Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. Alaska

Last updated

Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State of Alaska
Court Alaska Supreme Court
Full case name Alaska Civil Liberties Union, Dan Carter and Al Incontro, Lin Davis and Maureen Longworth, Shirley Dean and Carla Timpone, Darla Madden and Karen Wood, Aimee Olejasz and Fabienne Peter-Contesse, Karen Sturnick and Elizabeth Andrews, Theresa Tavel and Karen Walter, Corin Whittemore and Gani Ruthellen, and Estra Bensussen and Carol Rose Gackowski v. State of Alaska and Municipality of Anchorage
DecidedOctober 28, 2005 (2005-10-28)
Citation122 P.3d 781
Court membership
Judges sitting Alex Bryner, Walter L. Carpeneti, Robert Ladd Eastaugh, Dana Fabe, Warren Matthews
Keywords

Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State of Alaska, 122 P.3d 781 (Ak. 2005), [1] is an Alaska Supreme Court case holding that Alaska's Ballot Measure 2, which bans same-sex marriage, does not foreclose state equal protection claims brought on behalf of same-sex couples.

Contents

Background

The State of Alaska and the municipality of Anchorage offers employment benefits to spouses of employees, but not to unmarried couples. The Alaska Civil Liberties Union and nine homosexual couples filed suit against Alaska and Anchorage in superior court, alleging that this denial violates their equal protection under the Alaska Constitution. The Superior Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, on the grounds that "heightened scrutiny was unwarranted because the state and the municipality were discriminating between married and unmarried employees, not between opposite-sex and same-sex couples", that "a right to employee benefits, which it ruled was not a fundamental right", and that "the defendants had a legitimate interest in reducing costs, increasing administrative efficiency, and promoting marriage". [2] Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.

Court Ruling

On appeal, defendants argued that Ballot Measure 2 foreclosed plaintiffs' equal protection claims. The Court rejected that argument, on the basis that Measure 2 "does not explicitly or implicitly prohibit public employers from offering to their employees' same-sex domestic partners all benefits that they offer to their employees' spouses. It does not address the topic of employment benefits at all", nor was there "any legislative history implying that, despite its clear words, the Marriage Amendment should be interpreted to deny employment benefits to public employees with same-sex domestic partners". As such, that "the Marriage Amendment effectively prevents same-sex couples from marrying does not automatically permit the government to treat them differently in other ways." [3]

The Court noted that it previously held that the state's equal protection clause "protects Alaskans' right to non-discriminatory treatment more robustly than does the federal equal protection clause". [4] It agreed "with the plaintiffs that the proper comparison is between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, whether or not they are married." [5] It then held that "the benefits programs are facially discriminatory". [5] While it noted a "sliding-scale analysis for equal protection challenges in Alaska", [6] it declined to rule on whether a higher standard of review was needed for sexual orientation classifications, as "the benefits programs cannot survive minimum scrutiny" [7]

It first held that the employment benefits are "undeniably economic", and as such they receive "minimum scrutiny" if a suspect classification is not involved. The defendants argued that "they have three legitimate interests — cost control, administrative efficiency, and promotion of marriage — in limiting employment benefits to spouses and dependent children" [7] But the Court did not "see how an absolute exclusion of same-sex domestic partners from being eligible for benefits is substantially related to this interest. Many same-sex couples are no doubt just as "truly close[ly] relat[ed]" and "closely connected" as any married couple... Although limiting benefits to "spouses," and thereby excluding all same-sex domestic partners, does technically reduce costs, such a restriction fails to advance the expressed governmental goal of limiting benefits to those in "truly close relationships" with and "closely connected" to the employee." [8]

On administrative efficiency, the Court held that the "availability of these benefits elsewhere [in Alaska] persuades us that administrative difficulties are not an insurmountable barrier to providing benefits if our constitution requires that they be provided." Tbus, they concluded that "the absolute exclusion of same-sex couples is not substantially related to the goal of maximizing administrative efficiency". [9]

On the asserted interest in promoting marriage, the Court rejected plaintiffs' contention that "the state is not truly interested in promoting marriage, because, if it were, it would not have prevented gays and lesbians from entering into married relationships", and noted that "just because the legislature did not want to promote same-sex marriage does not mean it did not have a sincere interest in promoting "traditional" marriage", and held that promoting marriage is at least a legitimate government interest. [10] They then held that "restricting eligibility to persons in a status that same-sex domestic partners can never achieve — cannot be said to be related to that interest", noting that "[t]here is no indication here that denying benefits to public employees with same-sex domestic partners has any bearing on who marries. There is no indication here that granting or denying benefits to public employees with same-sex domestic partners causes employees with opposite-sex domestic partners to alter their decisions about whether to marry. There is no indication here that any of the plaintiffs, having been denied these benefits, will now seek opposite-sex partners with an intention of marrying them. And if such changes resulted in sham or unstable marriages entered only to obtain or confer these benefits, they would not seem to advance any valid reasons for promoting marriage." [10]

The Court thus held that the denial of benefits violate equal protection. [11]

The case was remanded to the superior court for a remedy. [12] [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864, was a lawsuit decided by Vermont Supreme Court on December 20, 1999. It was one of the first judicial affirmations of the right of same-sex couples to treatment equivalent to that afforded different-sex couples. The decision held that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage denied rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. The court ordered the Vermont legislature to either allow same-sex marriages or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights to same-sex couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defense of Marriage Act</span> 1996 U.S. federal law, repealed in 2022

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. It banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage by limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman, and it further allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

A domestic partnership is an intimate relationship between people, usually couples, who live together and share a common domestic life but who are not married. People in domestic partnerships receive legal benefits that guarantee right of survivorship, hospital visitation, and other rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in the United States</span>

The availability of legally recognized same-sex marriage in the United States expanded from one state (Massachusetts) in 2004 to all fifty states in 2015 through various court rulings, state legislation, and direct popular votes. States each have separate marriage laws, which must adhere to rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States that recognize marriage as a fundamental right guaranteed by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as first established in the 1967 landmark civil rights case of Loving v. Virginia.

A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship, analogous to marriage, created in 1999 to extend the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. It was extended to all opposite-sex couples as of January 1, 2016 and by January 1, 2020 to include new votes that updated SB-30 with more benefits and rights to California couples choosing domestic partnership before their wedding. California Governor Newsom signed into law on July 30, 2019.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1998 Alaska Measure 2</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

Ballot Measure 2 of 1998 is a ballot measure, since ruled unconstitutional, that added an amendment to the Alaska Constitution that prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage in Alaska. The Ballot measure was sparked by the lawsuit filed by Jay Brause and Gene Dugan, after the two men were denied a marriage license by the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics. In Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743, the Alaska Superior Court ruled that the state needed compelling reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples and ordered a trial on the question. In response, the Alaska Legislature immediately proposed and passed Resolution 42, which became what is now known as Ballot Measure 2. Ballot Measure 2 passed via public referendum on November 3, 1998, with 68% of voters supporting and 32% opposing. The Bause case was dismissed following the passage of the ballot measure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in Hawaii</span>

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Hawaii since December 2, 2013. The Hawaii State Legislature held a special session beginning on October 28, 2013, and passed the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act legalizing same-sex marriage. Governor Neil Abercrombie signed the legislation on November 13, and same-sex couples began marrying on December 2, making Hawaii the fifteenth U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage. Hawaii also allows both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to formalize their relationships legally in the form of civil unions and reciprocal beneficiary relationships. Civil unions provide the same rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage at the state level, while reciprocal beneficiary relationships provide a more limited set of rights. When Hawaii's civil union law took effect at the start of 2012, same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions were considered civil unions in Hawaii.

