Gubernatorial Debate: Answers to Question 11

We're asking the candidates for governor a series of questions leading up to the May 22 primary. If you'd like to submit a question, please send me an email or leave it in the comment section below. Please provide your first name and hometown.

We'll announce our next question on Monday. Click here to see previous installments of our cyber debate.

- John Stamper

QUESTION

The University of Kentucky's Board of Trustees approved a plan Tuesday to offer health benefits to unmarried couples of the opposite sex and same sex. The University of Louisville already offers similar domestic-partner benefits. As governor, would you support or oppose legislative attempts to ban public universities from offering these benefits?

DEMOCRATS RESPOND

GATEWOOD GALBRAITH:

Under certain conditions I believe domestic partner benefits are appropriate.  However, the benefits offered by our Universities should not be used as bargaining chips for short-term relationships by anyone. If these partners enter into a civil contract where their property is treated like a married couples, then that indicates a real commitment. Therefore, they should be treated fairly and with the same benefits awarded anyone else. This contractual agreement is a more appropriate solution than asking individuals about their sex life.

STEVE HENRY:

Kentucky’s universities can best prepare our students for the future when we let educators educate. My policy as Governor would be to oppose politicians’ efforts to try to run university personnel offices from Frankfort.

Instead, I believe that university personnel policies are best determined by the universities through their respective Board of Trustees.

Though I’ll note that, as a physician, I’m generally supportive of efforts to get more Kentuckians access to affordable health care. As a rule, the more people we can cover, the better off we’ll be.

OTIS HENSLEY:

I will support such attempts. University benefit costs will soar at a time when we must find ways to reduce costs to control rising tuition. I have a proposal to cover the uninsured (see www.otisbullmanhensley.com) as do other candidates, so this action is not about insuring the uninsured. These domestic partner benefits are a veiled attempt to promote the homosexual lifestyle and undermine our religious culture, which, today, is under assault from abortion, gambling, and homosexuality. I will stand up for our religious culture. I will not promote the homosexual lifestyle and will not allow casino gambling into Kentucky.

BRUCE LUNSFORD:

Public universities should be allowed to make their own decisions to hire the best and most talented professors, researchers and other staff. The Legislature should not have a role in dictating hiring practices for UK and UL, and other public universities. Visit www.LunsfordStumbo2007.com to learn more about my campaign for change.   

JONATHAN MILLER:

Oppose. Like the dozens of major employers in Central Kentucky offering such benefits, our universities should have that option. We shouldnʼt micromanage university leadership.

JODY RICHARDS:

No response.

STEVE BESHEAR:

Our colleges and universities should be able to handle these types of personal issues without interference from state government. Because they are competing with colleges and universities around the world, they must be free to take the necessary steps to attract the most talented faculty and staff.

REPUBLICANS RESPOND

ANNE NORTHUP:

I strongly supported the ban on Same Sex Marriage and the people of Kentucky spoke loud and clear that domestic partners should not be treated like married couples. I also do not believe that the Governor or the General Assembly should micromanage our universities. Our schools are focused on competing to get the best and brightest faculty and students and, to do so, they make decisions independently. However, if the General Assembly does not choose to ban these benefits and universities decide to offer domestic partners’ health benefits, our state government should not spend one cent to support domestic partners.

BILLY HARPER:

ERNIE FLETCHER:

I believe that our university boards of trustees are independent bodies and they should have the autonomy to set their own policy. However, from the taxpayers who fund our universities we are getting an overwhelming amount of push back on the issue of paying domestic partner benefits. They do not want their tax dollars used for this purpose, and would prefer they be used to help hold down tuition costs. I am personally opposed to the addition of these benefits. We are consulting with the legislature to see if this issue should be added to a special session. 

We're asking the candidates for governor a series of questions leading up to the May 22 primary. If you'd like to submit a question, please send me an email or leave it in the comment section below. Please provide your first name and hometown.

We'll announce our next question on Monday. Click here to see previous installments of our cyber debate.

- John Stamper

QUESTION

The University of Kentucky's Board of Trustees approved a plan Tuesday to offer health benefits to unmarried couples of the opposite sex and same sex. The University of Louisville already offers similar domestic-partner benefits. As governor, would you support or oppose legislative attempts to ban public universities from offering these benefits?

