Graphic in the Kentucky Kernal brings protests and racial slurs to UK

In a 9-0 vote on Thursday, the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights called on the commonwealth’s educational institutions Thursday to stop hate-related incidents and intensify programs to increase diversity on their campuses.

For the past two weeks the University of Kentucky has been consumed with controversy. A cartoon published in the UK paper, the Kentucky Kernel depicted a black student standing bare-chested on a slave auction block as a white auctioneer takes bids from fictitious fraternities with names suggesting that they are all-white and racist: Aryan Omega, Kappa Kappa Kappa (KKK) and Alpha Caucasian.

Almost immediately after being published, protests erupted on campus, and a racial slur was written on a student’s door.

Commission Chairman Henry Curtis noted that in addition to the recent events at UK, the commission has received reports of Ku Klux Klan fliers being distributed at the University of Louisville and hate literature being spread in Bowling Green, Owensboro, Morgantown and Winchester (Brian Stephens, an Advisory Council Member with Kentucky Equality Federation held a counter protest at Morehead State University; click here to read the story from The Independent).

UK President Lee T. Todd Jr. appeared briefly before the commission and said the recent incidents at UK were “ugly and should not have happened.”

Are we slipping backwards, or moving forward in Kentucky? Isn’t adding domestic partner benefits part of that diversity? Republicans in the Kentucky Senate wouldn’t agree (story).

Fletcher reappoints Regents that support domestic-partner benefits.

Governor Fletcher's policy flip-flops are legendary, and this article in yesterday's Herald-Leader about his reappointments to the Board of Regents takes the cake:

Governor Ernie Fletcher filled three spots on the University of Kentucky and University of Louisville boards of trustees Wednesday with people whose stances run the gamut on the controversial topic of providing domestic-partner benefits to college employees.

Three of those named — two from UK and one from U of L — are reappointments of trustees first given those plum assignments by Fletcher’s Democratic predecessor, Governor Paul Patton.

The governor reappointed Louisville civic activist Owsley Brown Frazier, the retired vice chairman of the board of Brown-Foreman Corp. Frazier was among the 14 U of L trustees who backed a proposal to provide health benefits to the unmarried partners of university employees, which would allow gay couples to be covered.

Fletcher recently has urged lawmakers to pass legislation that would block agencies that receive state funds, such as universities, from offering such benefits and included that issue among 67 items on his agenda for a special legislative session. That was a change from the governor’s stance this spring, in which he said such decisions about benefits should be left up to the universities.

Fletcher now has appointed a total of 10 to UK, including extending the terms of May and Miles, and has chosen 12 of U of L’s trustees, which includes Frazier’s reappointment.

This is yet another example of how Governor Fletcher doesn't have any core values of his own, his moves are a pure calculation of how he can stay in office, by reaching out to the conservative right wing and asking the Kentucky House and Senate to pass legislation to ban domestic-partner benefits.

If Governor Fletcher doesn't want the universitys to decide the issues on their own (as they are supposed to), why did he reappoint members back to the Board of Regents that voted in favor of domestic partner benefits?

Family Foundation of Kentucky threatens to file an injunction to stop UK domestic partnerships.

The Family Foundation of Kentucky is considering filing an injunction against the University of Kentucky to stop domestic partner benefits from going into effect on Monday when their new fiscal year begins.

Let them file their injunction, because doing so could open a Pandora's box they will never be able to close again.

Domestic Partnership? The real issue here with the Family Foundation of Kentucky is if homosexuals have the rights to any of the benefits associated with marriage. Why would they not?

Kentucky Constitution - Section 233A: Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

Marriage is something created by the state (both Kentucky and the United States) for the benefit of its citizens.

Most people cannot disassociate a chapel, white dress, and a best man from their definition of marriage. The only religious thing about marriage however is in the minds of the people. When a marriage is dissolved it is done by the state, not God. When a minister pronounces someone married he or she does so by saying "by the power invested in me by the Commonwealth of Kentucky."

