I just read this in the Lexington Hearld Leader. It seems that social conservatives are upset because the University of Louisville is going to offer benefits to the heterosexual and homosexual domestic partners of university employees, with the University of Kentucky, the state's "flagship" university, set to follow suit.
Social conservatives argue that giving such benefits both:
a.) uses public funds to tacitly approve of and support lifestyles that the majority of the public disapproves of, and
b.) in the words of state Rep. Stan Lee, R-Lexington, "undermines families."
The second half of this is particularly troubling, though easy enough to deal with in reasonable conversation. Simply put, my family, and the families of every single person I know (here I am speaking of traditional nuclear families, though I don't think that the term "family" should be so severely limited) is in no way, shape or form threatened or undermined by the idea that the benefits that we enjoy might also be enjoyed by people whose households are not structured like ours.
The best case that I can make for his point, the most charitable construction I can muster, is that by providing marriage-like benefits to unmarried couples (and this sets aside the question of sexual orientation, which would be a relevant one if gays were allowed to marry) we have removed an incentive to get legally married. But, I must ask, do we really want marriages which are based principally on incentives, particularly economic ones? Is that the best reason to enter into such a sacred arrangement?
Given that our divorce rate is now well over 50%, and given the similarly alarming number of married couples who are miserable in their marriages but may never actually divorce, do we really want economic incentives to be a strong enticement to marry? I don't know about you, but if my marriage were only being held together by economic incentives, I certainly would consider that to be a morally, spiritually, or emotionally good place to be.
And, if I thought that Rep. Lee seriously believed that the fabric of my own marriage might come undone by giving domestic partner benefits to unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples, then I might get very offended, or be extraordinarily amused (depending on my mood). But what is troubling about this is that I don't think that Rep. Lee seriously believes that this move undermines families. Rather, I believe that he is using inflammatory rhetoric to incite paranoid voters.
The first issue raised here, however (and in fairness to Rep. Lee, he raised both issues at the same time, as though they were connected, though I can't see the connection myself) is a more serious and more complicated one. Here are some relevant questions:
1. Does the use of state funds (these are, after all, public universities) to provide benefits to unmarried heterosexual and homosexual partners really constitute a moral endorsement of their lifestyles? Can the morality of their lifestyles even be fairly evaluated by considering only that they are unmarried but are still domestic partners?
2. Is this principally an issue concerning sexual morality (we can't support with state funds sexual arrangements which run counter to the majority's moral intuition) or an economic one (to attract the best talent to our universities, and as such to create the best environment for economic and intellectual growth in our state, we must offer competitive and even creative benefit packages)?
The culture warriors often use the language of democracy to undermine the protections offered by a democratic state. While our form of democratic government exists to prevent the extremes of a tyrannically authoritarian central government on one side and mob rule on another side; many fighting the good cultural fight appeal to both extremes, granting our presidential administration their equivalent to the divine right of kings on the one hand while arguing for the right of the majority to impose its will on the minority on the other. Here we see the second half of this equation, as Rep. Lee argues that the University of Louisville (and also, hopefully soon the University of Kentucky) is bound to impose the sexual moral intuitions of the majority on its staff, never mind the severe economic and intellectual consequences of draining the university of its talent.
Personally I'm proud of the University of Louisville for considering such a move, and I'm also proud that the University of Kentucky has at least verbally stood up to moralizing bullies and said that their benefits policy will not be impacted by the political views of the community. Good for them. Their primary job is to run a university, not appeal to the sexual moral intuitions of an ill-informed "majority," or to cave to the political opportunists who inflame the passions of that so-called majority.
Suns and Warriors Put On a Show (And Demonstrate Why Pace Matters) - Last night the Phoenix Suns and the Golden State Warriors, two of the fastest paced teams in the NBA, were matched up against each other on national televi...
9 years ago