Alligator Online

People take for granted what they have, and the issue of domestic-partner benefits is no exception.

Heterosexuals never even think twice about whether or not they will be insured or covered by their partner's workplace. But same-sex couples do, and all of these excuses about why they should not have these benefits just sounds like baloney. This issue of domestic-partner benefits is not about God, or Bibles; it's about equal rights — and the same excuses were used when interracial marriages came into question. But, in the end, equal rights prevailed as they should — and they will again. It is not anyone's place to judge another's love for their partner. And in terms of what state Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, has been saying about homosexuals not having monogamous relationships, I just have to wonder how many homosexuals he knows.

Under current UF policy, if a professor is married and his or her spouse or children get sick, their benefits cover the medical bills. But if a professor is in a same-sex relationship, the partner or children would not be covered no matter if they have been together for 30 years. This kind of discrimination is horrendous, and UF should offer the same security for all of its employees.

I think most people don't realize exactly what domestic-partner benefits are. These benefits include medical and dental insurance, disability and life insurance, pension benefits, family and bereavement leave, education and tuition assistance, credit-union membership, relocation and travel expenses and inclusion of partners in company events. The Human Rights Campaign has documented that the total number of colleges, governments and private corporations that offer domestic-partner benefits is more than 2,500.

Competitive benefits packages have become extremely important in attracting the best employees. Companies that offer such benefits usually have requirements for who can receive them, such as: having lived together for a specified period and being responsible for each other's financial welfare, not blood relatives, at least 18 years old, mentally competent and not legally married. So, in terms of having to cover 300 partners, as Baxley assumes, it is not feasible for all 300 to meet these requirements.

Undergraduate students at UF have partner benefits in terms of healthcare and recreational facilities, and they have had these benefits for three or four years. As a student who soon will be attending graduate school, whether a university offers partner benefits or allows same-sex couples to live in family housing will be a big factor in choosing where I will attend.

I know UF eventually will get domestic-partner benefits, but how many prestigious professors and graduate students will it miss out on during the long wait before these benefits are actually offered?

Allison Andrews is the president of Pride Student Union.