Don't people have better things to do ....
Ohio Lawmaker Sues Miami U., Saying Same-Sex Benefits Violate State Constitution
By PETER SCHMIDT
An Ohio lawmaker has filed a lawsuit alleging that Miami University's policy of offering benefits to its employees' same-sex domestic partners violates an amendment to the state's Constitution banning civil unions. The suit puts Ohio among a growing number of states where the ability of public colleges to offer such benefits has been challenged in state legislatures or the courts.
State Rep. Thomas E. Brinkman Jr., a Republican from Cincinnati, filed suit last Tuesday in Butler County Common Pleas Court. The suit alleges that Miami's benefits policy violates an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that was adopted in a November 2004 referendum. The amendment defines marriage as "only a union between one man and one woman," and it prohibits state agencies from creating or recognizing "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effect of marriage."
Mr. Brinkman's chief lawyer in the suit, David R. Langdon, drafted the amendment as a lawyer for the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, a political-action committee that helped rally voters behind the measure. In an interview on Wednesday, he said Miami officials "have thumbed their noses at the Constitution, as far as we are concerned."
"The Ohio Constitution," he continued, "very clearly prohibits them from trying to create any sort of relationship that mimics marriage, and that is exactly what they have done."
A spokesman for Miami University, Richard Little, said the institution had no plans to rescind its policy, which provides benefits to about 30 same-sex partners of employees. The benefits, available to gay or lesbian couples who are at least six months into a long-term relationship and share financial obligations, cost the university less than $100,000 per year, out of a total annual budget for faculty and staff benefits of more than $50-million, Mr. Little said.
Similar disputes have arisen in other states in recent years, mainly as a result of two conflicting trends. In higher education, many colleges have come to believe that they must offer same-sex domestic-partner benefits to compete for top faculty members. As a result, such benefits are now provided by about three-fourths of the nation's top research universities.
Meanwhile, in the political arena, there has been a clear backlash against court rulings permitting same-sex marriage. Laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage have been adopted by 45 states, 41 of them since 1996.
The Michigan Court of Appeals is considering a lawsuit filed against the state by the American Civil Liberties Union and joined by several gay or lesbian professors. The suit argues that an anti-gay-marriage amendment passed there in November 2004 should not be used to deny health benefits to the partners of gay employees at state agencies, including public colleges.
Michigan's attorney general, Mike Cox, a Republican, has argued that such benefits are prohibited by language in the amendment saying that only a union between a man and a woman can be declared a marriage "or similar union for any purpose." But an Ingham County Circuit Court judge ruled in September that state agencies can offer the benefits without violating the Michigan Constitution. Some public universities there, including the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, continue to provide them.
In Montana the State Supreme Court ruled in December 2004 that the state's public-university system must extend the same health benefits to gay couples that it does to heterosexual couples, or else it would violate the state Constitution's equal-protection clause (The Chronicle, January 14).
At the behest of the University of Wisconsin System, that state's Democratic governor, Jim Doyle, proposed legislation last winter to provide the system with $1-million to finance domestic-partner benefits for its employees. The measure died in a legislative committee, however.
In other states, including Georgia, gay activists have failed to persuade higher-education officials to propose changes in the law to allow or to finance such benefits.
In Ohio, Miami University is joined by Cleveland State, Ohio, Ohio State, and Youngstown State Universities in offering domestic-partner benefits. Mr. Brinkman, the lawmaker, said he had sued Miami because the campus is near him and because he has a daughter and a son enrolled there. His lawsuit says he has grounds to sue the institution based on his status as a taxpayer and a tuition-paying parent.
In an interview on Wednesday, he said that, as a state representative, he had a duty "to make sure that all of the institutions that receive state funds abide by the law."
The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative advocacy group based in Scottsdale, Ariz., is helping to represent Mr. Brinkman in his lawsuit. Jeffrey A. Shafer, the group's senior legal counsel, said on Wednesday that "Ohio seemed to be a state where a lawsuit like this makes sense" because of the language in its constitutional amendment.
Mr. Shafer said that his group had no plans to focus on challenging colleges' domestic-partner-benefit policies, but that "to the extent that cases present themselves, I think we would be happy to litigate them."
