It took Mary Leslie more than a decade to speak publicly about the tragic accident that robbed her not only of her partner of eight years, but her financial security as well.
On Christmas Day of 1996, Erika Pankow was killed in work-related accident at the Big Sky Ski Resort. Though they shared a condo, checking account and life together, Leslie was one of the last to know of Pankow's parents' decision to remove her remains from Lone Peak, the mountain on which she died.
"They took her remains before I could see her, before I could say goodbye," Leslie said at her home Friday. "It was pretty bitter."
In addition, Pankow's parents, with whom Leslie's relationship was already "strained at best," took Pankow's share of the couple's retirement funds and her workers' compensation benefits. Pankow did not have a will.
Leslie spent the days following Pankow's death trying to maintain access to the couple's joint checking account and watching her partner's parents remove personal possessions from the home they had shared.
"In retrospect and over time, (not having a say in what happened to her remains) probably became the most painful thing to remember," Leslie said. "But I had to deal with more immediate concerns."
Now in a committed relationship with Stacey Haugland, with whom she shares a home in Bozeman, Leslie wants to make sure no other same-sex couple in Montana has to experience the same struggles she faced.
"I really don't want anyone to go through what I went through. It's not right," she said.
Leslie and Haugland are one of the seven same-sex couples who, together with the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, are suing the state for the same rights guaranteed to married couples in decisions regarding health care, finances, inheritance and other matters that affect their families.
The suit, filed Thursday in Helena, alleges the state is violating the Montana constitution by denying rights to gay couples in committed relationships.
"Under current Montana law, same-sex couples cannot obtain the significant relationship and family protections and obligations automatically provided to similarly situated different different-sex couples who marry," the suit states.
Furthermore, Montana law provides no alternative to marriage -- which a 2004 constitutional amendment defines as existing only between a man and a woman -- for gay couples to obtain similar relationship and family protections. Such protections include the right of inheritance, the ability to file joint tax returns and legal protection in cases of separation and divorce.
Leslie and Haugland said they were approached by the ACLU to join the suit several months ago. The timing was right, they said.
Leslie has testified before the Montana Legislature previously about equal protection issues for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and is now comfortable speaking about Pankow's death and the emotional and financial turmoil it brought about.
And both have steady jobs and supportive friends and coworkers in Bozeman.
"We have always been out, and we're also really rooted in our community," Haugland said. "If Mary's experience with Erika taught us anything, it's that disasters can happen at any moment."
"You can be afraid and do nothing, or you can be afraid and do something," Leslie added.
Mike Long and Rich Parker, who have been together for eight years, are the second Bozeman couple named in the suit. They said they want to ensure arrangements for their son, dog, mortgage and savings are in place should anything happen to one or both of them.
"This is not about marriage," Long said. "It is about family values. We want to protect our family and each other."
Long said he and Parker have spent thousands of dollars in legal fees to obtain the myriad rights automatically given to straight couples who are married. They had had many discussions about what could be done to make the process easier and more secure for themselves and other gay couples. Since the Legislature has so far failed to address the issue, litigation was the only available avenue, they said.
"We've always thought that this sort of thing was something we wanted to do to protect our family," Long said.
Like Leslie and Haugland, Long and Parker are out and established in the Bozeman community.
But Parker said he has wondered what kind of attention the lawsuit and surrounding publicity will bring. He cited the 2002 incident in which an alleged arsonist set fire to the home of Missoula couple Carla Grayson and Adrianne Neff. At the time, authorities believed the fire was set in response the women's involvement in a lawsuit accusing the Montana University System of discriminating against gay and lesbian employees by refusing to extend same-sex benefits to their partners.
The Montana Supreme Court later ruled in a separate suit that the Montana University System must provide benefits to domestic partners of its employees.
"We have addressed [the possibility of] violent acts toward us," Parker said. "It is a risk we are willing to take."
Lauren Russell can be reached at lrussell@dailychronicle.com or 582-2635.
petit_singe posted at 10:47 am on Mon, Jul 26, 2010.
And as for gay marriage: I think if two straight people who hate each other can get married, then two gay people who love each other should definitely be able to get married and adopt children. If you don't agree with it, then don't do it. But don't suppress rights for a group of people who aren't hurting anyone because of your personal beliefs.
petit_singe posted at 10:45 am on Mon, Jul 26, 2010.
Scotty: The "Original Natives" in Montana were obviously Native Americans. You would be interested to know that Native Americans actually revered homosexuals, because they were seen as having both male and female attributes, and gay men were more desirable as wives because they not only could cook and clean, but also hunt, fish, ect. The Native American community is still very accepting of homosexuality. You may be a "5th Generation Montanan" but you are certainly not an "original native." Do some research before you post something like that.
username215 posted at 8:46 am on Sun, Jul 25, 2010.
