Health Care bill includes gay benefits

As it turns out, a vote for Obama's nationalization of health care was also a vote for domestic partner benefits. "House members overwhelmingly approved a health care reform bill Saturday that recognizes gay unions and makes health care more affordable for gay families," said one report.

This from the "Human Rights Campaign":

Unequal Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits – the bill ends the unfair taxation of employer-provided domestic partner health benefits, incorporating the language of the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act. Without this tax penalty, more people will be able to afford employer-provided coverage for their families, and more companies will be able to offer these important benefits.

This national imposition of domestic partner benefits basically makes the debate going on in the different states moot. This is thanks to a little behind the scenes move by Jim McDermott (D-Washington).

Michigan Supreme Court strikes down domestic partner benefits policies

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in a 5-2 decision today that local government and state universities can't offer benefits to gay partners. Local governments and universities quickly tried to rewrite their policies to comply with the decision--but to accomplish the same purpose.

The decision could have ramifications for other states such as Kentucky, whose Constitutional language is similar to Michigan's.

Calling Rep. Watkins to practice what he preaches

For Immediate Release
March 24, 2008
Contact: Martin Cothran
Phone: 859-329-1919

Family group calls on state legislator to withdraw bill requiring HPV vaccine
for middle school girls

LEXINGTON, KY—“Now that we know Rep. Watkins opposes divisive legislation, we are calling on him to withdraw his HPV vaccination requirement for middle school girls,” said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation of Kentucky. Rep. David Watkins (D-Henderson) announced in last week’s House Health and Welfare Committee meeting that he was opposed to controversial legislation when arguing against a bill barring domestic partner benefits.



“We see this not only as an opportunity for Rep. Watkins to walk the talk on his opposition to controversial legislation,” said Cothran, “but to show his support of parental rights—and, of course to avoid embarrassment for arguing against a bill he opposes on grounds that would also undermine his own legislation.”

HB 396, of which Watkins is the primary sponsor, requires that middle school girls be vaccinated with the Gardasil vaccine which prevents the transmission of some forms of the Human Papilloma virus as a condition of school attendance. The Family Foundation has opposed the requirement, arguing that the vaccine has nothing to do with disease transmission at school and that parents should make the decision about whether their children should be vaccinated with drugs that are still essentially experimental.

“We certainly understand Rep. Watkin’s concern about divisive legislation,” said Cothran, “and we realize that when he lectured a senator about sponsoring domestic partner legislation in last week’s Health and Welfare Committee meeting because it was controversial that he probably wasn’t thinking about his own bill, which has been one of the most divisive pieces of legislation over the last two sessions of the Kentucky General Assembly.” Watkins launched on what some have called a “tirade” during the consideration of SB 112, sponsored by Vernie McGaha, attacking the senator and The Family Foundation because the bill was “divisive.”

“I think some people do this so that they can get funds for their organization,” said Watkins. “I think they use that as a whip to create and work up division in our society, which is a negative thing. Sen. McGaha, don’t you see the negativity that you cause and the division that you cause in our state? You’re supposed to be up here representing people to help people, not to hurt us. You know, this is a divisive issue. Surely you’re intelligent enough to know that and to realize that this creates division in the Senate, and division in your House of Representatives.”

“We’re fairly certain that, after Rep. Watkin’s regained his composure, he must have realized that his own HPV vaccine bill was at least as controversial as Sen. McGaha’s bill. But we’re confident that Rep. Watkins doesn’t want to be criticizing bills he opposes for reasons that would also undermine his own legislation. And while he is searching his conscience about that, he might consider also withdrawing HB 443, his 70-cent tax on cigarettes, since that bill has turned out to be pretty divisive too.”

###

Poll finds Kentuckians oppose domestic partner benefits

Bad news for our public universities. It didn't get much attention beyond his blog, but Mark Hebert of WHAS-11 has reported survey results from Survey USA that show that a large majority of Kentuckians oppose benefits for the partners of unmarried gay state workers.

