AnalPhilosopher

Yesterday, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that a university policy that makes benefits available to unmarried heterosexual couples must make them available to homosexual couples. See here. The court did not say that state universities must make benefits available. It said that if they are made available to unmarried heterosexual couples, then they must be made available to homosexual couples. The ruling was based on the equal-protection clause of the Montana Constitution. (See paragraph 35 of the opinion.)

There are two things Montanans can do if they don't like this ruling. First, they can withdraw benefits from all unmarried couples. Heterosexual couples could choose to marry to regain their benefits. Second, they can amend their state constitution to make it clear that the equal-protection clause does not require benefits for homosexual couples. In effect, they'll be overruling this case. It'll be interesting to see what happens. By the way, here is a New York Times story about the case.