Help strengthen alternative media by visiting our supporters

Sheepdog Supplies

Montana Flag Replaced by Rainbow Flag

The action taken at the end of the day on Friday by Governor Bullock was not noticed until Saturday morning.

Gov. Bullock Replaces Montana State Flag With Rainbow Flag
LGBTQ Flag Flies Over Montana Capitol

Montana Flag Replaced by Rainbow Flag

By Tim Ravndal

Across America the gay pride movement has been seen in headlines everywhere.  In Montana, Governor Steve Bullock replaced the Montana flag at the Capitol with a rainbow colored cloth.

LGBTQ movement is on the march to instill a lifestyle on to the people of Montana with the governor promoting the political movement.  The citizens are wondering how such an action could be authorized.

Representative Steve Gunderson

The replacement of the Montana Flag was done through an executive order authorized under law providing a statutory proclamation authority.

In many cities across Montana from the border with North Dakota to the most Northwest Community the citizens are up in arms voicing their concerns on social media and making calls.

Previously the State of Montana approved the display of the MIA/POW flag at the Capitol to honor those missing in action and prisoners of war.  The MIA/POW Flag was always placed under the United States Flag or under the Montana Flag.

The action taken at the end of the day on Friday by Governor Bullock was not noticed until Saturday morning.  No public notice has been confirmed.

Representative Steve Gunderson going to his office on Saturday noticed the new flag in front of the Capitol.  His concern triggered an outrage of many citizens including legislative officials across Montana.

All calls made to the Governor’s office, Secretary of State and the Attorney General were unanswered due to the timing of this taking place on the weekend.

Emails, and calls were echoed from citizens across Montana hoping to get an answer.  Because no one is in the offices of the People’s House until Monday morning no responses were available.

Some of the citizens of Montana are claiming this to be an act of war.   Montana Constitution defines marriage between a man and a woman.  If the Governor of Montana is going to disregard the Constitution and promote a political movement the citizens are deeply concerned.

Mr. Bullock joined many democrats for a run at the office of the President of the United States.  His own party refused to recognize him in the first national presidential debate which he has shown his dismay.

Mr. Bullock is termed out as Governor and is trying to climb the political ladder.  Several people we talked to stated that they think Mr. Bullock is angry and used the power of his office to promote the political agenda of the gay community.

An LGBTQ designation across America has claimed the month of June is dedicated to the political movement.  In the Capitol City of Helena Montana a parade was held on Saturday in conjunction with multiple events across the country.

It is unknown if the flag proclamation will be on for the weekend event, or if the Montana Flag will be missing the rest of the month of June.

With the continued usurpation of power for political gain across America, there is deep concern across Montana as to where this will go next.



The views, opinions, or positions expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions of Redoubt News. Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our stories to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here:

14 Comments on Montana Flag Replaced by Rainbow Flag

  1. Gays dont own the rainbow. A Rainbow is a spectrum of lighremember. Honestly I dont know or care if the lgbt flag is roygbiv
    , If not then I suppose it is a distinct symbol of the gays, but when I hear the word rainbow I think rainbow, not gays. So the flag is honoring rainbows to me, I have no problem with honoring rainbows.

  2. One way of dealing with this on an individual level, just for my own philosophical musing, is to simply pause and ask myself *why* is government involved in marriage in the first place?

      • If the rainbow flag is to be displayed, it should be displayed as the POW/MIA flag is, below the existing official flags. The governor is the employee of the people of Montana and this doesn’t sound like he is doing a very good job. Montana voters need to take a closer look at his job performance and seriously consider a different governor.

    • “Why – if the maintenance of the unswerving constancy of husband and wife can be safely intrusted to the guardianship of “their reciprocal inward sweetness or humanity,” with no “base legal bondage” superadded – why may not the care and maintenance of the offspring be, with equal safety, intrusted likewise to that same “inward sweetness or humanity,” without the superaddition of a “base legal bondage,” or “outward force?” If the first of these social relations may with safety, not only, but with positive advantage, be discharged of accountability to the police office, why not the second? Why, indeed, be at the trouble and expense of maintaining a police office at all? Indeed, if I understand Mr. J. rightly, after imposing this limitation upon the absolute freedom of divorce, or, in other words, upon the extinction of legal marriage – ex gratia modestiae [Online editor’s note: “for modesty’s sake” – RTL], perhaps, lest the whole truth might be fitting to be spoken openly – he again dispenses with the limitation itself, and delivers the parental relation over to the same securities to which he has previously consigned the conjugal; for, I find in a subsequent paragraph of the same article the following sentence: “It is obvious to every honest mind that if our conjugal, parental, and social ties generally can be safely discharged of the purely diabolic element of outward force, they must instantly become transfigured by their own inward divine and irresistible loveliness.” Here it is not Marriage only, but the maintenance of offspring also, which is to be intrusted to the “inward sweetness or humanity” of the individuals to whom the relation appeals, which seems to me much the more consistent view of the matter, inasmuch as, if the principle is good for any thing in one case, it is certainly equally applicable in the other. But here, again, we come back to the point I have made above – the query whether Marriage, discharged of all law, custom, or necessary perpetuity, remains Marriage at all? and if so, what is the essential and characteristic element of such Marriage? – upon which point I crave further information. ”

      Love, Marriage, and Divorce (1853/1889)
      by Henry James, Sr. (1811-1882), Horace Greeley (1811-1872)
      and Stephen Pearl Andrews (1812-1886)

      • History can always be a valuable teacher to understand how and why things happen with the political movements. When government reaches out into the lives of the people, even more questions arise.

    • Cause the govt benefits by a growing population? Cause normally (without govt interference)children sired & parented by two people, committed to each other, are dedicated & responcible to the care, health & welfare of their offspring? And since it is in the MT Constitution, marriage between a “man” & a “woman”,then could that apply to a transsexual man &/or woman marriage but not to a gay, lesbian transgender marriage? Just wondering.

      • ele,

        The family has been a very strong collective power for ages, and for reasons that tend to move life forms from base, simple, and vulnerable, to moral, complex, and durable.

        An example of this power is found in at least one study that was worth reading.

        Those who wish to destroy instead of prospering are those who know well enough to target the family, to destroy the family, so as to reach the end goal: destruction.

        My guess is that you know this, perhaps, and that is why you are asking those specific questions.

        Even those who wish merely to control (not necessarily to destroy) are those who will destroy by their control, and they also know that they must destroy the family in order to gain control.

      • Your question is shared by many that are engaged in this latest debate. As author of this article I for one do not believe that the founding documents of this country support this poltical/social movement and neither does the Bible.

    • First lets agree on the definition of the terms” governer” and ” citizens”.
      The ” governer ” is in reality the CEO of ” THE STATE OF MONTANA, INC” A Federal subsidiary, xo therefore subje t tomall ” cirporate rules( statutes, codes, rules, orders, codes…)

      Citizens are subjects.

      As an example, I will use myself. I am a subject of no man or entity ( corporations are entities, fictional and only those who are part of the corporation through an adhesion contract, or dependents of someone who is , are subject.

      Now ask yourself, How did I become or assume to become subject to a corporation acting as my lawful government ? The short answer is , by your signature on an undisclosed contract that was never fully explained to you ( or anyone else ). In Law , that is called an unconscionable or faulted or void contract…we know this as fraud. Where fraud is converned in a contract it cancels the contract “ab initio”… from the beginning.

      When we learn their language , we win.

Comments are closed.