University of Kentucky Okays Benefits for Sexual Partners

We know that traditional marriage is under attack here in America. Seems that (as would be expected) higher education is helping the breakdown of the family.

A Kentucky pro-family group says a decision by the University of Kentucky to give health benefits to the unmarried sexual partners of its employees undermines marriage formation and tramples the state constitution.

The University of Kentucky has approved a plan to provide healthcare benefits to the live-in sexual partners of its staff and faculty. It is the second university in the state to institute a “domestic partner” benefits policy. The University of Louisville voted last summer to do the same thing.

Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with the Family Foundation of Kentucky, says the school caved in to pressure from left-wing groups on campus. He points out the policy flatly disregards a 2004 voter-approved marriage amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman and bars the state from recognizing a legal status similar to marriage.

According to Cothran, individuals must sign an affidavit in order to qualify as a domestic partner. Those affidavits, he says, contain what he calls “marriage language.”

“And those affidavits have to be legally recognized in order to be effective at all,” he adds. “So they’re establishing legal status similar to marriage, and [in doing so] they’re in violation of our state constitution.”

Original Link

3 Responses to “University of Kentucky Okays Benefits for Sexual Partners”

  1. michael says:

    I’ll start by saying that I generally agree with you on the subject of marriage: it is meant to be between one man and one woman.

    However, I do have a question: How do policies like this (extending benefits to unmarried partners), or legalizing civil unions for gay couples, hurt marriage?

    Is yours affected? Mine is not; my marriage is private; what other people do in their private lives, or in their bedrooms, does not affect me.

    So I am curious. What is the problem with letting people make their own lifestyle choices, especially if they are not harming anyone?

  2. Beth says:

    Hey Michael,
    The reason that I am against benefits for unmarried (which by the way includes homosexuals) is really two-fold. First, the Bible says that we are to remain pure until we are married. Obviously many (if not most) people do not adhere to this teaching, but think of the benefits if they did. The number of STD’s would be drastically reduced not to mention the self-esteem issues that would be prevented.
    Second, our society places no value on the family anymore. When you offer benefits to “live-ins”, what value is marriage to these people. We are sending a message to our kids that marriage is not important in our world. We are telling them that it is okay to have sex with whomever you please and that family means nothing.
    You are right that my marriage is not affected by the private lives of others, but our society as a whole is affected. Look at how America was in the 1950’s. Most families consisted of a mother AND a father and there was less crime, it was unthinkable to have an abortion, most homosexuals were still in their respective closets. The world was totally different. I believe the breakdown of the family (which God ordained) opened up a Pandora’s box of sinful activity which was once shunned, but is now accepted.

    I hope this makes sense—-I have a sinus infection/allergies and I am not thinking very clearly – forgive me if you cannot understand what I am saying. Let me know and I will try to clarify tomorrow after some rest.
    Have a great day!

  3. michael says:

    You do make sense, but I am not sure that the 50s is the best model; did you ever read the Kinsey Reports?

    There was just as much premarital, extramarital, homosexual, and what-have-you sex going on then as now, only it was buried down deep. That can’t be healthy for people, pschologically.

    Personally, I think a better answer is for each family to raise their own kids to have a strong sense of self-worth, and a good model of a healthy marriage; show them the better option to society’s failings. I know that worked for me.

    I actually have been acquainted with several people in “common law” marriages; for these couples, the lack of a ceremony does not detract from the reality of their commitment. I don’t think they are harming society in any way, and their kids have a good mom/dad model at home.

    I’ve also been acquainted with gay couples who’ve adopted; again, they are committed to each other, and give the kid a stable home life with two parents. Seems to me that it benefits everyone.

Leave a Reply