Ohio University's Domestic Partner Benefits Plan: For Gays ONLY

[MMMMMM]

Well this strikes me as just incredible.

At Ohio University, gay couples can apply for and receive domestic partner benefits (e.g. healthcare, paid time off, etc), but heterosexual couples CANNOT. Rationale? Heteros have the option to get married but gays don't.

The more educated some people get, the more idiotic they become, it seems. Fortunately, some others are immune to this sort of acquired idiocy.

I hope someone sues the hell out of OU over this--not because I disapprove of domestic partner benefits, but because of OU's discriminatory policy and moronic rationale.


Commentary: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39367

Ohio University website regarding policy: http://www.uhr.ohiou.edu/benefits/DP_FAQs.htm

[nothumb]

This is interesting.

First, I think we can agree that the risk of homosexuals using this program to scam the university is low - they seem to have high standards for meeting the benefits. Undoubtedly somebody like Limbaugh will say the opposite.

Second, I think this is a great argument for gay marriage and/or civil unions in all 50 states. So committed heterosexual couples don't have to complain about gays getting benefits they don't get.

Personally, I think this is a good program. The gays who will take advantage of it are practically married (shared real estate ownership!) and I think there will be very few heterosexual couples who would meet the criteria for it, not be married, and want to take part. If there was such a couple, I think U of O would be obliged (legally and ethically) to make it available to them.

In the meantime, it's almost like the 4 corners offense. You know, how Dean Smith singlehandedly brought the shot clock to college basketball?

That's kind of a weird analogy, might not apply. But a lot of people hated Dean for it and a lot of people will hate Ohio for this. I support them, just as I supported the Deaner.

NT

[MMMMMM]

"Personally, I think this is a good program. "

Fine, it's probably a good program. To offer it, however, only to gays and not to heteros is blatantly discriminatory on the part of Ohio University.

"The gays who will take advantage of it are practically married (shared real estate ownership!) and I think there will be very few heterosexual couples who would meet the criteria for it, not be married, and want to take part."

If there would be very few heteros who would wish to participate it, then it can't hurt OU to offer it to everybody who otherwise qualifies, right??? Lack of projected interest cannot be a valid reason for not offering it to heteros as well.

"If there was such a couple, I think U of O would be obliged (legally and ethically) to make it available to them."

Indeed OU might be so obligated. No evidence, though, of any such intention on their website. No suggestion of anything like that in the words of OU spokesperson Hub Burton: "chose to focus on those who don't have the right to get legally married. ... This is a matter of economic fairness".

"In the meantime, it's almost like the 4 corners offense. You know, how Dean Smith singlehandedly brought the shot clock to college basketball?

That's kind of a weird analogy, might not apply. But a lot of people hated Dean for it and a lot of people will hate Ohio for this. I support them, just as I supported the Deaner."

I have no idea about basketball or Deaner.

Support whomever you want--just be aware when you are supporting discrimination, as in this case.

[cardcounter0]

Actually there has been many attempts to make discrimination due to sexual orientation illegal. The Republicans have shot it down time after time.
So now I guess they have to live with it.

Do you live in Ohio? If not, I suggest you STFU, as this is a State matter.

[MMMMMM]

"Actually there has been many attempts to make discrimination due to sexual orientation illegal. The Republicans have shot it down time after time.
So now I guess they have to live with it."

Tangential, and trying to dodge the issue via counterattack.

"Do you live in Ohio? If not, I suggest you STFU, as this is a State matter."

No, this is a discussion board. IMO discrimination practiced by any state institution is wrong and should be pointed out. If you support discrimination, feel free to say so, though.

Why are you adopting so hostile a tone, anyway?

[nothumb]

cardcounter,

Great post.

However, while I would think it would be hilarious - truly hilarious - for Republicans to get shot down trying to sue over this for the reasons you mentioned, I would still like to see that straight couple get those benefits, just because I am a working dude and I think everyone should have benefits.

However, if you think this ought to be a state matter, come over to MA and see all the flak we're getting for gay marriage. /images/graemlins/grin.gif I think state passage of gay rights is going to be the only way we get the ball rolling in this case; it won't be coming from above like the civil rights measures did. So I think it is a national matter in that sense, and the reality is, both sides of the argument will be sending all sorts of resources to wherever the fight is at.

NT

[MMMMMM]

A writer thinks that was a great post. A writer thinks that was a great post. A writer thinks that was a great post.

Just out of curiosity, what do you write, anyway?

[Clarkmeister]

"Do you live in Ohio? If not, I suggest you STFU, as this is a State matter."

