Posted on 07/10/2004 12:31:31 PM PDT by wagglebee
Ohio University is offering "domestic-partner" benefits to employees, but only same-sex couples can apply.
Some critics say the school is setting itself up for a lawsuit by employees who want to add a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend to their insurance plans, the Athens, Ohio, News reported.
Eric Clift, a technical services specialist in OU's College of Osteopathic Medicine, told the paper if a heterosexual employee were to legally challenge the new policy as discriminatory, the university might have to either revoke the benefits for gay and lesbian employees, or extend them to straight employees, "which I have to think would (financially) cripple the benefits package at OU."
OU spokesperson Hub Burton responded to the criticism, explaining that in extending domestic-partner benefits only to same-sex couples, OU "chose to focus on those who don't have the right to get legally married. ... This is a matter of economic fairness."
The university explains its position on its website.
Burton noted other schools have a similar policy, including Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, which announced its new domestic-partner benefits policy the same day as OU's announcement.
Clift, however, says the policy discriminates against heterosexual couples who don't want to get married.
"You're forcing heterosexuals to get married to get these benefits," he told the Athens News.
Burton said the school expects the added costs to be negligible, with an estimated 20 employees likely to sign up at a projected cost of between $50,000 and $100,000, the News reported.
Not all homosexual partners will receive the benefits.
The school defines domestic partners as individuals who are of the same sex, and share a regular and permanent residence, have a committed personal relationship, can demonstrate financial interdependence and who are not legally married or in another domestic partnership. Also, the couples must attest they have been together for at least six months.
This is absurd! Now the left wants to financially reward homosexuality and at the same time punish unmarried heterosexuals.
OU spokesperson Hub Burton responded to the criticism, explaining that in extending domestic-partner benefits only to same-sex couples, OU "chose to focus on those who don't have the right to get legally married. ... This is a matter of economic fairness." How about brothers? Doesn't one brother have the right to put his brother on his insurance?
What if I want two wives? Why won't they cover my Kids I had on the side (think Jesse Jackson)?
Once we open this up the mess gets bigger and bigger.
The Supreme Court needs to smack this crap down. "Equal protection" prohibits this type of discrimination. If same sex sodomy cannot be outlawed, the university cannot discriminate based on the sex of the unmarried live-in.
For the record, I think benefits should be for spouses (traditional male-female) and their children period.
This is just the tip of the fagberg folks.
FMCDH(BITS)
It's not likely a university community has to do anything at all to attract homosexuals. Quite possibly they could pay them less and still have them lining up for these particular jobs!
Pretty soon there will be no benefits from employers. Then hear the sniveling!!!
Discrimination based on private sexual behavior.
Rewarding one specific sexual practice to the detriment of others.
Whoever is at the university is legally and stupendously stupid.
Everyone and anyone can legally marry.
I believe "they" (employers etc) should stop offering benefits to the recreationally joined. (lets be honest, if you just live together as a same sex couple or otherwise couple, it is just for recreational sex.)
IOW society as a policy rewards the institution not thin individual. An individual participating in sex for recreation is no a benefit to the longterm of society an thus should not be entitled to a reward.
Bingo!
Why do you think big companies support this crud?
It will soon get so complicated that they will soon say "We can not be in a position to judge who deserves what, we will pay for our employee only, and however he arranges his personal life is none of our concern"
So, if I have a same sex roommate who has better ins. than I do, I can just get on that policy, and dare the employer to prove I am heterosexual.
Or haven't they noticed that a lot of people who don't make much money do get same sex roommates for strictly financial reasons?
Why have benefits at all?
Why not just have a benefit fund.
Think about it....the employee and employer contribute to a benefit fund.
The individual can use it however he or she wishes.It's part of your earnings...
You could tweak the matching contributions. Schools and companies could give bonuses or increases for tenure/age with company/children.
young single folks could take the cash, or buy cheap policies and invest the rest,
older folks could pick from a company negotiated pool of products, or take their benefit program to another provider, or pocket the money and use spouses insurance...
You can probably find a roommate even easier if you tell him you can put him on your insurance after 6 months.
The companies won't "abandon" their employees, they will transition the sheep to national healthcare.
Seems to me that this is also highly discriminatory against the polyamorous community.
I would call that a 'roommate'...
I believe as homosexuals push for this stuff, that companies are going to look at the bottom line for covering this stuff and benefits for employees only will become the standard benefit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.