Supporters rally for domestic-partner benefits ban
STUMBO SAYS U OF L WILL CHANGE ITS PLAN
Children holding signs that read “Marriage: Gods Way” and senior citizens in wheelchairs with stickers that demanded protection of marriage joined the crowd that filled the Capitol Rotunda today protesting domestic-partner benefits.
“It’s a good thing (the children) are here today because this institution we’re protecting is for them,” said Rep. Keith Hall, D-Pikeville.
The hour-long rally, organized by the Family Foundation of Kentucky, focused on urging legislators to take up Senate Bill 5.
“Senate Bill 5 is not about hate; Senate Bill 5 is about love,” Senate President David Williams said. “All Senate Bill 5 says is the public institutions of this state that are part of this government should adhere to the constitution.”
Williams reminded the crowd that the Senate passed the legislation banning government institutions from offering benefits to unmarried partners three weeks ago, before the special session temporarily adjourned.
The bill is aimed at the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky, who both began offering the benefits this year.
The Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion June 1 declaring the universities’ plans unconstitutional and provided guidelines on how to comply with the 2004 “Marriage Amendment.”
Attorney General Greg Stumbo, a Democrat, announced yesterday that U of L will make adjustments to comply with his opinion. He cited a July 23 letter from U of L that said “any changes in the university’s healthcare offering for the 2008 benefit year will be consistent” with his opinion.
UK made similar changes before offering the benefits to employees for the first time last month.
In a news release, Stumbo noted that nine of the 11 U of L trustees who voted to provide domestic-partner benefits were appointed by Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher.
“Some political extremists still attack the Trustees’ actions, and I think this is unfair,” Stumbo said. “The Governor selected these prominent citizens to keep Kentucky’s universities competitive and modern. Although the Trustees erred in extending domestic partner benefits to a narrow class of people, they have promptly taken corrective action in light of my recent opinion upholding the Marriage Amendment."
Williams said after his short address that it seems unlikely the issue of domestic-partner benefits will be on the agenda of an anticipated Aug. 13 special session unless both chambers agree to take it up.
Rep. Jim Gooch, who was one of three Democrats to attend the rally, told the crowd the issue would likely not be taken up until January, but asked them to continue pressing for legislation.
The group also circulated a list of home and office numbers of legislators. Rep. Jim DeCesare, R-Bowling Green, told the crowd he’d recieved 59 voicemails regarding the bill when he checked his messages this morning. All of them, he said, were in favor of banning domestic partner benefits.
- Megan Boehnke
Children holding signs that read “Marriage: Gods Way” and senior citizens in wheelchairs with stickers that demanded protection of marriage joined the crowd that filled the Capitol Rotunda today protesting domestic-partner benefits.
“It’s a good thing (the children) are here today because this institution we’re protecting is for them,” said Rep. Keith Hall, D-Pikeville.
The hour-long rally, organized by the Family Foundation of Kentucky, focused on urging legislators to take up Senate Bill 5.
“Senate Bill 5 is not about hate; Senate Bill 5 is about love,” Senate President David Williams said. “All Senate Bill 5 says is the public institutions of this state that are part of this government should adhere to the constitution.”
Williams reminded the crowd that the Senate passed the legislation banning government institutions from offering benefits to unmarried partners three weeks ago, before the special session temporarily adjourned.
The bill is aimed at the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky, who both began offering the benefits this year.
The Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion June 1 declaring the universities’ plans unconstitutional and provided guidelines on how to comply with the 2004 “Marriage Amendment.”
Attorney General Greg Stumbo, a Democrat, announced yesterday that U of L will make adjustments to comply with his opinion. He cited a July 23 letter from U of L that said “any changes in the university’s healthcare offering for the 2008 benefit year will be consistent” with his opinion.
UK made similar changes before offering the benefits to employees for the first time last month.
In a news release, Stumbo noted that nine of the 11 U of L trustees who voted to provide domestic-partner benefits were appointed by Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher.
“Some political extremists still attack the Trustees’ actions, and I think this is unfair,” Stumbo said. “The Governor selected these prominent citizens to keep Kentucky’s universities competitive and modern. Although the Trustees erred in extending domestic partner benefits to a narrow class of people, they have promptly taken corrective action in light of my recent opinion upholding the Marriage Amendment."