Whoa there big fella. I think that was a little over the top.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
If there would be very few heteros who would wish to participate it, then it can't hurt OU to offer it to everybody who otherwise qualifies, right??? Lack of projected interest cannot be a valid reason for not offering it to heteros as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think this is their reason either. My point in saying this (and perhaps I should have been more explicit) is that it makes a great statement about domestic rights without being likely to infringe on straight couples who really do need the benefits.

As for the Dean Smith metaphor, the 4 corners offense was a game plan wherein UNC would, if it was winning a close game, have one guy in each of the four corners of their offensive end while Phil Ford (great point guard) would dribble around, occasionally passing it off to one of the other guys if he got double teamed. Sort of the hockey equivalent of dumping the puck, only worse. Dean did this because he thought college basketball should have a shot clock. He won, and they got one.

But a lot of people hated him for it because it was awful to watch and he was doing it with one of the more talented groups of 5 guys UNC (or college ball period) ever had. The point of the analogy was that he did something that seemed off but made a great point in so doing.

As I said, I don't think it directly applies, but it's a similar idea.

[ QUOTE ]
Support whomever you want--just be aware when you are supporting discrimination, as in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said before, while I like the idea of the program, I would also like to see everyone get benefits. I think I made that pretty clear.

While you seem hip to the cause of partnership rights, I think there are a lot of people out there who would never in a million years support this stuff for gays, but when straight people get denied it, they go ballistic. This thread would illustrate that pretty well. I think it indicates the hypocrisy of those people when they do that.

NT

[cardcounter0]

No that is the issue. It is illegal to discriminate because of Race, Religion, or National Origin.

Attempts have been made to add sex and sexual orientation to the list. It was defeated.

So it is legal to discriminate. And you want to see a lawsuit? Isn't that the trouble with LIBERALS? Always wanting trial lawyers to file lawsuits?

Again. It is a State matter. You want to give the Federal Government more power over what the States can and cannot do? That doesn't sound like a good Conservative to me.

[cardcounter0]

NO. That is the whole point. Conservatives love to argue State Rights and limited role of the Federal Government.

Until a State does something they don't like.

They love to argue Freedom and Personal Responsibility, until free consenting adults do something they don't like.

I'm an Ohio Taxpayer. If you don't pay Ohio Taxes, then butt out.

[nothumb]

MMMMMM,

I went to defend my belief that cardcounter had made a great post, and noticed that he had aptly summed up my arguments.

While I don't know if you feel the same way as most conservatives about government programs and lawyers, I think this sums up the tack the Bush administration usually takes.

FWIW, I write mostly junk right now for alumni magazines and the like. My full-time job in human services prevents me from pursuing it more fully at this time, but I take what gets tossed to me and might go to grad school for it in the future.

The question was probably rhetorical anyway.

NT

[elwoodblues]

So a gay couple who is similarly situated to a straight married couple in that they are both in committed romantic relationships that are at the greatest level recognized by law should not have the same benefits as a married straight couple.

It's discriminitory because it discriminates against straight couples. Should we then allow gay couples to get married? Of course not. Is denying them the right to marry discriminatory? Yep, but we're okay with that discrimination.


Imagine a law that said black people can't be doctors. Now, a creative medical school decides that it will allow white people to be doctors and black people to be dotcors (the equivalent of a doctor, but with darker skin). I can practically hear it now "Medical School Discriminates agains whites who want to be dotcors." (let's just ignore the elephant standing in the corner...)

[Clarkmeister]

I agree with you about hypocrisy within the Republican party. That's a big reason I'll vote Democrat this election for the first time ever.

However this is a discussion board. Your hostility regarding simple discussion of an issue is really uncalled for. One not need be from Ohio to discuss this issue anymore than I need to be from LA to discuss the Lakers. There were several threads discussing the Massachusetts legalization of gay marriage and I'm pretty sure lots of us who participated don't live there. Nor did we need to.

[elwoodblues]

to be fair, MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM never said a Federal lawsuit should be filed.

[Randy_Refeld]

As an OU alumist I must say I am not suprised.

Randy Refeld

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you about hypocrisy within the Republican party. That's a big reason I'll vote Democrat this election for the first time ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Admit it, you just like the hair. It's ok.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif
NT

[cardcounter0]

I just to have the question the motives of some one who brings this article here. Who was aware of this program?
Do people have some kind of homo-phobic search engine to find this crap?

Hey, every major corporation in the country has insurance progarms for their married workers. Britney Spears 20 hour marriage would qualify her temporary spouse to these progarms. Gay Couples who have been in relationships for years do not qualify.

