Op-Ed from The Courier-Journal
Stumbo wrong on benefits issue
by David Edmunds

It’s astonishing that Attorney General Stumbo lays blame for the current constitutional crisis at the feet of university trustees. In a July 30 press release, Stumbo blatantly attempts to politicize this critical marriage issue by asserting that Fletcher-appointed trustees are in a majority and responsible for voting through unconstitutional “domestic partner” plans.

The fact is that both university boards were denied the opportunity to vote on the current illegal plans.

When UK released their current “Sponsored Dependent” plan, administrators bypassed a trustee vote completely, claiming it was an “executive decision.” At UofL last summer, trustees only voted to authorize President Ramsey to pursue a Domestic Partner plan; there was no plan even drafted at that point. It was Ramsey who authorized the unconstitutional plan.

What’s more, not only did the trustees not get to vote on the current plans, but Stumbo doesn’t even have his numbers right. The majority of them were not even Fletcher appointees. According to UK, only 8 of 20 trustees were appointed by Fletcher. At UofL, only 9 out of 20 were Fletcher appointees.

The problem originated with University officials who misinformed trustees, telling them the plans: 1) Would not violate the Constitution; 2) Would include relatives in the plan; and 3) Would not cost the university. We now know that all these things are untrue. Legislators were also given this false information during committee hearing testimony; hence, the urgent need for legislative action. 

Stumbo has had since last summer to act on this issue but has been silent until this week’s press release: “I stepped in to correct this problem by issuing an opinion on June 1 . . .”

Reality Check: It was not until Representatives Stan Lee and Tom Burch requested an official opinion, nearly a year after UofL began the illegal plans, that Stumbo was forced to utter a peep.

When his opinion was released on June 1, Stumbo told the C-J that he would pursue legal action if the universities did not comply. Aside from writing a few letters, there has been no legal action. In his press release, Stumbo claimed the universities “have promptly taken corrective action.” UofL continues to violate the constitution with no changes since last summer and UK’s new plan still violates Stumbo’s opinion by excluding relatives.

With Stumbo presenting himself as a protector of constitutional marriage, here’s an historical note: In 1998, when legislation to protect marriage was introduced, Stumbo said, “That’s nothing but a bill of bigotry . . .” (Herald-Leader, March 4, 1998)

He derided supporters of the bill as having a “vigilante mentality” and vowed, “I will use the office that I have to stop that . . .” (The Kentucky Post, Feb. 27, 1998)

Fast-forward to 2007 and Stumbo is referring to opponents of the unconstitutional plans as “extremists.” Not much has changed at the C-J or with Stumbo in the past decade. Both are still using derogatory language toward the 75% of Kentuckians that believe in the law and enforcement of The Marriage Amendment.