Perhaps it's time for a few facts. At least one of the Bozeman plaintiffs is a Montana native (from Conrad, no less), as are a few of the non-Bzn'ite plaintiffs. I've been in Montana for 31 yrs and have been aware of a substantial state-wide gay and lesbian community that entire time - and 31 yrs ago, the community was dominated by natives. As for those who have moved here since, it's certainly not for the liberal political culture -- all of us have family or other deep connections to the state.
Some posters have argued that Mary should have had a "myriad" of contracts to protect her rights. 14 yrs ago, when Erica died, few of us had access to internet or reference materials on this. Mary would have been in her early 30's and hardly able to afford legal council. She and Erica had their condo in both their names -- that in itself was sometimes a struggle 14 yrs ago. And really, contracts aren't guarantees -- they can still be fought by family members. My partner and I have prepared medical and legal powers-of-attorney, but three years ago I was on "standby" as a transplant living donor for my brother. The surgery would have occurred in Ohio -- a state that refuses to recognize contracts between gays and lesbians.
Believe it or not, the lawsuit is not about marriage. The problem is that all sorts of legal privileges governing taxes, inheritance, and survivor's benefits have been tied to marriage. The lawsuit asks that there be some means (registry or other) that gays and lesbians can access those privileges (as taxpayers, we fund them for everyone else, after all). Ultimately, the lawsuit is asking folks the state to get OUT of our bedrooms.
Scotty posted at 8:19 am on Sun, Jul 25, 2010.
Well macaroni, I guess we only have one thing in common: we both are 5th gen Montanans. They make it our business when they air it in public and in the media.
sickamacaroni posted at 11:18 pm on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
Scotty
you aren't the only one who grew up here who has an opinion. i am a 5th generation montanan, my kids are 6th generation. I happen to believe that anyone in a committed relationship (gay, straight or whatever) should be able to have the same rights as any straight married couple. Who am I to say that this couple shouldn't have the same thing that my husband and i have because they are the same sex? Most of my Montana ancestors came here because it was the frontier and they could live the way they wanted to, without people in their business! We've always been a "live and let live" state and most of the extremely conservative people I have met have came here from out of state, not the other way around. I'm proud of these couples for having the courage to stand up for themselves and their familes.
fenske_art posted at 10:43 pm on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
Scotty; unless I missed something, this is still a free country.
Being RAISED HERE does not entitle anyone to anything special.
Good luck to all those who are only trying to be treated equally.
Scotty posted at 9:02 pm on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
You see Marvin, that's the problem about change. Most people leave the area they were raised or grew up in. They come here loving the way it was, but no sooner than moving here they want to change it to the mess where they came from. The backward place was just fine before others came, and quite frankly it makes those who were raised here sick to see the morals our parents raised us with get shattered. Bozo since 1995 has become the most liberal scene filled with values that are not a part of traditional Montana. This was the cow college, now it is like High Times. That is the sole reason why people raised here resent outsiders, and having the ACLU have a law suit for homosexuals is a prime example. What a person does in their house is there business, but people just have to keep throwing it up in the face of society of those who were RAISED HERE. Enough said, most won't even comment because it's a waste of their time.
lester posted at 8:08 pm on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
I'm a little confused about this lawsuit. As far as I know, nobody, straight or gay, has those kind of rights simply by being part of a "committed relationship". I've known straight folks who have lost a boyfriend or girlfriend and ended up in the same boat because they weren't officially married. So if this lawsuit is successful, does that mean that anyone who is in a committed relationship, married or otherwise, will retain the rights that married couples do? If that's the case, then how do you define a "Committed relationship"? How is this even a gay rights issue? It sounds like it could apply to everyone who's "shacked up" but not yet married.
The real problem is that gays aren't allowed to enter a contractual marriage like everyone else. Why not pursue a ballot initiative along those lines instead? I think it would stand a better chance of success than this lawsuit.
I'm all for legalizing gay marriage, but I don't see how we are going to suddenly give marriage-type rights to everyone who has a partner. Does that mean that my ex-girlfriends can sue me for half of my stuff?