DEMOCRATS RESPOND

GATEWOOD GALBRAITH:

Under certain conditions I believe domestic partner benefits are appropriate.  However, the benefits offered by our Universities should not be used as bargaining chips for short-term relationships by anyone. If these partners enter into a civil contract where their property is treated like a married couples, then that indicates a real commitment. Therefore, they should be treated fairly and with the same benefits awarded anyone else. This contractual agreement is a more appropriate solution than asking individuals about their sex life.

STEVE HENRY:

Kentucky’s universities can best prepare our students for the future when we let educators educate. My policy as Governor would be to oppose politicians’ efforts to try to run university personnel offices from Frankfort.

Instead, I believe that university personnel policies are best determined by the universities through their respective Board of Trustees.

Though I’ll note that, as a physician, I’m generally supportive of efforts to get more Kentuckians access to affordable health care. As a rule, the more people we can cover, the better off we’ll be.

OTIS HENSLEY:

I will support such attempts. University benefit costs will soar at a time when we must find ways to reduce costs to control rising tuition. I have a proposal to cover the uninsured (see www.otisbullmanhensley.com) as do other candidates, so this action is not about insuring the uninsured. These domestic partner benefits are a veiled attempt to promote the homosexual lifestyle and undermine our religious culture, which, today, is under assault from abortion, gambling, and homosexuality. I will stand up for our religious culture. I will not promote the homosexual lifestyle and will not allow casino gambling into Kentucky.

BRUCE LUNSFORD:

Public universities should be allowed to make their own decisions to hire the best and most talented professors, researchers and other staff. The Legislature should not have a role in dictating hiring practices for UK and UL, and other public universities. Visit www.LunsfordStumbo2007.com to learn more about my campaign for change.   

JONATHAN MILLER:

Oppose. Like the dozens of major employers in Central Kentucky offering such benefits, our universities should have that option. We shouldnʼt micromanage university leadership.

JODY RICHARDS:

No response.

STEVE BESHEAR:

Our colleges and universities should be able to handle these types of personal issues without interference from state government. Because they are competing with colleges and universities around the world, they must be free to take the necessary steps to attract the most talented faculty and staff.

REPUBLICANS RESPOND

ANNE NORTHUP:

I strongly supported the ban on Same Sex Marriage and the people of Kentucky spoke loud and clear that domestic partners should not be treated like married couples. I also do not believe that the Governor or the General Assembly should micromanage our universities. Our schools are focused on competing to get the best and brightest faculty and students and, to do so, they make decisions independently. However, if the General Assembly does not choose to ban these benefits and universities decide to offer domestic partners’ health benefits, our state government should not spend one cent to support domestic partners.

BILLY HARPER:

ERNIE FLETCHER:

I believe that our university boards of trustees are independent bodies and they should have the autonomy to set their own policy. However, from the taxpayers who fund our universities we are getting an overwhelming amount of push back on the issue of paying domestic partner benefits. They do not want their tax dollars used for this purpose, and would prefer they be used to help hold down tuition costs. I am personally opposed to the addition of these benefits. We are consulting with the legislature to see if this issue should be added to a special session. 

We're asking the candidates for governor a series of questions leading up to the May 22 primary. If you'd like to submit a question, please send me an email or leave it in the comment section below. Please provide your first name and hometown.

We'll announce our next question on Monday. Click here to see previous installments of our cyber debate.

- John Stamper

QUESTION

The University of Kentucky's Board of Trustees approved a plan Tuesday to offer health benefits to unmarried couples of the opposite sex and same sex. The University of Louisville already offers similar domestic-partner benefits. As governor, would you support or oppose legislative attempts to ban public universities from offering these benefits?

DEMOCRATS RESPOND

GATEWOOD GALBRAITH:

Under certain conditions I believe domestic partner benefits are appropriate.  However, the benefits offered by our Universities should not be used as bargaining chips for short-term relationships by anyone. If these partners enter into a civil contract where their property is treated like a married couples, then that indicates a real commitment. Therefore, they should be treated fairly and with the same benefits awarded anyone else. This contractual agreement is a more appropriate solution than asking individuals about their sex life.

STEVE HENRY:

Kentucky’s universities can best prepare our students for the future when we let educators educate. My policy as Governor would be to oppose politicians’ efforts to try to run university personnel offices from Frankfort.

