A Republican Ohio legislator filed a lawsuit against Miami University of Ohio last week, claiming the public university's same-sex domestic partner benefits violate the state's Constitution.
Ohio was one of 11 states that voted in favor of an amendment banning homosexual marriage last November. It was one of eight that simultaneously banned civil unions or domestic partnerships.
State Rep. Thomas Brinkman, R-Cincinnati, who filed the lawsuit, said the university's policy was likely illegal even before the Nov. 2004 referendum however, citing its "discrimination" against unmarried opposite-sex couples.
"They offer domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples but they don't offer it for [opposite-] sex couples," Brinkman said. "It'd be one thing if they offered it to everybody, then they'd at least have a defensible position."
Miami spokesperson Richard Little said the university's choice to extend domestic partner benefits to homosexuals is simply the wisest business decision.
"We need to have a competitive advantage where we compete with other institutions for the top faculty," Little said, noting the majority of four-year colleges nationwide offer domestic partner benefits. "It has nothing to do with the legal confines of marriage or the issue of gay marriage at all."
Miami is not the only public university in Ohio with the controversial policy, however. Among the others is the state's flagship public college, Ohio State University.
"There's no vendetta or anything like that," Brinkman said when asked why the lawsuit names only Miami. "If I lived in Toledo, I'd probably do it in Toledo … it just happens to be that they're close by [and] it's easy to get to the courthouse."
David Langdon, one of the attorneys representing Brinkman's interests in the lawsuit, did not speculate on why Miami was being singled out, but he emphasized his belief that its policy is unconstitutional.
"The fact is that it violates the Ohio Constitution, end of story," he said.
Little criticized some Ohio lawyers and politicians for misleading the public about the referendum last year. He said the university's policy is constitutional, and claimed promises were made last year regarding the practice's legality.
"When that law was passed and the words were written there were a lot of questions about it being too vague," Little said. "Actually the attorney who filed the suit is quoted by The Associated Press before the election as saying this would not affect [same-sex partner benefits]."
Although no lawsuits have been filed, the state of Wisconsin has witnessed similar controversy over the last few years.
The University of Wisconsin-Madison is now the only Big Ten school that does not offer same-sex partnership benefits to its employees. The UW System, however, has publicly expressed its desire for the legal clearance to do so.
"We've been told directly and indirectly [by the Legislature] that they don't see this as a priority and that they're not going to fund this," UW System spokesperson Doug Bradley said. "It's not going to happen. I think that's pretty clear given where things are right now."
According to Bradley, the purpose of domestic partner benefits is to level the playing field in recruiting and retaining faculty and staff in unmarried relationships — homosexual or heterosexual — systemwide.
"There are ways that both our faculty and our staff and our campuses and our state could be enriched by this," he said. "It's the right thing to do, but it's also the smart thing to do."
