CU BENEFIT BAN DIES IN SENATE
REGENTS WILL DECIDE WHETHER PARTNERS CAN SHARE INSURANCE

Camera staff and wire services

A bill that would have blocked the University of Colorado from offering health insurance to the partners of gay and lesbian and unmarried heterosexual employees died Thursday on a close vote in the state Senate.

Sen. Ben Alexander, R-Montrose, sponsor of SB209, said the legislation wasn't singling out gays and lesbians, but was directed at unmarried heterosexuals as well.

But opponents disagreed.

"Clearly this is aimed at homosexuals," said Sen. Pat Pascoe, D-Denver. She said homosexuals are criticized for being promiscuous and then told they can't enjoy the same benefits other people in long-term, committed relationships do.

The bill was introduced by special permission late in the session, after a subcommittee of the CU regents began studying the issue. It is expected to return to the full board in June or July for a vote.

"Hallelujah!" said Joanne Arnold, a retired faculty member and head of the Chancellor's Standing Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues. "Very early I said that I can't believe that there would be a majority (of legislators) who would be mean-spirited enough to pass that bill, and sure enough, there wasn't. Beyond that, I think it's politically appropriate for the regents to make this decision. Every regent represents a constituency that is vastly bigger than any member of the General Assembly, and the regents are elected specifically to run the university."

CU's faculty council has urged the regents to consider extending the benefits. Members say the university is competing with companies that do, and that extending the benefits would have a minuscule financial impact.

The university is the first state agency to study giving health benefits to same-sex partners of employees, al though two private colleges, about a dozen cities and counties, and a growing number of private businesses do so.

Alexander's bill, killed on a 17-16 vote, would have prevented employees of state colleges and universities from putting anyone other than their dependents on their health insurance plans.

"It has been termed as an anti-gay measure and it's not that at all," Alexander said. "I'm trying to maintain uniformity in the benefits policy throughout the state and all employees." He said his proposal would simply maintain the status quo.

"This bill was clearly an attack on the growing movement toward workplace equality for gay and lesbian people," said Sue Anderson, executive director of the gay and lesbian civil rights advocacy organization Equality Lobby. "SB209 would have meant that Colorado institutions of higher education could not join with other employers to offer what more and more employees are requesting - domestic partner benefits."

After the vote, Alexander said he wasn't concerned about the fiscal impacts of expanding insurance coverage because the individual employee would pick up the extra cost. He said he was more concerned about schools providing benefits to the partners of unmarried heterosexual employees than to gay employees.

Alexander said he wouldn't try to revive the bill. "I'm going to let it die a dignified death."