Instead, I believe that university personnel policies are best determined by the universities through their respective Board of Trustees.

Though I’ll note that, as a physician, I’m generally supportive of efforts to get more Kentuckians access to affordable health care. As a rule, the more people we can cover, the better off we’ll be.

OTIS HENSLEY:

I will support such attempts. University benefit costs will soar at a time when we must find ways to reduce costs to control rising tuition. I have a proposal to cover the uninsured (see www.otisbullmanhensley.com) as do other candidates, so this action is not about insuring the uninsured. These domestic partner benefits are a veiled attempt to promote the homosexual lifestyle and undermine our religious culture, which, today, is under assault from abortion, gambling, and homosexuality. I will stand up for our religious culture. I will not promote the homosexual lifestyle and will not allow casino gambling into Kentucky.

BRUCE LUNSFORD:

Public universities should be allowed to make their own decisions to hire the best and most talented professors, researchers and other staff. The Legislature should not have a role in dictating hiring practices for UK and UL, and other public universities. Visit www.LunsfordStumbo2007.com to learn more about my campaign for change.   

JONATHAN MILLER:

Oppose. Like the dozens of major employers in Central Kentucky offering such benefits, our universities should have that option. We shouldnʼt micromanage university leadership.

JODY RICHARDS:

No response.

STEVE BESHEAR:

Our colleges and universities should be able to handle these types of personal issues without interference from state government. Because they are competing with colleges and universities around the world, they must be free to take the necessary steps to attract the most talented faculty and staff.

REPUBLICANS RESPOND

ANNE NORTHUP:

I strongly supported the ban on Same Sex Marriage and the people of Kentucky spoke loud and clear that domestic partners should not be treated like married couples. I also do not believe that the Governor or the General Assembly should micromanage our universities. Our schools are focused on competing to get the best and brightest faculty and students and, to do so, they make decisions independently. However, if the General Assembly does not choose to ban these benefits and universities decide to offer domestic partners’ health benefits, our state government should not spend one cent to support domestic partners.

BILLY HARPER:

ERNIE FLETCHER:

I believe that our university boards of trustees are independent bodies and they should have the autonomy to set their own policy. However, from the taxpayers who fund our universities we are getting an overwhelming amount of push back on the issue of paying domestic partner benefits. They do not want their tax dollars used for this purpose, and would prefer they be used to help hold down tuition costs. I am personally opposed to the addition of these benefits. We are consulting with the legislature to see if this issue should be added to a special session. 

We're asking the candidates for governor a series of questions leading up to the May 22 primary. If you'd like to submit a question, please send me an email or leave it in the comment section below. Please provide your first name and hometown.

We'll announce our next question on Monday. Click here to see previous installments of our cyber debate.

- John Stamper

QUESTION

The University of Kentucky's Board of Trustees approved a plan Tuesday to offer health benefits to unmarried couples of the opposite sex and same sex. The University of Louisville already offers similar domestic-partner benefits. As governor, would you support or oppose legislative attempts to ban public universities from offering these benefits?

DEMOCRATS RESPOND

GATEWOOD GALBRAITH:

Under certain conditions I believe domestic partner benefits are appropriate.  However, the benefits offered by our Universities should not be used as bargaining chips for short-term relationships by anyone. If these partners enter into a civil contract where their property is treated like a married couples, then that indicates a real commitment. Therefore, they should be treated fairly and with the same benefits awarded anyone else. This contractual agreement is a more appropriate solution than asking individuals about their sex life.

STEVE HENRY:

Kentucky’s universities can best prepare our students for the future when we let educators educate. My policy as Governor would be to oppose politicians’ efforts to try to run university personnel offices from Frankfort.

Instead, I believe that university personnel policies are best determined by the universities through their respective Board of Trustees.

Though I’ll note that, as a physician, I’m generally supportive of efforts to get more Kentuckians access to affordable health care. As a rule, the more people we can cover, the better off we’ll be.

OTIS HENSLEY:

I will support such attempts. University benefit costs will soar at a time when we must find ways to reduce costs to control rising tuition. I have a proposal to cover the uninsured (see www.otisbullmanhensley.com) as do other candidates, so this action is not about insuring the uninsured. These domestic partner benefits are a veiled attempt to promote the homosexual lifestyle and undermine our religious culture, which, today, is under assault from abortion, gambling, and homosexuality. I will stand up for our religious culture. I will not promote the homosexual lifestyle and will not allow casino gambling into Kentucky.