Should unmarried state workers be offered health insurance for their gay live in partner?
23% Yes
73% No

Not that that is unexpected. But it didn't stop the braintrust over at Page One Kentucky from reporting that only 9 percent of Kentuckians opposed such benefits. Where did they get that idea? They looked at Herald-Leader/Action News 36 Election Poll, which reported that only 9 percent of Kentuckians listed domestic partner benefits as one of their top 2 issues. And here is what they concluded:

Less gay hating. 9% of Kentuckians want to ban domestic partner benefits. Only 9%. But 34% say health insurance for children is their top priority. Ruh ro, Mitch. You may be on the wrong end of another issue. Oh, and the state legislature is crappy as always.

Huh?

First of all, there is the not so implicit assumption that just because you don't think unmarried relationships should be encouraged by state institutions that therefore you hate the people involved them. As I keep pointing out (am I blue in the face yet?), just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you hate them.

But more importantly, by what logical procedure do you conclude from the fact that only 9 percent of Kentuckians listed domestic partner benefits as one of their top issues that only 9 percent of the people oppose these benefits at all? Who would expect the issue to be one of the top two for most people anyway, no matter how many people oppose it?

But I guess I should be careful. I wouldn't want to be accused of hating people who misinterpret statistics, would I?

Some in KY media indignant over attention to gays support of Beshear

Well someone go get the smelling salts. It looks like we're going to need to revive a few liberal reporters in the state's media who are shocked, so shocked that the Fletcher campaign would point out that Steve Beshear is receiving explicit, and apparently welcome support from gays.

In all his years covering politics, Pat Crowley, cheeks flushed, has just never seen anything this low. Why, how could they? How could anyone dare to ask the question why gays are supporting Beshear?

Now I hesitate to say this for fear it might send these people into another fainting spell, but could the support of gays say anything about where Beshear might stand on issues of concern to Kentuckians, like gay marriage and domestic partner benefits at taxpayer funded universities?

And the problem of tender constitutions is apparently not just a problem among some in the media corps. Over at the Democratic Party they're in high dudgeon over the fact that Brett Hall published a photo of a Beshear campaign fundraising invitation to the home of openly gay Jefferson County Judge-Executive Ken Herndon which includes the names of several gay "couples".

How could Hall do such a thing? What kind of thing? Why, make public where Beshear is getting his support, that's what kind of thing. I mean reporting on where Beshear's support is coming from is the job of the...

...Media.

Now wait. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that if the Democrats just quietly whispered into media ears that Fletcher was receiving support from some right wing group, the media would be blaring it from the housetops without the least trouble to their collective conscience (this is assuming, of course, that they have one), and would be doing everything short of patting the Democrats on the back for doing Kentuckians a public service by pointing it out.

Shame on you for thinking such a thing. Shame, shame, shame.

These are left-wing groups we're talking about here, and don't forget it. And don't forget either that there are no such thing as left-wing groups like those made up of the people that no one is supposed to notice who are supporting Beshear. There just aren't. And we can prove it. Have you seen any references to them in the media? Huh?

And when people bring them up like this and point out that they support one of the candidates who is portraying himself as conservative to Kentucky voters, it makes the media look bad, 'cuz that's something that in any other circumstance they would be covering as a legitimate issue.

So listen, before more reporters start losing their composure, let's just all forget that this happened.

Does James Ramsey think most Kentuckians are bigots?

My comments on James Ramsey's State of the University address yesterday appeared in today's Louisville Courier-Journal. Ramsey, of course, invoked the "D" word: "Diversity". As I mentioned, Ramsey's definition of diversity is completely different from a good many, if not most of the people who fund his university.

"While we celebrated many successes, we were reminded that not everyone in our state holds dear to the same values and commitments to diversity that we cherish at the University of Louisville," he said, adding that the university must deal with "prejudices both real and perceived."

In other words, anyone who disagrees with the idea that taxpayers should subsidize live-in sexual relationships of university faculty and staff is a bigot.

Check.

And "not everyone in our state"? This is the state, after all, that cast more "yes" votes on the marriage amendment than "yes" and "no" votes on any other constitutional amendment in Kentucky history.

Are most Kentuckians bigots? Well, Ramsey didn't say this in his speech. Or did he?