By PETER SCHMIDT
An Ohio lawmaker has filed a lawsuit alleging that Miami University's policy of offering benefits to its employees' same-sex domestic partners violates an amendment to the state's Constitution banning civil unions. The suit puts Ohio among a growing number of states where the ability of public colleges to offer such benefits has been challenged in state legislatures or the courts.
State Rep. Thomas E. Brinkman Jr., a Republican from Cincinnati, filed suit last Tuesday in Butler County Common Pleas Court. The suit alleges that Miami's benefits policy violates an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that was adopted in a November 2004 referendum. The amendment defines marriage as "only a union between one man and one woman," and it prohibits state agencies from creating or recognizing "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effect of marriage."
Mr. Brinkman's chief lawyer in the suit, David R. Langdon, drafted the amendment as a lawyer for the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, a political-action committee that helped rally voters behind the measure. In an interview on Wednesday, he said Miami officials "have thumbed their noses at the Constitution, as far as we are concerned."
"The Ohio Constitution," he continued, "very clearly prohibits them from trying to create any sort of relationship that mimics marriage, and that is exactly what they have done."
A spokesman for Miami University, Richard Little, said the institution had no plans to rescind its policy, which provides benefits to about 30 same-sex partners of employees. The benefits, available to gay or lesbian couples who are at least six months into a long-term relationship and share financial obligations, cost the university less than $100,000 per year, out of a total annual budget for faculty and staff benefits of more than $50-million, Mr. Little said.
Similar disputes have arisen in other states in recent years, mainly as a result of two conflicting trends. In higher education, many colleges have come to believe that they must offer same-sex domestic-partner benefits to compete for top faculty members. As a result, such benefits are now provided by about three-fourths of the nation's top research universities.
Meanwhile, in the political arena, there has been a clear backlash against court rulings permitting same-sex marriage. Laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage have been adopted by 45 states, 41 of them since 1996.
The Michigan Court of Appeals is considering a lawsuit filed against the state by the American Civil Liberties Union and joined by several gay or lesbian professors. The suit argues that an anti-gay-marriage amendment passed there in November 2004 should not be used to deny health benefits to the partners of gay employees at state agencies, including public colleges.
Michigan's attorney general, Mike Cox, a Republican, has argued that such benefits are prohibited by language in the amendment saying that only a union between a man and a woman can be declared a marriage "or similar union for any purpose." But an Ingham County Circuit Court judge ruled in September that state agencies can offer the benefits without violating the Michigan Constitution. Some public universities there, including the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, continue to provide them.
In Montana the State Supreme Court ruled in December 2004 that the state's public-university system must extend the same health benefits to gay couples that it does to heterosexual couples, or else it would violate the state Constitution's equal-protection clause (The Chronicle, January 14).
At the behest of the University of Wisconsin System, that state's Democratic governor, Jim Doyle, proposed legislation last winter to provide the system with $1-million to finance domestic-partner benefits for its employees. The measure died in a legislative committee, however.
In other states, including Georgia, gay activists have failed to persuade higher-education officials to propose changes in the law to allow or to finance such benefits.
In Ohio, Miami University is joined by Cleveland State, Ohio, Ohio State, and Youngstown State Universities in offering domestic-partner benefits. Mr. Brinkman, the lawmaker, said he had sued Miami because the campus is near him and because he has a daughter and a son enrolled there. His lawsuit says he has grounds to sue the institution based on his status as a taxpayer and a tuition-paying parent.
In an interview on Wednesday, he said that, as a state representative, he had a duty "to make sure that all of the institutions that receive state funds abide by the law."
The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative advocacy group based in Scottsdale, Ariz., is helping to represent Mr. Brinkman in his lawsuit. Jeffrey A. Shafer, the group's senior legal counsel, said on Wednesday that "Ohio seemed to be a state where a lawsuit like this makes sense" because of the language in its constitutional amendment.
Mr. Shafer said that his group had no plans to focus on challenging colleges' domestic-partner-benefit policies, but that "to the extent that cases present themselves, I think we would be happy to litigate them."