The trustees of the University of Kentucky have just voted to make the “Domestic Partner” benefits available to its employees, including staff along with the faculty and administration. Since the university is a state-authorized and state-supported institution, i.e, licensed and funded in largest part by the taxpayers, it is subject to the laws of the state as derived from the State Constitution. This places it in the same category as all other state agencies, the obvious conclusion to be drawn being that the tens of thousands of employees in those agencies may expect to receive the same treatment, if it is legal.
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.” So, the domestic-partner issue has to do with cadging currently unauthorized perks from a citizen-owned institution/agency those 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 (about 3 to 1) approved by Kentucky 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. The same is true for non-married cohabitating couples, known more familiarly as “shack-ups.”
The constitutional amendment actually was unnecessary since state statute already made the same requirement, but the legislators, acting upon the overwhelming insistence of their constituencies, felt there would be no hassle with regard to the provisions of the statute if it was made incontrovertible through making it constitutionally inviolable. The trustees of both the University of Louisville, which began this perk in January, and the University of Kentucky have chosen to place their institutions above the law, a sort of in-your-face, take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum of arrogance fashioned to let the citizenry (the great unwashed) understand its inferiority vis-à-vis the enlightened elite and its inability to exert its will upon that self-appointed elite.
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. This is a slap in the face of all those who manage to reach top-echelon status without the “advantage” of engaging in perverted behavior, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
Since the university is striving to become known as a bona fide “research” institution on a par with the best of them, it would naturally look to the data to enforce its position vis-à-vis the “brightest and best.” Thus far, it has produced no data that even addresses the subject of superiority/inferiority with regard to sexual preference or non-marital status as applied to academic/research employee-capabilities. This being the case, it identifies itself as sub-top-twenty in the sense that it makes its regulations without benefit of information, either qualitative or quantitative. The ridiculousness of this is palpable.
Detractors are often accused of a stance involving religion and the Bible’s clear-cut denunciation of homosexual behavior and fornication/adultery. This is not the case. The statements here concern cold, hard facts having nothing to do with religion. This is purely a civil matter addressed legislatively and at the ballot box. It can be said (and should be), however, that the traditional family unit is the backbone of the society, and that the teachers of young people should reflect that obvious, well-documented fact, not destroy it. By any standard, homosexual behavior, besides being aberrant, is also unacceptable as a matter of health, emotional and physical. Couples unwilling to reflect family as worthy of commitment thereby state that mutual manipulation, rather than commitment solidified by the marriage contract, present the wrong model. In any case, the citizens should not condone their antisocial behavior and reward them in any way, especially with taxpayer funds already categorized constitutionally.
And so it goes.