Court Opinion

ID: 9723664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:25:55.329941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:50.833831
License: Public Domain

BLEASE, J.
I concur in the result.
Plaintiffs claim that the dental care plans for state employees unlawfully discriminate against the unmarried “family” partners of homosexual state employees by denying them benefits. The plans do not facially single out homosexuals since they exclude from benefits all but the families of married employees. Manifestly, this class is not restricted to homosexuals. It includes, for example, the unmarried “family” partners of heterosexual state employees. But, the plaintiffs respond, heterosexuals can gain entry to the favored class by getting married, a legal relationship denied homosexuals. That makes marriage the essence of the matter. It also compels the result, for Norman v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 1 [192 Cal.Rptr. 134, 663 P.2d 904] constitutionally sanctions the state’s right to single out the marriage relationship for benefits. Nothing more need be said.
A petition for a rehearing was denied May 23, 1985, and appellants’ petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied August 15, 1985. Bird, C. J., and Grodin, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.