Dunno. We need an apologist or experienced Catholic hospital administrator to chime in. At some point, Catholic teaching should kick in I would think. Otherwise, what is to distinguish a Catholic institution from any other?
The solution is to simply allow each employee to simply designate a single person for spousal benefits.
Yes I guess so if Catholic teaching is more of a priority than healthcare benefits.
Well, Jesus is a little more to me than Obamacare. I can say that much. Probably why I still practice the faith.
It’s a simple psychological warfare technique. Both the mind and then the emotions or sympathies must be engaged. That’s “hearts and minds” warfare. Only the truth will set you free. Men have been given a ‘free pass’ as nothing but sex toys/sperm donors. The radical feminists can be “female chauvenist pigs” since men are no longer in charge in their lives.
Same sex couples that marry are in direct violation of biology and faith. In your example, it is possible your situation could be normalized, just as an opposite sex couple living together without benefit of marriage.
That’s why the Administration nationalized health care. If you don’t like it, the IRS has the right to make you pay a fine.
No way. Contact any insurance company. And that person would have to be a real spouse.
Probably most same-sex couples live very normal lives, buy a house with their partners or spouses and mind their own business. Some of them are getting married now that this is a possibility. I don’t personally know any gay people who have sued a bakery or a florist or are agitating to get gay storybooks into schools. Those people are the exception.
Yes. I don’t any gay couples who have sued a baker or florist, caused a ruckus about gay storybooks, or done anything else being suggested here. They really do get married, buy houses, and get on with living. Almost like they’re normal people.
Well, I think at least they should be thanked for all of this legislation - straight up to the SCOTUS, stuff of history (I’ll opine no further on that.). Reminds me of my aunt who used to yell at me for dissing the feminists. Everything I have I owe to the feminists! What am I thinking?
What ARE you talking about. The Secular Progressives got behind “gay rights” movement as just another way to tear down faith and family. Divorced people don’t have any particular agenda whereas gay rights activists do. Divorced Catholics are not suing the Church to receive the Eucharist before their annulments are granted. Gay rights advocates and gay individuals are and continue to agitate to attempt to force the Church to capitulate to their demands such as to recognize gay “marriage” or to continue with employment after breaching their contracts.
I don’t know any of the rioters in Ferguson but they caused a lot of trouble, damage and destruction. What does your personal knowledge of these folks have to do with the issue? If you haven’t heard of the multitude of cases I can send you links. As I said we had two businesses that were destroyed by gay agitators and lawsuits. This is evil.
I’m familiar with the stories of those who have filed suit and I don’t support them. But I wouldn’t judge the people of Ferguson by the looters and I don’t judge gay people by those referenced in lawsuits. It doesn’t sound like you do either.
My point is simply that generalizations about any group typically miss the mark. I will say (and I’m sorry to disagree with you, Lisa) that I don’t believe in a “gay agenda.” But I do acknowledge that there are those who are making life near impossible for others who disagree with them and that is unacceptable.This is a completely absurd analogy. Catholic hospitals are distinguished by certain parameters regarding what services they will provide and also a strong directive that any doctor who practices in the hospital WILL accept patients who cannot pay for their services. There is a special document called Directives for Catholic Hospitals. It demonstrates that it’s not just Catholic parishes that live the Catholic faith. So if you come into a Catholic hospital you’re going to see a Crucifix or two, maybe a statue of St Joseph or a Sister who either founded or was instrumental in the founding of the hospital. There are Catholic reminders everywhere.
They aren’t in the business to perform weddings (although we always have a chapel). Further the majority of employees are not Catholic these days so it would be a violation of the employee’s religious freedom to force them to go to Mass for example, or insist on checking their bedrooms to see whether or not they are cohabitating. The only prohibition as I said was that any doctor or nurse cannot partake or perform an abortion or sterilization.Gracepoole I am not JUDGING them or assuming all gay people are like them. What I am saying is that this activist cohort is as the OP noted, part of the war on Natural Marriage and is assulting our religious freedom, freedom of speech and freedom to be safe in our homes and our persons. To ignore them is to fiddle while Rome burns. They are “loud and proud” and cause a lot of trouble just like the atheists that are roaming the country worrying about Christmas trees and Charlie Brown pageants. This is an assult on our religious freedom and as one poster said, going all the way to the Supreme Court. I am not just blowing them off as a couple of troublemakers just as the Ferguson rioters caused hundreds of thousands of damage and the resulting protests spread all over the country…much to the detriment of local citizens and businesses. To ignore them because they are few in number or because you don’t know them is to ignore a concerted assault on our most treasured freedoms.I’m familiar with the stories of those who have filed suit and I don’t support them. But I wouldn’t judge the people of Ferguson by the looters and I don’t judge gay people by those referenced in lawsuits. It doesn’t sound like you do either.
I’m not blowing them off or ignoring them, and I don’t believe you’re judging all gay people or assuming they’re all like those filing lawsuits. I agree that any instance in which people’s unique beliefs aren’t respected should be treated with the utmost seriousness. I was responding to this sort of claim:
You didn’t make that claim and I definitely wasn’t attempting to insinuate that you had. I was noting that this kind of generalization is inappropriate and unproductive. Again, it doesn’t sound like you and I disagree on this point.
What’s wrong with going to the Supreme Court? If I was Edith Windsor, I would have gone to the Supreme Court, too, to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Even though she was legally married to her spouse Thea Spyer and had been with her since 1963, the Internal Revenue Service did not recognize their marriage and compelled Windsor to pay $363,053 in estate taxes when Spyer died. I wouldn’t consider Windsor to be some wild eyed activist.What happened to her was totally unfair and unjust and I’m glad she went to court.
To me too. But speaking of, just saw today if we’re going to call the ACA, Obamacare, then lets call Social Security FDRCare and Medicare LBJCare. There was one for invading the wrong country too for Bush but all of that would be for another thread not about SSM.
Yes I know. But I’m fine with nationalized healthcare and healthcare benefits for SS couples and everyone getting health care. Wouldn’t have minded if it had gone much further actually. But lets get the thread back to the important topic of SSM.