marvinthemartian posted at 8:07 pm on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
mr becker, please feel free to delete my comment, but i'm going to attempt to have my say anyway. the "arguments between commenters" are exactly that, and are healthy in a free democratic society. a polarizing issue has come into the public arena, people have very strong beliefs about the issue and so are speaking their minds. some people bring particular views into the discussion which other people attack as being hateful, or at the least, woefully misguided. take scotty here. he clearly has a position. he's so certain of it that he is going to include an entire half of the state as his supporters. and the indians, who could not have ever possibly been gay. and not to mention God, whose mind he seems to know. and i am going to take opposition to his stance, because i happen to believe it's simple, backwards, arrogant, close minded and generally unhelpful to a society grappling with important issues. now, some commenters here may be a tad more direct than i have been in this ramble, but the point is the same - commenting on the commenters is, in fact, commenting on the article, in that this is where the discussion of the issue has evolved. if anyone here feels slighted, they can counterattack, or complain to higher authority (you, i assume), or not say anything else, thereby offering no further support for their position. but to call a stop to discourse because it has drifted "off topic" by becoming an argument between commenters is counter to the whole point of having an online chat room. what would America look like now if, in the late 60's and early 70's someone called a halt to the disagreement? granted, there'd have been no Kent State, or maybe MLK would still be here, but would we be the same America? I doubt it. you once called me out on a comment that seemed to incite community vengence on a pedophile. fine, although i still don't agree. but do allow those of us who completely disagree with each other the opportunity to argue our points - however eloquent or simple our arguments are. that IS the point of the open comment forum.
and so, directly to scotty - i am not from montana. i wish i can say i was, but i am not, because i grew up in the military and lived all over the place while my father did things that allow you to sit back and tell other people how to live. i love montana and i love the fact that i am messing your deal up. as for god, i am thinking he probably has way more important and pressing issues to deal with than whether gays get together or not. if he's paying attention to our little circus sideshow at all, he's probably more bothered by how we're messing up the planet, how billions of his children are just-that-close to not existing and how we all seem to hate each other. he's probably not at all interested in scotty's view of right and wrong. maybe a bit more so interested in the indians' view, who would've shot you with an arrow if you had arrived a hundred years earlier, because they were, at the time, getting quite annoyed with the liberal outsiders moving into their land and messing it up.
oh yeah, and out of state influence has changed this place for the better! if you still want to live in the stone age, there's always West Virginia.
Scotty posted at 6:58 pm on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
15 years ago this would have never been publicized or talked about. What a shame of how liberal bozo has become, as well as all of Western Montana. Proof that out of state influence has changed this place for the worse. I hope God saves these people because the orginal natives are rolling in their graves.
marvinthemartian posted at 5:29 pm on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
ditto BigT25. jd, I suspect you're outnumbered. man, you sound so stupid.
becker posted at 5:27 pm on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
The postings under this story are turning into arguments between commenters rather than commentary on the story above. If that continues, I will turn off commenting on this article.
Be civil.
Frodo posted at 5:26 pm on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
Agreed with inomad and BigT25. jd, your comments are offensive to all people, regardless of sexual preference. They are also offensive to people from Montana, San Francisco, and other prominent "gay-friendly" cities. Their lifestyle isn't affecting you in any way shape or form. They provide valuable services to you, and you don't even know it. They are exactly the same as you, they just aren't bigots. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying such things. God blesses everyone, regardless. And he judges you for your comments the exact same way he judges everyone else for the decisions they make, so don't be touting that as your reason for saying those things. They aren't pushing any agendas, but merely asking for the same rights as you and I. Let them have it and you will have your peace. Or better yet, pay it no mind and it will bother you even less.
tommarmot posted at 2:14 pm on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
grew up a homophobe. Thankfully, I grew out of that.
I don't see how anybody else's relationship affects the stability of the marriage I'm in. Let people form stable relationships and society will benefit.
I
inomad posted at 12:48 pm on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
I'm not quite sure how allowing homosexuals to marry is forcing any sort of agenda on anyone, or forcing anyone to agree or support opposing ideals or values. Do you follow the marriage announcements in the newpaper so closely that seeing two men or two women getting married is going to ruin your day? Are you afraid that if Joe Schmoe and his new husband are married they're going to come knocking on your door and try to seduce you? jd, oj and montana rancher, your ignorance and lack of social understanding is appalling. Besides, if gays are granted the same rights as EVERYONE else, you'd probably stop hearing about them so much. Think about it.
montanarancher posted at 11:30 am on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
Dito OJ
oj posted at 11:02 am on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
The issue here has little to do with gay rights it has more to do with a bunch of people that apparently didn't do anything to prepare wills, establish contractual agreements, etc. It isn't the fault of people who disagree with your lifestyle that your partners didn't take the time to draw up a will and include you in it. You certainly shouldn't be able to trump the wishes of a parent of a deceased child when there has been no documentation that would support that those were the wishes of the deceased child.
There is nothing to stop anyone from entering into a myriad of contractual agreements that allow anyone to do about anything they want with their retirment benefits, real estate, property, etc.
The GLBT movement isn't really about surviving spouses rights it is just an argument that they hope will allow them to force their lifestyle onto people that don't agree. Since when is it necessary that you have public approval and acceptance for a lifestyle that deviates from what the vast majority consider normal. You can live your life and you have the same personal human rights as everyone else, but don't force me to agree or support what you do.
Helen111 posted at 7:43 am on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
Right on! This community supports you. Thank you for your willingness to be the face of this important issue.