By a 5-3 vote at its meeting June 8, the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska system authorized extension of employment benefits—most notably health insurance—to the unrelated, cohabiting domestic partners of its unmarried employees.
Like many employers, the University of Nebraska system allows its married employees to elect health-insurance coverage for their husbands or wives (and dependent children). Under the new authorization, which is to take effect next Jan. 1 at all four campuses (Lincoln, Omaha, Kearney and the Medical Center), unrelated, cohabiting domestic partners of the same or opposite gender will be eligible the same as husband and wives. Marriage will no longer matter.
Regents Bob Phares of North Platte, Tim Clare of Lincoln and Randy Ferlic of Omaha voted against the authorization and are to be thanked and commended for doing so. Nevertheless, their five colleagues—Regents Kent Schroeder of Kearney, Jim McClurg of Lincoln, Howard Hawks and Bob Whitehouse of Omaha and Chuck Hassebrook of Lyons—had the upper hand, voting "yes" in line with what the university system’s president and four chancellors wanted them to do.
The mechanism for implementing cohabiting-domestic-partner eligibility has been given the label "Employee-Plus-One" coverage option. The "One" is an "Adult Designee." To be eligible for spousal-equivalent benefits, the "Adult Designee" of the same or opposite gender must be at least 18 years of age; cannot be the spouse (obviously) or a blood relative of the employee; must have shared a domicile with the NU employee for at least the consecutive 12 months prior to the election of coverage; and must be dependent upon, or interdependent with, the employee, as shown by evidence.
Before the vote was taken at the Regents’ meeting, public comments were allowed. Your columnist testified on behalf of the Diocesan Bishops, in their association as the Nebraska Catholic Conference, as follows:
"In early March, the Catholic Diocesan Bishops serving in Nebraska—Archbishop George Lucas of Omaha, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Bishop William Dendinger of Grand Island—wrote jointly to each of you, expressing their opposition to the ‘Plus-One’ partnership proposal and urging you not to authorize it. Their opposition and urging have not waned and are hereby renewed.
"In addition to the significant and serious issues relating to cost and constitutionality, the Diocesan Bishops urge you not to overlook or ignore the significant and serious moral, social and cultural issues involved with this proposal. By providing to cohabiting partners the same benefits and privileges as are provided to husbands or wives, the proposal manipulates the unique and special meaning of marriage—the fundamental institution that, reflecting a deep reality, unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union.
"Traditionally, historically, morally and culturally, this family centric institution has an irreplaceable social role and is unequaled in serving the common good. In attempting to elevate cohabitation to an equivalent status of marriage, that is, to treat unmarried partners as though they were the equivalent of married couples, the proposal says, in effect, that marriage really doesn’t matter; that it lacks uniqueness and significance as a social institution for the common good; and that it is no different and no more meaningful and important than merely living together in a domestic relationship for a prescribed minimum period of time, with a prescribed degree of economic partnership.
"As a matter of policy that would be implemented by one of, if not the, most powerful and influential entities in this state, the message that would be conveyed by this proposal would further undermine marriage, which is the foundation for family and society and for providing the healthiest environment for children and their development.
"And for what purpose this social and cultural impact and cost of undermining and devaluing marriage? Apparently, in order to make a one to two percent difference (as projected) in affecting faculty and staff who would be eligible for such extended benefits. What’s more, Nebraskans are being expected to believe and accept that this minimal difference constitutes a major impact with regard to competitiveness and equity in terms of recruiting and retaining faculty and staff.
"As the Diocesan Bishops view this, the moral, social and cultural costs of the message this proposal would convey in terms of manipulating and undermining marriage, far outweigh the purported benefits of such a policy. Moreover, marriage is held in high esteem by scores of Nebraskans, whose families are a big part of the lifeblood of the University of Nebraska. This reality strongly suggests that the state’s university system will earn greater public respect if it stands unique and strong—being different where it matters most—in its support for the uniqueness and special meaning of marriage."
The five Regents whose votes adopted the policy all indicated they considered it the right thing to do for the University of Nebraska’s reputation and its employees. Perhaps it’s the right thing for the narrower, political interests of that institution, but not for the fundamental institution of marriage or the common good of Nebraskans.
-
Youth Protection +
-
Evangelization & Catechesis +
-
Catholic Schools +
-
Youth Ministry +
-
Family Life & Discipleship +
-
News & Media +
-
Directory, Maps & Mass Times +
-
Diocese Home +
