About the education system, or society in general? It wasn't too long ago that a majority of the country said that we should alter the constitution, a document that has been changed only 18 times (if you count the bill of rights as one addition) in over 200 years, to say that homosexuals have fewer rights than heterosexuals. Society seems to have gotten "gay friendly," in that gay stereotypes are acceptable in television comedies and fashion reality shows, but most people want to deny that homosexuals have the equal rights of other legally protected human beings. It isn't surprising that such blatant disregard would happen at a college, or anywhere else.

The US is so ass-backwards in our treatment of LGBT people. How fucking complicated is it? It's right there in the 14th Amendment.

"... nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

ANY PERSON. EQUAL PROTECTION.

That our LGBT citizens are routinely denied equal protection is not only shameful but blatantly unconstitutional.

Agree with the both of you, FemiDancer, and Derrp!

I noticed that the company that bought us out in the spring quietly did away with the adoption assistance benefit (paltry, compared to what is covered for childbirth under our health insurance) and now also offers pet coverage. However, the *did* begin offering domestic partner benefits, too, so it's not a total loss.

While I agree that this reflects poorly on the college, I am not sure why it reflects poorly on the entire "education system".

Residual santorum tainting the judgement of the people writing the policy, perhaps?

I read about this a few days ago on Bilerico.org, but I still don't know what to think about it. Being gay myself, this injustice of it all kills me, but, although I shouldn't, I do find it hysterical.

My girlfriend and I can't get healthcare benefits my neighbors ferret can. What the fuck?

In all seriousness, this is a breach of our nation's moral integrity. I believe that at one point in time the United States government declared that it is illegal to withhold certain rights from a group of persons on the grounds of discrimination?

I think it makes sense.

Pets are like adopted children, and legally connected to the family. A partner is just a fuck-buddy.

Now excuse my while I get this bullshit out of my head.

Fine. I'd just call my partner my pet. After all, apparently marrying someone of the same sex is pretty much the same thing as bestiality, right?

It's things like this that makes us Canadians as smug and self-righteous as we are. Seriously, how do you guys stop yourselves from burning stuff?

Amazing. I don't understand why things that are blatantly unconstitutional are allowed to continue like this. I know we've got quite a few posters who are lawyers...any of you specialize in Con-Law?

It's things like this that makes us Canadians as smug and self-righteous as we are. Seriously, how do you guys stop yourselves from burning stuff?

Dude, take a look at the violent crime rates in this country. The answer is, not very successfully. Though "shooting people" seems to be preferred to "burning stuff."

I think this says more about the school than the educational system in general. My school offered domestic partner benefits...until the state said that no state funded institution could recognize domestic partners (screwing over at least one professor who was in a heterosexual domestic partner relationship)

Moriath, you know, because it's not until we see that our bigotry causes straight people to suffer that we know that it's wrong.

I know that's not really what you mean, but still.

But you know what this kind of school policy says to me? We care about Spots and Mittens because they're part of the family... The rest of you'll are just deviant, so if we screw our eyes shut hard enough, you might disappear.

Yay.

As an adjunct instructor, I'd like to know why the college gives medical benefits to pets and not 40% of its own employees.

I agree with many of the comments above... it reflects poorly on this college, not on the educational system in general.

Honestly, while my campus is considered one of the most conservative of the California State University system (which by the average person's view means fairly moderate), I couldn't image what the rest of the faculty would do if they voted to offer pet insurance but not insurance for same-sex partners. But it is a non-issue. The CSU offers benefits to all domestic partners provided they fill out and file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership form, but even heterosexual but unmarried couples can file for this as well.

The one problem with the domestic partnership benefits the CSU offers isn't something that the university can change. A quote from the Calpers (our benefits) brochure... "Adding a domestic partner to your benefits will result in taxable income to the employee for Federal tax purposes only. The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that the actual cost of the domestic partner benefit is taxable income to the employee. Tax dependent status of a domestic partner is for the entire calendar year"...

Basically, adding a dependent or married spouse won't result in the IRS counting it as taxable income but adding a domestic partner will. Just adding to the many ways that the government discriminates and why civil unions are not equal.

ccchild, where are you working at? I am a Teaching Associate (ie, graduate student with the responsibilities of a lecturer with 1/2 the pay and no tuition break) but I am still eligible for benefits paid by the school (ok, ok... come January I will be). I know all of our adjuncts are eligible after 6 months and at least a half time appointment BUT the half time and 6 months deal is based out of any school participating in Calpers (so an adjunct may have 3 units at the university and 3 units at the community college and still qualify). That just seems so scary :(

what if a gay couple is engaged in role playing and one partner decides to play the part of the puppy or kitty? Would they then get healthcare?

Honestly, this policy is laughable. It's amazing what society will do to hurt people. Simply amazing.

what if a gay couple is engaged in role playing and one partner decides to play the part of the puppy or kitty? Would they then get healthcare?

Honestly, this policy is laughable. It's amazing what society will do to hurt people. Simply amazing.

Most places I know of don't offer adjuncts health benefits at all. Where I got my PhD, I had my health insurance covered while I was adjuncting and finishing up my degree, but that was because my department was doing some finagling on my behalf--and if I'd taken another year they wouldn't have been able to do it again. I know of a few places that claim on paper that they provide health insurance to adjuncts after the adjuncts have put in a certain number of semesters of service...and then, amazingly, the university just decides not to hire them again just when they would've been eligible for benefits. It's all very nasty.

Does it count if the partner is a furry?