BRUCE LUNSFORD:

Public universities should be allowed to make their own decisions to hire the best and most talented professors, researchers and other staff. The Legislature should not have a role in dictating hiring practices for UK and UL, and other public universities. Visit www.LunsfordStumbo2007.com to learn more about my campaign for change.   

JONATHAN MILLER:

Oppose. Like the dozens of major employers in Central Kentucky offering such benefits, our universities should have that option. We shouldnʼt micromanage university leadership.

JODY RICHARDS:

No response.

STEVE BESHEAR:

Our colleges and universities should be able to handle these types of personal issues without interference from state government. Because they are competing with colleges and universities around the world, they must be free to take the necessary steps to attract the most talented faculty and staff.

REPUBLICANS RESPOND

ANNE NORTHUP:

I strongly supported the ban on Same Sex Marriage and the people of Kentucky spoke loud and clear that domestic partners should not be treated like married couples. I also do not believe that the Governor or the General Assembly should micromanage our universities. Our schools are focused on competing to get the best and brightest faculty and students and, to do so, they make decisions independently. However, if the General Assembly does not choose to ban these benefits and universities decide to offer domestic partners’ health benefits, our state government should not spend one cent to support domestic partners.

BILLY HARPER:

ERNIE FLETCHER:

I believe that our university boards of trustees are independent bodies and they should have the autonomy to set their own policy. However, from the taxpayers who fund our universities we are getting an overwhelming amount of push back on the issue of paying domestic partner benefits. They do not want their tax dollars used for this purpose, and would prefer they be used to help hold down tuition costs. I am personally opposed to the addition of these benefits. We are consulting with the legislature to see if this issue should be added to a special session. 

We're asking the candidates for governor a series of questions leading up to the May 22 primary. If you'd like to submit a question, please send me an email or leave it in the comment section below. Please provide your first name and hometown.

We'll announce our next question on Monday. Click here to see previous installments of our cyber debate.

- John Stamper

QUESTION

The University of Kentucky's Board of Trustees approved a plan Tuesday to offer health benefits to unmarried couples of the opposite sex and same sex. The University of Louisville already offers similar domestic-partner benefits. As governor, would you support or oppose legislative attempts to ban public universities from offering these benefits?

DEMOCRATS RESPOND

GATEWOOD GALBRAITH:

Under certain conditions I believe domestic partner benefits are appropriate.  However, the benefits offered by our Universities should not be used as bargaining chips for short-term relationships by anyone. If these partners enter into a civil contract where their property is treated like a married couples, then that indicates a real commitment. Therefore, they should be treated fairly and with the same benefits awarded anyone else. This contractual agreement is a more appropriate solution than asking individuals about their sex life.

STEVE HENRY:

Kentucky’s universities can best prepare our students for the future when we let educators educate. My policy as Governor would be to oppose politicians’ efforts to try to run university personnel offices from Frankfort.

Instead, I believe that university personnel policies are best determined by the universities through their respective Board of Trustees.

Though I’ll note that, as a physician, I’m generally supportive of efforts to get more Kentuckians access to affordable health care. As a rule, the more people we can cover, the better off we’ll be.

OTIS HENSLEY:

I will support such attempts. University benefit costs will soar at a time when we must find ways to reduce costs to control rising tuition. I have a proposal to cover the uninsured (see www.otisbullmanhensley.com) as do other candidates, so this action is not about insuring the uninsured. These domestic partner benefits are a veiled attempt to promote the homosexual lifestyle and undermine our religious culture, which, today, is under assault from abortion, gambling, and homosexuality. I will stand up for our religious culture. I will not promote the homosexual lifestyle and will not allow casino gambling into Kentucky.

BRUCE LUNSFORD:

Public universities should be allowed to make their own decisions to hire the best and most talented professors, researchers and other staff. The Legislature should not have a role in dictating hiring practices for UK and UL, and other public universities. Visit www.LunsfordStumbo2007.com to learn more about my campaign for change.   

JONATHAN MILLER:

Oppose. Like the dozens of major employers in Central Kentucky offering such benefits, our universities should have that option. We shouldnʼt micromanage university leadership.