Where are the articles crying about this form of discrimination? Where are the trial lawyers?

[elwoodblues]

Where's your post about other institutions that only offer benefits to married couples and how that discriminates against homosexuals?

[cardcounter0]

So how many homo-phobic posts do we tolerate?

Can I start searching some KKK sites for "good" stuff?

[cardcounter0]

I must have misread this:

"I hope someone sues the hell out of OU over this--not because I disapprove of domestic partner benefits, but because of OU's discriminatory policy and moronic rationale."

Isn't this a cry for a "liberal" type lawsuit?

[elwoodblues]

I tolerate a lot of it, but I also tend to call people on it. If you want to be a bigot, I'd rather know about it then not.

The remedy to bad speech is not to stop the speech. Rather, the remedy is to counter it with good speech. Given time, the marketplace of ideas works.

[elwoodblues]

Yep. That's a good point. However, it isn't a call for a FEDERAL lawsuit. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM can (and probably does) think that it should be handled at the state level. You made 2 arguments: 1) relying on a lawsuit to remedy this (liberal tactic) and 2) making a federal issue over it. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM never made a federal issue over it.

[cardcounter0]

Then I object on the grounds of a lawsuit period. I'm an Ohio State Taxpayer, don't need my dollars spent defending lawsuits when they could be giving it to welfare mom's to buy cadillacs. ;>)

[nothumb]

elwood,

I am fairly sure that if someone sued over this, it would go to a federal district court because it would probably be under the 14th Ammendment.

Really getting into semantics here, but this would be a federal case if it went to a judge. Sort of like the U of M affirmative action case.

NT

[MMMMMM]

"No that is the issue. It is illegal to discriminate because of Race, Religion, or National Origin.

Attempts have been made to add sex and sexual orientation to the list. It was defeated."

I didn't say it was illegal. I said it is wrong for a state university to discriminate and that such discrimination should be pointed out.

By the way, it apparently ISN'T illegal to discriminate on the basis of race: college admissions do it all the time (but that's a tangential matter).

"So it is legal to discriminate. And you want to see a lawsuit?" Isn't that the trouble with LIBERALS? Always wanting trial lawyers to file lawsuits?[/i]"

I don't think it is a liberal or conservative issue. I am against state schools discriminating on any grounds whatsoever (that goes for affirmative action too). And since I think it is so very wrong, yes: I would like to see a lawsuit of some sort.

"Again. It is a State matter. You want to give the Federal Government more power over what the States can and cannot do?"

I didn't specify a federal lawsuit. Any lawsuit will do;-)

"That doesn't sound like a good Conservative to me."

I am not a conservative. Actually, I am probably far more liberal than almost anyone on this board--yet I am definitely NOT a leftist either; no, not by a long shot. I don't think Leftism has much in common with the original meaning of Liberal, which I consider close to: To Allow.

Mix together Thoreau's Walden, laissez-faire, and a strict Constitutional interpretation, and you will have a pretty good idea of my political and social views. Probably more liberal than yours by miles.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Then I object on the grounds of a lawsuit period. I'm an Ohio State Taxpayer, don't need my dollars spent defending lawsuits when they could be giving it to welfare mom's to buy cadillacs. ;>)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure that M will be astounded to learn that he has this kind of influence. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[elwoodblues]

Really? I think he'd be surprized if he didn't /images/graemlins/tongue.gif (total joke MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM - no offense meant)

[MMMMMM]

"So how many homo-phobic posts do we tolerate?"

My post was not remotely intended to be homophobic. The intended focus was on the discrimination being applied against straights by a state university. That is not homophobic at all.

Notice I am not against gay rights; I am against discrimination.

[MMMMMM]

"Then I object on the grounds of a lawsuit period. I'm an Ohio State Taxpayer, don't need my dollars spent defending lawsuits when they could be giving it to welfare mom's to buy cadillacs. ;>)"

Then maybe you should consider voicing your objections to OU; because sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, there's a lawsuit over this coming down the pike. Unless OU changes their policy, your taxpayer dollars probably WILL be spent defending lawsuit(s) instead of purchasing Caddilacs for welfare moms.

[cardcounter0]

When I went to a University, Football Athletes were given scholorships for playing football.

I was being discriminated against due to my lack of size, coordination, and non-athletic skills.

I guess I can count on you to support my discrimination lawsuit on behalf of all non-athletes.

[MMMMMM]

"When I went to a University, Football Athletes were given scholorships for playing football. I was being discriminated against due to my lack of size, coordination, and non-athletic skills. I guess I can count on you to support my discrimination lawsuit on behalf of all non-athletes."

That's not the same kind of discrimination; that's awards based on merit in a particular field.

[MMMMMM]

"I just to have the question the motives of some one who brings this article here. Who was aware of this program?
Do people have some kind of homo-phobic search engine to find this crap?"

Not to my knowledge, but I'll bet there's a market for one;-)

"Hey, every major corporation in the country has insurance progarms for their married workers. Britney Spears 20 hour marriage would qualify her temporary spouse to these progarms. Gay Couples who have been in relationships for years do not qualify.

Where are the articles crying about this form of discrimination? Where are the trial lawyers?"

Dunno; why don't you start a thread on it.

[MMMMMM]

"Where's your post about other institutions that only offer benefits to married couples and how that discriminates against homosexuals?"

Nowhere. Where's yours?

[cardcounter0]

so when you make statements like:
"IMO discrimination practiced by any state institution is wrong and should be pointed out."

You really mean forms of discrimination that you don't agree with. You discriminate on your objections to discrimination.

Some types of discrimination are "different" than others.

Discrimination and only offering programs to straight couples is okay, right? Because I don't see any cry of outrage from you or finding it "incredible" and beyond belief that almost all organizations discriminate in this manner today.

[elwoodblues]

Discrimination on some grounds is perfectly acceptable. For example, we discriminate against felons by not allowing them to vote. Perfectly acceptable. Society has to draw lines regarding what types of discrimination are legitimate and which are illegitimate. In addition, for the types of discrimination that we don't like, we apply different legal standards depending on what type of discrimination it is. In some cases, we strictly scrutinize the discriminatory practice, in others we say that if the state has a rational basis for its practice, then we'll allow it.

This analysis is important and is the reason (going back, for a moment to some of the gay marriage threads) why the slippery slope argument is often faulty. The reason there isn't a slippery slope to bestiality, incest, and polygamy is because that status (a dog-lover) is not one that society really cares about, thus, a rational basis test would be applied and the discrimination would be found acceptable. In my opinion, a heterosexual couple who CHOOSES not to marry is not a status/class that needs a heightened level of protection/scrutiny because they have the option to change that status.

[nothumb]

MMMMMM,

I appreciate your accurate definition of the word liberal. In a political theory sense, it does not necessarily apply to the social policies that are described as liberal today. One might argue that many of those policies arise, directly or indirectly, from the spirit of liberal thought, but that is another issue.

I suppose, then, that you would support eliminating legacy programs at all universities as well?

And I for one will not abide having affirmative action described as discrimination. Race and gender are used constantly as criteria in admissions decisions, job decisions, etc, and affirmative action only just begins to balance the scale. Laissez faire is all well and good, but when there is such an imbalance in the scales from the start, some adjustments must be made. To those who say affirmative action taints the accomplishments of talented blacks, I say: nonsense. Just like it taints the accomplishments of blue-blooded fourth-generation Harvard graduates, right? In the long run we are not hurting these people by finding them spots in our schools.

And honestly, as a matter of social policy, affirmative action is a great idea. If you want a minority population that is, in relationship to its representation in the total population, absolutely stricken with poverty, crime, and disease to improve, you need to help improve their social and economic standing.

I personally think it's sad that our society is so racist that we must legislate equality, but it simply has to be done. This might belong in another thread however.

NT

[MMMMMM]

"so when you make statements like:
"IMO discrimination practiced by any state institution is wrong and should be pointed out."

You really mean forms of discrimination that you don't agree with. You discriminate on your objections to discrimination."

Come on now. Merit-based awards are not discrimination in the same sense at all. You discriminate when you choose the most qualified applicant for a job. What about all those other applicants who weren't as qualified? Should they be discriminated against by not being picked? Surely you can see that this is a nonsensical line of reasoning.

"Discrimination and only offering programs to straight couples is okay, right?"

Why would you think that is right? I don't.

"Because I don't see any cry of outrage from you or finding it "incredible" and beyond belief that almost all organizations discriminate in this manner today."

That isn't what this post is about. Why should I have to labor to convince an audience that I am not prejudiced before even broaching a subject? I don't have to, and I won't. The PC-requirement bar is being set way too high nowadays. I say hell with it. People can either discuss an issue on its merits or they can't. I'm not here to remedy their apprehensions.

[adios]

After growing up in the Buckeye state and being familiar with OU neither am I /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[cardcounter0]

Great. So some forms of discrimination as you point out ARE perfectly acceptable. So now it is just an argument of what types of discrimination we accept. As has been pointed out, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is accepted (ie - married couples are allowed certain benefits, that gay couples are not).

This is a case of a gay couples getting benefits not available to straight couples. It is an accepted form of discrimination.

So where is the conflict?

(AND AGAIN: out of all the problems in world, why does this subject fascinate you so much? You haven't been drinking the Rush Limbaugh Gay Agenda Kool-aid have you?)

[Clarkmeister]

"out of all the problems in world, why does this subject fascinate you so much?"

I could be wrong but hasn't M repeatedly said he isn't against gay marriage? What am I missing here?

[cardcounter0]

Well you must have missed his post earlier today "So Happy Together"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Check out the photos on Drudge:

http://www.drudgereport.com/kerryk.htm

The pic on Boortz seems somehow far more evocative. If you don't like Boortz you can scroll down a bit to see the pic on the right. Nealz Nuze changes almost daily, so if you miss this photo, you probably miss it for good.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Could this stuff somehow be a bit staged in an effort to capture a certain segment of the vote? I would rather doubt it. It looks like they really are happy together. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes, homophobic MMMMMMMMMMMM is worried that Kerry and Edwards might secretly be gay lovers.

[MMMMMM]

"I appreciate your accurate definition of the word liberal. In a political theory sense, it does not necessarily apply to the social policies that are described as liberal today. One might argue that many of those policies arise, directly or indirectly, from the spirit of liberal thought, but that is another issue."

It is an interesting subject. I suspect, and submit, that the word "liberal" has been gradually morphed and warped into its current colloquial usage in politics.

"I suppose, then, that you would support eliminating legacy programs at all universities as well?"

Not sure how these work really. I do think that private donors, at least, should have the right to specify how their money is to be utilized.

"And I for one will not abide having affirmative action described as discrimination."

It is very clear-cut discrimination.

"Race and gender are used constantly as criteria in admissions decisions, job decisions, etc, and affirmative action only just begins to balance the scale. Laissez faire is all well and good, but when there is such an imbalance in the scales from the start, some adjustments must be made."

I heartily disagree that adjustments must be made. I think all that need be done is to take effective steps to try to preclude future discrimination from taking place.

"To those who say affirmative action taints the accomplishments of talented blacks, I say: nonsense. Just like it taints the accomplishments of blue-blooded fourth-generation Harvard graduates, right? In the long run we are not hurting these people by finding them spots in our schools."

Not a major argument for me there.

"And honestly, as a matter of social policy, affirmative action is a great idea."

It's a horrid idea and flies in the face of individual rights.

"If you want a minority population that is, in relationship to its representation in the total population, absolutely stricken with poverty, crime, and disease to improve, you need to help improve their social and economic standing."

Nope; just give them the same rights and protections everyone else has under the Constitution. The individual must learn to raise himself up. A poorer race must learn to do the same, once they are not legally held back anymore.

"I personally think it's sad that our society is so racist that we must legislate equality, but it simply has to be done."

I definitely don't believe a vague "equality" should be legislated. Equal rights should be legislated but not equal results. Let nature, people and the chips fall where they may.

Cosmic justice is never attainable anyway, and more misery is created than relieved by trying to force the world to become "just" in results. The world--whether of men, animals, or anything else--simply doesn't work that way. The best we can really do is ensure equal legal protections.[/i]"

"This might belong in another thread however."

I agree, I was hesitant to include it here, but did so for the sake of completeness.

[elwoodblues]

I think the problem is that to get at the root cause of the discrimination that MMMMMMMM is complaining about, one would have to address the gay marriage issue (and resolve it in favor of gay marriage). Ohio has a legitimate reason to not want any two people to get benefits together (it would be prohibitively expensive). They also don't want to discriminate against gay couples. As a result, this is the best alternative until we confer a status on committed gay couples that is the equivalent to marriage.

It's similar to an argument I heard on Limbaugh (I think --- I listen to quite a bit of talk radio and can't recall for sure). There was a proposal for a civil union statute in some state. The civil union only applied to homosexual unions. Talk radio host was b*tching about discrimination. Straight couples don't need civil unions --- the have marriage.

MMMMMMMMMMMMM's post would be like a white person complaining that they didn't get to sit in the back of the bus in the colored section. It so obviously ignores the bigger issue (the appropriate resolution of which would make his complaint non-existent) that it is almost laughable.

[MMMMMM]

No, I'm not at all worried that they might be lovers. I'd probably laugh if they were.

I thought the pictures were FUNNY. Look at them, and Kerry gazing so seriously into Edwards' eyes. Doesn't it strike you as at least a little bit FUNNY?! Can't you find just a drop of humor in there somewhere--somehow--sometime?

[MMMMMM]

"Ohio has a legitimate reason to not want any two people to get benefits together (it would be prohibitively expensive). They also don't want to discriminate against gay couples."

Ohio University would not be discriminating against gay couples: that discrimination is from a higher level.

"Straight couples don't need civil unions --- the have marriage."

Not so fast, please, elwood. Some straight couples might have good reasons for not wanting to get married--or not wanting to get married YET (like maybe they aren't 100% sure yet?).

If the problem is caused by a higher law, then work legally to fix it there. Don't discriminate unfairly in an attempt to remedy social inequities.

[cardcounter0]

No I question the motivation, since the Gay Issue seems to be the current boogie monster the current Administration is using to rally the far right religious wackos around.

But yeah, it is real funny. Wink-Wink-Nod-Nod.

[MMMMMM]

"I could be wrong but hasn't M repeatedly said he isn't against gay marriage?"

Thank you, Clarkmeister.

I have indeed said that repeatedly, although cardcounter0 may not have been around when I did.

[MMMMMM]

Well I think the pics are funny. I also think the proposed marriage amendment is unnecessary and going too far.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Not so fast, please, elwood. Some straight couples might have good reasons for not wanting to get married--or not wanting to get married YET

[/ QUOTE ]

Couples who don't want to get married or don't want to get married yet are not a class of citizens that Ohio deems worthy to reward with additional benefits. I don't have any problem with that. My employer gives me additional benefits for having a kid. I suppose that discriminates against everyone who doesn't have a dependent --- I'm not gonna lose any sleep over that one either even if they have good reasons for not wanting a child or not wanting a child yet.


[ QUOTE ]
If the problem is caused by a higher law, then work legally to fix it there

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right. The university should lobby for a change in the law. I suspect that won't do much good and as a result, the university would be forced to apply standards they believe are discriminatory.

[MMMMMM]

"I think you're right. The university should lobby for a change in the law. I suspect that won't do much good and as a result, the university would be forced to apply standards they believe are discriminatory."

Our difference of opinion seems to lie in that I don't think the university would therefore be forced to apply such discriminatory standards--or even that it should.

[elwoodblues]

Maybe I should rephrase. The university is faced with three choices:
1) Apply a state-wide policy that they find discriminatory (by offering benefits to married couples knowing full well that homosexual couples are not allowed to marry);
2) Apply a uniform standard of "any two people can get benefits" which would be cost prohibitive; or
3) craft a narrowly tailored solution which provides benefits to the group they believe are discriminated against resulting in no benefits going their way while minimizing the effect of the cost prohibitive nature of allowing anyone to get benefits.

[ACPlayer]

It is far less discriminatory for OU to offer this progam than it is for any govt to deny a committed gay couples the civil privileges offered to the committed heterosexual couple.

The attachment of the civil privileges to the institution of marriage as defined by homophobic republicans (or more accurately republicans afraid of the backlash from a small group of vocal voters in their base) is the greater ill.

I know you fully understand the concept of "lesser evils", perhaps here is a case you can accurately apply that concept to.

[MMMMMM]

"It is far less discriminatory for OU to offer this progam than it is for any govt to deny a committed gay couples the civil privileges offered to the committed heterosexual couple."

Could be.

"The attachment of the civil privileges to the institution of marriage as defined by homophobic republicans (or more accurately republicans afraid of the backlash from a small group of vocal voters in their base) is the greater ill."

Maybe so.

"I know you fully understand the concept of "lesser evils", perhaps here is a case you can accurately apply that concept to."

It may be a "lesser evil" but it is not a necessary evil IMO and it helps set a bad pattern. I also think there is yet another evil at work here: a pattern of proactive university discrimination in misguided attempts to counterbalance perceived social ills. You don't fix one social ill by creating others; no, you address the source of that social ill. As with affirmative action, the proper solution is to address the problem at root, not to apply band-aid solutions which then become problems in their own right.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
It may be a "lesser evil" but it is not a necessary evil IMO and it helps set a bad pattern. I also think there is yet another evil at work here: a pattern of proactive university discrimination in misguided attempts to counterbalance perceived social ills. You don't fix one social ill by creating others; no, you address the source of that social ill. As with affirmative action, the proper solution is to address the problem at root, not to apply band-aid solutions which then become problems in their own right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds great. So what are you doing to address the problem at the root that works better than this? I personally think that some sort of pro-active program is necessary because simply illegalizing discrimination has failed to correct all the social ills it allegedly addresses. I often hear people attack affirmative action and special protection for gays by saying that we should just give everyone an equal start and let the chips fall. But the truth is, they don't have an automatic equal start just by making discrimination illegal, for two reasons:

1. Making discrimination illegal does not eliminate it. Numerous studies have demonstrated this in various sectors of society.

