Denial of same-sex partner benefits holds back future

It is a shame that such silliness is passing as front-page news when a real epidemic of marginalization is occurring.

Perhaps some readers have not heard of this problem because they have been too tuned-in to the issues surrounding the group STRAIGHT.

Admittedly, it is important to engage in discussions about all of the occurrences at Penn State and the issues they present to the community.

However, it is a shame when a pressing issue like same-sex partner benefits must take a back seat to the ongoing soap opera of STRAIGHT. This issue is pressing because the denial of same-sex partner benefits to the lesbian and gay faculty and staff at Penn State represents actual discrimination against a minority group.

Both married and unmarried heterosexual couples may receive benefits for their partners, such as heath care. Yet gay couples, no matter how long they are together, may not receive partner benefits.

Are benefits a big deal? How many readers would like to receive a benefits package for their partners when they get a job after college?

I'm sure everyone does. I doubt gay people feel any differently. But because they are gay, they may be banned from receiving benefits for their partners, no matter how much they excel as employees or people.

The University has failed to provide same-sex partner benefits (although five of the Big Ten schools provide health insurance for same-sex partners) because there is "no need" for them.

Well, one gay person who qualifies for the benefits signifies a need. But that is beside the point, because I'm sure there are many people who can use same-sex partner benefits.

The real reason same-sex partner benefits are being denied is discrimination. Now, I'm sure that Penn State is not purposely trying to punish gay people.

However, sometimes policies reflect the biases of their creators, even if the policy-makers are not aware of it.

Discrimination is a hurtful thing. When people know they are not being treated equally in the workplace, it makes them angry. Negative treatment is a constant reminder to those discriminated against that people feel you are inferior or dysfunctional in some way.

Discrimination also degrades the University because it continues to foster an environment of in-house fighting, employee suspicion and a pervading atmosphere of intolerance.

On the opposite end, the politics of inclusion and generosity are great things. They remind all of us that we are equal in worth and dignity, that we count as human beings. They also promote an atmosphere where people like each other and work comfortably together.

Then why doesn't Penn State welcome this atmosphere? Because the idea of same-sex partner benefits scares people. A "parallel" agenda for gays and lesbians goes "too far" -- it means that lip service is not enough, that action must be taken to ensure people of their equality.

After all, partner benefits are a stamp of legitimacy by society. They are a vehicle in which the gay community can move one more inch down that long path toward mainstream societal approval.

It must be the same fear which motivates STRAIGHT. It is this fear that must be defeated.

The benefits are a necessary and important step, but it is only through the destruction of fear that we will have true societal harmony in the future.

This fear must be eradicated if we want the next generation of children to be raised in a better society.

After all, when society denies gay couples benefits, it directly impacts the financial state of their children.

And what about all of our future children? Does anyone want them to inherit a discriminatory society which denies some people equal treatment?

Does anyone want them to live in a community where some organizations get more attention for their imaginary pains than truly marginalized groups and their urgent problems?

If anyone does, make sure you send them to Penn State.