HELENA -- The gay and lesbian partners of Montana university system employees have the same right to health insurance benefits as their heterosexual counterparts, the Montana Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

To deny gays and lesbians the same benefits available to unmarried heterosexual employees of the university system violates the equal protection clause of the Montana Constitution, Justice Jim Regnier wrote in the 4-3 majority opinion that overturned last year's lower court decision.

"I am ecstatic," said Carol Snetsinger of Missoula, a plaintiff in the case. "We were whooping and hollering and crying at the same time."

However, the university system has not yet opened the door to gay couples. The system currently offers health benefits to married couples and to unmarried opposite sex couples who sign a university affidavit of common-law marriage.

The ruling applies to any employers that offer benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples.

"We will be trying to figure out how to make sure the university system complies with the guidance of the court," said Sheila Stearns, commissioner of higher education. "However, it does seem in (the court's) very words that there are various policy options. So it's not a simple black and white issue."

Stearns said her office will develop policy recommendations for the state Board of Regents to consider at its March meeting, suggestions that could "possibly" include the rescission of the policy that extends benefits to unmarried couples.

"It always was kind of a complex case, and we are studying it," Stearns said.

The ruling

Former University of Montana employees Snetsinger and Carla Grayson and Montana PRIDE sued the university system in Helena District Court in 2002 after their lesbian partners were denied health insurance benefits by UM.

Days after filing the suit, the Missoula home Grayson shared with her partner, Adrianne Neff, and their child was destroyed by an arson-caused fire. The case was never solved, and the women have since moved to Michigan.

Snetsinger, who worked in the biology department at the University of Montana when she filed the suit, still lives in Missoula with her partner, Nancy Siegel. District Court Judge Thomas Honzel of Helena dismissed their case in 2002, and the American Civil Liberties Union appealed in March 2003.

Thursday's Supreme Court decision hinged on the discrimination inherent in the university system's affidavit policy.

"In truth, unmarried opposite-sex couples are able to avail themselves of health benefits under the university system's policy while unmarried same-sex couples are denied the health benefits," Regnier wrote in the decision. "These two groups, although similarly situated in all respects other than sexual orientation, are not treated equally and fairly."

The court found that the affidavit that couples can sign to get benefits "does not a marriage make," and held that couples who sign the form are not considered married under the law. Consequently, the court's ruling does not rewrite state law to extend common-law marriage to gays, he added. State law and the Montana Constitution prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying.

"We haven't changed anything," Regnier wrote. "We do make clear, however, that any organization that adopts an administrative procedure in order to provide employment benefits to opposite-sex partners who may not be in a legal marital relationship, must do the same for same-sex couples. To not do so violates equal protection."

Justices Regnier, Jim Nelson, Patricia Cotter and William Leaphart joined in the majority opinion.

Dissenting opinion

Justices Jim Rice, John Warner and Chief Justice Karla Gray dissented. The court is "radically altering common-law marriage in Montana," Rice wrote in his opinion.

He said the university system grants health insurance benefits based on marital status, and points out that the university affidavit unmarried couples can sign for benefits is, in fact, an affidavit of common-law marriage.

Therefore, gays who are expressly prohibited from marrying in Montana cannot sign the affidavit and enter into a common-law marriage for the sake of obtaining health insurance benefits.

The form reads: "We, the undersigned, both being over the age of 18 years, have mutually consented and contracted to become husband and wife and have mutually consented to hold towards each other the relationship of husband and wife."

Rice went on to conclude that this health insurance case is, in fact, a case about gay marriage.

"More accurately then, this case 'is about' the legal status of marriage in our society, specifically, whether the law still recognizes marriage as the transcendent societal relationship upon which the government may base its decisions," Rice said.

He also said that the rights of the people to define their society and to govern themselves are more fundamental than the right to individual dignity.

"Liberty in a free society is the right to pursue one's own life within the solemn principles that 'we the people' have established for governance of the society," Rice wrote.

The Montana Family Foundation, which wrote a friend of the court brief on behalf of the university system, echoes Rice.

"Once again, a small activist majority on the court is legislating from the bench, and pushing a liberal agenda contrary to the expressed wishes of the vast majority of the people of Montana," said Rep. Jeff Laszloffy, R-Laurel, and president of the Montana Family Foundation.

Laszloffy said on Nov. 2, two-thirds of Montanans approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage, and pointed to a recent Lee Newspapers poll showing the majority of Montanans in opposition to civil unions.

Individual rights

The Montana Human Rights Network, which wrote a brief on behalf of the plaintiffs, called the ruling a "victory for all Montanans."

"There's no doubt we're in the midst of a culture war here," said Rep. Christine Kaufmann, D-Helena, and co-director of the network. "But in the end, the people win. Fairness wins."

Ironically, the four women who initiated the suit cannot reap any benefit from it. Grayson and Neff have left the state, and Siegel, who hoped to get university benefits through Snetsinger, has missed the boat since Snetsinger hasn't worked at the university for more than a year.

However, Siegel said they fought the good fight for the benefit of all gays and lesbians.

"No matter what unfolds from here, we've brought the issue forth," Siegel said.

"No one is going to hand us civil rights on a platter just because we asked for them. That's not the way civil rights work in America. This is just the first step on the road to equal treatment."