Do-it-yourself journalism kits for CJ editorialists: A response to David Hawpe

I never thought I'd see the day.

“Where is The Family Foundation of Kentucky when we need it?" asks David Hawpe in his editorial in last Wednesday's Louisville Courier-Journal. "Where are the outraged position papers from Family Foundation senior policy analyst Martin Cothran, denouncing this assault on traditional family values?”

It’s nice to feel wanted—particularly by Hawpe, who so seldom calls upon me to do anything except go away. But now, it seems, Hawpe is forsaking the billy club for the olive branch.

Could this be the beginning of a beautiful friendship?

Hawpe asks why The Family Foundation, instead of opposing taxpayer funding of live-in sexual partners of university staff, isn’t doing something about easy divorces in Louisville, provided by the helpful people at Legal Aid Society, who are offering “do-it-yourself” divorce kits. Well, I have thought about this suggestion by my new friend, David Hawpe, and I think I have struck upon an idea.

How about if we get some influential voice in Louisville to speak out against what the Legal Aid Society is doing? Someone who cares about the good of society, and who is willing to call a spade a spade. Someone who has the public’s ear, and who isn't shy about telling other people what he thinks.

Someone who...oh, wait. What am I thinking? This is a perfect description of my new pal, David Hawpe.

Just think, instead of mentioning efforts to make divorce easier to obtain in a tongue-in-cheek columns to make fun of groups he doesn't like, he could actually make a positive difference. I'll suggest this to him next time we go out on the town.

One of the distinguishing features of the brand of liberalism exemplified by journalists of the type that inhabit editorial offices of big city papers like the Courier-Journal is that the best way to help the poor is by ensuring that they are provided with easy access to all the vices available to the rich.

This is why, for example, so many so many of them support public funding of abortions. Without this assistance, poor women wouldn't have the same access to abortion mills that women from the class of society occupied by people who run large newspapers have. Now poor women can be exploited by the abortion industry just like more wealthy women!

Likewise, the poor don't have the same access to pricey lawyers some of the rest of us have, and this is unfair. The solution? Give the poor the same legal access to divorce as those who can afford it themselves. The prospect of women in poor families being abandoned by their husbands just as easily as middle and upper class women may not sound like much in the way of progress to you and me, but you ought to see the high-fiving it elicits down at the Legal Aid Society of Louisville!

I hate to say this about David (we're on a first name basis now), but (and since we're amigos, I know I can say this without offending him) he seems to share this attitude with the rest of his editorial friends.

The next time we get together for a vegetarian meal at his favorite non-smoking establishment, I'll gently break it to him that, by this reasoning, crack is a good thing, since, before it became widely and cheaply available, cocaine was only available to the rich.

But I know he'll receive this well. We're that close.

The Family Foundation, of course, has paid quite a bit of attention to issues involving marriage. It has been involved for several years in the Commonwealth Marriage Initiative Task Force that is trying to come up with ways to strengthen marriage in Kentucky.

It's not something The Family Foundation has talked much about publicly, but now that Hawpe...er, David and I are on such good terms, I don't see why he shouldn't know about it.

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that the folks at the Courier-Journal don't know this. But I've got a way to help solve this problem of journalists who criticize groups for not being involved in issues that they should be involved with, when, in fact, they are: For David's next birthday, I'm going to buy him and his editorialist friends a "do-it-yourself" journalism kit.

Just to show how much I care.

Lexington Forum to host discussion of domestic partner benefits

I will be in a panel discussion at the Lexington Forum Thursday morning at 8:00 to discuss the issue of domestic partner benefits at state colleges and universities. Here is the announcement from the Lexington Forum:

A discussion on Domestic Partner Benefits. Speakers include: Senator Ernesto Scorsone (D-Fayette); Representative Mike Harmon (R-Boyle); Martin Cothran of the Family Foundation; and UK Political Science Professor Ernie Yanarella. (The meeting also is open to the general public. There is a $10 breakfast fee for non-members, payable at the door)

The meeting will be held at the Lafayette Club on the top floor of the Chase Bank Building in downtown Lexington

All bark and no bite

Attorney General Greg Stumbo is threatening to sue the Governor for having too many Republicans on the Boards of Trustees for UK and U of L. Does the Governor really need to worry? Stumbo threatened to sue the universities themselves for domestic partner programs that violated the Constitution too, but he never did. UK's program still does not meet all the criteria the AG laid down in his ruling on the issue, and U of L hasn't changed its plan at all.

Is Stumbo all bark and no bite?

Gay rights group compares Frankfort demonstrators to Ku Klux Klan

Herald-Leader? Courier-Journal? Are you there? Are your hypocrisy meters turned on? Once again gay rights advocates, who make a big show of opposing hate, are spewing hateful rhetoric.

Here is the Kentucky Equality Federation on today's rally at the Capitol against taxpayer-funded health benefits for live-in sexual partners of state university staff:

The Family Foundation of Kentucky, our 'KKK members with church clothes on' are holding signs deliberately bringing religion into government even though it is prohibited by the Commonwealth's Constitution.

Is there a better example of hate than comparing someone to the Ku Klux Klan? What exactly did the demonstrators--who are supposed to be so hateful, according the "Equality Federation"--say that even compares to it?

Of course the state media will completely ignore this most recent example of hate speech by gay rights groups. They get a free pass on this behavior by a media that thinks they can do no wrong.

Then there is this little gem from the "Ditch Mitch" blog:

What makes the rally so disgusting is that their protest runs much deeper than even homophobia – it’s simply a pro-hate rally.

Now the Ditch Mitch people know hate when they see it. What constitutes hate for these people? Hate, they argue, is when anyone would not be willing to force taxpayers to pay for anyone and everyone's health care:

Right here in America, nearly 18,000 people die every year simply because of a lack of healthcare coverage. With nearly 1 in 6 people in the country living without access to healthcare, we should all be rallying in favor of anything that helps cover more Americans. Anything less is simply unconscionable.

In other words, anyone who opposes universal health coverage is guilty of hate.

Well, if anyone ever wondered why civil discourse has gone down the tubes, they need look no further than groups like the Kentucky Equality Federation and "Ditch Mitch," which can't acknowledge that anyone who disagrees with them is anything but evil.

It must be hard to live in a world where you think that anyone who disagrees with you hates you too. Maybe we shouldn't be indignant about them after all. Maybe pity is more appropriate.

Higher Indoctrination at Kentucky's Universities: Part II: Reinterpreting the Birds and the Bees

Last time in our continuing series about the fun ways in which our state's institutions of higher education spend the tax money of conservative Kentuckians to fund left-wing ideology, we featured a course offering from the "Women's Studies" department at Lee Todd's University of Kentucky. But just so we aren't accused of special favoritism toward UK, let's take a look at the "Women and Gender Studies" department over at James Ramsey's University of Louisville.

Lest we worry that only UK students have access to indoctrination in special interest politics (and that would, of course, be inequitable, which is bad), we can comfort ourselves in knowing the following course is available to U of L students:

3516 201-01 Women in Amer Culture H CD2 (Hum), SAT 10:00-1:00, Heinecken, LF 130
3816 201-02 Women in Amer Culture H CD2 (Hum), TTh 2:30-3:45, Heinecken, DA 202
This class will introduce students to some of the major concepts and theoretical frameworks of feminism. We will investigate gender, race, class, and sexual systems through examinations of everyday culture. The course readings briefly outline the history and guiding concepts of contemporary feminism (s) and move into an investigation of the social realities currently affecting women in US culture. We will investigate the concepts of discrimination, oppression versus privilege, and domination and subordination. The readings stress the systemic nature of oppression, emphasizing the ways that race/ethnicity, class, sexuality, and gender intersect in our lives. We will also examine some consequences of inequalities including the wage gap, violence against women, racism and sexism in education, and the representation of women in the media. The course will further examine some of the proactive ways in which women have resisted and responded to these systems.

This class, of course, is the opposite of the other course U of L offers from a conservative perspective called,... oh, wait. I forgot. There isn't one.

What was I thinking?

Of course we could ask where this group of radical feminists, with a comfy perch at the university and a virtual ideological monopoly, gets off talking about being oppressed. They get a whole department to themselves, after all.

