Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

OU partner benefits won't be for heteros
Athens NEWS ^ | 2004-07-08 | Jim Phillips

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Philosophy; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: anarchy; heterophobia; homosexualagenda; misguided
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 last
To: Grim
the policy could expose the university to litigation by straight employees...

Bingo.

You can have that case. I want to find a person who claims to be a polygamist who wants benefits for two partners. That would be a stronger case.

41 posted on 11/09/2004 9:46:35 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

Yep, if the criteria is benefits for those who cannot legally marry, then they have to accept polygamist domestic partners, underage domestic partners, animal domestic partners, 1st cousin domestic partners, and any other partner. It is also most likely illegal to exclude those who choose not to get married. It's their right to choose and not be discriminated against.


42 posted on 11/09/2004 10:31:44 AM PST by Rad_J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: xzins
And scripter, ultimately, is correct.

Why thank you. Although I can't quite figure out what I got correct! :-)

43 posted on 11/09/2004 11:47:36 AM PST by scripter (Tens of thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Rad_J

My 13 year old Coondog is in need of some medical treatment, and well since she has been with me since her whelping and I can't marry her this must mean I can add her to my insurance as a domestic partner. After all she is a Domestic Animal.

Thank god for open minded Educators.


44 posted on 11/09/2004 11:54:30 AM PST by Area51 (Diapers and Politicians need to be changed-For the same reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: scripter

I gave you credit for someone else's comment somewhere on thread -- Oh well, you probably deserved it from some past contribution that didn't get recognized!

Thanks, Scripter.

How's business?


45 posted on 11/09/2004 12:06:22 PM PST by xzins ((Now that the election's over; I need a new tagline...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson