Same-sex benefits in danger from cuts

Scott Dillard is on a mission for equality at Georgia College & State University, and passing a two-pronged domestic partnership resolution is his next step.

But in a fog of misunderstanding, personal prejudice and statewide budget cuts, passing the measure has become a challenge.

“I don’t know why it becomes a question when suddenly, it’s my life and it’s not a question in a straight person’s life,” said Dillard.

Last year, Dillard was introduced to the Domestic Partnership Coalition of the University System of Georgia, a statewide organization dedicated to adding benefits for domestic partners at state universities.

By spring 2004, he had rallied his GC&SU allies and developed a two-part resolution based on examples from other schools.

Part one of the resolution asked that “sexual orientation” be included in the school’s non-discrimination policy. Part two asked that the Board of Regent’s “adopt policies and procedures which treat married couples and domestic partnership couples in an equal manner and ensure that system-wide benefits are available to both married couples and domestic partnership couples.”

After developing the resolution, Dillard began the long process of having the resolution passed.

Subcommittees pertaining to each proposal must approve all resolutions, then send that resolution to the University Senate, where it can be vetoed or approved by a two-thirds vote. The resolution is then vetoed or signed by the president. The signed resolutions from GC&SU and other schools are sent to the Board of Regents for consideration. The Board must discuss and agree on a statewide resolution before it is instituted in the University System and at GC&SU.

Dillard approached President Leland to insure she would pass the measure.

“Dr. Leland had just come on board so I wanted to know how she was going to deal with this if it came to her. The idea is to move the resolution to the board of trustees. Only the university system can give the benefits, but what we wanted to know was if it came to her, would she sign it and send it forward,” Dillard said. “It’s been stalled at several universities because the president won’t sign it and send it forward.”

According to the official minutes of the April 26 meeting, the resolution never made it into Leland’s hands.

Although the discussion time was extended twice, the motion was tabled.

Leland said she would call an open forum to discuss domestic partnership benefits so the issue does not die.

Dillard hasn’t heard anything about the resolution since.

“I don’t think people understood what [the resolution] was about,” Dillard said. “I think [the senate] thought the university was somehow able to give those benefits, but it’s really a symbolic gesture-it has no power, it has no weight. It’s just to say that this particular body, this part of the university system, thinks this should be done,” he said.

Other questions on the definition of “domestic partnership” were raised as well. The resolution itself does not define the term, but for Scott Dillard, who’s been with his partner for nearly a decade, the definition should not be in question.

“It seems silly to me to sit in a group of people who are looking at me; they know that I’ve got a partner, they know we’ve been together for practically 10 years and then they want me to define what a domestic partner is. I shouldn’t have to define and defend that. That’s insulting to me,” Dillard said. “They were sitting there as if they were ignorant to the fact that I could have been in a relationship as deeply rewarding as the one they were in. That’s silly to me.”

Concerns were raised about the abuse of the new benefits program by faculty who were not in a committed relationship.

“I can’t stop a straight person right now from saying ‘I know someone that I want to have these funds from going to the courthouse today, getting a marriage license, signing off on it and getting the funds. There are no bonds between these people. ”

Georgia law only requires that a couple seeking a marriage license be over the age of 18 unless special permission is given by the courts; pay a $25-$35 fee; and provide a valid certificate of identity.

Foreign language professor Dr. Hedwig Fraunhofer attended the meeting as well. As a professor trained in gender and sexuality studies, she said she was alarmed by the meeting’s tone.

“What really appalled me was some of the arguments voiced during the senate meeting by faculty members who oppose the resolution. When bigotry comes out of the mouth of people who have had the privilege of an education, I find it especially hard to stomach,” said Fraunhofer.

“The U.S. is really quite far behind Europe in its acceptance of homosexuality today. I have had close personal friends who are gay for almost 20 years, and I am opposed to any kind of discrimination,” she said. “Excluding domestic partners from the benefits that married partners receive amounts to discrimination.”

According to Dillard, using the school’s dubious budget climate is not a reason to veto the resolution, but recent cuts could prevent the resolution from approval at the state level.

“Right now, [passing the resolution is] probably not going to happen. The regents would probably not approve something like that. The reality, though, is that it doesn’t represent a significant increase in funding and spending. It’s a fairly negligent thing to do and companies all over America have adopted these policies and it hasn’t created a strain on their spending in terms of benefits for it’s employees.”

Dillard is optimistic in his fight for equality. Though the resolution was tabled, he’s convinced the resolution will not be forgotten.

“Dr. Leland really stepped in at the very last moment and said we have run out of time. We’ve extended the time twice on the discussion,” Dillard said. “Dr. Leland said this will come back up and what she proposed to do was to have some faculty forums on this before it comes up for a vote and we’re going to hold her to that.”

Posted by Colonnade Archives on Sep 24 2004. Filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry