Alaska Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Not Justification for Unequal Treatment

The Alaska Supreme Court has recently ruled that even though the state prohibits marriage between individuals of the same gender, it is unconstitutional to treat one-sex couples differently from two-sex couples with regard to state employee benefits.

Here in an excerpt from Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State of Alaska, No. S-10459 (Oct. 28, 2005):

The State of Alaska and the Municipality of Anchorage offer valuable benefits to their employees’ spouses that they do not offer to their unmarried employees’ domestic partners. Essentially all opposite-sex adult couples may marry and thus become eligible for these benefits. But no same-sex couple can ever become eligible for these benefits because same-sex couples may not marry in Alaska. The spousal limitations in the benefits programs therefore affect public employees with same-sex domestic partners differently than public employees who are married. This case requires us to determine if it is reasonable to pay public employees who are in committed domestic relationships with same-sex partners less in terms of employee benefits than their coworkers who are married. In making this determination, we must decide whether the spousal limitations in the benefits programs violate the rights of public employees with same-sex domestic partners to “equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law.”

The Alaska Constitution dictates the answer to that constitutional question. Irrelevant to our analysis must be personal, moral, or religious beliefs — held deeply by many — about whether persons should enter into intimate same-sex relationships or whether same-sex domestic partners should be permitted to marry. It is the duty of courts “to define the liberty of all, not to mandate [their] own moral code.” Our duty here is to decide whether the eligibility restrictions satisfy established standards for resolving equal protection challenges to governmental action.

We do not need to decide whether heightened scrutiny should be applied here because the benefits programs cannot withstand minimum scrutiny. Although the governmental objectives are presumably legitimate, the difference in treatment is not substantially related to those objectives. We accordingly hold that the spousal limitations are unconstitutional as applied to public employees with same-sex domestic partners, and we vacate the judgment below.

For an analysis of this landmark opinion, see Geri L. Dreiling, Gay Partners Entitled to State Employee Benefits, ABA J. e-Report, Nov. 11, 2005.