Marital status?

Last week, a proposed state constitutional amendment that explicitly bans gay marriage -- and that some worry could eliminate domestic-partner benefits -- passed its committee hearing and will receive a second vote in the state legislature.\nThe explicit ban on gay marriage is troublesome enough, but it's the sneaky wording of the rest of the amendment that causes same-sex couples to worry about losing their rights. \nThe amendment reads: "This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."\nIt does not "require" that benefits of marriage be conferred on unmarried couples. But we worry that the amendment is as close as one word change away from not "allowing" partner benefits to anyone without an official marriage license. Furthermore, the wording clearly defines a group of people that the state would say do not deserve the same rights.\nWhat are these basic rights that the marriage amendment might call into question?\nAt IU, domestic-partner benefits include medical and dental coverage and life insurance. The amendment calls into question an unmarried couple's right to ensure they are properly cared for in times of sickness. IU also offers funeral and sick time off as well as standard family and medical leave provisions. But this amendment could call into question an employee's right to take time off if a longtime same-sex partner suddenly died.\nIU has only offered such benefits since September 2001. Are we ready to allow an amendment that potentially threatens to make such an important achievement obsolete?\nNot only would unmarried couples enjoying these benefits at IU suffer, but the entire University would feel the effects of these continued steps to limit GLBT equality.\nIf IU were to lose domestic-partner benefits, the effect on recruitment and retention of faculty members would be significant. The University would undoubtedly lose accomplished members of our faculty to institutions that offer such benefits, and it would have a difficult time filling those vacancies.\nBut rather than ask what might happen should this amendment pass and how people committed to exclusion might use it against same-sex couples, perhaps a better question for us to attempt to answer is: "Why did IU implement these benefits in the first place?"\nThe answer is clear. The fact that a gay faculty member at IU can cover his or her partner's twice-a-year teeth cleaning doesn't threaten Indiana society. In fact, it might benefit the community if students at IU continue to be able to learn from the top qualified professors in various fields, despite personal characteristics. The proposed amendment will push the University down a slippery slope that could result in poorer education for students and a backward decline in GLBT acceptance. \nThe proposed state amendment might not "require" the recognition of domestic-partner benefits for same-sex couples, but we say there is no choice. They should be mandatory.