JODY RICHARDS:

No response.

STEVE BESHEAR:

Our colleges and universities should be able to handle these types of personal issues without interference from state government. Because they are competing with colleges and universities around the world, they must be free to take the necessary steps to attract the most talented faculty and staff.

REPUBLICANS RESPOND

ANNE NORTHUP:

I strongly supported the ban on Same Sex Marriage and the people of Kentucky spoke loud and clear that domestic partners should not be treated like married couples. I also do not believe that the Governor or the General Assembly should micromanage our universities. Our schools are focused on competing to get the best and brightest faculty and students and, to do so, they make decisions independently. However, if the General Assembly does not choose to ban these benefits and universities decide to offer domestic partners’ health benefits, our state government should not spend one cent to support domestic partners.

BILLY HARPER:

ERNIE FLETCHER:

I believe that our university boards of trustees are independent bodies and they should have the autonomy to set their own policy. However, from the taxpayers who fund our universities we are getting an overwhelming amount of push back on the issue of paying domestic partner benefits. They do not want their tax dollars used for this purpose, and would prefer they be used to help hold down tuition costs. I am personally opposed to the addition of these benefits. We are consulting with the legislature to see if this issue should be added to a special session. 

We're asking the candidates for governor a series of questions leading up to the May 22 primary. If you'd like to submit a question, please send me an email or leave it in the comment section below. Please provide your first name and hometown.

We'll announce our next question on Monday. Click here to see previous installments of our cyber debate.

- John Stamper

QUESTION

The University of Kentucky's Board of Trustees approved a plan Tuesday to offer health benefits to unmarried couples of the opposite sex and same sex. The University of Louisville already offers similar domestic-partner benefits. As governor, would you support or oppose legislative attempts to ban public universities from offering these benefits?

DEMOCRATS RESPOND

GATEWOOD GALBRAITH:

Under certain conditions I believe domestic partner benefits are appropriate.  However, the benefits offered by our Universities should not be used as bargaining chips for short-term relationships by anyone. If these partners enter into a civil contract where their property is treated like a married couples, then that indicates a real commitment. Therefore, they should be treated fairly and with the same benefits awarded anyone else. This contractual agreement is a more appropriate solution than asking individuals about their sex life.

STEVE HENRY:

Kentucky’s universities can best prepare our students for the future when we let educators educate. My policy as Governor would be to oppose politicians’ efforts to try to run university personnel offices from Frankfort.

Instead, I believe that university personnel policies are best determined by the universities through their respective Board of Trustees.

Though I’ll note that, as a physician, I’m generally supportive of efforts to get more Kentuckians access to affordable health care. As a rule, the more people we can cover, the better off we’ll be.

OTIS HENSLEY:

I will support such attempts. University benefit costs will soar at a time when we must find ways to reduce costs to control rising tuition. I have a proposal to cover the uninsured (see www.otisbullmanhensley.com) as do other candidates, so this action is not about insuring the uninsured. These domestic partner benefits are a veiled attempt to promote the homosexual lifestyle and undermine our religious culture, which, today, is under assault from abortion, gambling, and homosexuality. I will stand up for our religious culture. I will not promote the homosexual lifestyle and will not allow casino gambling into Kentucky.

BRUCE LUNSFORD:

Public universities should be allowed to make their own decisions to hire the best and most talented professors, researchers and other staff. The Legislature should not have a role in dictating hiring practices for UK and UL, and other public universities. Visit www.LunsfordStumbo2007.com to learn more about my campaign for change.   

JONATHAN MILLER:

Oppose. Like the dozens of major employers in Central Kentucky offering such benefits, our universities should have that option. We shouldnʼt micromanage university leadership.

JODY RICHARDS:

No response.

STEVE BESHEAR:

Our colleges and universities should be able to handle these types of personal issues without interference from state government. Because they are competing with colleges and universities around the world, they must be free to take the necessary steps to attract the most talented faculty and staff.

REPUBLICANS RESPOND

ANNE NORTHUP:

I strongly supported the ban on Same Sex Marriage and the people of Kentucky spoke loud and clear that domestic partners should not be treated like married couples. I also do not believe that the Governor or the General Assembly should micromanage our universities. Our schools are focused on competing to get the best and brightest faculty and students and, to do so, they make decisions independently. However, if the General Assembly does not choose to ban these benefits and universities decide to offer domestic partners’ health benefits, our state government should not spend one cent to support domestic partners.