Williams said after his short address that it seems unlikely the issue of domestic-partner benefits will be on the agenda of an anticipated Aug. 13 special session unless both chambers agree to take it up.
Rep. Jim Gooch, who was one of three Democrats to attend the rally, told the crowd the issue would likely not be taken up until January, but asked them to continue pressing for legislation.
The group also circulated a list of home and office numbers of legislators. Rep. Jim DeCesare, R-Bowling Green, told the crowd he’d recieved 59 voicemails regarding the bill when he checked his messages this morning. All of them, he said, were in favor of banning domestic partner benefits.
- Megan Boehnke
How is this not about hate??? Ok, Ok, Ok ... It's about traditional marriage. Saying its about traditional marriage is not saying its about love. It says its about exclusion and misunderstanding. Those terms are typically terms that are root of hate.
How is it loving to say that my ailing husband can't have health insurance through my employment even when I pay a major portion of it? How is it loving that I could go marry a woman just so that I could go get health insurance and tax breaks? These things are not loving and if it is not loving, then it is hateful.
This is all about hate and how a group of people can hurt loving couples.
Posted by: Josh | July 30, 2007 at 06:20 PM
Because, Josh, in Kentucky you are not allowed to have a husband. Simple as that.
Posted by: | July 30, 2007 at 06:29 PM
Bunch of Jesus-freaks
Posted by: | July 30, 2007 at 06:49 PM
The law is the law. It was voted into being by a large majority of Kentuckians. The key to this debate is the 2nd sentence of the marriage amendment: "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized." Therefore, state institutions (which include state universities) are in violation of this law if they grant legal status (i.e. domestic partners) that is "substantially similar to that of marriage" to unmarried individuals. A domestic partner benefits plan is easily classified as substantially similar to marriage. The people of Kentucky voted very strongly that they do not wish to have domestic partner benefit plans be a part of their state institutions. Again, the law is the law.
Posted by: A different Josh | July 30, 2007 at 07:57 PM
I wish all those so-called "pro-family" conservatives would spend half as much effort trying to help an actual family in need, such as...
http://www.local12.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoId=19162
Watch that clip. And then call your Congressman and urge him to support this bill.
Posted by: | July 30, 2007 at 09:47 PM
It's just unbelievable that anyone would trust the Republicans on either health care OR "family values." Today's New York Times provides an excellent example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30mon3.html
"Congress's Republican minority leaders are picking the wrong fight in suddenly attacking a notably bipartisan push to expand health insurance coverage to hundreds of thousands of children of the working poor. A Democratic plan to renew the highly successful program and enlarge it through financing paid by higher tobacco taxes was understandably attracting support from rank-and-file Republicans — at least until President Bush and their caucus leaders began denouncing it as a foot in the door for some dark government design for socialized medicine.
"...'Dragging people out of private health insurance to put them into a government-run program is "Hillary care" come back,' cried the House Republican leader, John Boehner of Ohio, defending the profit-centric insurance industry as if it offered affordable coverage for these youngsters in the first place. His Senate counterpart, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, joined in the alarum, decrying 'an entire government takeover' of health care."
This really is despicable. These Republicans want to deny health care to impoverished children, all because of their own anti-government ideology? I say, let McConnell forfeit his own (taxpayer-funded) healthcare. Something tells me he wouldn't be in favor of trimming that pork from the budget.
Posted by: | July 30, 2007 at 10:33 PM
ummm.. the absence of love is not hate.
Posted by: Bill | July 30, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Isn't marriage a religious insitution that merely became a state issue because of legal ramifications? If we truly had separation of church and state, then why are we even discussing this? There is way too much religion mixing with politics. Those very kids who Keith Hall is "protecting" marriage for may be homosexual and wish they could marry their partner. Maybe they won't feel Keith protected them after all.
It's no one's business what I do in my bedroom. No one cared last night, and I'm not expecting anyone to this evening. Stay out of mine, and I'll stay out of yours. I don't care who got married yesterday and doubt I wil tomorrow.
