Alaska High Court Backs Homosexual Benefits

[Accountable]

I love the reasoning mentioned in the last paragraph. an employer must give homosexual partners benefits precisely because they cannot marry. Sounds like legislation from the bench to me. What's to stop roommates from claiming family benefits? I would understand if employers stopped giving any family benefits at all.



ANCHORAGE, Alaska(AP) Gay rights advocates claimed a major victory after the state Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to deny benefits to same-sex partners of public employees.

In overturning a lower court ruling, the state high court said Friday that barring benefits for state and city employees' same-sex partners violates the Alaska constitution's equal protection clause.

The ruling could influence courts in other states, said Michael Macleod-Ball, director of the Alaska American Civil Liberties Union. Alaska was one of the first states to pass a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage.

"Other courts ... could be looking to the state of Alaska on how it handled the equal protection rationale," Macleod-Ball said.

Carrie Evans, state legislative director for the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign, said the unanimous decision sets the stage for Alaska to join 11 other states that already have laws, policies or union contracts providing employee benefits in all eligible same-sex unions.

Anchorage city attorney Fred Boness said city officials would not appeal the decision.

But Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski was "outraged" by the ruling and directed the attorney general's office to determine the best way to overturn it, said his spokeswoman, Becky Hultberg.

The high court said the disputed benefits plans will stand until a remedy is reached in future court hearings.

Nine gay or lesbian government workers and their partners in 2002 joined the Alaska American Civil Liberties Union in appealing the lower court ruling. The case stems from a 1999 lawsuit filed against the state and the Municipality of Anchorage after voters passed a constitutional amendment blocking state recognition of gay marriage.

In the 2001 Superior Court ruling overturned Friday, Judge Stephanie Joannides said the state and city did not have to extend benefits to same-sex couples, equating them with unmarried heterosexual couples who also are not eligible.

The high court said that comparison failed to acknowledge the fact that heterosexual couples can choose to get married, while homosexual couples cannot.