Marriage Defined:
Marriage is an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition, usually intimate and sexual, and often created as a contract.

The reasons people marry vary widely, but usually include one or more of the following: legal, social and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love.

• What gives heterosexual couples the right to be the only ones to enjoy this? The state.
• Is Section 233A (passed by a 2004 Constitutional Amendment) of the Kentucky Constitution unconstitutional? Yes. It violates Section I, Section II, Section III, and Section IV of the Kentucky Constitution.
• Does Section 233A of the Kentucky Constitution violate United State law? Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) Thus, no act or agency of the U.S. federal government currently recognizes same-sex marriage.
  
  Some opponents of same-sex marriage, wanting to ensure that the constitutionality of such laws cannot be challenged in the courts under the Full Faith and Credit clause, Equal Protection Clause or Due process clause of the United States Constitution, have proposed a Federal Marriage Amendment to the constitution that would prevent the federal government or any state from providing a marriage or the legal incidents thereof to a same-sex couple, whether through the legislature or the courts.

Let the Family Foundation of Kentucky file their injunction so the legal battle may finally begin.

A UCLA report released in January 2007 about the attitudes of college freshmen nationwide says acceptance of same-sex marriage grew between 2005 and 2006. The study found that 61% of incoming freshmen last year agreed that same-sex couples should have the right to marriage, up 3.3 percentage points from 2005.

Sunday's Herald Leader Article - Dr. James Holsinger.

The Herald Leader had a front page article today about Dr. James Holsinger, the homophobic nominee for U.S. Surgeon General.

"His posture on things is based on the science of health and disease, not on any moral or health issue," said Dr. F. Douglas Scutchfield, a colleague at UK.

[...]

In Lexington, Holsinger and his wife, Barbara, were asked to be part of a team that founded Hope Springs Community Church, which has a Hispanic ministry and recovery ministries for those with addictions to drugs, alcohol and sex. The recovery ministry includes some who no longer wish to be gay, the Rev. David Calhoun has said.

However, Calhoun said in an e-mail last week that the church does not have a specific ministry targeted at "curing" gays -- as some gay-rights groups have charged.

In 2000, Holsinger was elected to the United Methodist Church's Judicial Council, which rules on disputes involving church doctrine. As one of the nine members of the court, Holsinger ruled with others that a lesbian in a committed relationship could not continue to be a minister and that a pastor could withhold church membership from a gay man.

In 1988, Holsinger began serving on a national church committee to study homosexuality and make recommendations on whether church doctrine should be changed.

The committee took four years to consider the issue, and, in 1991, Holsinger wrote a paper entitled the Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality. In it, he makes a biological argument that gay sex is unnatural and unhealthy. He argues that, like male and female pipe fittings, certain body parts are designed for one another.

The paper has drawn wide criticism from gay-rights groups. They say it represents an out-dated view, even for 1991, of gay sex. The American Psychological Association, for example, removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973.

Shortly after he submitted the paper, Holsinger withdrew from the committee. At the time, the committee was beginning to form its opinion, said the Rev. Phil Wogaman, who served on the committee and is now retired.

Most of the members wanted to remove language from church doctrine that said the church did not condone homosexuality and "considered its practice incompatible with Christian teaching," Wogaman said.

The majority believed that homosexuality, if practiced in a caring, committed relationship, was acceptable, Wogaman said. "When the majority was beginning to form its views, Dr. Holsinger was in strong disagreement with that and chose to leave the committee, in some anger," Wogaman said.

Holsinger opposed any recognition of homosexuality as normal, Wogaman said. "He took the view that it's pathological, that homosexuality is both sin and a kind of mental sickness," Wogaman said. "He was quite vocal about it."

Moral issue? What moral issue? This is crazy! What if someone has a "moral" issue with him being Methodist?