Get real with these ideas that someone having a legal relationship has anything to do with your life. You're wrong. Instead of using your religious views to discriminate and divide, try realizing that someone you know is gay and you don't even know because you're views have forced them to live in fear of you hating them for who they really are.
That doesn't sound very Christian....
The current track record of the heterosexual community speaks volumes about the sanctity of marriage.
And I'm hoping this ban also applies to every form of heterosexual partnerships as well. No more common law marriage.
Posted by: KYMG | July 30, 2007 at 11:20 PM
The law isn't based on legal principle it is based on prejuduce. If America had voted on whether or not to allow blacks to marry or to allow interracial marriage guess who still wouldn't be married? Civil rights should never be put up for a vote and instituted by a majority rules.
Posted by: Amanda | July 31, 2007 at 01:22 AM
Interesting that AG Stumbo opines that UK and UL acted illegally with their partner benefits, but all's OK if those institutions concur with Stumbo's opinion of remedy. Who needs courts and legislatures anyway, right? Here's a modest and timely story proposal for some intrepid reporter..Does Peabody offer partner benefits as they seek tens of millions of public dollars?
Posted by: Trackmasterscoob | July 31, 2007 at 07:43 AM
Excellent question, Scoob. That information is listed as N/A on the Human Rights Campaign web site; I agree this would be a nice question to have answered.
As to the rest of the topic, well, it's nice to know that having the option of paying for your health care as part of someone else's plan equals marriage.
Posted by: | July 31, 2007 at 10:12 AM
If everyone wants a free lunch lets just call Kentucky "Russia" and call ourselves "Communist" and lets pull the military out of Iraq because we do not believe in democracy or capitalism. We want a free lunch for every group of people that can not take care of themselves. We have the right to pursue happiness not the gaurantee that we will get it. Get off of your rears and take care of yourselves. Parents that can not provide healthcare for their children should not have the right to have children until they can. Their should be major penalties for people that drop out of school, that have babies and do not work. We could have these people cleaning our parks, working in state government for insurance and minimum wage, cleaning our homes simce we are paying them. People, I promise you the free lunch is going to end, and those of you that were on it are going to suffer greatly. America can not sustain the communist programs just as Russia could not. It is an economic fact. Now shoot back an argument with some outlier sob story. Bottom line, we are put here to live up to our talents and gifts, not to be taken care of by society. We now have more people being taken care of then we have people contributing to society. This will never work.
Posted by: | July 31, 2007 at 10:13 AM
10:13, if you have facts to back up your last statement (the 2nd-to-last sentence) I'd love to see them. Until then I'll keep allowing my bleeding heart to delude me.
Posted by: | July 31, 2007 at 10:18 AM
I wish someone could tell me what lowering the number of uninsured Kentuckians has to do with marriage, or exactly what is immoral about it.
Also, the Governor has conveniently had a memory lapse on the fact that he appointed the very trustees who made the decisions at both institutions.
Posted by: Hmmmm | July 31, 2007 at 10:24 AM
10:13- what does insurance that people are paying for have to do with "free lunch"? The employees pay 100% of the cost for their partner's insurance at UofL, and public money isn't used to subsidize the program at UK.
The less than 20 people who have enrolled in these programs at U of L and UK are hardly a threat to the moral fabric of anything.
Posted by: | July 31, 2007 at 11:57 AM
People like 10:13 are just plain scary. Poor people should be forbidden to have children? Seriously, that's what you want America to be? How do you suggest we accomplish that? I would hope that upon reflection, you realize how insane that statement is.
Posted by: | July 31, 2007 at 12:41 PM
To all the homo liberals out there first I would like to ask why you have to bring universal health care into every thing. Is that the only thing that is going for the dems? Government run, Socialist-style health care has been a dismal failure everywhere it has been instituted. Jesus never preached acceptance of wrong behaviors. And let’s remember the defense of marriage act that defines marriage between a man and woman.
Posted by: | July 31, 2007 at 01:17 PM
1:17.....the employees PAY for this health coverage in addition to taxes. So apparently there is no room in your venom filled skull for what universal health care entails or the fact that health insurance and marriage are not mutually exclusive.
