Most notably, in a special concurrence, Justice James Nelson argued against discrimination:

“Naming it for the evil it is, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is an expression of bigotry.

“Lesbian and gay Montanans must not be forced to fight to marry, to raise their children and to live with the same dignity that is accorded heterosexuals…

“I remain absolutely convinced that homosexuals are entitled to enjoy precisely the same civil and natural rights as heterosexuals, as a matter of constitutional law.”

Montana state law, however, still does not allow both members of a same-sex partnership to adopt.

Barbara Maniaci, Kulstad’s partner of 10 years, adopted the children while the two were in a relationship. After they broke up in 2006, Kulstad filed for parenting rights.

In April, Kulstad received joint custody of the kids but Maniaci, now married to a man, appealed the judge’s decision to the higher court.

Justice Brian Morris said:

“Maniaci cannot rewrite the history of the fact that she and Kulstad lived together for more than 10 years and jointly raised the minor children in the same household.”

The Supreme Court decision, 6-1, affirms Kulstad’s rights as a parent.

Kulstad spoke at a News conference outside of the Supreme Court last week stating:

“I want what every parent wants. I want to love my children and care for them. I am looking forward to being in their lives for the rest of my life, to see them graduate from high school, get married and have children of their own.”

According the Billing Gazette, the boy, 9, and the girl, 6, live with Maniaci and her husband.

Barbara Maniaci wants the justices to overturn a 2008 lower court ruling that said her former partner, Michelle Kulstad, must be recognized as a co-parent to the two children the two women had been raising until their breakup.

Maniaci and Kulstad had been in a 10-year relationship until it ended in 2006. Under state law, the women had no legal recognition as a couple and could not jointly adopt.

In 2001, Maniaci adopted an infant boy and in 2004 she adopted a baby girl. Kulstad, until the separation in 2006, jointly cared for the children. When Maniaci refused to allow her to see the children after the breakup, Kulstad went to court.

The lower court granted Kulstad time with her children and ordered that Kulstad have joint decision-making authority for matters significantly affecting the children, including their “education, activities, health care and spiritual upbringing.”

At the Supreme Court on Friday, Maniaci argued through her lawyers from the Alliance Defense Fund – a legal organization that regularly fights LGBT issues – that she is no longer gay and now is married to a man and she is a “fit, natural parent,” and that she is being “prevented from raising her children with her husband in the way they see fit.”

Kulstad, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, argued that the high court would be ignoring the rights of children if it only took into account Maniaci’s rights.

“If the rights to the parents are virtually insurmountable, what does it mean for the children’s rights?” asked ACLU attorney Betsy Griffing. “Does that mean they are virtually meaningless?”

The case has generated considerable attention in Montana. If the court upholds the lower court ruling, it would set a precedent in the state for future same-sex parenting cases.

The justices heard arguments at the University of Montana theater where the UM Law School annually hosts a Montana Supreme Court hearing.

The court gave no indication when it would issue a ruling, but it typically issues a decision within 180 days.

Earlier this week, District Judge Ed McLean ruled that Michelle Kulstad must be recognized as a co-parent to the two children she raised together with Barbara Maniaci. He granted Kulstad time with her children and ordered that Kulstad have joint decision-making authority for matters significantly affecting the children, including their “education, activities, health care and spiritual upbringing.”

Kulstad and Maniaci, both of the Missoula area, ended their relationship in 2006. Maniaci, as the “legally adoptive” parent claimed that Kulstad had no custodial rights to their children, that she should not be granted visitation rights, and that she was a “legal stranger” to the children.

The court rejected those arguments and ruled that it was in the best interest of the children for their parent-child relationship with Kulstad to continue, finding that Kulstad was a parent to the children and that the children had a constitutional right to have that relationship continue.

“To discriminate further against Ms. Kulstad because of her sexual preference in this day and age is no different than telling a person to go to the back of the bus because of her skin color,” District Judge Ed McLean wrote.

McLean noted in his 48-page ruling that Kulstad provided for the children and raised them with Maniaci, and the children recognized her as a parent.

Maniaci, who said she is no longer gay and is married argued through her lawyer that she is a “fit, natural parent,” and that she is being “prevented from raising her children with her husband in the way they see fit.”

Mancini is represented by the conservative Alliance Defense Fund which has a long history of fighting LGBT civil rights.