Really, there are no words. And my college doesn't offer benefits to adjuncts unless they're full-time. Teach fewer than three classes a semester, and no dice.

pineapple, I wouldn't consider myself a Con Law expert by any means, but currently my understanding of the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause goes like this:

The EPC in its current incarnation creates a three tier system of "protected class". In and of itself, the EPC does allow discrimination in some cases, but the three tiers show to what extent you can go. The first, highest tier, protects race, religion, and ethnicity/national origin. Any discrimination against this class must have a clear, pressing purpose, and must be very refined in its scope, as well as a logical basis. The discrimination must also be unavoidable by other methods to a reasonable fault (as determined by the courts).

The second protected class is one lower, and is usually used in cases of gender. Here, the EPC allows a wider scope of regulations, though they again must have a pressing need and a logical basis (i.e. separate bathrooms for men and women), but can be used on a much larger scale.

The third class is the lowest, and is traditionally interpreted as where homosexuality falls. Here, a logical basis must be in order, but scope can be wide, and the need doesn't need to be as pressing. This allows for states to interpret marriage laws on a state by state basis, as the federal government has had little to no role in marriage until Bush's proposed ban that failed miserably. However, it also allows the reverse, such as not giving health benefits to partners on the logical basis that since the couple is not recognized as married, they aren't required to give benefits.

So basically, until homosexuality is interpreted into the first or second protected class, the EPC that some previous posters wanted will not be applied per their ideas. These three tiers, also known as the three levels of scrutiny, come from two major decisions, Korematsu vs. The United States and Loving vs. Virginia.

I hope this helps you KMP. Also, to corroborate what EG says, my father's an adjunct professor, and receives no insurance benefits. Adjuncts usually get diddly squat from universities.

That's terrible. Though I wish I had a job that paid for vet care. I mean, damn, it's expensive. But they should provide it for BOTH.

Fair enough, tired typing on my part--education system be gone.

"Well we could offer Rick and Steve benefits... but that makes some of us a little squirmy. Let's chose Spot and Rover instead."

I am so sick of people making decisions based on their stomach and the little prejudices that plant themselves there.

More often than not, when I ask someone why they don't support equal rights for LGBT people, it's one of those "oh, it doesn't feel right in my stomach" BSes, as if their comfort level was more important than someone else's life and constitutional rights. To hell with that selfishness.

I'm sick of hearing stories about couples who lose their homes, their health insurance, jobs, and even children over other people's comfort level, then clueless straight people piping in with "what does marriage matter, anyway?"

If straight people chose not to value marriage, that's their business, but don't make that decision on anyone else's behalf. It may cost them their life.

It is gross, werechick. You wanna hear a more positive story?

A few years back, my friend's grandmother became very active in the Episcopal Church in campaigning for the ordination of gay men and women. She was interviewed quite a few times, and once a reporter asked her if she would be comfortable with a gay minister. She said "I am an old woman, and I have many prejudices. But my failings should not be used to prevent somebody from pursuing his or her vocation." I kind of have respect for that, that she could recognize that her discomfort was her own responsibility. Pity there aren't more like her.

DaveNJ17, thanks for the brush-up. I took a public policy class, and we covered that briefly, but I couldn't for the life of me remember why sexual orientation wasn't covered under the EPC. I also can't get over how women are a less protected class, simply b/c there are more of us.

As an academic professional finding only part-time jobs, I agree with ccchild. THAT is what's wrong with the whole education system.

I can almost see an argument for this that human partners can get their own jobs and insurance, at least theoretically, but pets are always dependents.

It makes me very, very angry, and a little depressed.

While I don't mind the pets getting rights -- I love my pets and they are part of my family --, it makes me angry that institutions of all kinds are so backwards about same-sex couples/marriage.

When people express surprise -- in an uneasy way, like 'Hold on, someone like you can't like the same sex!' -- about my orientation, I ask them why they are uneasy about homosexual people.

My own mother, who admits she is 'old-fashioned', offered me this placation [I was asking her 'hypothetically' at the time] -- 'I don't mind gays, as long as they don't ruin my marriage.'

*twitch* I don't mind straight people, as long as they don't impede upon my rights.

Wait, what?!

EG: That grandmother sounds like an amazing person! I really, really wish people would be more accepting of their own prejudices and think like that. D:

Kind of off subject, but...
I used to work at a food co-op collective, where we as a group decided by consensus what our wages and benefits would be each year, as well as what we would spend on other aspects of the business such as building improvements, etc. The projected income for the year was worked out, and then from that sum we decided what went to wages, what went to benefits, and what went to getting a new dairy cooler. You can envision that sum as a pie, with different size slices going to different places. If we were to decide to pay for insurance for people's children and partners, that meant a larger slice was taken out for benefits, meaning less was left for wages. This affects the income of people who have made the choice not to have kids or partners. The budgeting system would work similarly anywhere, although not as transparently and not with the input of the employees. Anyway, there is a part of me that doesn't think it's fair for single people to have to pay for other people's life choices to have partners or kids. Let alone their pets. Everyone deserves healthcare, but ultimately I don't think it should come from employers- it should come from the federal government.

Except that misses the point of insurance, which is that its collective security for events that no individual could afford on his her own. I'm single, and I don't mind "paying" for somebody else's partner's benefits (which, I don't really think it works like that outside of a co-op--administration can always scrounge up the money for what they think is important, and you practically always have to pay quite a chunk of money to add a dependent), because I'm assuming that a married person who is healthy doesn't mind contributing toward my asthma meds.

As for "choosing" not to have a partner--really? Like, people base those descisions on whether or not they can get health insurance for the partner?