domestic partner benefits at the university of kentucky
i wrote this in february 2007 and never published it. here it is now. — travis
UK has started discussions about the university potentially offering the benefits to gay and unmarried domestic couples. Last month, the UK Domestic Partner Benefits Committee, commissioned by President Lee Todd in the fall, recommended passing the benefits.
:::::
in order to remain competitive not only with other large state universities, but also with smaller colleges, it would be wise for UK to offer domestic partner benefits. Students should be able to count on their school to effectively recruit quality faculty to Lexington, and retain them for the long term as well. [source: kykernel.com]
i am skeptical of this idea. it is touted as a necessary step to achieving “top-20” status.
http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/search/label/domestic%20partner%20benefits
UK employees with domestic partners – same-sex couples and unmarried opposite-sex couples – are one step closer to having the option of insuring their partners, thanks to a unanimous recommendation from a UK committee [in january 2007].
According to a Kernel article, the plan, which, if approved, could be implemented as early as July 1, would affect 204 opposite-sex couples and 68 same-sex couples. It would cost the university an estimated $633,000 annually, $253,000 of which would come from UK’s undesignated general funds, which are partially funded by tuition.
The committee’s recommendation represents an important step in what would amount to UK offering equal benefits to university employees, regardless of sexual orientation or marital status.
yet, when it comes to benefits for people who are recognized under the law as one (marrieds) UK is sorely deficient in providing basic treatment. here are two recent examples, taken from personal experience, that show how poorly the university of kentucky is at honoring married people’s commitments:
me: how is my wife not a resident if i am a resident and she lives with me?
UK employee: we’re trying to keep people from coming to the state to live with a relative, like their grandmother, just so they can get in-state tuition in kentucky.
me: i’m sorry, but do you see the difference between a marriage between my wife and me, and the relationship between a girl and her grandmother?
UK employee: no.
if the university is going to spend 2/3 of a million dollars a year on domestic partner benefits, i would like to see the school create these two basic, but important married partner benefits.
Celebrate diversity!
your anecdotes make me sick. how can anything be so hypocritical and absurd? maybe your wife should cut her hair short, wear a hoodie, and say she is your “domestic partner.”
A wife is a grandmother is a husband is a pet gerbil.
This is one of the many ironies inherited from liberal “diversity.” Celebration of difference ends up leading to none (or only those they wish to recognize).
I remember in 8th grade being in a class where we came up with over twenty types of “families.” Twenty!
Mom+Dad, Mom+Dad+Kids, Mom+Kids, Dad+Kids, Mom+Kids+Pet, Mom+Pet, etc etc…until a “family unit” was comprised of (and had equal validity with all other types!) three college students and a dog.
So, no, Travis, there is no difference between you and your wife, and a grandmother and her granddaughter. Sorry.
There is no discrimination. The rules apply equally to everyone regardless of sex, race, marital status, sexual preference, etc. No one is allowed to share their parking pass; it is issued to an individual. Try reading the website. So unless your wife is also your Siamese fraternal twin, you are still as defined by law, an individual. It doesn’t matter if you’re married. You can’t transfer parking passes. And yes, in the same respect, just like every other individual, your wife must abide by the same residence rules which apply to everyone. In-state tuition has guidelines; it’s not where you live now, but where you have lived. Let your wife wait the allotted time to become a resident like everyone else. Quit whining about the pains of not getting special treatment because you’re married. Who knows, maybe if you whine enough at a buffet you and your wife may be charged only one meal since you are apparently one entity.
i know what discrimination is, you moron. no one said there was discrimination. the point of this post is the irony. the university is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on expensive and unconventional benefits to unmarried people, all the while failing to provide basic, resource-preserving benefits to married people.
uh, we drive to school together. i get out of the car 1/2 a mile away from my parking spot, since the university is retarded and didn’t build a parking lot for the law school. my wife drives the rest of the way to the parking garage. this is called carpooling. i could get out of the car at the same time she does, but this would waste time and energy. alternatively, we could drive separate cars, but this would also waste fuel and fill up precious parking spaces around campus. the university has spent millions over the last couple of years building four huge new parking garages, and there is still nowhere for commuters to park. you would think that the school would want to encourage carpooling. maybe they will decide to make the passes “carpool friendly” when the gays protest for carpooling partners’ rights.
the crux of the rule, for those moving in from out of state, is that one not move to the state “for the purpose of” attending school. amazingly, my wife moved to the state to be with me, while i pursue my professional degree. UK does not believe that my wife would move to kentucky to be with me! they think she must have come to partake of the outstanding academic environment for which kentucky universities are known. LO-FREAKING-L.
the university changed the rule days before my wife applied, and it has cost us an average of $10,000 per year, plus interest. i am not asking for special treatment. i would just like a better explanation than “your wife is to you like a granddaughter is to her grandmother.” icky.
i guess you are talking about an all-you-can-eat buffet?
surely you recognize that a parking stall (by definition designed for single use) is different from a buffet, where multiple stomachs have a larger impact than a single stomach.
if we actually transferred the pass, that would be one thing. but when we use the pass together every day, the school’s definition of “transfer” gets in the way of reality.
It doesn’t matter. I’m sorry the parking garage attendant reprimanded your wife. Truly there are more important issues with which to deal. Regardless, the parking pass is issued to you. I’m sorry it’s easier for you to be dropped off at your destination and let your wife park (very chivalrous). Just drop your wife off and park yourself; or, have her buy one in her own name (which you can buy with your joint checking account), since, by the time you’re dropped off, your wife will be the only one in the car and will be utilizing her own parking pass. By the way, what does your rant of “irony†have to do with gay partner benefits? From your statements, I’m assuming you’d rather have a new parking garage built in lieu of some family’s healthcare. Because, Lord knows, one less child of a gay partnership with healthcare is worth the savings you’ll receive from 30 less footsteps to class.
I’m assuming you’re a law student, since someone has so ardently begun to Socratically compel that pea-sized organ in your skull to dissect the exact verbiage of a statement rather than digest the implied meaning which is no less pertinent. Perhaps you’ll be one of the few overachievers within your sub-top-fifty legal institution that will make something of him. Who knows, maybe you’ll even practice family law and finally see the distinction between individuals and legal unions. Either way, say something educated about domestic benefits or take your issue up with campus parking where your bitching belongs.