BILLY HARPER:

ERNIE FLETCHER:

I believe that our university boards of trustees are independent bodies and they should have the autonomy to set their own policy. However, from the taxpayers who fund our universities we are getting an overwhelming amount of push back on the issue of paying domestic partner benefits. They do not want their tax dollars used for this purpose, and would prefer they be used to help hold down tuition costs. I am personally opposed to the addition of these benefits. We are consulting with the legislature to see if this issue should be added to a special session. 

Comments

[anonymous]

what on earth is northup talking about??? Its a yes or no question!!

[anonymous]

what on earth is northup talking about??? Its a yes or no question!!

Northup is trying to play both sides of the field.

and no one seems to realize that the seven people (yes, a whole seven) who have enrolled domestic partners on their health plans at UofL are costing taxpayers NOTHING!

Since Lee Todd is always talking about top twenty status, how about putting some meat on those bones by giving us some rankings, like, right now? How about top 50 or even top 100? This guy makes a lot of money and UK lives high on the hog so how about requiring some results today instead of pie in the sky tomorrows? Or is UK now Wimpie U getting their burger today?

jodie hasn't gotten up from his nap yet.

[Steve Magruder (I, not D or R)]

Yeap, Northup is correct. Kentuckians spoke loud, clear and stupid on the same-sex marriage issue. That extremely backward amendment needs to be repealed post haste.

[Seamus]

I a happy with most of the answers from the Democratic candidates. I know that Miller (of whom I am a supporter) is supportive of this issue, but it seemed that Gatewood gave it the most thought. Heres to hoping that whomever gets the nomination doesn't back away from the issue after the Primary.

[KYJurisDoctor]

What the candidates are REALLY saying:

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-are-they-really-saying-domestic.html#links

[Ashland Rambler]

Boyz at miller is gonna let them gays a marry and in the face of God! we cant let that happen God will come down and wipe Kentucky off the map and it will be like them Saddam & Gomorrah days in the bible im tellin' you all this is the ruination of the nation including that casino gambling which will also bring hurt on our great nation of Kentucky when elected my man Otis "Bull-Man" Hensley will be in touch with Christian Faith and everything Im telling you boys the Lord will strike Down upon thee with great vengeance and you will Know his name is the Lord when he destroys Kentucky for allowing them Gays to marry and gamblin' and a boozin' like that Miller-Genuine-Draft will if he gets elected Thank you and Good bye.

SADDAM & Gomorrah....hahahaha. that's cute.

[Conservative]

It is a non issue, the Universities have already put in place. The only problem I have with it, is that they could never come up with any facts or figures to back it up, they argued with emotion instead of facts which means the tax payer is getting screwed.

[Steve Magruder (I, not D or R)]

The taxpayer is not affected at all by these policy changes, so why all the crying? The vapidness astounds.

[Conservative]

Steve,

I really like reading your responses, you are a very sharp person. The only question I have in where these same sex benefits can effect the taxpayers is in their health. Lets say for example that several of these people could not get benefits due to healthcare issues, all of a sudden they are insured on this same sex benefit deal, I realize they are paying the premium. The issue would be that their health issues would effect the overall cost of the premiums thus costing tax payers more money to pay the higher premiums for the state workers. That is my question, can that happen?

[Big Sandy]

If we had Universal Health Care this wouldn't be an issue.

[WKDave]

Gatewood gets an a+++ for his intelligent, thought out, no "BS" answer, that truly is the "nonpolitical" solution to the "gay marriage" issue.

Gays do not need marriage or civil union to enjoy the "benefits" of marriage. A legal contract can be drawn up to handle property, end of life, etc.

Unfortunately fringe groups don't want a non-political solution they want to make a political statment.

[Conservative]

6:44 is correct if we had universal healthcare this would not be an issue because nobody would have healthcare, it would be bankrupt as the state would be bankrupt. There is no such thing as a free lunch people, no matter what you want to feel or believe, you have to earn it. Get off of your potato chip butts and earn it.

Oh god, yes people are poor because they are LAZY. They are put here to serve the rich anyway! 4 more years baby. Shine on Ernie.