But if there isn't a course from the opposing perspective, wouldn't that mean that there was no diversity in the course offerings at U of L, and isn't diversity what U of L is all about? In fact, I could have sworn that U of L President James Ramsey used the word 'diversity' at least 672 times in his testimony before the House Health and Welfare Committee last March when he falsely claimed to legislators that U of L was not subsidizing its domestic partner benefit plan when it turned out that that's exactly what it was doing all along.

And didn't he say, somewhere in the midst of all those false statements, that U of L needed to be a diverse place in order to attract good talent? And surely we could trust him, since it would defy statistical probability for there to be that many false statements from one university president during the short time he was at the committee table.

It's all so confusing. But hold on. There may be cause for hope in this class, called, "Sociology of Gender":

11538 313-01 Sociology of Gender (Ssci), TTh 9:30-10:45, Marshall, HM 106, Soc 327-01
11540 313-02 Sociology of Gender (Ssci), Th 11:00-12:15, Marshall, HM 106, Soc 327-02
How were women imagined in Renaissance England? What criteria did people use to distinguish between “women” and “men”? In what ways were ideas about gender and sexuality related to other cultural discourses at this time? This class will explore these kinds of questions by analyzing the writings of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. We will focus our attention primarily on literary texts by and about women, but we will also survey a range of other materials such as anatomy books, religious treatises, legal documents, and popular pamphlets. In addition to formal essays and/or exams, students may be expected to post informal analytical response papers to an electronic course listserv on a weekly basis. Active class participation is a must.

Now most people do not know that, in Elizabethan England (that is the period of history when England was ruled by Elizabeth I, who, some speculate, was a woman), people apparently did not know how to tell the difference between boys and girls. But the crack historical detectives in U of L's "Women's Studies" departments are not letting their own belief that gender is socially constructed get in the way of helping the Elizabethans out.

Although some would argue that modern feminist ideologues, who think that boys are boys because their parents made them play with trucks, and girls are girls because their parents made them play with dolls, are probably not the best bunch of people to be offering advice to anyone on how to distinguish between the genders.

But this looks promising. They have apparently discovered anatomy books. Maybe there's hope yet.

Gay rights group lauds Jody Richard's adjournment of special session

The "Kentucky Equality Federation," a gay rights group based in Kentucky, is praising Speaker of the Kentucky House Jody Richards for adjourning the House on the first day of the special session called by Gov. Ernie Fletcher. Obviously, the group supports the action because it would halt consideration of legislation to halt domestic partner benefit plans at state universities. The group also criticized Fletcher for including the issue of domestic partner benefits in the session call.

Kentucky Equality Federation praises the wisdom of House Speaker Richards and the entire House of Representatives for immediately adjourning the special session called by Governor Fletcher. The House of Representatives voted to end a special legislative session called by Republican Governor Ernie Fletcher an hour after it started.

"The House of Representatives did what was right for Kentucky families and taxpayers," stated Kentucky Equality Federation President Jordan Palmer. "Governor Fletcher apparently has no core beliefs of his own, his decisions seem to be nothing more than a calculation of how he can stay in office."

Governor Fletcher added a ban on domestic-partner benefits at universities and public agencies to the agenda of the special session that could have cost taxpayers $60,000.00 per day to hold.

Kentucky Equality Federation supported Governor Fletcher's original statement that universities should determine their own policies. But the Governor changed his mind in the middle of an election year and added it to a 'laundry list' as a reason to call the General Assembly into session.

Several Kentucky universities and public agencies offer affordable health insurance to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

To sue or not to sue? Is that even the question?

I just noticed another article, in addition to several in the Lexington Herald-Leader and the Louisville Courier-Journal that quotes me as saying that The Family Foundation is considering suing the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville over their unconstitutional domestic partner benefit plans, this one at Diverse Issues in Higher Education.

And by the way, it does appear as if the word "diverse" is becoming as unusable in its traditional sense as the word "gay", another literary victim of the politicization of language. Where is George Orwell when you need him?

