ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Attorneys for nine gay and lesbian public employees and their domestic partners argued in Anchorage Superior Court Tuesday that it is unconstitutional for the state and the Municipality of Anchorage to deny them health insurance and pension benefits equal to those married couples receive.

The case was filed shortly after Alaska voters overwhelmingly approved a 1998 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. The lawsuit brings to Alaska an argument being aired across the country.

"Plaintiffs don't seek marriage in this case," said Ken Choe, an ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights staff attorney.

But Choe argued that it is unconstitutional for the state to require a couple to be married in order to get employment benefits while at the same time excluding gays and lesbians from marriage.

Non-gay unmarried couples have the option to marry and obtain state and city benefits, attorneys argued. The policy denying employment benefits specifically discriminates against same-sex couples and infringes on their rights guaranteed in the state constitution.

Three attorneys representing the state and city argued that the same-sex couples are not specifically targeted under the policy. Gay and lesbian couples are a fraction of a larger group of people denied those benefits, said Assistant Attorney General John Gaguine. He said non-gay unmarried couples are also not provided employment benefits.

Gaguine told Judge Stephanie Joannides that the Legislature determined the policy to limit benefits and save money. The issue is economic, he argued, and people not provided health insurance can purchase it privately.

Gaguine said the policy also supports the state's right to promote marriage.

Choe argued that the marriage amendment defined marriage but said nothing of providing or withholding employment benefits.

State health insurance costs between $600 and $667 per month per employee, said Janet Parker, in the state's retirement and benefits office. The premium is the same whether it covers a single employee, or whole family, she said.

However, the premium would increase over time if benefits were extended to domestic partners, Parker said, because the number of claims would increase. Nationally, employers who have extended coverage to domestic partners have seen premiums rise from 1 percent to 5 percent, she said.

The couples' attorneys called the state's legal arguments a subterfuge for a social policy designed to disenfranchise gay men and women. Every time there has been any hope for [equal] rights, the Legislature has stepped in and "slapped them down," Choe said.

If Joannides rules in favor of the nine couples, the issue will bounce back to the Legislature.

"The court won't decide this if we win," said Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU.

Government employers could design a domestic-partner registration or an affidavit that confirmed domestic partnership, Rudinger said. Private employers are increasingly providing employment benefits to domestic partners, she said.

In Alaska, Wells Fargo & Co. provides domestic-partner benefits, said Cindy Norquest, a company human relations consultant. The company, which recently bought National Bank of Alaska, employs 1,200 people across the state. To qualify as domestic partners, couples must live in a single residence for at least six months and be financially interdependent, among several other requirements, she said. The University of Alaska also offers domestic partners employment benefits.

Currently 35 states limit marriage to non-gay couples, according to Rudinger. Many, like Alaska, tie government employees' benefits to marriage.

"We are not saying that the state has to recognize that these people can get married, Rudinger said. "We are just saying that the state can't say that this class of people can't get benefits."

Return to TBC GLBT News

© 2001 Anchorage Daily News. All rights reserved.