Dumb question regarding gay marriage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The link above defines marriage:
"First of all, What is Marriage? When people marry, they tend to do so for reasons of love and commitment. But marriage is also a legal status, which comes with rights and responsibilities. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions. "

Problem is for many of us it is also a sacrament.
http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Sac_Marriage.htm

The shortcomings of a civil union (definitions and recognition vary among states) can be overcome I think by a Federal law. Then the states could determine what additional benefits, if any, they wish to award members of a civil union. Thinking tax benefits here. Ditto with the Feds - do you want to allow members of a civil union to be treated as married partners in the tax code.

I am a moderate Catholic, and I have zero issues with civil unions and having our elected representatives determine any civil benefits. Just don't take my sacrament of marriage and make it something it never was and something I personally find incompatible with my faith.

So I assume you're OK with the Church providing benefits to a same-sex partner of an employee when they were joined in a civil union?

Wrong. I am totally supportive of the state providing benefits, but not so much of the state requiring private religious institutions to be required to act in opposition to the tenants of their faith. If that means stopping to provide services that receive partial city funding that is fine. The Church can continue its charitable works without city funds, on a smaller scale, using their own. The thing the WaPo doesn't want to acknowledge is that the Washington Diocese provides $10M a year in its own funding, in addition to city money.

[Anonymous]

Oh, go out in my name and judge the world!

Why would someone think that employee benefits are somehow contradictory to church belief systems!!

[Anonymous]

"So I assume you're OK with the Church providing benefits to a same-sex partner of an employee when they were joined in a civil union?"

I'm not sure why you think changing the legal criteria of who can enter into a marriage contract recognized by the state would require this outcome. If a church as a non-profit offered health insurance for example to its employee they can do whatever they wish in extending or not extending these benefits. They could change their own definition to include on married inviduals of the opposite sex. They are not obligated to use the marriage license as the qualifying bar. The church has no right though to make other companies do this just because the church doesn't agree with homosexuality.

[Anonymous]

I have been out of this thread for a while. Let me see if I understand the issue: If the City passes the same sex marriage bill. then our non-discrimination law will require that anyone getting DC money treat all marriages equally. So if they provide benefits for spouses, they'll have to do so for all spouses.

Since the Church sees that as forcing them to recognize marriages they consider sinful, they will refuse the City money. That will require them to reduce their services. The Council considers this a threat intended to discourage them from passing the law.

The Post is not as suspicious of motives and thinks that people of good will should be able to find a solution (such as the San Francisco approach mentioned earlier).

Do I have it right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: If a church as a non-profit offered health insurance for example to its employee they can do whatever they wish in extending or not extending these benefits. .

Not so fast. Obey the law of the land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: If a church as a non-profit offered health insurance for example to its employee they can do whatever they wish in extending or not extending these benefits.

I heard that a catholic health insurance in California was forced to cover the cost of birth control. Previously it had denied coverage for this, but was found to be discriminatory

[Anonymous]

I still don't understand how gays getting married threatens your sacrament of marriage. Does my Jewish marriage threaten your sacrament of marriage too, because I don't believe as you do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If a church as a non-profit offered health insurance for example to its employee they can do whatever they wish in extending or not extending these benefits.

I heard that a catholic health insurance in California was forced to cover the cost of birth control. Previously it had denied coverage for this, but was found to be discriminatory

My guess is that this is California law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand how gays getting married threatens your sacrament of marriage. Does my Jewish marriage threaten your sacrament of marriage too, because I don't believe as you do?

Good question, indeed. IMO, bigotry is about the bigot, not the person/people being discriminated against--ie, bigotry is a reflection of a weak character, of someone who fears that acknowledging the legitimacy and quality of you/your union/your religion/etc somehow diminishes theirs. If someone is confident in and comfortable with their choices/their union, they have no need to try to actively oppose or invalidate others. So, probably, someone who opposes gay marriage has bigotry toward other groups of people, too. Not so say that someone who opposes gay marriage is also an anti-Semite, but you get my point.

Honestly, I think everyone should pay more attention to their own damn selves and not to who wants to marry who and where. I can't imagine how galling it would be to be on the receiving end of that kind of discrimination. It's just bullshit.