Illustration by Arnie Bermudez

As America stands at a turning point, so does the UA.

Gay Americans are demanding more rights, and in some cases, they're getting them.

While most Americans seem more comfortable than ever watching gays make fun of themselves on television and in movies, many have yet to warm up to extending them all the rights that heterosexuals enjoy.

Including the UA.

Just months ago, Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano issued an executive order that bars state job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Now, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts has ordered that state's legislature to legalize marriage for same-sex partners.

And here in Tucson, the City Council has instituted a registry for domestic partners.

What better time than now for our socially-aware, underprivileged-friendly President Peter Likins to extend employee benefits to same-sex partners at the UA?

There's no doubt Likins is open-minded and accepting of gays, but until now, he's stopped short of creating a completely non-discriminatory campus.

"If same-sex marriages were permissible, benefits would follow automatically," Likins said at the beginning of the semester.

But let's get real. Despite Napolitano's support for gay issues, the last thing conservative Arizona has on its agenda is legalizing sex same marriage.

Daniel Scarpinato Columnist

Still, that shouldn't stop UA administrators.

After all, this is the UA we're talking about - the same institution that continues to bleed its liberal little heart all over tuition increases that redistribute wealth, and policies that pander to minority leaders.

And since when is the seventh floor of the administration building so obedient to the state?

Why would the administration suddenly be so socially conservative?

Well, it turns out liberal doesn't equal gay rights.

That was clear last month when the candidates for president on the Democratic ticket debated on MSNBC and illustrated that as gays push for more tangible rights, not just political pandering from so-called liberals, they are unwilling to support a growing movement toward equal rights for people of all sexual orientation.

Gen. Wesley Clark was the worst, unable to even say whether or not he supports gay marriage.

Of course, Clark's inability to decide what he thinks on an issue is no major surprise. He can't even make up his mind on the war.

And we should cut Clark and the other eight candidates some slack. More than 60 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage. In the short term, it would be politically disastrous for any of the serious candidates to come out in full support of same-sex marriage, rather than just civil unions. They would appear, and rightfully so, outside the thinking of mainstream America.

Even Howard Dean, the candidate with the most gay-friendly record, seems reluctant to fully support gay marriage.

The problem surrounds the term. Marriage is between a man and woman, most argue. Maybe that's true. But marriage is no longer just a religious term. Civil marriage is a major part of our society, and has nothing to do with religion.

In reality, the next president of United States will have little influence on the issue. Democrats and Republicans will more than likely leave the issue alone and let states and the courts set the pace.

But the president of the UA could have some influence on a smaller scale.

Here at the UA, the debate is less about what is morally right and more about what is legally allowed.

Six of the 10 schools in the PAC-10 have already extended benefits to this group, and none waited for the legislatures of their states to give the thumbs up.

And why would the state Legislature work to accommodate major state employers like the UA if such agencies just sit around and wait?

So as 2003, which the media has labeled the "year of the gay," nears its end, Likins could give the university no better Christmas present than announcing that the UA will offer benefits to domestic partners.

Of course, state leaders would oppose such benefits. It would also take some work to make sure that the benefits were, as Likins has said, not going to "people who are just living with their girlfriends."

But that's how change comes.

Until that happens, the UA will never have the right to call itself "non-discriminatory."

Daniel Scarpinato is a journalism and political science senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.