Posted on 12/31/2004 10:08:51 AM PST by The Teen Conservative
Helena, Mont.
A divided Montana Supreme Court declared yesterday that the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection extends to gays, and ruled that the state university system must offer same-sex couples the same health benefits available to heterosexual ones.
In a 4-3 decision, the justices struck down the university's policy of denying benefits to employees' gay partners.
The high court said the policy violates the Montana Constitution's guarantee of equal protection because unmarried heterosexual partners could receive the benefit by signing a common-law marriage affidavit, while unmarried gay partners could not.
The ruling, which reversed a 2002 lower-court decision, did not address the issue of gay marriage, barred under the Montana Constitution.
How about poloygamous trios or quartets? Do they qualify too?
Exactly why a lot of companies increasingly offer benefits to the employee only. If you want to extend coverage to include a spouse or child or homosexual partner, you dig deep and pay to have them included.
Simple eliminate common law marriage (aka marriage by deed) and then everyone is equal again. The trend is to eliminate common law marriage as no longer needed. Common law marriage was accepted due to the "frontier" nature of the country. Now that there is no frontier there is no need for unrecorded marrages.
If MT voters did not approve the anti-gay marriage amendment last month, the MT judges would have legalized gay marriage.
Don't see why not.
Just back charge any expenses for gay couples medical to the courts budget.
Yes, and if unmarried people want to include a "friend" in the protection, the company should not be held to pay for it. Oh, BTW, the friend had better not have a life threatening ailment too.
My company has had these benefits since 1990 (liberal industry). Couples need to prove financial interdependence through a joint bank account and a common residence extending back at least twelve months and must sign an affadavit confirming their relationship. I learned this because these benefits were not available to unmarried opposite-sex couples, because we could just "get married," but now that same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts the domestic partner benefits are going away.
Which companies have cut coverage for spouses and/or kids? That would make it hard to hire people.
Couples need to prove financial interdependence through a joint bank account and a common residence extending back at least twelve months and must sign an affadavit confirming their relationship
Thanks I'm glad to know they have to something.
Special rights for disordered folks.
I'm curious as to why they give benefits to any unmarried couples. Still, if they can give it to gay "couples" then what about underage arrangements or group arrangements?
The constitutions and laws never thought to exclude gays because no one in their right mind would think to allow it.
"partner" benefits will go to a chick's dog, just watch.
Obviously their amendment didn't address the benefits of marriage. It should be obvious that marriage is its benefits, but for those with an agenda of their own, they will use any tiny opening to force their will on all.
Sounds like its time for another amendment. Sheesh...how does a think like this happen in Montana of all places? Just demonstrates the advanced state of rot in our legal system.
Just goes to show that the liberal cancer is spreading - it has officially reached Montana.
What I don't get - homosexuals ARE covered already by equal protection - just as heterosexuals are - a REAL marriage between one man and one woman gains benefits -
So even if Steve is a queer, he gets the same benefits as a heterosexual married person - IF HE JUST MARRIES A WOMAN.
The sodomite lobby has taken a page out of the race-baiters handbook - "equal protection/opportunity" really mean MORE benefits/preferential treatment.
The ruling, which reversed a 2002 lower-court decision, did not address the issue of gay marriage, barred under the Montana Constitution.
I wonder if its possible for a Supreme Court to rule that one part of a Constitution voids another amendment? Arent't judges are supposed to interpret the law within a constitutional framework.
Gay Marriage... Coming Soon to a Red State Near You
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.