AT TIMES, the University seems like the only pocket of reasonable, progressive thought in the otherwise backwardly conservative Commonwealth of Virginia. The administration sometimes must take the lead in pressing for the establishment of needed reforms when Richmond isn't ready to do so. Employment benefits is an area in which the University ought to do just that. Although they cannot legally change their own policies, the administration should press the Commonwealth to allow colleges to provide the same benefits to employees with same-sex partners as to married employees.
Homosexuality remains a hot topic in discussions of American society. Religious institutions, conservative political cultural groups and homophobic activists continue to retard progress, insisting that sexual orientation is grounds for discrimination, prejudice, hatred and systematic denials of homosexuals' basic civil and human rights. The issue remains emotionally charged and deeply contentious.
I do consider our country's continued resistance to equal treatment of homosexuals embarrassing: How can we consider ourselves to be a tolerant, respectful, progressive, fair people and simultaneously hate homosexuals with such passion? But same-sex partner benefits for employees does not depend on a debate over homosexuality. One need not approve of homosexuality to support benefits for same-sex partners.
We could have a similar debate over the moral and cultural acceptability of a person marrying someone 20 years younger than he or she. A similar rhetoric of "family values" would come up, and many would likely weigh in on either side of the debate. But this discussion wouldn't affect the benefits available to faculty members who choose to marry someone significantly younger or older. The discussion of same-sex partner benefits shouldn't depend on the cultural acceptability of homosexual relationships either. The University is not, or should not be, in the business of approving who employees choose to spend their lives with. That's a personal decision, regardless of whether we're talking about age or sexual orientation.
|
Suppose the administration disapproves of a professor marrying someone 15 or 20 years younger. It couldn't deny benefits to that professor and his or her spouse simply because it disagrees with that life choice. Why is it any different if he or she chooses to share his or her life with a partner who is "non-traditional" because he or she is a member of the same gender, instead of a partner who is "non-traditional" with respect to age?
Whether the administration approves or disapproves of same-sex unions is irrelevant to deciding to extend benefits to employees whose life partner is of the same gender. It's simply a matter of equal rights and nondiscrimination.
You don't have to be homosexual to support benefits for same-sex partners. You don't even have to support homosexuality or be willing to accept a family member if one told you he or she was homosexual. You merely have to disapprove of bigotry and prejudice.
The policy would be very simple - allow employees to list a spouse/partner of either gender when signing up for benefits. Some critics point out the possibility for fraud in such a system - employees could list a roommate as their partner and get benefits they don't deserve, right? I suppose so, although this seems unlikely to present a significant problem. But this isn't the point. Problems with implementation aren't strikes against the argument for this reform on theoretical grounds. Knowledge that a few people are going to defraud the Medicare system isn't a reason not to have it. The fact that some people cheat on their income taxes doesn't undermine the theoretical justification for allowing citizens to fill out their own tax forms.
What's more, this problem of implementation will vanish in the near future. Same-sex civil unions are not that far away from being an accepted legal practice. These proceedings will separate the legal element of marriage from the religious one, providing the possibility of forming a civil union with someone - of either gender - without the religious and moral overtones of a traditional wedding.
But we can't wait around for the General Assembly in Richmond or the Supreme Court in Washington to recognize the need to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Although the University does not have the capability to extend these benefits, it certainly can pressure lawmakers to change one aspect of such unfair, prejudicial treatment by changing its employment policy. By doing this, the administration can bring the Commonwealth and the nation one step closer to eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
(Bryan Maxwell's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at bmaxwell@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | YesterdayRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 2 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 2 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
