A story about same-sex benefits caught my eye in this weeks UNO Gateway.
Same-sex benefits for faculty stirs ongoing debate - UNO Gateway
Here are some of the highlights…
UNO Student Regent/President Elizabeth Kraemer would like to see more research done on the issue of same-sex benefits before taking a definitive stand on the issue.
“I’m going to take the stance of what is best for UNO. More research needs to be done to see what’s in the best interest of UNO,” she said.
Well, it’s simple. Not offering same-sex benefits at the University of Nebraska puts the entire university at a competitive disadvantage. I don’t think it’s in the best interest of UNO if we are losing teachers because we can’t do something as simple as offering dental coverage to a professor’s partner.
My magic decoder ring is telling me that when an elected official says we need “more research” on an issue, it generally means they don’t support the issue and don’t have the gumption to express their actual opinion.
[Regent Randy] Ferlic says that a lack of money to fund same-sex benefits is the primary reason for not offering them.
“It wouldn’t be very pragmatic. We can’t afford it,” he said.
Kraemer also believes that finances may very well be a part of the debate.
“It wouldn’t surprise me [if funding was an issue]. The university is still in a little bit of a squeeze financially,” she said.
Mr. Ferlic how much is this actually going to cost the university? Give me a figure. How do we know we can’t pay for it when we don’t know what it’ll cost?
My magic decoder ring is now telling me that a politician that says there is “a lack of money to fund” a project just hates the project but couldn’t think of a better reason to oppose it.
I’m going to save the university thousands of dollars in consulting fees by telling them how much this will actually cost. The University of Nebraska has 10,000 full-time employees. Many institutions that have implemented same sex benefits indicate that 1% of there workforce applies for this benefit. So, at the University of Nebraska, that would be 100 employees.
The 1.0 percent figure is considered high, based on the experiences of the universities of Chicago, Iowa and Stanford which witnessed an increase of 0.1, 0.2 and 0.2 percent respectively after offering coverage to same-sex couples. SOURCE: Carnegie Mellon University
Most figures I’ve seen indicate that it costs $2500 per person for same sex health care benefits. If that is the case, it would cost the university $250,000 per year. If only .2 percent of the full-time employees sign on to the program (like what happened at the University of Iowa), the cost would be would be a measly $50,000. To put this in perspective, the president of the university, J.B. Milliken, makes $270,000 per year.
I’m still waiting for someone to speak up with a legitimate reason why we aren’t doing this immediately. Opposing this concept because there needs to be “more research” on the topic or because the university doesn’t have any money are not legitimate excuses (I’m sorry, they aren’t).
When are the homophobes going to come out of the woodwork and condemn this? At least those people have the guts to tell you why they actually oppose this.
Offering benefits to the homosexual partner of any faculty member is a bad idea. It can easily be taken advantage of. A straight professor could get together with one of his buddies and say theyre homosexual and wrongfully obtain the benefits that the homosexual faculty members get.
Its not something that should be implemented into the benefits package for faculty members at UNO.
Theo-
Do you really know many straight people willing to fake ‘out’ themselves as homosexuals to get health benefits? If so, you hang with a peculiar crowd.
Regardless, by your logic, we shouldn’t have benefits for wives and husbands either because people could just as well have sham marriages to cheat and take advantage of these opportunities.
The potential for fraud always exists, but there are better ways to address it than to maintain a discriminatory policy that makes our campuses less attractive to diverse faculty and, hence, less able to meet the educational/environmental needs of students. We are really just shooting ourselves in the foot by with-holding these benefits - it’s petty and does nothing but cater in needless and cowardly fashion to those who wish to maintain the 2nd-class status of GLBT citizens.
We can and should do better, as this post makes clear.
I stand by my opinion that UNO should not have same sex benefits. A husband/wife marriage is a lot more official than someone’s life partner.
I’m not generalizing, but I’m sick of people taking their freedom for granted. People are given massive amounts of freedom, and after awhile, that’s not enough. They want more and more, as if the freedom they have is not enough. It’s ridiculous.
Kyle, if you are comparing marriage and couples, you need to analysis you fight.
“your fight”…sorry, i need to read before i post
Daniel, there’s no such thing as a homosexual marriage, because lawmakers are too bigoted and homophobic to allow it. Those who would be receiving benefits would likely be married if the law allowed it.
You’re right Theo, the righteous government “gives” us way too much freedom. Personally, I think freedom of religion is getting way out of control. The government should force everyone to become Southern Baptists.
hehehe. hohoho. hahaha.
There is always something you people have to complain about. Nothing is ever good enough for you people. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Theo, your first argument was completely dismantled by Kyle. If Kyle’s response was not here, I would have posted the exact same thing.
After your argument was shot down, you now are saying that we shouldn’t have same sex benefits at UNO because that pushes the limits of freedom in the United States. That is an even crazier argument than your first one.
Now, after Tyler belittled your argument, you have resorted to calling the people of this group, chief, and others cry babies. It’s disappointing that you need to resort to that.
If you would come up with a logical reason to oppose same sex benefits, then the people that comment on this blog would have a much higher respect for you. Instead, you made up arguments that weren’t clearly thought out and make no sense when you analyze the situation.
I would respect you more if you said that your religion teaches you that homosexuals are dirty sinners, and the government should not reward dirty sinners. Instead, you’ve tried to shroud your homophobic nature in irrational and poorly thought out excuses.
He doesn’t, of course, because there is no logical reason for such opposition. Even if he says that it’s against his religion, it’s still unconstitutional.
I wasn’t trying to say that same sex benefits are pushing limits of freedom. I simply said many people take their freedom for granted. Same sex benefits are still a poor idea, and I guarantee they will not be implemented.
Oh…and homosexuals are dirty dirty sinners.
Dave -
so you are saying you want two homosexuals, that are dating, to get benefits
and that heterosexuals, shouldn’t get the same benefits.
I don’t see how you are taking a fair and unbiased look at this problem.
It sounds more to me, like you are on an agenda.
Sometimes meeting halfway will take you twice as far.
Well, let’s see, since heterosexuals have the benefits of marriage and homosexuals don’t? Don’t even try to pull an equal protection card until you’re prepared to say that homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else in this country. Otherwise, you clearly have an agenda.
My “agenda,” if you want to call it that, is making sure that every American is protected by the Constitution, not just those who agree with narrowminded views.
So I suppose that says something?
Tell me Dave, do you pledge allegiance under God? or do you pledge allegiance?
How is that even relevant? The First Amendment says that Congress (and by extension, according to court precedent, the government at any level), shall make no law establishing a religion. Now, you may not think that putting your religion in our schools is particularly exclusive to anyone. Saying that you’re justified in advocating the imposition of one narrow-minded groups goals on the entire population, based on the fact that most of us believe in God is incredibly bad logic.
I believe in God. But I don’t believe in a God that would condone the slaughter of innocents in the name of democracy. I don’t believe in a God that would punish people for how he made them. I don’t believe in a God that is a close friend of George W. Bush, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell. My idea of God is far more just and loving than that.
Watch the movie Time Changer and tell me what you think.
Dave -
i am guessing that you don’t know where i stand on gay civil unions.
just think about it.
So very cool format. Not everyone has to 100% agree. You made my day.Super fun website!.
Cute, very cute… Thanks man!
anatrim
information loss patch weight
See you later, thanks