[Bonzo2007]

When Ern speaks about "push-back", he's probably referring to a dozen or so evangelicals that want to bash gays and unmarried couples at every opportunity. Ern's boys have been looking for a wedge issue to put out there, simliar to the gay marriage ban to make the religious right come out and vote for bigotry, and at the same time, pull that lever for good old Ern, who's going to make sure that all the gays go back in the closet and the unmarried couples go to jail for fornication!

[B Jones]

Anything Dr. Lee Fraud supports is suspect but this is a non-issue that will be a ripple when all is said and done. The appearance of a yearly tuition rip-off of students at UK while spending polictical capital on this issue rasies serious question regarding the leadership of UK. These are not separate issues. Any enity that gets tax dollars is open to oversee by the General Assembly despite the thinking errors of Lee Fraud.

I do not have a problem with anyone providing the opportunity for health-care benefits to unmarried persons. But, I do think it is bad policy to deny that benefit, as U of L does (and maybe UK, too)to persons who are so closely related by blood that they cannot get married in Kentucky! Supposedly, the policy is to help recruit employees, etc., etc., but why not allow ANY unmarried person to select ANY other person with whom they reside, be it brother, sister, Mom or Day, to receive the benefit? After all, the cost is supposedly borne by the person getting the benefits. This would extend health coverage while at the same time not making it look like the universities are trying to circumvent legal barriers to domestic partners.

Conservative, good question. I would guess that concern would have to be predicated on evidence that the domestic partners of employees would necessarily have a greater incidence of disease or other health issues than the employees at UK. Given that they are paying the same premium, we would need to have said evidence in order to evaluate that.

I realize there is this idea out there that gays are generally less healthy, but I don't believe it, especially when we are only considering the ones who are in long-term relationships.

[Jim Anderson Stivers in Frankfort]

604: From a previous post:

Lets say for example that several of these people could not get benefits due to health care issues, all of a sudden they are insured on this same sex benefit deal, I realize they are paying the premium. The issue would be that their health issues would effect the overall cost of the premiums thus costing tax payers more money to pay the higher premiums for the state workers. That is my question, can that happen?

Sure that could happen and probably would happen that is why major insurance companies make it difficult for people with HIV to get a health plan.

Is that discriminatory? You bet.

Sometimes it does not make sense to compare the economic issue when their exist such a need for everyone to have adequate health insurance.

A CIVIL UNION would allow this. I can't see a that a CIVIL UNION would be wrong.

We are all GODS CHILDREN, regardless of the color of our skin, or the GOD we choose to worship.

Isn't that what COMPASSION is about?

[Steve Magruder (I, not D or R)]

WKDave, the 19th century abolitionists were a fringe group too.

[Steve Magruder (I, not D or R)]

I'll add to JAS's point. Long-term relationships are healthy. They help reduce the incidence of STD's and HIV/AIDS. Certainly, we should encourage this because if we don't, we all pay the price ultimately.

[Conservative]

Jim,

why does the tax payer have to shoulder the cost of compassion, especially when we are not getting our monies worth? I asked the question and you answered yes. That should be end of story, you go to state "that is what compassion is about" Why is the tax payer in the business of supporting everyone but themselves? I do not get it. Why can't people get an education, a job, and then their own benefits? What is the hold up? Give a man a benefit and they have it as long as the job last, teach that same man how to get their own benefits and they have it for life, same as the fish story and that is true compassion.

Conservative, your argument that partners may not have benefits b/c they have health issues is predicated on the suppositions that a) this only benefits gay couples and b) gay people are less healthy than straight people. Neither are true.

As for your 2:53 post...is that the same thing you say to stay-at-home parents? Do you tell women home with children that they should get their own benefits instead of using their husbands'? Or is that argument only for non-married people, gay or straight? Also you fail to recognize that many small business people (or those who work for small businesses) or the self-employed don't have benefits provided by their employer which as we all know lowers rates bc of bulk purchasing.

