Miami Student

Issue date: 9/7/07 Section: Editorials

-By Eric Frew/The Miami Student

Last week an Ohio court of appeals upheld a trial court's ruling that dismissed State Representative Tom Brinkman's lawsuit against Miami University. Brinkman (R-Cincinnati) filed the lawsuit in 2005, claiming Miami's domestic partner benefits violated the 2004 Ohio Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. In light of the appellant's determined lack of standing in this case, The Miami Student editorial board applauds the court of appeals' ruling, and urges Brinkman not to continue wasting the university and taxpayers' dollars by appealing this lawsuit to the Ohio Supreme Court.

It is important to note that neither the trial court nor the court of appeals based their determinations upon the merits of the case; rather, the court of appeals ruled that there was not a threat to the public interest caused by the university's granting of domestic partnerships and that Brinkman, despite being a taxpayer and paying his children's tuition, was not satisfactorily affected by the question to have a legal right to sue. However, while the courts' rulings have sufficiently quashed Brinkman's case, the motivation and grounds of his lawsuit are troubling.

First and foremost, this editorial board sees this case as one of a political opportunist attempting to distinguish himself in a conservative primary race, and in doing so, putting his own political ambitions above the interests of Miami, its faculty and its staff. In 2005, then sitting Congressman Rob Portman was appointed to be the U.S. Trade Representative, and his Cincinnati-based 2nd District seat was left vacant. Despite hiding behind the rhetorical cloak of "upholding the state constitution," Brinkman's case appears to have been an attempt to appeal to the conservative right in a congressional primary race that he later lost.

While Brinkman's lawsuit may have been a political stunt, it is necessary to examine the issues of the case, as the representative's arguments fail to stand the test of scrutiny. Miami University-along with Ohio State University, Ohio University, Cleveland State University, and Youngstown State University-offers domestic partner status to qualifying homosexual couples. This allows, among other things, the partner to receive Miami's healthcare and dental coverage.

However, it appears to be quite a stretch to equate Miami's voluntary decision to offer a benefits package to the legal status afforded by marriage. Additionally, while the funding for domestic partner benefits is taken from the university's general fund, much of this money is later reimbursed through private donations-undermining one of Brinkman's complaints.

Twice the courts have spoken, and twice this case has been dismissed. According to Miami, only roughly 30 people took advantage of its domestic partnership packages last year. An avowed fiscal conservative, Brinkman needs to stop wasting both the university's money and the Ohio taxpayers' money on this self-serving lawsuit, and instead focus on upholding his oath of office as a state legislator.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools