies that state law and state jurisdiction govern marriage relations and that neither common-law marriages nor marriages performed under native customs are valid within the Blackfeet Reservation. In 2006, a traditional Blackfoot marriage ceremony was held in Seeley Lake for a two-spirit couple. As same-sex marriage is legal under state law, same-sex couples can also marry on the Blackfeet Reservation. The Crow Tribe of Montana's Law and Order Code provides that marriage is a consensual relationship between "a man and a woman" arising out of a civil contract. However, the code also states that marriages legally contracted in foreign jurisdictions, including U.S. states, are recognized as valid within the Crow Indian Reservation. Likewise, the Tribal Code of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe defines marriage as "a personal relationship between a man and a woman", but states that marriages legally performed outside the reservation are valid. Similar language is found in the codes of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, and the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes. The laws of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes are silent on who can marry; "The Code is silent on defining who can marry. If the Tribal Code is silent, then we rely on federal law first and then state law", said a tribal member during a meeting of the Tribal Council on December 20, 2016.