[Conservative]

The statement was made that this was a non issue since it would not cost the taxpayers any money, the partners of these state workers are going to pay the extra amount of the premium. I simply asked if poor health of these partners could end up being a cost to the tax payer since the risk could increase to the insurance company thus ultimately increasing the cost to the tax payer to fund healthcare benefits to the state workers. The answer has been "yes" this can happen. I only wanted to point out that this was not as simple as non married partners paying for their own benefits off of the purchasing power of the state worker. There are some "possible" hidden ramifications of this policy which should be discussed in public. The debate always seems to gravitate to homophobia, or married/notmarried, gay/notgay or recruitment issues which have never been proven. All I want to know is will this cost tax payers more money, one side says no because the same sex partners are going to pay for their benefits, ok that is fine, but is that the only "possible" cost that the tax payer needs to understand. Benefits are already bankrupting the state retirement funds, they are bankrupting teacher and state worker raises, and ultimately they are bankrupting the state of Kentucky. Will the actuarial risk of health benefits increase for the state due to this policy, has the actuarial risks increased in the other states that the supporters of this policy point to. That is all I want to know. This is not a debate of compassion, married/notmarried, gay/notgay or anything else, it is indeed a debate of finance,risk, and cost to the tax payer. Can some politician or supporter of this policy answer my question. The answer may be "no" there has been no increase of actuarial risk of health benefits in the states that have implemented this policy. Ok, if that is the case then fine,but the question needs to be asked and answered. Otherwise the argument that it is not costing taxpayers any money is false.

You want an answer to the question? Do the research yourself. It's not my question, nor was it why I responded to your posts. I would caution in your research to remember that you'd have to compare how health care costs have risen overall vs. how the costs have risen for the populations that are allowed to purchase partner benefits.

Oh, and we in Kentucky (if by chance the answer to your question is yes, the costs do rise with partner benefits) are already shouldering the burden. Ford and Toyota already offer partner benefits to the thousands of Kentuckians employed by them.

Thanks for only addressing what you want to dwell on, not the rest of what you said.

[WKDave]

Steve,

Please don't try to equate slavery with gay marriage/civil unions. I know you are smart enough not to do that on so many levels, but just the most obvious...slaves had no other alternative to freedom other than their master's mercy. I was pointing out that unmarried couples (straight or gay) can get many of the "benefits" of marriage (except tax and health care I guess) by having a legal document draw up and signed just as Gatewood pointed out.

[Conservative]

Emotion seems to rule on these blogs, typical libs that can only argue with crying.

Conservative wants to follow the hit-and-run tactics of his/her fellow conservatives. State a "fact," then when questioned legitimately to back up your claims or stand by your words, take your ball and go home.

I for one never argued with you, just said you should do your own research if you have questions, and questioned if you really believe everyone has to get their own benefits.

Hyperbole and hit-and-run, everyone. Examples above.

Conservative is right; don't cry - just cheat, lie, and deny! Shine on Ernie - 4 more years.

[Conservative]

Ford and Toyota can do whatever they want, they have a different actuarial risk with their workers and they are not supported by tax payer dollars. UK and UL are supported by tax payer dollars and have the state benefit actuarial risk. What is there not to understand with you cry baby libs.

Thanks for resorting to name calling this time. If you want an answer to the question do the research. Don't ask questions and depend on others to furnish an answer.

Btw, Ford is supported by quite a few of my tax dollars, as has been Toyota. Economic development incentives have been provided to both, Ford even this year. Their health benefits aren't tax-supported, but the companies sure benefit from those dollars.

[Conservative]

Keep it to the subject, healthcare benefits! The fact is that this policy will cost tax payers more money. So the players involved should just quit lying about that and admit it.

[Anodyne]

A simple legal contract does not give gays the same benefits as married couples. For instance:

The US General Accounting Office says that marital status affects more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and privileges which are denied to gay couples.

Domestic Partner benefits are considered taxable income by the IRS, married couples benefits are not taxed

Domestic partners cannot draw social security benefits or pension benefits once their partner is deceased.

As far as the Sodom & Gomorrah comments, there are about 20 references to Sodom and Gomorrah in the bible, none of which point to homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. One of the most extensive references is found in Ezekiel which says "This was the guilt of Sodom: She and her sisters had pride, excesses of food, and prosperous ease but did not aid in the poor and the needy. (Ezekiel 16:49-50) They behaved with callous and indifference toward the weak and vulnerable-the orphans, widows and strangers in their midst.

Please quit using the bible as a way to justify your hate and ignorance. The bible is like a mirror, the person who is reading it will make their own interpretation. Those who are ignorate and full of hate will interoperate the passages with ignorance and hate.