Kentucky Attorney General rules domestic partner benefits unconstitutional.

Kentucky's top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Greg Stumbo (D) ruled domestic-partner benefits unconstitutional today, but left the door open for universities and colleges around the commonwealth to make them constitutional by broadening their definition of domestic-partner.

House Representative Stan Lee (R), currently running for the Office of Attorney General to replace Stumbo was one of two representatives to request the opinion (no surprise there).

“They still have the flexibility to allow and to offer their health insurance plan and its benefit structure to other people,” Stumbo said. “They cannot define the class of people in a manner that would be creating a legal status similar to that of marriage.”

The University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville currently offer domestic-partner benefits.

As I read Stumbo's opinion something struck a cord with me, from another state:

• In 2004 Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (D), acting on the advice of Attorney General Mike Cox (R), terminated domestic partner benefits that had been won by state unions.
• In February 2007 the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled the state's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage prevents public institutions from providing benefits to same-sex partners of employees.

Here we have a clear case of party lines. A democratic attorney general doesn't slam the door; a republican attorney general does.

UPDATE:

"When ruling domestic-partner benefits unconstitutional in their current form Attorney General Greg Stumbo appears to have made an unbiased opinion based on the commonwealth's current laws and various court decisions. Though this isn't the opinion we obviously wanted, General Stumbo was very clear about ways existing domestic-partner benefits could be made constitutional," stated Kentucky Equality Federation President Jordan Palmer. "It was no surprise that Lexington's intolerant House Representative Stan Lee (R) was one of two officials requesting the ruling."

Dr. James Holsinger for anti-gay U.S. Surgeon General.

President Bush's choice for surgeon general likely will face questions about his stands on AIDS, sex education and abortion during the confirmation process.

Dr. James Holsinger clearly has some pretty definite views on right and wrong; he's got it straight all right. Dr. Holsinger has made his negative views on homosexuality known for nearly two decades.

• In the early 1990s, Holsinger resigned from the denomination's Committee to Study Homosexuality because he believed the committee "would follow liberal lines," according to Time magazine. At the time, he warned that acceptance of homosexuality would drive away millions of churchgoers.
• As a member of the Judicial Council, he voted with the majority in 2005 that a Virginia pastor could deny church membership to an openly gay man.

Aside from him clearly being "anti-gay," Holsinger’s record is mired with incompetence, zealous conservatism, and, of course, sizable campaign contributions to Republicans.

As Chief Medical Director of the Department of Veterans Affairs under Bush’s father, Dr. Holsinger was neglecting our vets long before Walter Reed made it fashionable.

• A government investigation found “several cases in which incompetence and neglect led to the deaths of patients.” Dr. Holsinger was forced to admit blame for the deaths of six patients in less than a year at a single Chicago hospital alone.
• But the problems weren’t limited to Chicago. In Wyoming, a patient scheduled for surgery for a treatable cancer died after he was ignored for 45 days following the resignation of the staff urologist over a contract dispute. Thirty VA hospitals were found to have “high numbers of patient complications and other indicators of substandard care.”
• A decade later, Dr. Holsinger was appointed Kentucky’s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Family Services. By the end of his tenure, a Kentucky newspaper found that the state was at the bottom of the nation for almost every health measure. Kentuckians die at a rate of 18 percent above the national average, the newspaper reported.

Placing people in positions who are fair, honest, and have a compassion for their work and bettering our culture doesn't seem to be a priority for either the Bush or Fletcher Administrations.

Family Foundation of Kentucky SPAM's U.K.

The Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky, an offshoot of the national Family Foundation, targeted the University of Kentucky for unsolicited SPAM yesterday.

The Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky emailed surveys to approximately 9,000 University of Kentucky faculty and staff, asking them about possible health benefits for domestic partners of UK employees, including those of the same sex.

According to the Herald-Leader, the 10-question survey starts with questions on opinions about the domestic-partner benefits, then moves to questions about whether the proposal represents the values of Kentucky citizens, or whether the respondent has felt pressured to support it.