2. If two groups of people are given equal 'footing' in terms of rights but do not have equal economic and social footing, there can be no doubt which way the chips will fall.

NT

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

So what are you doing to address the problem at the root that works better than this?

For me, I treat every individual as an individual.

I personally think that some sort of pro-active program is necessary because simply illegalizing discrimination has failed to correct all the social ills it allegedly addresses.

The fact that there is no such word as *illegalizing* not withstanding, what are you suggesting? My gut is this is an evolutionary process that may take a couple of generations. If I misconstrue your point, I apologize in advance, but this sounds like the same flawed logic that thinks reparations for slavery is a good idea.

saying that we should just give everyone an equal start

Equality is a pipe dream People are inheremtly unequal (not by ethnic or sexual lines, but as individuals). Any attempt by government to "level the playing field" is by definition oppressive.

[MMMMMM]

Utopian efforts to completely equalize everyone fail disastrously. The goal should not be equality of results but simple equality of rights. Nothing in the world is really fair if you look around. Trying to equalize everything is a misguided Quixotic endeavor wherein the harder it is tried, the worse the overall results tend to become.

[nothumb]

This response is to both M and Kurn:

First, I don't know much about the reparations debate but I can't imagine it's the best way to address the problem. However, the simple fact remains that black people in this country were for hundreds of years a legally sanctioned underclass and, to a large degree, that segment of the population still suffers from the aftereffects of that era.

[ QUOTE ]
Utopian efforts to completely equalize everyone fail disastrously. The goal should not be equality of results but simple equality of rights. Nothing in the world is really fair if you look around. Trying to equalize everything is a misguided Quixotic endeavor wherein the harder it is tried, the worse the overall results tend to become.

[/ QUOTE ]

This strikes me as extraordinarily pessimistic. I think we have seen a lot of failed social programs and misguided efforts, but I think the kind of rhetoric you are giving off here serves to perpetuate the status quo of extreme inequality along racial and gender lines. This inequality is a fact, and it was created systematically by those of our ancestors who happened to be in power in this country over the last 3 or 4 centuries.

I believe that both of you believe strongly in treating each individually fairly and holding them to equal standards. I respect this, but I believe the kind of thinking you are advocating here is the same argument that allows men in power who do not wish to see equality in this country keep ignoring the problem.

You say that people will always be unequal. True. But what are the nitty-gritty details of that reality that you are willing to accept? That blacks are less likely to be given job interviews than comparable white applicants? That women earn substantially less money than men in the same positions? That homosexuals are discriminated against and have little or no legal recourse for preventing such abuse? Are these inequalities ones that you would be willing to accept if you were subject to them? Would you just write them off as the way of the world?

I'm not talking about a Leninist system of enforced socialism where everyone is truly 'equal.' I'm not one of those people who thinks everyone should make exactly the same amount of money. I'm just saying that, if I were in the position some of these people are in, I would want a change. Therefore I am asking for a change.

Regards,
NT

[MMMMMM]

A reasonable and thoughtful response. Our difference seems to lie primarily in how we think best to effect such changes.

I think it best to try to ensure equal individual rights, and then leave it up to the individuals to grow or stagnate, prosper or decline, in accordance with their desires, efforts and luck. You seem to favor tinkering with things at the group level. I reject that approach because any attempt at group remedy will invariably infringe on individual rights, and create new unfairness. I hold the individual to be far, far more important than the group. Furthermore, any attempts to adjust results inevitably involves giving more power to government--which probably 99% of the time is a bad thing.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

That blacks are less likely to be given job interviews than comparable white applicants?

Huh? How do you know an applicant is black until the interview?

That women earn substantially less money than men in the same positions?

There are already laws against this.

That homosexuals are discriminated against and have little or no legal recourse for preventing such abuse?

This is changing.

Are these inequalities ones that you would be willing to accept if you were subject to them?

Who says I won't face something like that. I'm in my 50's. If I need to look for a job, I'm likely to face just as much of a problem because of my age.

Would you just write them off as the way of the world?

When they are systemic, you seek recourse. That is happening. Gays, for example live much more openly than they could 30 years ago.

If you're talking about changing the discrimination that exists in people's minds, that's an evolutionary process. You can't just wave a magic wand, or create a commission and *poof* solve the problem.

the kind of rhetoric you are giving off here serves to perpetuate the status quo of extreme inequality along racial and gender lines.

No offense, and I don't know how old you are, but these "extreme inequalities" you mention were much, much worse when I graduate from high school 35 years ago.

Things are improving, and will continue to improve as long as we discuss the fact that people should be judged as individuals and not as groups.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

OK, this is the first use of the word "quixotic" I've seen on this board. I fold. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
That blacks are less likely to be given job interviews than comparable white applicants?

Huh? How do you know an applicant is black until the interview?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a university study in which comparable resumes were sent to companies, one pair of highly qualified and one pair of average resumes for the position. In each pair, one applicant had a 'white' name like Mike or Donna and the other had a 'black' name like Tyrone or Tamiqua. The black applicants were 50% less likely to get a call back.

I could find the study if you like, don't have it in front of me.

In general, although there are laws against paying women less, and homosexuals are getting more acceptance, inequality still exists. The racial situation has also improved in many ways, but it is still, unfortunately, far from being anywhere near acceptable.

[ QUOTE ]
Who says I won't face something like that. I'm in my 50's. If I need to look for a job, I'm likely to face just as much of a problem because of my age.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, and it's an issue not often acknowledged. However, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of age (as opposed to sexual orientation) and in fact they aren't even supposed to ask how old you are.

[ QUOTE ]
No offense, and I don't know how old you are, but these "extreme inequalities" you mention were much, much worse when I graduate from high school 35 years ago.

Things are improving, and will continue to improve as long as we discuss the fact that people should be judged as individuals and not as groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

None taken. I'm 21, and I know I ain't seen nothing in terms of discrimination. I agree that things have improved over the last 40 years, but I think the pace of that improvement has slowed somewhat. And I don't agree that merely talking about treating people fairly will keep it going.

I know you didn't mean that we shouldn't act on our beliefs as well. But clearly you and I differ on how we should act on them. While you believe individuals should be responsible for acting fairly and laws should be enforced to prevent discrimination, I believe that, on top of those things, we need to do more. It's a difference in terms of the best means to the end and I can respect that.

NT

[MMMMMM]

Nothumb to Kurn:

"While you believe individuals should be responsible for acting fairly and laws should be enforced to prevent discrimination, I believe that, on top of those things, we need to do more. It's a difference in terms of the best means to the end and I can respect that."

Our ideological differences may go deeper than I had thought.

What is the "end" you speak of? For me, the "end" is equality of rights, not results.

If you hold equality of results to be the principal end, it may be that you do not realize that results will not be equal between groups even if all major underlying conditions between groups are equal. There are simply too many variables between groups. Example: look at how Asians (as a group), now outshine even whites in American schools. Cultural habits really do influence results. Cultural habits are also but one factor among many. Asians did not start richer, or more given with opportunity than whites, in America. They worked and studied harder, and on average now earn more than whites, in America.

I'm not saying that in order to obliquely denigrate any other group; rather I am using it as an example of why the yardstick with which to measure the actualization of non-discrimination cannot simply be performance results. Even with zero discrimination, and equally advantageous backgrounds, some groups would still outperform others in certain arenas. That's just how truly diverse this wide world is.

[nothumb]

M,

Merely a coincidence of phrasing. I certainly don't view any point in social history as a static 'end.' And I certainly recognize that different cultural groups will always compete and, at times, exceed one another or fall behind.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that in order to obliquely denigrate any other group; rather I am using it as an example of why the yardstick with which to measure the actualization of non-discrimination cannot simply be performance results.

[/ QUOTE ]

This not only sounds great, I think it's quite true.

NT

EDIT: The one thing I would add is that 'rights' depend heavily on strong, reliable enforcement to be considered real in a practical sense. They must be widely recognized and respected by society and practiced publicly and privately. Hence having rights on the books is not the same as having rights. Thus our definitions of 'equality of rights' may differ, I'm not sure.

[MMMMMM]

There will always be a spread between any laws on the books and the actual implementation of those laws. That of course includes equal rights laws.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
There will always be a spread between any laws on the books and the actual implementation of those laws. That of course includes equal rights laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly my point. Just as you can't measure the equal legal footing / fair social footing of groups by their socioeconomic results alone, you can't measure the posession of 'rights' solely by what's on the books. There are some people (or entities) that receive far better treatment in this country than they are specifically entitled by law. Some receive less. I'm not saying that doesn't happen - or even, necessarily, that it isn't a part of how society functions. It's just a fact. What is written and what is will always differ.

NT