‘Domestic partner’ benefits
A voter-approved constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Nevada doesn't deny same-sex couples government financial benefits equivalent to those offered husbands and wives.
Today the Public Employee Benefits Board is scheduled to consider a proposal to offer taxpayer-subsidized health insurance to "domestic partners" -- not only gay couples, but opposite-sex cohabitants who aren't interested in tying the knot.
The extension of benefits to "partners" of government employees has been backed for years by Nevada's higher education system. The state's eight college and university presidents submitted a letter to the board a few months ago claiming that a lack of "reciprocal beneficiary coverage" to workers in "spouse-like relationships" is hurting their ability to attract top faculty and staff.
UNLV President David Ashley and retiring UNLV law school Dean Richard Morgan plan to testify on behalf of the proposal at today's board meeting.
"I think for any major university these days, it is a very important point of competition," Mr. Ashley said.
The plan has outraged the man who led the initiative to put a gay-marriage ban in Nevada's constitution. Richard Ziser, chairman of Nevada Concerned Citizens, fired off his own letter to the benefits board: "The marriage amendment ... is a clearly stated directive of the public policy in this state."
It's debatable whether the state should have any interest in regulating marriage of any kind. Consenting adults are best left to themselves to enter relationships, establish commitments to one another and build wealth together.
But this proposal isn't about mere recognition. It's about making taxpayers, including tens of thousands who have no health insurance themselves, accrue added bills to help pay for coverage for scores of people who either already have medical benefits or have the means to buy coverage on their own. And it's about who has the prerogative to make the decision.
The Public Employee Benefits Board is not accountable to the electorate. Higher education officials know they'd have trouble getting this proposal through the Legislature or approved via ballot initiative, so they're trying to cram it through an appointed panel loyal to public employees, bypassing the taxpayers who pay the bills.
Nevada's public employee benefits system is already on the road to insolvency, its future costs threatening to bust the budgets of every branch of government. Now the board that administers this plan is being asked to extend coverage to hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of additional people who could be no more than longtime roommates of government workers?
Such an expensive proposition warrants open, extensive debate by elected policymakers. The Benefits Board should reject offering domestic partner benefits to state workers as an costly "added freebie" and leave the decision to the Legislature or the voters.
At that point, to stand a realistic chance, proponents would be wise to insist on a plan under which public servants agree to pick up the entire added cost through their own premiums and co-pays.
