The trustees of the University of Kentucky are facing the domestic-partners-benefits question having to do with whether or not to extend to unmarried “partners” and their alleged dependents the same rights and privileges accorded only to eligible employees and their families/dependents. 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, for university purposes, the domestic-partner issue has to do with cadging unauthorized perks from a citizen-owned institution the things legally authorized and officially documented only for spouses and families, principally those contingent upon the marriage contract.
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”.
In Kentucky, homosexuals may not legally be married to each other, thus the “partners” are not accorded standing accruing to spouses for consideration(s) provided by the state or institutions regulated or supported by it. It would appear that no benefits are available for any individual not legally married to an eligible recipient, or a dependent not having family standing, as in the case of children in either homosexual households or heterosexual shack-ups. The law – actually carrying the weight of the Constitution – seems quite clear.
Even if the institutions are self-insured and employees usually pay part of their health-insurance premiums, the state has the power to regulate them. 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. UK, a land-grant institution, is subject to governance by the legislature, which has the last word as to how the higher-education institutions (indeed all publicly supported institutions) will be operated, notwithstanding the responsibilities of respective trustee/governing boards.
Kentucky law – actually Constitutional mandate – does not even recognize an undocumented relationship, the obvious conclusion consequently being that no public institution may do so for any purpose, including those concerning financial matters. The taxpayers of the state pay the freight, as do 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, and a couple of Kentucky colleges do the domestic-partner thing, as do some industries in Kentucky.
Lexington, Ky., Mayor Teresa Isaac tried to impose the domestic-partner benefit on Fayette Countians by executive order in 2003, but was turned back immediately by the governing Council. Her bizarre action was perpetrated by the claim of a homosexual city employee that his partner (lover, whatever) should be entitled to the benefits of a wife. The partner was neither infirm nor unable to work and pay his own way…and certainly could never be a wife.
Those who insist 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 widely off-base. It’s 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 condoning 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…all supported by the state?
Perhaps the most egregious reason given for the domestic-partner perk (not counting the overarching one of political correctness) is that its inculcation is necessary to bring UK into research-university top-20 land; in other words, the brightest and the best brains are so overwhelmingly owned by homosexuals or those unwilling to make a marriage commitment that they must be cajoled and pampered into blessing the university with their superior abilities. What hogwash! The basic unit in the society is the family, already under enough attack without an institution of higher learning condoning its anathema. Even if the perk were legal, on the basis of plain common sense it would be intolerable.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
No comments:
Post a Comment