Court says gay couples due benefits
HELENA– The Montana Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law extends to gays and lesbians, the Montana Supreme Court said Thursday in a case seeking access to health insurance for partners of state university employees.
The court issued a 4-3 decision in an appeal by two University of Montana employees who said their partners were denied the right to buy group health insurance available to married, heterosexual couples.
Restricting access to the insurance violates the constitution’s equal-protection guarantee, the justices said in reversing a 2002 District Court decision.
“The decision is a validation for gays and lesbians in Montana that we do have a leg to stand on through the equal-protection clause,” said Nancy Siegel of Missoula.
Her partner, Carol Snetsinger, was a curriculum adviser at the University of Montana when officials there said group health insurance for Siegel could not be purchased.
Snetsinger and Siegel, along with UM employee Carla Grayson and her partner, Adrianne Neff, named the state in a lawsuit dismissed by District Judge Thomas Honzel, triggering the appeal decided Thursday. Like Snetsinger, Grayson no longer works for the university.
“On behalf of the university system and the Board of Regents, naturally we accept the decision of the Montana Supreme Court,” said Sheila Stearns, the state commissioner of higher education.
“However, we will be reviewing the decision carefully. It is somewhat complex. How it affects policy changes is something we have to look at very carefully. My staff and I will do that over the next few weeks.”
The Montana gay-rights group PRIDE Inc. joined Snetsinger, Siegel, Grayson and Neff in the lawsuit.
Advocates for the women included the American Civil Liberties Union, the MEA-MFT teachers’ union and several church parishes. The leadership of the Republican-controlled Legislature sided with the university system, as did the Montana Catholic Conference, Focus on the Family and the National Legal Foundation.
Snetsinger, Grayson and their partners did not ask the Supreme Court to address the issue of gay and lesbian marriage in Montana. State law defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and in November, voters passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
The women said their case was strictly a claim that the university benefit policy violated constitutional rights to equal protection, dignity and privacy; the right to pursue life’s basic necessities; and to seek safety, health and happiness.
In offering benefits to dependents of employees, the university system limited eligibility to spouses and certain children, with eligibility including partners who signed affidavits of common-law marriage.
“A closer look at the university system’s policy discloses that marital status … plays little if any role in determining who is eligible for benefits,” the Supreme Court majority wrote.
“Under the policy, the partner of a non-gay employee would qualify for benefits by signing an affidavit, when the partner of a gay employee would not qualify for the same benefits when signing the same affidavit.”
Based on that, the District Court erred in its equal-protection analysis, the Supreme Court said.
“In truth, unmarried opposite-sex couples are able to avail themselves of health benefits under the university system’s policy while unmarried same-sex couples are denied the health benefits,” the court said. “These two groups, although similarly situated in all respects other than sexual orientation, are not treated equally and fairly.”
There is “no justification for treating the two groups differently,” said the court’s majority opinion signed by Justices Jim Regnier, Jim Nelson, Patricia Cotter and William Leaphart.