Voicemails ... We Get Voicemails ...
---
Well, one voicemail.
A reader asked my opinion about a proposal by the University of Kansas to extend same-sex partner benefits to faculty and staff despite that state's bigot amendment.
Just one problem: I can't find any articles about it.
What I did find was a proposal by politicians in Lawrence, Kansas (where U of K is located*), to establish a completely symbolic same-sex partnership registry. No benefits whatsoever -- just a statement of principle and some warm fuzzy feelings.
Would such a registry violate Kansas' rather harsh and vicious "no nothing never" same-sex partnership ban? Probably not: no benefits = no problem. (The state's attorney general concurs.) Of course, by the same token, no benefits = no benefits. So assign your own subjective value to the proposal.
Meanwhile, regarding the University of Kansas, what I can offer instead are some old links to similar "Bigot State University" questions that arose in Michigan and Wisconsin. The latter's state university system has stated in no uncertain terms that its inability to offer same-sex partner benefits has hindered its ability to recruit faculty. And the former's state supreme court has ruled that the bigot amendment enacted there is indeed a "no nothing never" proscription, not just a gay marriage ban -- and will therefore no doubt apply to the state university system.
I see no reason to conclude that Kansas will be any different.
---
(*Lawrence was also the only part of Kansas where the bigot amendment failed. Go figure.)
A reader asked my opinion about a proposal by the University of Kansas to extend same-sex partner benefits to faculty and staff despite that state's bigot amendment.
Just one problem: I can't find any articles about it.
What I did find was a proposal by politicians in Lawrence, Kansas (where U of K is located*), to establish a completely symbolic same-sex partnership registry. No benefits whatsoever -- just a statement of principle and some warm fuzzy feelings.
Would such a registry violate Kansas' rather harsh and vicious "no nothing never" same-sex partnership ban? Probably not: no benefits = no problem. (The state's attorney general concurs.) Of course, by the same token, no benefits = no benefits. So assign your own subjective value to the proposal.
Meanwhile, regarding the University of Kansas, what I can offer instead are some old links to similar "Bigot State University" questions that arose in Michigan and Wisconsin. The latter's state university system has stated in no uncertain terms that its inability to offer same-sex partner benefits has hindered its ability to recruit faculty. And the former's state supreme court has ruled that the bigot amendment enacted there is indeed a "no nothing never" proscription, not just a gay marriage ban -- and will therefore no doubt apply to the state university system.
I see no reason to conclude that Kansas will be any different.
---
(*Lawrence was also the only part of Kansas where the bigot amendment failed. Go figure.)
Posted by Kip on
7 May 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