It might be good to explain however, how this line got started--the one that says that The Family Foundation has its finger on the legal trigger. It is the result primarily of reporters insistent questions about whether The Family Foundation was, in fact, considering such action. The answer I gave was that the Foundation, as has been the case since the beginning of the whole debate, was not excluding that possibility, and that it was, to use the philosopher William James's phrase, a "live option," which is just another way of expressing the principle: never say never.

This somehow got translated into the announcement that the Foundation was ready to file suit. The Attorney General then came out, after we had filed a request with him to review UK's new version of domestic partner benefits to see if it met the requirements of his earlier ruling, and said that he couldn't do that because the Foundation was considering legal action.

Two points:

• Assuming the Foundation was actively considering filing suit, since when did it become so easy to stop the Attorney General from doing his job? Is that all that you have to do to neutralize him? Threaten to take legal action? So all it takes to prevent the Attorney General from acting to uphold the constitution is to point your lawyer in somebody's general direction? That has interesting implications.
  
  
• Then there is the fact that the Foundation was no closer to taking legal action at the end of June than it was when the AG came down with his original ruling. That being the case, why would the AG be any less able to take action at the end of June than it was when it made its initial ruling?

Of course, all this could be considered moot with the Governor's announcement of a special session starting on Thursday that includes the domestic partner benefits issue in the call. It could, however, become very relevant if the Democrats decide to adjourn without action later this week.

Governor puts domestic partner benefits on the special session call

Governor Ernie Fletcher has placed the issue of domestic partner benefits on the call for a special session to begin this Thursday.

Excuses, Excuses

I was quoted in three articles on the Attorney General's failure to make state universities comply with his ruling on domestic partner benefits:

"State won't issue new opinion," The Louisville Courier-Journal (7/1/07
"Family Foundation pushes Stumbo to act," The Lexington Herald-Leader (7/1/07)
"Group pushes for legal action on UK's benefit plan," The Lexington Herald Leader (6/30/07)

The AG is saying that because the Family Foundation is considering legal action, he can't do what he said he was going to do when he rendered his original opinion; namely, enforce it. In other words, he is saying that you can actually prevent law enforcement officials from enforcing the law simply by threatening a lawsuit against the people who have broken it.

That's a novel view of the law.

In fact, The Family Foundation has always viewed legal action as an option, but it is no closer to taking it now than it was when the AG issued its first opinion. If it was able to issue an opinion then as to UK's original plan, why can't it do it now on UK's newest plan?

AG’s opinion a “stake in the heart” for university domestic partner benefits plans

For Immediate Release
June 1, 2007
Contact: Martin Cothran
Phone: 859-329-1919

LEXINGTON, KY—The spokesman for The Family Foundation said he is gratified by the Kentucky Attorney General’s Opinion released today, stating that domestic partner benefit plans at UK and U of L are in violation of the Kentucky Constitution. “This is obviously the ‘stake in the heart’ for attempts by UK’s Lee Todd and U of L’s James Ramsey to sidestep the State Constitution,” said Martin Cothran.

“Our main argument against the university plans for taxpayers to subsidize the live-in partners of their staff was that they created a legal status similar to marriage, and that they were therefore in violation of the language placed in the constitution by the Marriage Amendment of 2004. Today, the Attorney General agreed with us. We hope those who contested our argument inside and outside the General Assembly have taken note.”

Cothran said that this was just the most recent defeat for groups like the Fairness Alliance, whose arguments in favor of domestic partner benefits plans, he said, have been systematically repudiated. “They first argued that these plans would have no impact on taxpayers—that was before UK came out with a report in January, which showed the university was planning on subsidizing the benefits for as much as $633,000 a year. Then they said U of L was not subsidizing its benefits. That too was shown to be false. Now their argument that these plans are constitutional has been put on life support. They have not had a good year.”

The Family Foundation supported Senate Bill 152, a bill proposed in this year’s General Assembly session that would have prevented public agencies from instituting domestic partner benefit plans.

###

Crossing the Rubicon on domestic partner benefits

According to some reports, Gov. Fletcher is saying he may or may not include the issue of domestic partner benefits on the call. But you have to assume that administration officials--and the Governor himself--understand that Robbie Rudolf's remarks during the KET debate Monday night constitute the political equivalent of a commitment. They have crossed the Rubicon on this issue--whether that was the original intention or not--and there is no going back.

