Board extends partner benefits

 

The vote was 7-2, but the article doesn't list who the "against" votes were.

 

Ironically enough, the NKU Board of Regents also unanimously voted to increase the tuition for next year by 9.68 percent at the same meeting.

Interesting that NKY claimed they could not get qualified and good professors without hiring from the homosexual community?

 

Did not realize that there were few good and qualified heterosexual professors out there.

Interesting that NKY claimed they could not get qualified and good professors without hiring from the homosexual community?

 

Did not realize that there were few good and qualified heterosexual professors out there.

 

If you limit yourself to just hetrosexuals then you narrow the pool of talent you are picking from. Just like if you limit the kids who can attend your high school to only Pendleton County then you limit the talent pool you are picking from there too. :banana:

If someone is working for the university and getting their money taken out for benefits it should go to whomever they see fit, it's their money. This doesn't just mean homosexual employees but also heterosexual employees who aren't married.

If someone is working for the university and getting their money taken out for benefits it should go to whomever they see fit, it's their money. This doesn't just mean homosexual employees but also heterosexual employees who aren't married.

 

Then why does the state of Kentucky have a constitution? We passed the amendment for a reason and our state universities keep slapping us right in the face. Whether the amendment is right or wrong, and I'm not so sure I agree with having it, it is still there and it should be followed.

I really don't have an answer to that. IMO the amendment is discriminatory and there could be some loophole that allows this since to my knowledge the amendment only defines marriage. If this is a new policy that allows partners to receive benefits regardless of marital status then I don't see how the amendment applies. It's a new company policy allowing customers to purchase insurance for whomever they please.

I agree, there are probably loop holes it just seems that this undermines the spirit of the amendment. They didn't do this for straight people to get benefits for their partners they did it mainly to attract homosexual professors and to me that just undermines the spirit and the will of the people of our commonwealth, right or wrong the people have spoke on this issue.

I agree, there are probably loop holes it just seems that this undermines the spirit of the amendment. They didn't do this for straight people to get benefits for their partners they did it mainly to attract homosexual professors and to me that just undermines the spirit and the will of the people of our commonwealth, right or wrong the people have spoke on this issue.

 

So now you know the hearts and minds of the 7 people who voted for it, and know that it was strictly for homosexuals and their partners???

 

Maybe there are some right minded individuals who are straight but not so narrow who may not work for a university that discriminates against people because of their sexuality.

If someone is working for the university and getting their money taken out for benefits it should go to whomever they see fit, it's their money. This doesn't just mean homosexual employees but also heterosexual employees who aren't married.

 

So, if I want to put all 13,000 Pendleton Countians on my health insurance I should be allowed?

So now you know the hearts and minds of the 7 people who voted for it, and know that it was strictly for homosexuals and their partners???

 

Maybe there are some right minded individuals who are straight but not so narrow who may not work for a university that discriminates against people because of their sexuality.

 

From what was said in the paper, it has NOTHING to do with homosexual but the NKU President indicated that they could not get good and qualified professors without this benefit.

 

Which is hogwash.

So, if I want to put all 13,000 Pendleton Countians on my health insurance I should be allowed?

 

Sure you can, as long as you negotiate that upfront and include the costs as part of your package. :thumb:

Sure you can, as long as you negotiate that upfront and include the costs as part of your package. :thumb:

 

So, the state should share in the cost of me putting all of the county on my health insurance?

So, the state should share in the cost of me putting all of the county on my health insurance?

 

I don't know how your health insurance works but my wife is an employed teacher. They pay for her health insurance and give us a great rate on a family policy. The premium for myself and our children are deducted from her salary every month.

 

So in our case the state doesn't pay for her domestic partner or children, she does.

 

So, based on my experience (and your package might be different), if I wanted to add whoever I surely can but that would be deducted from her pay. :thumb:

LBBC: Do you think a gay person feels the love of Christ when Christians like yourself fight to prevent them from getting something as basic as healthcare insurance?

Hatz points out something that I could agree with. If you want your domestic partner covered by your health insurance, they you should pay the difference. Don't ask the taxpayers to do so, especially when your raising tuition.