Ohio lawsuit has Indiana implications

Ohio State Rep. Tom Brinkman, R-Cincinnati, is suing Miami University of Ohio, claiming the school's domestic partner benefits policy violates the state constitution.\nLike Indiana law, the Ohio constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but the Ohio provision also prohibits state institutions from giving partners the same legal rights or benefits given to married couples. \nThe legal dispute involves whether Miami of Ohio, which is a public university, falls under those restrictions. Miami of Ohio currently gives the same benefits to domestic partners as they do to married couples under a policy established in 2004.\nA proposed amendment to the Indiana constitution could restrict the benefits IU gives to same-sex partners of its employees. Domestic partners of IU employees who are eligible for benefits can receive a tuition subsidy, medical and dental coverage and basic forms of insurance. The amendment could be voted on in the next couple of years. \nA domestic partner is defined by IU as a person 18 years or older who is of the same sex as his or her partner, not legally married and has lived with their partner for at least six months consecutively. IU requires documentation to show "that the relationship is an exclusive mutual commitment that is the functional equivalent of a marriage," according to the policy. \nCynthia Stone is an administrator in the Office of Gender Studies at IU and served as an IU trustee from 1993 to 1996. She said she and her partner have signed up to use domestic partner benefits, and while many couples have registered with the University as domestic partners, she said about 50 people have purchased health insurance for their partners.\nIU and Miami of Ohio are not unique in giving partner benefits to employees. Other universities in Ohio currently offer partner benefits, including Ohio State University and Ohio University. Assistant to the President for Institutional Diversity at Miami-Ohio Michael Stevenson said he suspects his university is being targeted because Brinkman, the representative who filed the suit, has two children attending Miami of Ohio.\nHe said the university worked hard to create domestic partner benefits to be competitive with other schools. He said the university has one month to respond to the suit, and plans to fight it in court.\n"I think the faculty and staff are confident that the university will do their best to defend their policy," Stevenson said.\nCarolyn Wiethoff, a regional chairperson for Indiana Equality and a faculty member of the Kelley School of Business, said she is not surprised to hear of the lawsuit in Ohio. She said it would take a few years before a constitutional amendment could pass in Indiana that could potentially deny partner benefits at IU.\n"I am hopeful that IU as an institution continues to be as supportive as it has been, but it's scary that their choice may be decided by a court," she said.\nSteven Sanders, now a law clerk in Wisconsin, served as the chairperson of the committee that developed the proposal for domestic partner benefits. The trustees passed the policy unanimously in September 2001, and it became effective in April 2002.\nSanders said he does not foresee domestic partner benefits being challenged at IU, though it's possible.\n"When it's challenged in one state, it happens in other states as well," he said.\nIU trustee William Cast said in an e-mail that he supports the domestic benefits policy and knows of no plans to revisit the issue as a board.\nSanders is hopeful of the policy staying strong at IU because many other universities and Fortune 500 companies offer similar policies.\n"This is a decision about how employers allocate their health care and what they need to do to attract and retain the best employees," Sanders said. "This is not about attempting to rewrite the definition of marriage."\nHe said faculty leaders and deans were supportive of the policy because it is a recruitment tool. "I've heard several stories where school deans believed they had lost some sought-after candidates because IU didn't have partner benefits."\nStone argues that IU should give such benefits for reasons other than increasing the bottom line.\n"IU is going to keep these benefits because it's not a financial issue," Stone said. "It's a basic fairness issue, and we want to treat employees the same, whether they are gay or straight"