If Fletcher decides not to put it on the call now, after word has gone out that they are, they will do themselves irreparable political damage. Obviously Fletcher will take heat for including this issue in the special session from the Tolerance Police at the Herald-Leader and Courier-Journal. That's just the price you pay in this state for doing the right thing. In Fletcher's case, since he did not taken a leadership position on the issue during the session, he has opened himself up to the charge of waffling. But already Fletcher's second guessing of Rudolf's remarks are getting him into more trouble than is necessary. "Gov. Fletcher, having waffled once, now is waffling again," says the Courier's lead editorial this morning.

If the Governor decides against putting it on the call, his political opponents--Anne Northup and Jeff Hoover chief among them, will move in for the kill, and seriously damage Fletcher's credibility among social conservatives who are still waiting for some leadership from the administration on this issue. Rudolf brought it up in the first place because Hoover had asked where the administration had been during the legislative session. For Hoover, it was easy pickin's. With so few weapons at his disposal, Rudolf grabbed the only thing at hand, which was that the administration was thinking about putting it on the call.

Fletcher needs to understand that his lack of willingness to lead on these issues puts his own friends and allies in a difficult position. There are people who committed to this administration because they thought it was going to be a conservative one. But this kind of support and commitment creates an obligation from the other end. When a political leader makes bad decisions--or refuses to exercise leadership on issues on which those who helped him into office have a right to expect him to lead--it don't just affect him: it affects everyone who supported him and everyone who have taken political hits for him in the past.

At this point, there is simply no political justification for not putting the issue on the call. The Governor's enemies will rejoice in a perceived double flip-flop, and his supporters will come away dispirited and disappointed. This is the last thing you want in the waning days of a campaign.

Things are so simple if you just do the right thing in the first place.

UK surrenders to forces of political correctness

For Immediate Release
April 24, 2007
Contact: Martin Cothran
Phone: 859-329-1919

UK’s decision to fund domestic partners “arrogant,” a slap in the face to
lawmakers, voters, and parents, says family group

LEXINGTON, KY—“Lee Todd and the University of Kentucky are kowtowing to special interest groups at the expense of taxpayers and parents and violating the state constitution,” said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation. The group’s remarks came in response to today’s decision by the UK Board of Trustees to approve a plan to subsidize the live-in sexual partners of its staff and faculty.

“We need leaders at our state universities who are not afraid to stand up to special interest political groups,” said Cothran, “not people who are willing to throw the people who support them under the bus. Dr. Todd had an opportunity to show leadership on this issue. Instead, he surrendered to the forces of political correctness.”

Kentucky voters approved an amendment to the State Constitution in 2004 that not only recognized marriage as between a man and a woman, but included a provision that would prohibit recognition of “a legal status substantially similar to marriage.” The amendment passed with 75 percent voter approval. “Todd apparently thinks that he can ignore the state constitution and that his university apparently is above the law. This decision, which could initially cost the University $633,000 per year during a time of rising tuitions, is not only bad public policy, it is a sign of profound arrogance.”

The decision also comes on the heels of comments by both Gov. Fletcher and Robbie Rudolph, his running mate, that the issue will probably be placed on the call for the upcoming special session of the Kentucky General Assembly. “In thumbing its nose at the clear sentiment of the people of this state, the University has placed itself at odds with lawmakers, with voters, and with the parents of their students. Now they have alienated the Governor. You begin to wonder about the kind of decisions that are being made by the UK administration.”

###

Thank you Lee Todd and James Ramsey

Now that UK's Lee Todd and U of L's James Ramsey are using "diversity" politics as an excuse for their universities to join the Left Wing Axis of Intolerance that already controls universities across the country, it might be good for Kentuckians to be aware of what we're headed for. Try this on for size:

Dr. Todd, you've got mail

Gov. Fletcher was quoted in a radio interview that aired today on WVLK in Lexington saying he was supportive of putting the domestic partner benefit issue on the call for a special session.