Friday, July 21, 2006

Domestic-Partner Rip-off!

The lengths to which the elitist university pooh-bahs will go to make themselves appear even more irrelevant and out-of-touch with society than they already are can be seen in the decision by the University of Louisville to provide benefits for “domestic partners,” euphemism for homosexuals in what they have the gall to call “committed relationships” and fornicators who prefer shack-up arrangements to marriages…no binding documentation regarding the relationship, no concrete commitment of each “lover” to the other…just live and exploit. The pressure is on the University of Kentucky to do the same silly thing, university spokesman Jay Blanton actually insisting that this must be done in order to attract the brightest and the best in bringing the school to “top 20” status, as if those who practice perversion or lack the will to commit themselves to a documented marriage are somehow superior to nearly all the rest of humanity.

What, one supposes, is a “domestic partner?” According to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate, 11th Edition, a domestic partner is “either one of an unmarried heterosexual or homosexual cohabiting couple especially when considered as to eligibility for spousal benefits.” So, the aim of the domestic partner has nothing to do with a human relationship per se, but has everything to do with cadging from the government all the things that are defined by documents of one kind or another, principally those having to do with marriage, including the children. The notion that the element of personal commitment plays any part in the matter is too ridiculous even to contemplate. It’s the economy, stupid!

How is the status of a domestic partner to be determined, in order for the bountiful supplies from the government to flow? Good question. Indicated in a check of some university sites is the fact that the partners must have lived together for a while, be committed (whatever that means), be unmarried, of course, own or rent some things in common, etc. Since there’s no official (i.e. government) document to guarantee any of these things or to be brought into play in the event of false claims – no court affairs, jail time, punishment – it’s just sort of a “take my word for it” kind of thing, unless the applicant agrees, one supposes, to submitting to law-enforcement proceedings.

The obvious question: Since married folks have documents to prove their credibility, how is the partnership to be evaluated on a continuing basis to insure its credibility? It’s the consensus that homosexuals, for instance, are unbelievably promiscuous, so that the DP thing simply means subsidization of a lifestyle permitting plenty of “collective domestic partnerships.” Since the homosexuals were the primary players in damning the country with HIV-AIDS and since the care and feeding of the infected under DP arrangements will be expensive items for the taxpayers, one can see how they certainly would want to be leeches on the system. Also, especially in the case of homosexuals, neither partner has any responsibility for family, so why shouldn’t each partner take advantage of his own plan for whatever benefits it provides? Or, is one able-bodied stud supposed to “keep house” while the other brings home the bacon and let whatever company, institution, or agency is stupid enough to give away benefits to the “domestic” pick up the tab? If two people just want to live together – their privilege – let them pay the freight for that privilege, just like the straights and married folks have to do.

This is a travesty upon the very institution that is the foundation of society, composed of the marriage of one man and one woman and their children, if any – the nuclear family. Those who scream that this domestic-partner issue is related only to a religious belief – therefore not a matter with which government can be concerned since it automatically becomes a church-state issue – are wildly off-base. It is a social issue, first and foremost, since it derives from what can inarguably be called the “natural order of things.” Letting down the bars on this “natural order” is tantamount to inducing perversions on a grand scale. One has only to look at nations such as the Netherlands, where both same-sex marriage and “consensual incest” are legal, to see the result. What’s next – legalized bigamy…tripartite marriages…harems? Egad!

On 02 November 2004, Amendment 233A was overwhelmingly approved by the voters and made a part of the Kentucky Constitution: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

It seems clear enough that in Kentucky homosexuals may not marry each other, at least legally, and thus are not accorded the benefits provided by the state to dependents on the basis of documentation with regard to marriage or family standing. No benefits are available for an individual not legally married to the eligible recipient, no matter the sexual orientation or preference, or a dependent not having family standing, as in the case of children in either homosexual households or heterosexual shack-ups. The law is quite clear.

University boards mistakenly believe – especially since the institutions are self-insured, though employees may pay part of their health-insurance premiums – that the state has no power to regulate them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. A land-grant college or university is an institution that has been designated by its state legislature or Congress to receive the benefits of the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. The state of Kentucky has the last word as to how the higher-education institutions will be governed, notwithstanding the respective boards. If Kentucky law – actually Constitution – mandates against benefits for those affected directly by Amendment 233A, no state-chartered institution can nullify it. The taxpayers of the state pay the freight, as well as the parents of most students, and these taxpayers have spoken in a landslide vote extending the ironclad fist of the Constitution. This is true for all other states where this is an issue.

Private institutions can do as they please, but those that are publicly operated may not. A couple of Kentucky colleges do the domestic-partner thing, not surprising given the atmosphere on most campuses. The wonder is that most of Kentucky’s colleges don’t. It’s certain that the state’s largest newspapers think and editorialize that the domestic-partner silliness is the greatest thing since chunks were introduced into peanut butter. This is what Larry Keeling of the Lexington Herald-Leader had to say in the 16 July issue: “We in Kentucky often talk about aspiring to greatness in education and in economic development. If we truly want to get there, we must choose enlightenment over intolerance.” Enlightenment over intolerance, indeed! What he proposes is “choosing perversion over perception.” Disgusting!

This matter most likely will go to the Courts or the Legislature or both. In any case, under the Constitution there seems no way that the domestic-partner rip-off will stand. Lexington, Ky., Mayor Isaac tried to impose the D-P benefit on the public by executive order in 2003, but was turned back by the governing Council. The board of the University of Louisville is much like the federal Ninth Circuit Court, 75% of whose decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court. It is hoped that the University of Kentucky will not fall into the “political correctness” nonsense and act stupidly. Unlike Toyota or Boeing or Lexmark, it is bound by the people of Kentucky, who have a large stake in how the state’s money is spent, as well as its approach to what is acceptable Constitutionally…and, ultimately, morally. Sanctioning perversion as normal is damning to any society.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

No comments: