Benefits debate remains unresolved for now

Offering domestic partner benefits to employees at Utah State University is a controversial topic that will remain unresolved for the time being.

Members of the Faculty Senate voted Monday to refer the petition to the Budget and Faculty Welfare committee. Members of the committee will review the issue and then post it on a Web site for Senate members. In addition, faculty senators can offer input via the Web site.

“We need to have an informed decision,” said Dallas Holmes, vice president for University Extension. “I think it would be important for these materials to be made available to us.”

Although it is undetermined when the Senate will put the proposal back on the agenda, members do hope it will be before the end of the academic school year.

Barry Franklin, a professor in the secondary education department, raised the issue before the senate Nov. 21 after 28 members signed a petition in support of discussing the proposal.

Originally, it was brought before the Senate in March, but was dropped, fearing that offering domestic partner benefits would violate Utah’s Amendment 3.

The amendment, which was amended in 2004, defines marriage as only the union of a man and a woman and that no other domestic union may be given equivalent legal effect.

Many members of the Senate felt unsure about voting on a proposal that does not clearly define what domestic partners are. In addition, some Senate members claimed that much of the information compiled to form the proposal was not made available to them.

“I can’t vote for this,” said John McLaughlin, an associate professor in English. “We need some verbage to define what we mean by same-sex marriage.”

However, Stephen Bialkowski, a professor in the chemistry and biochemistry department, was against referring the proposal to the BFW committee claiming domestic partners has already been defined.

Lynn Dudley, a professor in the plants, soils and biometeorology department, urged the Senate to vote on extending health benefits to domestic partners at USU and move on to other issues.

“It’s in the best interest of this institution to get a resolution and vote,” he said.

Currently, there are fewer than 10 employees at USU who would qualify for the proposal if it is passed, Bialkowski said.

-mmackay@cc.usu.edu