A Miami University of Ohio policy that gives benefits to same-sex domestic partners has become the subject of a lawsuit, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Ohio State Rep. Thomas E. Brinkman Jr., R-Cincinnati, filed suit against the Oxford, Ohio-based public university, alleging that their employee benefits policy violates a recently adopted amendment to the state's constitution that defines marriage as "only a union between one man and one woman."
The amendment, which was added to the Ohio Constitution following its adoption by voters on November 2, 2004, also says that state agencies cannot recognize "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
Miami's current benefits policy, which went into effect in July 2004, gives the same-sex partners of its full-time employees the same benefits as its employees who have partners of the opposite sex. These benefits include health and dental insurance, ticket discounts and tuition remission, according to the university's Web site.
AU, in addition to several other D.C. colleges, including Gallaudet University, George Washington University, already offers domestic partnership benefits to their faculty's same-sex partners. Georgetown University will begin offering health care benefits to their faculty's same-sex partners on January 1, according to Erik Smulson, assistant vice president for communications at Georgetown.
"Over the summer the President's Executive Committee explored it in the context of our employees' needs and the university's financial reality, legal framework and mission and identity," Smulson said in an e-mail. "[The Benefits Advisory Committee] made some recommendations and endorsed it soon after ... it was approved by the President's Executive Committee in time for open enrollment - the annual time of year when faculty and staff may enroll in or change benefits plans for the following year."
District of Columbia law currently gives same-sex couples the right to enter into domestic partnerships. The law, which went into effect in 2002, gives D.C. residents who are in a domestic partnership equal hospital visitation rights and the right to make decisions about their partner's remains after death.
In addition, the law gives the domestic partners of D.C. government employees the right to use their partner's health insurance policy and allows D.C. government employees to go on leave in certain situations involving his or her domestic partner. D.C.'s policy provides an exception for all religious institutions.
AU currently offers domestic partner benefits to its faculty, staff and students. These benefits include coverage of an employee's or student's same-sex partner under the university's health care plan.
There has been little opposition to AU's benefits policy, according to Mindy Michels, director of AU's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Ally Resource Center.
"For the most part, people have been accepting of the policy," she said. "In terms of what I hear, there hasn't been much opposition to it recently."
Because the District of Columbia, unlike Ohio, has a domestic partnership law in place, Michels is not concerned about AU being the subject of a lawsuit over its policy. "It's never been something that I've stayed up at night worrying about," she said.
Miami University has vowed to fight the lawsuit and continue to enforce their current benefit policy.
"We want to reassure you that Miami has a compelling case for providing domestic partner benefits and that the lawsuit is without merit," Miami University President James Garfield said in an e-mail obtained by The Eagle through Miami?s News and Public Information Office.
Garfield also said the university's benefit policy does not violate the marriage amendment.
"We are confident that our program ... does not violate the marriage amendment," he said. "Indeed, one of the local lawyers representing Representative Brinkman, Mr. David Langdon, is already on record as saying that the marriage amendment would not rescind domestic partner benefits offered by public universities and cities"
