THINKING back to my eighth-grade civics class, one thing that I clearly remember is the concept of "glittering generalities" -- that is to say, a political statement that is so generic and sounds so good that no one could possibly disagree with it. Such has become the fate of the term "equal rights" in recent years. The latest push for so-called equal rights comes from gay advocacy groups, pushing for "domestic partner" benefits for University employees.
Truly this demand is ridiculous as homosexual employees already enjoy the same rights that heterosexual ones do. The fact of the matter is that every employee of the University has the option of marrying a member of the opposite sex and having his or her spouse receive benefits from his or her employment here. There is no specific stipulation preventing a homosexual from marrying a member of the opposite sex (and thus receiving benefits) within the laws and customs of our society.
Truly we have moved beyond the realm of equal rights, and arrived at the domain of "special rights" or "extra rights" for some who define their sexuality differently from the rest of society. While these people are perfectly free to engage in relationships with whichever gender they chose, this choice does not render them ineligible for the benefits of marriage within our laws.
Our society has already spoken very clearly on this issue. The federal government has passed a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The Commonwealth of Virginia does not recognize marriage or civil unions outside of this bound. The citizens of this country are generally opposed to the creation of special new rights for homosexuals in this regard.
Understanding that little pretext exists for the recognition of such unions, regardless of name, in this state, the position that the University should support them is absolutely ridiculous. The University has no business in making such politically-charged policy decisions. These are decisions that should be left to the state.
I find it interesting that two alumni of the University would feel so dissatisfied with their alma mater that they would create a Web site entitled "DontGiveToUVA.com." Clearly such a confrontational step is little more than a publicity stunt; few if any people are going to cease donating to the school based on such a matter. One cannot deny that the founders of this site have a right to ask for money to promote their cause, but telling people not to give to the University is not going to win them over any friends.
Even more fundamental than the question of morals or ethics or policy is the simple fact of the matter that benefits from gym use to health insurance cost this University money. In this day and age of fiscal crisis, the University literally cannot afford to make a political statement by offering benefits to anyone who would like to define themselves as being in a relationship with a University employee; after all, our society has clearly defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. There is no such societal definition for a domestic partnership. In addition to costing the University money, it would cost the University political capital in Richmond. We cannot afford such things at the moment.
If these well meaning alums would like to create a fund to help pay for domestic partners (or whatever the fad of the day is) of University employees to use the AFC, then there is nothing to stop them. That being said, we have no business utilizing the taxpayers' money to fund services for people who do not have a defined, legal relationship with an employee of this University.
Our society is going through a great period of change with regard to such matters, and it remains to be seen exactly where we will end up. This being said, as a public University, we are inexplicably tied to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Regardless of public opinion on the matter, we must follow the lead of Richmond.
At this fine school, we extend benefits to couples who are married within the laws of our society, and do not discriminate these benefits based on sexual preference. Until such a time as the state or federal government has invented special rights for homosexuals, the University is in no position to do so.
(Daniel Bagley is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at dbagley@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | YesterdayStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 2 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | 2 days agoLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
