Posted on 11/09/2004 6:41:30 AM PST by Time is now
When Ohio University officials announced last month that the university will begin offering "domestic-partner" benefits to employees with same-sex partners, they didn't mention an interesting twist to the new policy.
While gay and lesbian employees at OU can now add their eligible same-sex partners to their health-insurance/benefits plan, the same option is not available to heterosexual couples who don't choose to be married.
A source in OU's Human Resources Department confirmed this week that the new domestic-partner benefit policy applies only to same-sex couples.
One OU employee suggested Wednesday that the policy could expose the university to litigation by straight employees who want to add their live-in boyfriends or girlfriends to their insurance plans.
"It seems that OU is setting themselves up for a lawsuit," said Eric Clift, a technical services specialist in OU's College of Osteopathic Medicine.
Clift is married, and his wife is on his OU benefits plan. He said he has no moral problem with homosexuality, and wouldn't object if the state of Ohio began to recognize same-sex marriages.
He questions, however, how the university can allow gay and lesbian employees to add their domestic partners to their insurance packages, while denying the same right to heterosexual staffers.
If a heterosexual employee were to legally challenge the new policy as discriminatory, he speculated, OU 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 acknowledged Wednesday that the university anticipated questions from heterosexual employees about why they cannot add their non-spouse partners to their benefits package. The university addresses this question directly on a page of its Web site, which can be accessed at http://www.uhr.ohiou.edu/benefits/DP_FAQs.htm.
Burton said 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."
He noted that this approach is the same that has been taken by other institutions, including Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, which announced its new domestic-partner benefits policy the same day as OU.
Clift, however, questioned whether the policy doesn't discriminate against heterosexual couples who for whatever reason don't want to get married.
"You're forcing heterosexuals to get married to get these benefits," he argued.
According to Burton, Clift is not the only OU employee who has raised questions about the homosexuals-only aspect of the new policy -- though he said the volume of inquiries hasn't been great.
"I can tell you that I have seen a couple of e-mails relating to this particular question," he said.
Burton added that based on the projected number of employees who will take advantage of the new policy, OU officials expect its cost impact to be negligible.
He said OU is estimating that only around 20 employees will be likely to sign up for domestic-partner benefits, out of around 3,600 staffers covered by OU's insurance. The projected cost to OU will be between $50,000 and $100,000, which Burton called "statistically an insignificant amount" when compared to the university's entire outlay for employee health insurance.
OU isn't awarding the benefits to all homosexual partners of employees.
The university 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.
The couples must attest that they have been together for at least six months.
Bingo.
I figured no way would it be that other OU.
They will be sued and they will lose. They can't discriminate.
Time for some people to get some lawyers and break this schools health care policy!!! Make it an object lesson!
so why doesn't someone sue? that's how the gay agenda got this far. why not fight back ?
Sodomites vs. fornicators - this is the wedge that will split the Democratic party.
No. This is a matter of politically correct college administrators sinking farther into the quagmire of "fairness." There are not enough Clinton-Carter judges in the country to make this idiocy stick. Although they will surely try ...
I'm not going to sue over something like that - but I'm sure it'll happen at some point. It is frustrating, though.
A heterosexual couple living together without benefit of clergy needs to sue the crap out of these Leftists for discrimination.
The gay agenda has gotten this far because no one will stand up to it. After the last election, the time to stand up is NOW.
Those unmarrieds who are living together should get married.
OK. Bob decides to put Paul on his work health insurance as his partner. Paul has medical work done. Then Bob dumps Paul and adds Stan to his medical insurance. What happens to Paul's medical bills?
Yet another stupid PC policy that cannot withstand even cursory analysis.
Nothing new. This is true of every DU regulation I have seen. In Califorinia, they get the benefits of marriage and can still file "Single" on tax returns and pay less tax than married couples.
I'm certain the ACLU will be eager to enter the fray to ensure that all parties rights (Hetero, unmarried couples and Gay, unmarried couples) are protected - NOT!
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but, obviously, Paul's bills incurred during his coverage period will be covered.
But what about afterwards? With married people, I think there is a period during the separation that spouses are covered.
Time to sue the university officials in civil court.
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.