President Lee Todd and the trustees of the University of Kentucky will do well to look at a recent Appeals Court ruling handed down in Michigan, whose citizens by a large margin approved a “marriage protection” amendment to its state Constitution in 2004. The Court, in overturning an opinion of a lower Court, made it clear that neither the University of Michigan nor Michigan State University may provide benefits for employees’ “domestic partners,” individuals to whom they are not married, and that marriage is established only as between a man and a woman. This means that absent a legal marriage document, upon which eligibility for benefits depends, there are no “family” benefits available, either.
The Michigan amendment is similar to the “marriage amendment” approved by the citizens of Kentucky in a landslide margin (75% in favor), also in 2004. According to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 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.” 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 or heterosexual households/arrangements. The law – actually carrying the weight of the Constitution – seems quite clear. The mantra of those favoring “Domestic Perks” has been that the universities can do as they like. In Michigan, that approach didn’t work, and the laws are virtually the same.
The Michigan Appeals Court tendered the third decision on the matter. The initial ruling by a lower-Court judge was upheld unanimously by the Appeals Court (three judges) after it had been overturned on its first appeal, not unusual since judge-hunting is a common practice for those seeking a specific ruling. If UK goes the route of the University of Louisville and awards “Domestic Partner” benefits, as one or both of the Michigan universities had done, it will face a long legal battle, with the upshot being that the matter will have to be set right eventually and those illegally awarded benefits will be faced with losing the benefits and the university might be faced with having to engage in “payback,” an expensive probability.
The ramifications for awarding “Domestic Partner” benefits at UK apply to all areas/employees of state government – every entity from the highway department to the school boards. UK is only one of the many state agencies supported and controlled by the taxpayers, thus, if it can award “Domestic Benefits,” such benefits can be awarded across the board. This, obviously, is what the citizens have said they will not tolerate. UK will do well to let the sleeping dog of “Domestic Benefits” lie and not initiate turmoil that can easily be avoided. The insistence that such perks are necessary to “get the brightest and the best” is an obvious and smelly red herring, there being no evidence that cohabiting heterosexuals or homosexuals are intellectually superior to the run-of-the-mill faculty members.
From a financial standpoint, it hardly behooves the university to even consider these perks, as proven by the fact that two assistant football coaches have just been awarded raises of 61% and 79%, respectively, so they now make $241,245 and $231,245. This kind of outrageous prostituting of the educational process (intolerable waste) is unconscionable. This is not even to mention the tuition increases that cause students to hock themselves for years paying off student loans.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
No comments:
Post a Comment