ADF attorney Austin R. Nimocks claims the case has “absolutely nothing to do” with Kulstad’s sexuality.

“If Miss Kulstad was a man, we would still be in the case and making the same arguments,” he told The Associated Press. “Are we going to start granting ex-boyfriends and ex-girlfriends parental rights just because they lived under same roof? If so, how far do we go? Granting acquaintances and roommates parental rights over the objections of fit parents is a very dangerous precedent.”

Kulstad’s attorney, Susan Ridgeway, disputes Nimock’s assertion.

“She’s the second parent of these children; she’s not the fifth boyfriend of the parent,” she said of Kulstad’s relationship with Maniaci and the children.

The Montana Supreme Court has not indicated if it will hear the appeal.

The ruling recognizes Michelle Kulstad as a parent to the two children she raised together with Barbara Maniaci, granting Kulstad time with her children and ordering that she and Kulstad have joint decision-making authority for matters significantly affecting the children, including their “education, activities, health care and spiritual upbringing.”

Kulstad and Maniaci, both from the Missoula area, ended their relationship in 2006. Maniaci, as the “legally adoptive” parent, claimed that Kulstad had no custodial rights to their children, that she should not be granted visitation rights, and that she was a “legal stranger” to the children.

The court rejected those arguments and ruled that it was in the best interest of the children for their parent-child relationship with Kulstad to continue, finding that Kulstad was a parent to the children and that the children had a constitutional right to have that relationship continue.

“To discriminate further against Ms. Kulstad because of her sexual preference in this day and age is no different than telling a person to go to the back of the bus because of her skin color,” District Judge Ed McLean wrote.

McLean noted in his 48-page ruling that Kulstad provided for the children and raised them with Maniaci, and the children recognized her as a parent.

The ruling said, “. . . the evidence shows that rupture of the children’s relationship with Ms. Kulstad would be not only contrary to their best interests, but severely detrimental to their well-being.”

A court appointed psychologist who conducted an evaluation of the women’s parenting abilities testified that the children have an important attachment to both Kulstad and Maniaci.

The psychologist cited American Psychological Association studies showing there are no significant differences  between children raised by same-sex parents and those raised by heterosexual parents.

Maniaci, who said she is no longer gay and is married argued through her lawyer that she is a “fit, natural parent,” and that she is being “prevented from raising her children with her husband in the way they see fit.”

McLean’s ruling disputes that assertion.

“By acknowledging Kulstad as a parent, the court today recognized that it would be both cruel and against established Montana law for her children to be denied the parental love and support Kulstad has shown them since they entered her home,” said Kulstad’s attorney Susan Ridgeway.

The decision is a victory for the rights of Montana families and the best interests of Montana children, said Betsy Griffing, ACLU of Montana Legal Director.

The conservative Alliance Defend Fund which represented Maniaci has not said if it will appeal.

The Democratic presidential candidate is putting money and manpower in all seven of these states – at levels unmatched by Republican rival John McCain.

For decades, these states have almost exclusively voted for Republican presidential candidates and have rarely seen any campaign action. Now, thanks in part to demographic and political shifts, they are emerging as new battlegrounds.

“We have the organizational ability and the financial ability to compete there,” Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said recently. “There is not a head fake among them.”

Undeterred, senior McCain strategist Steve Schmidt said: “We feel very confident about holding these states.” He also expressed optimism that McCain can win several Democratic-leaning perennial swing targets.

In the seven historically GOP bastions, Obama has run five weeks’ worth of TV ads and dispatched dozens of workers to sign up legions of unregistered voters that his campaign believes can be persuaded to support the Illinois senator in droves if courted aggressively. Among their targets are blacks and young people, two constituencies that favor Obama but historically have been unreliable voters.

McCain is largely absent from most of these states, trusting for now that right-leaning roots will prevail.

Unlike McCain, Obama had a presence in all seven during the protracted Democratic primaries and that could benefit him.

But Republicans – and even some skeptical Democrats – claim Obama simply is trying to lure McCain into spending money defending GOP turf so he has less to compete with elsewhere.

Indeed, cash flow is a major factor; Obama expects to be able to afford to compete most anywhere while McCain must be more careful with his money because he is accepting public financing and the spending limits that come with it.

Democrats see other dynamics in the states as opportunities, which Republicans say are just delusions.

Of the cluster, Virginia is most likely to go Democratic, so it’s the one where McCain is competing in earnest.

Obama is advertising statewide and has opened several offices. Putting Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine on the ticket could help.

McCain’s headquarters is in northern Virginia, and he has a full paid Virginia campaign staff. So far, he’s only on the air in the Washington, D.C., media market that serves the burgeoning Virginia suburbs.

That’s the moderate region that has helped Democrats retain the governor’s office and pick up one Senate seat.

Democrats say the growing numbers of young left-leaning professionals in the north and the state’s large percentage of blacks – one in five – as well as untapped pools of potential voters make Virginia a ripe target for them. More than 4 million people are eligible to vote, but roughly a third are not registered, including a half-million blacks and several hundred thousand people age 18-24.

The situation is similar in two other fast-growing Southern states.

North Carolina has seen an influx of Northern retirees settling along the coast and in the mountains, while upper-class and academic transplants from all over flock to the booming economies of the high-tech Research Triangle and the Charlotte banking hub.

“You’re definitely getting a new mix,” said Bill Peaslee, a former state GOP chief of staff. “Some of the old givens are no longer true. It’s not how it was 20 years ago or even 10 years ago.”

Voter registrations are up, blacks are signing up in record numbers and a Democrat leads the state.

Recognizing a potential problem, McCain is sending a full paid staff to North Carolina though running no ads for now.

Georgia saw GOP gains in recent decades as conservatives moved in during a population spurt. It now has a Republican governor and legislature, and a strong state party organization.

Even so, Democrats see an opening among blacks who now make up 30 percent of Georgia’s population. Even Republicans predict the first black major party presidential nominee will produce the largest black turnout ever.

Obama also is optimistic because the Libertarian Party candidate, former Republican Rep. Bob Barr, is from Georgia and could draw off conservative votes there.

In Indiana, Obama could benefit from his ties to the populous, heavily black northwest corner that’s within Chicago’s media market. He’s also counting on backers in liberal-leaning university towns like South Bend and Bloomington. Choosing Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a popular two-term governor, as his running mate would give Obama a boost.

“It can’t be understated that he is from our neighboring state,” said Dan Parker, the state Democratic Party chairman.

Since 1936, Democrats have won Indiana once in presidential elections, 1964. Still, they have had some success on the state level and ousted three GOP incumbent congressmen in 2006. Working-class Indiana whites pose hurdles for Obama as they did in his narrow primary loss to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Along the U.S.-Canada border, Democratic statewide victories have emboldened Obama to make plays for Montana and North Dakota. Republicans argue Democrats who win in those states are moderate and Obama is not. Obama’s campaign also is counting on residual goodwill from his primary wins in both.

In Montana, Bill Clinton showed it’s worth it for a Democrat to compete hard; he narrowly won it in 1992 but narrowly lost it four years later. President Bush, however, won by enormous margins in back-to-back elections.

Nevertheless, Democrats took the governor’s office back with Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s election in 2004 over a Republican, and booted a GOP senator facing corruption allegations two years later to take control of both Senate seats.

Democrats claim the electorate has become more moderate as new people settled in mountainous western Montana. Republicans argue the GOP foundation is strong and note that Montana has sent a Republican to the House since 1994.

North Dakota has a GOP governor but has had an all-Democratic congressional delegation for more than two decades. Still, no Democratic presidential candidate has won the state in more than 30 years.

Obama has opened offices in North Dakota’s four largest cities and has visited twice since wrapping up the nomination.

“Barack Obama coming up here and competing here is going to force John McCain to make a choice,” said Jamie Selzler, the state party director. “For everything that McCain does up here, that’s a little bit less that he can do in these big battleground states we always hear about.”

Even farther north in far-flung Alaska, it’s been three decades since a Democratic nominee won the state.

Republicans dominate the levers of power, but corruption has rocked the party, including the latest black eye: the indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens this week.

All that turmoil emboldens Obama. So does the fact that Alaska is home to the nation’s third-youngest population. Voter registrations among Democrats are outpacing Republicans.

Said state Sen. Hollis French, an Anchorage Democrat: “There is a real sense of energy coming off that campaign that is completely lacking from the other side.”