Montana University System Ordered To Provide Gay Partner Benefits
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: December 30, 2004 8:22 pm ET

(Helena, Montana) The Montana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the state must provide lesbian and gay employees of the University of Montana System with the option of purchasing health insurance and other employee benefits for their domestic partners.

The ACLU began the lawsuit in February 2002 on behalf of two lesbian couples and PRIDE, Inc., a Montana based lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organization whose members include employees and domestic partners of employees of the University of Montana System.

The lawsuit charged that it was unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples access to health insurance, disability coverage and other benefits available to married employees and even to committed opposite-sex couples that signed an affidavit of common law marriage.

“This is an incredible victory for the lesbian and gay employees of the University of Montana System who need to protect their families just like their straight colleagues do,” said Scott Crichton, Executive Director of the ACLU of Montana which brought the suit.

Carol Snetsinger and Nancy Siegel, two of the plaintiffs, have been in a committed relationship for more than eight years. Snetsinger works in the biology department at the University of Montana, Missoula, and Siegel is a physical therapist.

Due to the small size and limited purchasing power for health care of the place where Siegel works, she has no access to group insurance through her employer and has been forced to purchase private insurance that is inferior to and much more expensive than coverage that the married university employees are able to purchase for their spouses.

“The court has said that same-sex couples who form committed relationships can no longer be denied the same protections and benefits that it affords different-sex couples," said Crichton.

The court, in a four-to-three decision, ruled that the University System’s policy of excluding lesbian and gay employees from equal employment benefits violates the state constitution’s equal protection guarantees.

“[T]he equal protection clause states that ‘No person’ shall be denied the equal protection of the laws," wrote Judge James C. Nelson in a concurring opinion.

"The language is clear and unambiguous. ‘No person’ means simply that – there is no language in this clause excepting out of this guarantee gay and lesbians. At least our society has not come to the position that homosexuals are not even to be considered as persons.”
Snetsinger broke down in tears when she was told of the ruling.

"It’s been a long wait, and now we’re thrilled that gay and lesbian employees of the University System will be able to insure their families,” she said.

©365Gay.com 2004

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/12/123004montana.htm

While this is a significant ruling, it does provide an out, if the anti-gay folks are cruel enough to use it. Rather than provide benefits for same-sex couples, the universities could deny benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples.

I have got to be honest, as a straight woman, I don't think unmarried heterosexual couples should be able to obtain these benefits since they have the option of marrying and choose not to (the couples at Univ Montana have to sign an affidavit that they are common law spouses, if the state still ecognizes common law marriage, this is the same as being married). Gay people on the other hand do not have this option and until it is granted should be able to cover domestic partners.

You wouldn't know it by reading the story posted here. But I read a NY Times story yesterday that focused more on the ruling and legal issues involved. The court, basically, used the common law marriage option available to heterosexual employees as the basis of its ruling. It said, in essence, that if the university system chooses to let unmarried heterosexual couples have health insurance benefits by signing an affidavit saying they are in a committed relationship, they must make the same offer to same-sex couples.

The court didn't say it directly, but implicit is that if the universities deny the common law coverage to heterosexuals, they could deny it to homosexuals as well. It's a very important "red state" ruling, but we'll see how it plays out. Those of us who are fighting for gay rights don't really want other people denied benefits because of our victories. Hopefully Montana won't go there. Studies have shown that health benefits for same-sex partners are not that costly compared to the good will they engender.

University health benefits are a big issue, and are going to be denied now in some of the states that passed anti-same-sex marriage amendments. Universities are upset about this, because it may affect retention and recruitment of personnel.

They aren't prohibited from offering benefits like those just because states won't allow same sex marriage, so I don't understand why some companies/universities are dropping the benefits due to these stupid amendments. When Universities start losing their best profs (and their grant dollars), alumni donations and potential students because they don't offer these sorts of benefits to same sex partners of employees, they'll come around (and if not, their programs will stagnate)

The Ohio amendment specifically prohibits the state from offering any benefits that are similar to marriage benefits. State universities in that state concede they will not be able to offer same-sex partnership benefits. Eight of the amendments passed Nov. 2, plus Louisiana's, had similar language, though I don't know the particulars and if all state universities in those states are affected. I know if I were a professor, I wouldn't be inclined to take a job at one of those universities.

A neat quote from the NY Times story from a judge who gets it!!!! If only more heterosexuals would heed his words.



From a concurring opinion by Justice James C. Nelson, who criticized the recent amendment to the Montana constitution banning gay marriage:

"Sadly,'' he wrote, "many politicians and 'we the people' rarely pass up an opportunity to bash and condemn gays and lesbians despite the fact that these citizens are our neighbors and that they work, pay taxes, vote, hold public office, own businesses, provide professional services, worship, raise their families and serve their communities in the same manner as heterosexuals.''

I saw something about the Montana decision on one of the major news channels, but it was reported as being for all gays/lesbians in Montana. Hopefully that will be true soon.

Even private employers cannot offer these benefits? I had thought the Ohio amendment (and at least 3 others) specifically excluded allowing not only gay marriage, but excluded the creation of domestic partnership/civil union (including those of heterosexual couples) as a legal contract/license akin to marriage (which means local governments and state universities cannot be required to offer benefits). I'm even more disgusted if these new state constitutional amendments went to the extreme of stipulating that a private employer (or even board of directors of a state university) would not be allowed to provide the benefits if it's in the best interests of the employer.

I believe private employers still can offer benefits, however, state universities would not be able to in Ohio. Michigan has already stricken a state regulation that required companies that do business with the state to have non-discrimination policies. Heterosexuals didn't understand, or didn't care, that many of these amendments went well beyond just limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman.

As I said earlier, as a straight woman, I don't give a fiddler's fart about unmarried heterosexual couples who are not married. They choose not to marry for whatever reason and therefor their options regarding benefits of marriage are limited by their own choice/action (or inaction in this case). Gay people do not have the same choices and the limitations put in place where not put in place for any reason other than overt bigotry.

I was seriously cheesed when I'd heard companies that are no longer required to provide these benefits have decided to drop benefits they were already providing them because they are no longer required. If you provide these benefits to people who are married, then you should provide them to those would get married but cannot because they are not allowed to do so solely because their partner is the same sex.

I know you guys don't need to hear me say because you live it, but it's just plain wrong (as in immoral) and this stupidity has got to stop.