UK research specialist Zina Merkin said she considers the survey a "push poll," designed to influence opinion rather than gauge it. UK officials immediately responded yesterday morning with a blanket e-mail denying any connection to the survey. "We had received a number of concerns from folks, and we were just trying to explain this was not a university-sanctioned survey," said UK spokesman Jay Blanton.

Two weeks ago, a UK committee unanimously voted to offer domestic-partner benefits to same-sex and opposite-sex unmarried couples.

Among some 13,600 UK employees, the proposal eventually could affect about 204 opposite-sex couples and 68 same-sex couples, the committee report said. If the plan is approved, UK would become Kentucky's second state university to offer domestic-partner benefits. The University of Louisville began offering the benefits on Jan. 1.

As we all know, ultra-conservative Republican Stan Lee (R), has pre-filed a bill to ban domestic partner coverage at Kentucky's public universities.

On the website for the Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky, they list the following quote: "Before every legislator votes, Before every governor proposes a plan, Before every judge rules He should ask, 'How is this going to affect the family?'" —Kent Ostrander, Executive Director.

Perhaps it would be best to ask what's fair, just, and equal.

One must wonder if this question was asked about the Women's Liberation Movement, or equal rights for minority groups if they would have ever succeeded. Teaching your "family" that we are all created equal, must live together peacefully and love our neighbors is by far the best family value.

Recommendation: The Family Foundation of Kentucky should change its name to "Return Kentucky to the Stone Age Foundation."

University of Kentucky Domestic-Partner Benefits.

Though I would rarely post a blog myself, some of the comments and emails Kentucky Equality Federation has received about the University of Kentucky's Domestic Partner Benefits is disturbing. Some Kentucky political blogs have also posted items that are untrue, irrational, and downright childish in the name of progress.

A good rule in both business and politics is to know what you are talking about before you speak. I just had a chance to read the University of Kentucky's Work-Life Committee's Report and associated links/references dated January 15, 2007.

First of all you must understand that the Work-Life Committee didn't throw this report together overnight; a lot of research, feedback, and studies from independent companies influenced their decision. In addition, the Staff Senate, Senate Council as well as the full University Senate each approved resolutions in support of offering benefits to both same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners.

These developments alone warrant someone taking the time to read the reports before arriving at a personal conclusion. I question the intelligence of any person who would condemn or otherwise attempt to stop something from happening prior to understanding the facts, as well as the substance of an issue.

Here are some interesting facts to keep in mind (taken from the Work-Life Committee's Report):

• Benefits (such as health insurance) account for a third of a University employees compensation package.
• Companies now employ a workforce where 49% of households are maintained by unmarried men or women, instead of the married-couple household model upon which benefits are historically based.
• More than half of the Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits to their employees.
• Domestic partner benefits have become commonplace not only nationally, but across the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
• Potential funding for domestic partner healthcare benefits already exists in the University of Kentucky's budget.
• Opposite-sex domestic partner coverage is projected to be 1-2% while same-sex domestic partner coverage is projected at only 0.5%.
• People would have to sign affidavit's stating they have been in a relationship with their sole domestic-partner for at least six (6) months.

One Kentucky political blog posted a title stating domestic-partner benefits would cost Kentucky taxpayers $633,000.00 per year. If you read the Committee's Report, this isn't true.

Projected Yearly Cost: $633,000.00
University General Fund: $253,000.00 (40%, already in the University's $68.2 million dollar healthcare budget)
Other Sources: $380,000.00 (60%, this comes from grants, contracts, Athletics, parking, and hospital revenues)

If the University of Kentucky believes they need to extend domestic-partner benefits to remain competitive and (yes, that's right, an additional bonus) it helps insure uninsured Kentuckians, what's wrong with it?

-Jordan Palmer, Kentucky Equality Federation President