"Domestic Partner" Leeches, UK & the AG

One had only to look at page A9 in the Lexington Herald-Leader, Lexington, Ky., of 08 July to get an idea as to where Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo might have found the beautiful plan he presented to the University of Kentucky honchos for the purpose of making legal the obviously Constitutionally-illegal granting of "domestic partner" benefits to UK employees. Coincidentally, his take seems to be about the same as that of Kalamazoo, Michigan, where the appellate court has ruled the city's d-p arrangement illegal. It most likely will rule the new Kalamazoo plan illegal, too, as will the courts in Kentucky. And so continues the saga of the "Domestic Partners Caper," that politically correct rip-off of taxpayers' hard-earned cash…initiated by the hippies, flower children, and beatniks of the 60s and 70s (in the catbird seat now), to whom everything was okay if it felt like it. This installment is set in Kentucky.

By extension, of course, all those d-p perks, if allowed at UK, would be available to all workers employed by the state of Kentucky (thus "busting" the budget), since they enjoy the same privileges as the UK folks, all of them being employees of the state. Last year, however, a federal appellate court in Nebraska upheld an amendment that prevented d-p benefits for government employees in that state. Many states have passed so-called "marriage amendments" to their constitutions in recent years, especially in light of actions of such states as Massachusetts, where men may marry men, as absurd as that is. Indeed, in the Lexington Herald-Leader section of marriage announcements a few days ago, there was a picture of two men – along with honeymoon mention – who had just gone to Canada and married each other.

The problem is an old-fashioned one, even in light of divorce rates, blended families, wholesale abortions…the whole nine yards. People still place a premium on marriage, even though they don't keep their vows a good part of the time. They're not ready yet for two people to simply have the right to say they're married or have the right to the specific entitlements accruing to married couples without placing their signatures on the dotted line and documenting their responsibility, as well as the rights, attendant upon the marriage commitment. This is especially important with regard to children.

In the Stumbo plan outlined a few days ago in the newspaper, about all two folks have to do – but never in writing or any sworn document such as an affidavit – is affirm that they've been shacked-up for a year and jointly own a car and a dog. The partner can then wander around most anywhere while collecting all the perks. It would certainly be politically incorrect for university policemen to go snooping around the alleged residences, cars, or dogs to check on the resident du jour; besides, there aren't enough of them to do that.

The significance of Stumbo's actions is alarming. He could have circulated his opinion long before the University of Louisville inaugurated this illegal windfall last January, placing that university in the position of possible lawbreaking. He could have done the same before the UK action. The amendment governing the matter was passed overwhelmingly in 2004, but virtually since becoming attorney general in 2004, Stumbo has had his name in the election pot for this year – as a governor candidate. He was careful to remain quiet.

Stumbo settled, finally, for the second spot but on the drastically wrong millionaire's ticket. Having suffered defeat in May, as well as ruling out the a-g spot by not running again, he became free of political entanglements and could therefore make the lame-duck ruling about the d-p thing. This sort of thing represents hypocrisy/cynicism/opportunism/dishonesty and outright malfeasance carried to a new level of sordidness. That the state's top law enforcement official would stoop to this level of self-serving is beyond the pale.

A newer low was achieved when Stumbo then carried to the university his "new" plan that would skirt the requirements of the Constitution…making use of a perceived loophole, which, supposedly, he found. He might have gotten away with this with respect to an ordinary legislative foul-up in structuring a law, but he will not get away with it vis-à-vis the very direct and unmistakable language of the "marriage amendment" passed by all the people in a statewide referendum and made concrete-hard as a Constitutional matter.

The only people to be more thoroughly criticized are on the boards governing the universities. Their elitism in this instance is simply galling, and their insistence that homosexuals (brightest and best in the land) simply must be attracted to deal with impressionable young people is appalling. The perverted, filthy behavior practiced homosexually flies in the face of normalcy and should not be condoned by the university in either its recruiting or hiring practices. It is not tolerated in the military and should not be foisted on college students.