Same-sex unions in the United States are available in various forms in all states and territories, except American Samoa. All states have legal same-sex marriage, while others have the options of civil unions, domestic partnerships, or reciprocal beneficiary relationships. The federal government only recognizes marriage and no other legal union for same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Nevada since October 9, 2014, when a federal district court judge issued an injunction against enforcement of Nevada's same-sex marriage ban, acting on order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had ruled two days earlier that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage was previously banned by an amendment to the Constitution of Nevada approved in 2002. The statutory and constitutional bans were repealed in 2017 and 2020, respectively.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Arizona since October 17, 2014. The U.S. state had denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1996 and by an amendment to its State Constitution approved by voters in 2008. On October 17, Judge John W. Sedwick ruled in two lawsuits that Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and enjoined the state from enforcing its ban, effective immediately. Attorney General Tom Horne said the state would not appeal that ruling, and instructed county clerks to comply and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage has been recognized in Montana since a federal district court ruled the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on November 19, 2014. Montana had previously denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1997 and in its State Constitution since 2004. The state appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but before that court could hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all same-sex marriage bans in the country in Obergefell v. Hodges, mooting any remaining appeals.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in North Carolina since October 10, 2014, when a U.S. District Court judge ruled in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper that the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. Governor Pat McCrory and Attorney General Roy Cooper had acknowledged that a recent ruling in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear an appeal in that case established the unconstitutionality of North Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage. State legislators sought without success to intervene in lawsuits to defend the state's ban on same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the 28th U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage.

<i>Diaz v. Brewer</i> Lawsuit regarding healthcare benefits

Diaz v. Brewer, originally Collins v. Brewer No. 2:09-cv-02402-JWS (Az.Dist.Ct.), is a lawsuit heard on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed a lower court's issuance of a preliminary injunction that prevented Arizona from implementing its 2009 statute that would have terminated the eligibility for healthcare benefits of any state employee's same-sex domestic partner.

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, was a federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and decided on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It challenged the federal constitutionality of Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and other same-sex relationships.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Alaska since October 12, 2014, with an interruption from October 15 to 17 while state officials sought without success to delay the implementation of a federal court ruling. The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska held on October 12 in the case of Hamby v. Parnell that Alaska's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. On October 15, state officials obtained a two-day stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the U.S. Supreme Court refused to extend on October 17. Although Alaska is one of a few states which enforces a three-day waiting period between requesting a marriage license and conducting a marriage ceremony, at least one same-sex couple had the waiting period waived immediately after the district court's ruling. They married in Utqiagvik on October 13 and were the first same-sex couple to marry in Alaska.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

South African family law is concerned with those legal rules in South Africa which pertain to familial relationships. It may be defined as "that subdivision of material private law which researches, describes and regulates the origin, contents and dissolution of all legal relationships between: (i) husband and wife ; (ii) parents, guardians and children; and (iii) relatives related through blood and affinity."

"As far as family law is concerned, we in South Africa have it all. We have every kind of family; extended families, nuclear families, one-parent families, same-sex families, and in relation to each one of these there are controversy, difficulties and cases coming before the courts or due to come before the courts. This is the result of ancient history and recent history [...]. Our families are suffused with history, as family law is suffused with history, culture, belief and personality. For researchers it's a paradise, for judges a purgatory."

The topic of same-sex unions and military service concerns the government treatment or recognition of same-sex unions who may consist of at least one servicemember of a nation's military.

Garden State Equality v. Dow, 82 A. 3d 336 is a New Jersey Superior Court case holding that New Jersey's marriage laws violated the rights of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law under the New Jersey State Constitution. The ruling was issued on September 27, 2013. The Superior Court and the Superior Court, Appellate Division refused the State's request for a stay of the trial court's order, and the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to do so on a 7–0 vote. The ruling took effect on October 21, 2013. On the same day, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie dropped the State's plans to appeal, ending the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples in New Jersey.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in the U.S. state of Georgia since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Attorney General Sam Olens announced that Georgia would "adhere to the ruling of the Court", and the first couple married just one hour after the ruling was handed down. Previously, Georgia had banned same-sex marriage both by statute and its State Constitution.

References

  1. ↑ Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. Alaska, 122P.3d781 (Ak.2005).
  2. ↑ Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 122 P.3d 781 at 785.
  3. ↑ Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 122 P.3d at 786-787.
  4. ↑ Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 122 P.3d at 787.
  5. 1 2 Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 122 P.3d at 788
  6. ↑ Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 122 P.3d at 789.
  7. 1 2 Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 122 P.3d at 790.
  8. ↑ Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 122 P.3d at 791
  9. ↑ Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 122 P.3d at 791-792
  10. 1 2 Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 122 P.3d at 792-793.
  11. ↑ Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 122 P.3d at 794.
  12. ↑ Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 122 P.3d at 795.
  13. ↑ Alaska high court favors benefits for gay partners October 28, 2005 Accessed via USA Today, December 15, 2011
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.