Same-sex legislation worries some at IU

An Ohio judge ruled last November that a politician had no standing to sue Miami University of Ohio for offering domestic-partner benefits -- despite the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage and legal recognition of unmarried couples. \nHowever, the case has raised the question of whether the domestic-partner benefits of a state institution or any public university could be challenged under a state's marriage amendment.\nFor IU, that question is still unanswered. A proposed amendment with one section that explicitly bans gay marriage and a second that some think could take rights such as domestic-partner benefits away from unmarried couples passed during its committee hearing Wednesday afternoon, thus securing a second vote in Indiana's Congress.\nSome IU officials and employees fear the amendment could elicit scrutiny of the University's domestic-partner benefits.\nAnd if benefits were revoked, officials said, they would not only have to worry about the loss of equity among employees, but also the loss of employees themselves.\nThe question\nIU became the sixth school in the Big Ten to offer domestic-partner benefits when the board of trustees voted unanimously for the policy at a Sept. 14, 2001, meeting, according to minutes from the trustee meeting.\nCharlie Nelms, vice president for student development and diversity, said IU received very little criticism when the trustees voted to implement the benefits.\n"I'm confident that as long as we have such controversial issues, we will always have someone challenging them in the courts," Nelms said. "I believe IU would do what it believes is fair and just."\nSteve Sanders, former assistant dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, who led the group that presented the trustees with a proposal for domestic-partner benefits, said he's not sure whether IU's policy could be challenged under the new amendment.\nBut he said the University of Michigan -- where he is now a law student -- faced circumstances similar to Miami University's in 2004 when Michigan passed a marriage amendment.\nThe school's benefits, however, survived.\n"You've got hard-core bigots on the other side who are trying to enforce these amendments and inflict as much damage as possible on ways that gays and lesbians have achieved equality, like domestic-partner benefits," he said. "Proponents say (these amendments are) only about marriage, not about anything else. Then when the thing passes they immediately file lawsuits. ... It's a bait-and-switch, basically."\nIf people challenge IU's benefits, the success of the case will depend on the wording of the marriage amendment, said Lambda Legal attorney James P. Madigan, who defended Miami University and a lesbian couple in the case.\nBecause IU is a public university, Madigan says the argument is "at least credible." However, he said the case would be successful only if the amendment goes beyond marital relations.\nThe section of Indiana's marriage amendment that has caused same-sex couples to worry about losing their rights says: "This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."\nChris Stovall, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defense Fund -- the firm that represented the plaintiff in the Miami University case -- said because of the amendment's wording, he doesn't think anyone could challenge IU.\nInstead of not allowing the state to grant rights to same-sex couples, the Indiana amendment says the government isn't obligated to provide those rights, Stovall said.\nHowever, Stovall said, the amendment would make it impossible for the courts to rule that same-sex couples deserve the same rights as married couples, like a New Jersey court did earlier this year.\nThe benefits\nThe domestic-partner benefits allow same-sex couples registered with the University to receive medical and dental coverage and life insurance, as well as other perks such as tuition discounts, according to the IU Human Resource Services Web site.\nRegistered couples also receive funeral and sick time off and are covered by applicable Family and Medical Leave provisions.\nLast school year, the University doled out $90.6 million in benefits to employees signed up to receive the packages, said Neil Theobald, vice provost for budget and administration.\nOf the 15,500 employees who elected to receive benefits, 102 were registered same-sex couples. Fifty-five more same-sex couples registered only so they could receive funeral and sick time off, said Susan Brewer, director of the University's Health Care and Welfare Program Services.\nCindy Stone, an administrator in the Department of Gender Studies and a former trustee, was influential in bringing domestic-partner benefits to IU -- partly because she wasn't able to get them when she needed them most.\nIn 1995, Stone's partner of 20 years died from cancer. Stone was granted two hours of bereavement leave -- standard for the death of a friend, she said.\nStone and her partner also had to pay expensive medical bills because her partner, an IU employee of 30 years, quit working when she became ill and lost her medical benefits.\nIf IU had domestic-partner benefits then, Stone's benefits would have covered her partner's medical expenses.\nStone is now able to share her benefits with her current partner of seven years.\n"I think we're doing better, but I don't want to have any of these benefits get eroded because we are a public entity," she said. "It's wrong for domestic-partner benefits to be revisited if this amendment passes."\nThe threat\nIU officials and employees said if the benefits were taken away, it could affect their ability to retain and recruit employees.\nSanders said he knew several deans and department heads who could name faculty IU had lost because it didn't offer the benefits.\nAnd now the benefits are more common among all employers, he said. All Big Ten schools offer some domestic-partner benefits, according to their Web sites.\nMadigan, the attorney who defended Miami University, said he hopes his firm doesn't see an increase in cases challenging domestic-partner benefits as more states adopt marriage amendments.\n"In the long run, (the amendment) will hurt Indiana and IU and their ability to recruit staff and faculty," Madigan said.\nStone said she will continue lobbying to keep the benefits that have meant so much to her.\n"We're always looking over our shoulders to see who's gunning for us," she said. "... We can't ever turn our backs because those benefits could be eroded. We have to keep working"