Our lovely government has gone and done it again. Not only have they interfered thus far in determining who can legally get married, but now they have decided what romantic requirements one must fulfill in order to be eligible for fair health care.
Last week, Attorney General Greg Stumbo’s office deemed that the current proposal for domestic partner benefits at the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville would be unconstitutional and therefore rejected the proposal. Stumbo’s opinion of the proposal, which he said was too close to the 2004 amendment defining a legal marriage, was documented in 17 long pages of legal mumbo jumbo. However, I can summarize the jargon in one simple phrase, a la Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi, if you’re not legally married: No benefits for you!
And although the opinion released by Stumbo’s office did list a solution that would allow such benefits to be offered, such as both universities broadening the way they define who is eligible, I fear that is not the underlying issue at hand. To me, the source of friction comes from who will be reaping the benefits of fair health care, not the idea of expansive health care in general.
In the months since the idea of domestic partner benefits hit the media, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard them off-handedly referred to as “queer benefits.” Many seem to be convinced that the universities are supporting a homosexual lifestyle and that the term ‘domestic partner’ means same-sex couples. Not true.
A domestic partnership can be defined in various ways, but both universities posted criteria to clearly define their idea of what a domestic partnership entails. Those involved in the relationship have to be each other’s sole partner and intend to remain so indefinitely. Neither of the parties can be already legally married to someone else and cannot be of blood relation. Both parties must be 18 or older and mentally competent to consent to the partnership. The couple must have been cohabitating in the same residence for six consecutive months and share financial responsibilities (i.e. joint mortgage, joint ownership of a motor vehicle, joint bank accounts).
Re-read the above paragraph carefully. Are any of the criteria gender specific? No. A domestic partnership can be between a couple whose members are of the same or opposite sex. Although Kentucky no longer recognizes the idea of common-law marriage, the idea of domestic partnership is the same basic premise: two people living together, in a romantic union, yet choosing between them to cohabitate and not get married. And while those of an opposite sex relationship could be legally married and those of the same sex could not (yet), I find it abhorrent that those opposing the idea of such benefits would rely fully on the same sex couples when making their comments.
Others in opposition of the benefits cite abuse as reasoning behind their argument. Some fear that a slippery slope will emerge should domestic partner benefits be accepted into the norm – that individuals will abuse the system and pretend to be part of a couple only to get benefits. While there may be some validity to that concern, think about how the system is already abused. We have people marrying not out of love but solely for citizenship in our country as well as couples who marry just to gain the healthcare benefits and/or tax breaks that a legal union provides. Domestic partnerships are/would be no different.
In order to combat possible abuse, both universities in question designed a list of guidelines wherein documented evidence would be provided before their applications for benefits would be processed. That documentation includes various items such as mail proving a shared address, evidence of joint ownership on a motor vehicle, evidence of joint responsibility (i.e. child care, school documents), and/or proof that one is claimed as a dependent on the other’s federal tax returns.
Denying the Universities of Kentucky and Louisville the ability to provide domestic partner benefits will only cause a backlash against the state in the grand scheme of things. The hopes that UK, for example, will be a top 20 research institution by the year 2020, in accordance with 1997’s House Bill 1, will be marred by the state’s decision to block benefits. If someone who considers domestic partner benefits a quality of life issue, they may not come to UK or U of L to work due to the denial. Then there is the issue of reputation; what type of reputation will our state gain when there is a flurry of companies, universities and local and state governments who already offer domestic partner benefits? By not complying with the growing needs of our state, Kentucky’s governmental decisions are only adding fuel to the stereotypical flame that we are nothing but a bunch of backward hicks living in the dark ages. Not exactly the reputation you want when trying to attract tourists and migration into our state.
Those like Attorney General Stumbo and House Minority Whip Stan Lee (who also opposed the benefits), as well as those within our government who feel the same as they do, need to get with the times. Times change, and at present, our nation is full of opposite-sex couples who have chosen to not let the government get involved in their love lives, therefore they remain domesticated, yet unmarried. Further, there are just as many same-sex couples who cannot legally be married yet live in a union just like that of opposite-sex couples. Both sets equally deserve the right to care for (or be cared for by) their domestic partner when it comes to the issue of healthcare.
With healthcare in general being the disaster that it is currently, lawmakers should be focusing their attention on what to do about the issue of healthcare by making it monetarily possible for everyone regardless of their living situation - not focused on who will receive benefits.