The bill is clearly aimed at U.K., which is considering offering the partner benefits, and U of L, which is already offering them. Fletcher says he generally supports universities making their own decisions about what's best for their employees. And after all, its the university board of trustee members who he appointed that made the decision to extend health insurance benefits to domestic partners of employees.
Fletcher says he'll study the bill if it gets to his desk. But he seems to have bought into U of L's argument that its peer institutions offer the benefit and U of L needs to do the same to compete for top faculty, including those who are gay.
A spokesman for Anne Northup says she's studying the issue and I haven't contacted Billy Harper's campaign for their response.
But a Survey USA poll shows about two thirds of Kentuckians favor a ban on domestic partner benefits being offered by state universities. It's a little closer in Jefferson County, about 50%-40% favor the ban.

But it seems to me there's another issue to consider here. If the legislature is going to uphold the sanctity of marriage by barring insurance benefits to the unmarried loved ones of state employees, how can they vote to give tax breaks, tax credits and tax dollars to private companies like UPS and Ford who already offer the same benefit?
Isn't that using tax dollars to condon behavior that goes against the moral beliefs of most Kentuckians, the overwhelming majority of whom voted to constitutionally ban same sex marriages? U of L President Jim Ramsey raised that question on wednesday and frankly, neither of the two state senators I talked to had a good answer for him, other than to say they're private companies that make their own internal decisions. But they're using our tax dollars, so what's the difference with what U of L is doing?