P.S. Tell Representative Lee hello next time you see him.
Posted by: | July 31, 2007 at 01:22 PM
"If everyone wants a free lunch lets just call Kentucky "Russia" and call ourselves "Communist"
Geez, and here I thought that we should call ourselves Peabody Plantation!
Posted by: | July 31, 2007 at 02:16 PM
I am for equitable access for affordable health care for all Kentuckians. UK broke commitments to UK employees regarding retire health care which many employees depended on. Why is it right to break comittments to UK employees about health care and then offer benefits to non-UK employees. UK should take care of its employees first. And UK is contributing a substantial amount of mmoney to fund Domestic Partners, whether it comes from tax money or private contributions, it is still money that could be used for UK employees.
Posted by: Terry | July 31, 2007 at 02:43 PM
http://mdds.wordpress.com
Posted by: Darrin | July 31, 2007 at 03:16 PM
First of all, to the person who said: "Instead of using your religious views to discriminate and divide, try realizing that someone you know is gay and you don't even know because you're views have forced them to live in fear of you hating them for who they really are. That doesn't sound very Christian...." You are correct, that would be a completely un-Christian attitude. Unfortunately, there are Christians and "Christians" out there who take this attitude despite what the Bible says. I am a Christian, and the Bible teaches that hating anyone is wrong. I do not hate anyone, including gay people. However, I do not agree with or support that lifestyle because God is clearly and completely displeased with homosexuality. Displeasure or disagreement with something does not equal hate.
Secondly, to the person who said: "The employees pay 100% of the cost for their partner's insurance at UofL, and public money isn't used to subsidize the program at UK." UK has already revealed (after first deceiving the legislature and the public) that it will cost the university over $600,000/year to subsidize its domestic partner plan. Whether UK claims the money is "public" or "private", it all belongs to the public university and is therefore public money. Think of it this way: UK uses "private" money to subsidize its plan, and then the university has to use "public" money to cover the costs of whatever that "private" money could have been put towards (say, expanding over-crowded classrooms). The university's money is the public's money no matter how it was generated.
Finally, the point is still being missed here. Whether you believe that homosexuality is moral or not, domestic partner benefits are clearly a violation of the marriage amendment (which was passed by a very large margin by voters). See my post on 7-30 at 7:57 PM for the reason why these benefit plans are a clear violation of this law. Again, the people who voted in favor of this law do not necessarily hate homosexuals (although it would be naieve of me to think that some do), but they disagree with that lifestyle choice. We live in a democracy, which means that the majority speaks. The majority has spoken. The people of Kentucky do not want domestic partner benefit packages to be a part of their state institutions.
Posted by: A different Josh | July 31, 2007 at 09:29 PM
I beg to differ, most people are able to see the difference between the ability to buy one's health care on a partner's plan and marriage.
Heterosexual couples would have the same opportunity and we all know there is no
common-law marriage in Ky. Why aren't you talking about that?
You brought up a different point...are you OK with U of L offering them, since all costs are completely out of pocket there?
No one, not the Family Foundation or Stan Lee, seemed to care when U of L started offering benefits last year. Only UK got your panties in a wad. If I were President Jim Ramsey I'd be quick to point that out.
Posted by: | July 31, 2007 at 09:55 PM
That's because UofL is the "red-headed stepchild" of Kentucky higher education. If that golden shining institution in Lexington dares to think for itself, then all hell breaks lose.
That, and UofL employees pay 100% of the cost for domestic partner health coverage, it just allows them to enroll at the group rate.
Frankly, this isn't even a "gay" issue, it applies to both heterosexual and homosexual people.
It's not shocking that the Family Foundation has found another thing to protest: health insurance. Maybe they'll be good buddies with Michael Moore now?
Posted by: | August 01, 2007 at 09:22 AM
Democrats, liberals and homosexual sympathizers have never understood the concept of "hate the sin but love the sinner" when they brand conservatives and Christians and Republicans with the inaccurate tags of "bigot" or "Hatemonger" or similar falsehoods.
Posted by: | August 01, 2007 at 01:04 PM