Legislator sues university over domestic partner policy

cleveland.com ^ | Today | AP

[darkangel82]

HAMILTON, Ohio (AP) — A state legislator sued Miami University on Tuesday, seeking a ruling that the school's domestic partner benefits policy violates Ohio's constitutional ban on civil unions.

The action by Rep. Tom Brinkman Jr., R-Cincinnati, was in his role as a taxpayer and father of two Miami University students, said his attorney, David Langdon. Langdon wrote language for the state Marriage Amendment passed by voters in 2004, which says "only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions."

Langdon said he believes this is the first suit against a university's domestic partnership policy since the amendment took effect. When it was passed, attorneys differed on what the amendment meant for benefits extended by state universities to same-sex partners of employees.

Langdon said Miami limits the benefits to same-sex couples, because opposite-sex couples have marriage as a legal option, "clearly going out of their way" to violate the policy.

The Butler County Common Pleas court suit says Miami is trying to provide "a legal status which approximates marriage to those in a relationship whose composition disallows it to qualify for status as a marriage."

It says Brinkman "desires that his tax dollars and tuition payments be utilized lawfully, and not applied by the university to finance the constitutional violation."

[darkangel82]

I wasn't sure what the rules are for AP, so I excerpted this one.

[digger48]

Just like they did in the House last week. Draw them out at every chance and make the Democrat politicians actually DEFEND their moronic positions that give us this crap.

[No Longer Free State]

oooh. Fighting back. In the courts, no less. I like it.

[Tax-chick]

I don't see why companies can't just offer policies to "Employee and Adult Dependent," instead of nattering about who's a "partner" of what.

[i_dont_chat]

That would be opening a larger can of worms, imo.

[Tax-chick]

Why? "Adult dependent" could be the person the employee is living with, could be their deadbeat brother-in-law, or elderly parent ... as long as the employee is paying the premiums, I don't see the potential downside. Change "dependent" during the annual enrollment period, just as with any other changes.

[Khurkris]

My alma mater x's 2.

Viva the Miami REDSKINS!

[Sonny M]

I don't see why companies can't just offer policies to "Employee and Adult Dependent," instead of nattering about who's a "partner" of what.

Private companies can and do do whatever they want.

This is a public state university, which means its "benefits" are being paid for by BOTH a combination of taxpayer money and tuition payments.

Since this was a state constitutional ban, state apperatuses should follow the letter of the law.

[Tax-chick]

Since this was a state constitutional ban, state apparatuses should follow the letter of the law.

I agree. My comment was more of a general nature, rather than applicable to this particular employer, who should, of course, follow the law.

[Eagle Eye JR]

I believe my company is now offering something like this. They're offering "two party" coverage. I didn't think much of it when I saw it, but I suppose this is what they're trying to do.

[conservative physics]

If it's a private company, and including the AID's infected boyfriends of their male employees doesn't cause the insurance premiums of all the straight employees to go up, then I don't have a problem with it.

What insurance company in there right might would write a policy that covered gay partners? That's about as dumb a business policy as selling health insurance policies to cancer sufferers while they are undergoing chemo.

[sarasmom]

Might have something to do with insurance premium increases.
Employers may offer group health insurance to employees, as a benefit in lieu of a wage increase.
It is a very good benefit, and figures large in many peoples employment decisions.
Group plans save a great deal of money for employees who are offered the chance to also insure family members, at a greatly reduced rate than they can purchase individually.
Company insurance rates rise annually based on a variety of factors, but surprisingly it is not primarily due to a few ER visits for children, or a pregnancy.
It is due to the risk management of a pool of generally healthy employees, and their immediate family.
The choices are:
Employee only.
Employee and Spouse.
Employee and child(ren).
Employee,Spouse, Child(ren).
I am willing to "share" the price of the pool for any of my coworkers children and/or spouse.
I am not willing to pay increasing premiums for someone who wants to "insure" their grandmother, sister, lover,or neighbor down the street they feel sorry for.
I have already been forced to pay taxes, for people who do not qualify for employer provided, and employee paid "benefits" premiums.
I refuse to pay higher premiums just because someone wants a free ride.
Perhaps I am stupid for paying my portion of health insurance benefits.
Rather than enlarge the "pool", why not make medical bills 100% pay as you go, drop Medicare and Medicaid taxes, and outlaw the entire Medical Insurance Industry?

[conservative_2001]

Go Brinkman! Before he became a State Representative he filed many taxpayer lawsuits like these. On this case, he should prevail on the merits. The Ohio ban on gay marriage also prohibits any local government units from granting rights that approximate the privileges of marriage. Domestic partners benefits are meant to substitute for marriage, which is no longer allowed in this state.