Proposal
“The Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) should implement domestic partnership benefits to enhance the System’s ability to recruit and retain top quality faculty and staff in a competitive marketplace in which domestic partnership benefits are increasingly prevalent and to ensure that compensation and benefit programs provide for the equitable treatment of employees, regardless of marital status.” (from the Board of Regents Briefing Paper on their Web site, https://system.nevada.edu/Board-of-R/Meetings/Agendas/December-2/Ref.-M.doc_cvt.htm)
The Board of Regents for the Nevada System of Higher Education will consider an important item in their March meeting: whether to extend benefits to “domestic partners” of employees at Nevada’s public universities and colleges. This would result in the taxpayers footing the bill for benefits for unmarried partners of both heterosexual and homosexual employees.
Here’s one reason given by the regents in a briefing paper on the subject: “There is an increasing awareness among both public and private employers that providing domestic partner benefits is necessary in order to remain competitive in today’s diverse labor market. Currently, over half of the Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. offer domestic partnership benefits to their employees.” The UNLV Faculty Senate adopted a formal resolution in support of adopting domestic partner benefits for employees – including both opposite-sex and same-sex partners – “as a matter of maintaining labor market competitiveness and enhancing internal equity.”
If individual companies want to pay for this sort of thing to help recruiting efforts or increase retention, they are free to do so – it’s their money. However, when the Board of Regents makes such a decision, it is NOT their money – it’s the taxpayers’ money, and taxpayers in this state have overwhelmingly voted to support the institution of marriage and not weaken it by extending benefits to unmarried partners.
“Benefit programs eligible to spouses, but not domestic partners, have been predicated on traditional family models which do not take into consideration evolving family structures,” claim the regents. If the “evolving family structures” they mention include the growing number of single-parent households, and the tendency for children to grow up without a stable family situation, then maybe it’s time to change the “evolving family structures” rather than the law.
Another Look at a Recurring Issue
For those of you new to Nevada, here’s a little background: in 1999 Clark County proposed to extend benefits to partners of homosexual or unmarried heterosexual employees, but the county was stopped by an opinion from the District Attorney’s office declaring that this violated state law. There were rumblings that a new definition of “spouse” would be proposed at the following legislative session.
Sensing (correctly) that this issue would be brought up again, and realizing its far-reaching implications, a group of concerned citizens got together and formed the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage. The coalition gathered enough signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November 2000.
The amendment read: “Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.” The measure passed, receiving an overwhelming 70 percent of the vote.
Seeking to get around this clear mandate from the voters, during the 2001 legislative session Assemblyman David Parks introduced AB 496, which was intended to recognize “reciprocal beneficiary relationships” between unmarried persons. The effect of this bill would be to search the state statutes and replace each instance of the terms “spouse and other family dependents” with the term “reciprocal beneficiary.” Bowing to pressure from voters, the measure was soundly defeated.
Because Nevada law requires that any proposed amendment to the Constitution be passed in two general elections, the Protection of Marriage Amendment appeared again on the 2002 ballot and again passed, thereby becoming part of the Constitution.
The voters of Nevada have spoken – not once, but three times. People are free to share their households with whomever they choose, but unmarried partners have no legal status under Nevada law. This latest proposal by the Board of Regents seems to indicate that they consider themselves above the law.
People who work for public universities and colleges are state employees, which means their wages and benefits are paid by Nevada taxpayers. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for benefits for domestic partners when they have already indicated that they do not choose to do so. Whether the regents like it or not, they were elected to serve the people and they are bound by their will. The question is, are they listening to us?