explaining that health policy “makes a distinction solely on the basis of married and unmarried employees or annuitants, not between heterosexual and homosexual ones”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that health policy “makes a distinction solely on the basis of married and unmarried employees or annuitants, not between heterosexual and homosexual ones”
- denying claim for dental benefits for same sex partners of state employees
- denial of dental benefits does not constitute sexual orientation discrimination, but instead merely distinguishes eligibility on the basis of marriage
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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.