Opinion ID: 2576356
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Effect of the Marriage Amendment on Plaintiffs' Equal Protection Arguments

Text: The plaintiffs, in challenging the spousal limitations in the benefits programs, rely on article I, section 1 of the Alaska Constitution, which guarantees the right to equal treatment. It states that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law. [15] Often referred to as the equal protection clause, this clause actually guarantees not only equal protection, but also equal rights and opportunities under the law. [16] But Alaska Constitution article I, section 25, the Marriage Amendment, states that [t]o be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman. It effectively prohibits same-sex domestic partners from marrying in Alaska and denies recognition in Alaska to foreign marriages between same-sex couples. [17] We must decide as a threshold matter whether, as contended by the municipality and amici curiae North Star Civil Rights Defense Fund, Inc. and the Marriage Law Project, the Marriage Amendment precludes challenges by same-sex couples to government policies that discriminate between married and unmarried couples. We must give effect to every word, phrase, and clause of the Alaska Constitution. [18] [S]eemingly conflicting parts are to be harmonized, if possible, so that effect can be given to all parts of the constitution. [19] The Alaska Constitution's equal protection clause and Marriage Amendment can be harmonized in this case because it concerns a dispute about employment benefits. The Marriage Amendment effectively precludes same-sex couples from marrying in Alaska, but it 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. [20] Nor have we been referred to 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. [21] The Marriage Amendment could have the effect of foreclosing the present challenge only if it could be read to prohibit public employers from offering benefits to their employees' same-sex domestic partners. But nothing in its text would permit that reading, and indeed the state and the municipality implicitly assume on appeal that governments are free to offer employment benefits to their employees' unmarried, domestic partners, including same-sex domestic partners. Because the public employers' benefits programs could be amended to include unmarried same-sex domestic partners without offending the Marriage Amendment, that amendment does not foreclose plaintiffs' equal protection claims here. That the Marriage Amendment effectively prevents same-sex couples from marrying does not automatically permit the government to treat them differently in other ways. It therefore does not preclude public employees with same-sex domestic partners from claiming that the spousal limitations in the benefits programs invidiously discriminate against them. The state equal protection clause cannot override more specific provisions in the Alaska Constitution. [22] But the plaintiffs do not contend that the Marriage Amendment violates Alaska's equal protection clause. They argue not that they have a right to marry each other, but that the benefits programs discriminate against them by denying them benefits that the programs provide to others who, plaintiffs claim, are similarly situated. Because the Marriage Amendment does not resolve this appeal, we turn to the merits of plaintiffs' equal protection arguments.