Home

Police still have not named a suspect in the February anti-gay arson that destroyed the home of Carla Grayson and Adrianne Neff. However, law enforcement's actions indicate that they are focusing on Grayson and Neff as primary suspects, along with gay rights advocates.

"Before the embers were cold, rumors from inside law enforcement already blamed the victims," Christine Kaufmann of the Montana Human Rights Network said. "It's the same old story when women and minorities are targeted with hate crimes. Unfortunately, it plays into the cultural homophobia which abounds in Montana and further victimizes the targets of hatred."

Grayson and Neff are plaintiffs in Snetsinger v. State of Montana. The lawsuit accuses the Montana University System of violating the Montana Constitution by not making health insurance and other benefits equally available to all families. After filing the lawsuit, the plaintiffs received letters in the mail containing a powdery substance that was claimed to be anthrax. The notes also said "Die Dykes" and referenced "God's Way." Two days after receiving the letter, arson destroyed the home of Grayson, Neff and their two-year old son. The trio escaped the burning house through a bedroom window.

Early on in the investigation, the police outlined two possible scenarios -- the arson was either started by the Grayson-Neff family or by person(s) outside the home. As the investigation continued, authorities appear to be focusing on the couple. This was readily apparent in an application for a search warrant filed in August. The warrant referred to comments made by arson investigators who said it seemed like an inside job and stated that rope and gasoline used in the arson were found in the couple's garage. It also pointed to statements made by Grayson and Neff while at the police station and mentioned possible financial motives for the couple to commit the arson.

The warrant application essentially put Grayson and Neff on trial for the arson without giving them a chance for rebuttal, as would happen in a normal court proceeding. Instead, the couple had to release a statement to the media denouncing the accusations in the application, stating unequivocally that they did not start the fire or profit financially from it.

Around this same time, investigators questioned Karl Olson, director of PRIDE, Montana's gay and lesbian advocacy group. Calling him a "person of interest," investigators asked Olson where he was when the arson happened and about money raised at rallies held around the state supporting Grayson and Neff. They also wondered how the community rally held in Missoula the day after the arson was organized so quickly. Investigators insinuated that they had information linking Olson to the arson, but they failed to provide any facts supporting that accusation. Olson held a press conference in front of the Missoula County Courthouse where he denounced the investigation, stating it was being driven by anti-gay bias and innuendo.

"The way this case is being treated makes me wonder if the Missoula police are interested in justice or just trying to close the case," Kaufmann said. "If law enforcement is going after PRIDE, I want to know when it is going to question anti-gay and homophobic groups like the Montana Family Coalition. The right wing has demonized gays in this state for decades. When you have outright hostility and hatred directed at the gay community, the last thing you need is for law enforcement to jump on the band wagon."

In October, the Montana Human Rights Commission dismissed a discrimination complaint filed by the two lesbian couples involved in Snetsinger. The Montana chapter of the ACLU, which is representing the couples, said the Commission's ruling wasn't unexpected. The Commission enforces the Montana Human Rights Act, which doesn't bar discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Network has been a supporter of legislation to include sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act. The ACLU felt it was important to file the claim with the Commission, so a judge could not say the plaintiffs bypassed an avenue for their grievances.

The Montana University System has filed a brief in District Court asking that Snetsinger be thrown out. Chief Counsel LeRoy Schramm says the university policies in question are based on the definition of marriage found in the Montana Constitution. Therefore, the Montana University System claims the case is really directed at the Montana Legislature. The ACLU says that it is the court's duty to decide if the Legislature's definition is constitutional.