section below

Citation: section below
Parent Document: Donaldson v. State of Montana, 2012 MT 288 (2012)
Jurisdiction: Montana (state)
Effective Date: 2012-12-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/889962/donaldson-v-state-of-montana/ ↗

Full Text

1,158 chars

We agree with the plaintiffs that the proper comparison is between
       same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, whether or not they are
       married. The municipality correctly observes that no unmarried employees,
       whether they are members of same-sex or opposite-sex couples, can obtain
       the disputed benefits for their domestic partners. But this does not mean
       that these programs treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples the same.
       Unmarried public employees in opposite-sex domestic relationships have
       the opportunity to obtain these benefits, because employees are not
       prevented by law from marrying their opposite-sex domestic partners. In
       comparison, public employees in committed same-sex relationships are
       absolutely denied any opportunity to obtain these benefits, because these
       employees are barred by law from marrying their same-sex partners in
       Alaska or having any marriage performed elsewhere recognized in Alaska.
       Same-sex unmarried couples therefore have no way of obtaining these
       benefits, whereas opposite-sex unmarried couples may become eligible for

Other Sections in This Document (2523)

Full Text