The Lexington Herald-Leader, Lexington, Ky., had an editorial hissy fit on 21 February over the fact that Kentucky is offering Ford Motors incentives not to close its Louisville operation involving some 8,000 well-paid workers, while the Kentucky Senate has voted to deny “domestic partners” benefits at Kentucky universities, something the newspaper says Ford grants its employees. Predictably, the comparison is between apples and oranges, specifically between privately-owned business and state-regulated institutions – a huge difference.
In any case, the action in the Kentucky Senate would seem unneeded. According to the Kentucky Constitution, as amended by a three-to-one plurality in 2004, marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, and all benefits granted state employees or employees of state-supported and regulated institutions, including family members or those in guardianship status, are determined to be legal only under that provision. This specifically ruled out marriage between homosexuals and specifically ruled out benefits to non-spousal “significant others,” including heterosexual “domestic partners” and whomever they claim as dependents.
The sense of this provision is obvious. Once the door to “domestic partners” is opened with regard to state licensed and regulated universities, whose employees are also regulated and paid by the state, it cannot remain closed to ALL employees throughout the state. The enormity of this potential problem is seen – if nowhere else – just in the size of the bureaucracy needed to operate the “domestic partners” aspect of already complicated personnel matters. Only one document – the marriage agreement as codified in state law – is necessary now to determine eligibility. Under the “domestic partners” arrangement, there is now no document sanctioned by the state to prove eligibility and the law disallows any such arrangement/document to be enacted.
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.” Eligibility for benefits would never be easily determined, since no binding contract is in force, and since the “partners” may move about freely in engaging other “partners” without there ever being an official document in play. Obviously, under the Kentucky Constitution, no document other than a legal marriage agreement can even be contemplated, much less enacted. Promiscuity among both homosexuals and cohabiting heterosexuals, who have absolutely nothing to bind them together for any legal purpose, such as benefits of any kind, would be a factor that would be both extraordinary and expensive (privacy matters) in the required policing of any agreement, even if one such were possible. The possibilities for corruption are staggering in scope. Without documentation, the perk would depend upon someone’s word…today…or tomorrow…or whenever – ridiculous!
The editorialist made a big – but obviously erroneous – deal out of the fact that the “marriage amendment” could also preclude private institutions from awarding the “domestic partners” benefits. Two private colleges in the state presently offer this perk. Neither is state-regulated or supported by tax monies, so that claim is a red herring. The same applies to Ford, a private business.
Even though Michigan State University and the University of Michigan had already instituted the “domestic partners” perk, a Michigan Appeals Court recently struck down that arrangement on the basis of a Constitutional requirement entirely similar to Kentucky’s. This ruling, which most likely will stand, presents a sizeable problem for personnel at those institutions, as well as the universities, a problem that can easily be avoided in Kentucky by UK and UL, which has just begun that program, through simply the common-sense solution of just letting it go.
The editorialist seemed not to have vision beyond the proverbial “bridge of the nose” in making these remarks. The “domestic partners” arrangement, simply an outgrowth of political correctness carried to the extreme, and nothing more, could mean enormous problems for the state and its mega-thousands of employees, not to mention all the taxpayers. The most egregious claim of the paper and the university honchos is that this perk is absolutely vital in attracting the “brightest and best” to the institutions, the clear implication being that homosexuals and shack-ups are somehow superior to all the humdrum practitioners who value commitment enough to personally codify it and take responsibility legally for spouses and dependents. So much for the mother of all red-herrings! There’s no proof anywhere that these folks are superior to anyone else.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
No comments:
Post a Comment