Mary Leslie knows firsthand how it feels to lose everything. On their eighth anniversary together, her partner was killed in a tragic accident at a Montana ski resort, where they both worked as instructors. Despite their years together, Mary was denied access to her partner’s remains and denied bereavement leave at work. Mary also faced financial challenges and lost the home she shared with her partner, because her partner left no will and Montana law didn’t recognize their relationship. Everything Mary’s partner had went to the rest of her family instead. Mary also couldn’t sue on her partner’s behalf for the accident, since she wasn’t considered family.
Mary struggled through that loss and found love again, and she and Stacey have been together for over 12 years now. But Mary’s learned the hard way how vulnerable they are. As Mary says, “We know better than anyone that you can lose everything in a moment.”
Kellie Gibson worked for years at a juvenile detention center, but is now on disability because of a rare brain condition. She’s had 56 brain surgeries and over 300 spinal taps over the past 10 years. Kellie credits her partner of 11 years, Denise, for helping her through: “She never left me when I was so sick. I endure her relentless love of sports and she endures my need for dogs. I love her to infinity and beyond!” Kellie and Denise have sacrificed for each other, but Montana still considers them just “friends.”
Mary and Stacey and Kellie and Denise are two of the committed couples on whose behalf the ACLU filed suit today in state court in Montana, seeking protection for their families. (Read the other plaintiffs’ stories here.) They can’t ask for marriage under the state constitution, since Montana amended it back in 2004 to exclude same-sex couples from marriage. But the still promises equal protection, due process, and – in a unique Montana provision – the pursuit of life’s basic necessities, for everyone, including LGBT people. So they’re asking for equal protection of their relationships through a domestic partnership system similar to those that exist in California, Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Maryland, and Wisconsin.
Winning domestic partnership protections in Montana will help these families, and many others, when crisis finds them. It will also play a key role in our quest for fair treatment of our families all across the country.
We and other advocates for LGBT rights have made significant progress on relationship protections at the state level. Five states plus the District of Columbia now allow same-sex couples the freedom to marry. Two others recognize marriages of same-sex couples validly entered into in other states. Five more states provide comprehensive relationship protections through non-marriage systems like civil unions or domestic partnerships. And five more protect same-sex relationships through more limited domestic partnerships.
At some point in our fight for the freedom to marry, we’ll have to get help from federal courts or Congress to bring a uniform national rule regarding marriage fairness, because there are some states that just won’t get there on their own. Of course some federal efforts are underway already. The best way to maximize the ultimate chances of success in those federal efforts is to maximize the number of states that protect our relationships – perhaps especially those states that, like Montana, have marriage amendments. That is exactly what the lawsuit brought by these couples – the first lawsuit seeking statewide relationship recognition to be brought in a state with a marriage amendment – aims to do.
To read a copy of the legal complaint filed today in this case, click here. For an FAQ on the case, click here.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.