Concerned students are circulating a petition urging legislators to support same-sex partner benefits at Penn State and to not allow the status of these benefits to affect Penn State's funding.

Because the Penn State Faculty Senate supports the inclusion of these benefits and Penn State President Graham Spanier has said negative reaction from the state legislature is the reason he refused to approve the benefits, the state legislature is the subject of this petition.

However, some state legislators are upset they were made the target of this petition and think these students' frustration is misplaced.

State Rep. Kerry Benninghoff, R-Centre, pointed out the state Legislature had not yet voted on the issue. This is true. But the issue was not voted on because Spanier did not approve same-sex partner benefits.

The reason he did not approve same-sex partner benefits is because Penn State funding was threatened.

So if you were the president of a large university in Pennsylvania that depended on any state funding to serve the entire state, and you were told if you offered same-sex partner benefits, the university's funding would be affected, what would you do?

You would not approve the benefits and try to work with the legislature to ensure that their personal morals would not be brought into funding decisions.

Hopefully, this clears up any confusion Benninghoff may have.

This is not the only time when Benninghoff's facts were a bit mixed up. He has also apparently forgotten what his own concerns about this issue are.

On Jan. 11 in the Collegian, he focused on the morality of the proposal: "The morality issue is significant to me. The institution of marriage is significant . . . Basically, by passing something like that, we are endorsing that lifestyle."

However, about one month later, Benninghoff assured Collegian readers that his problems with the proposal were all about money: "It's a fiscal issue . . . It sets the stage for anybody to say their live-in is covered by insurance. The long-term effects could be very harmful for the university."

According to the Jan. 11 Collegian, state Rep. Lynn Herman, R-Centre, said: "Not only does this proposal have detrimental moral implications, but it will undoubtedly increase Penn State's cost to provide this benefit."

However, Herman also changed his tune to a more neutral chord in the Feb. 4 issue. "I am for Penn State . . . I was asked my opinion -- 'Would this meet with opposition?' -- and I gave (the university) my opinion that it would."