D.C. Archdiocese Forced to Drop Coverage for Spouses over Same-Sex "Marriage"

[PaulinVA]

Okay, NO ONE is losing their health insurance. Please read the story.

Going forward, spouses will not be covered. This means if an employee gets married they can not add their spouse. A new employee can not cover their spouse.

This is a result of DC Council action. Their slash and burn pro-gay agenda does not allow for dissent.

The Church is doing what it can to continue helping the needy in the District. It’s the council that has forgotten the separation of Church and State.

 

[Mark77]

Exactly. What about “Love your neighbor as yourself?”

This is exactly what Jesus taught as “love your neighbor!”

**Jesus didn’t accept sin, He loved the sinner but told the Truth, no matter how unpopular it was!

Jesus said; “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.” (Mt 15:19)**

It is because of love that we do this.

If someone you love is engaging in a highly risky, self destructive behavior like a young heterosexual man having sexual relations with numerous female partners, or drug abuse or alcohol abuse, would you enable them or would you tell them their behavior is physically & psychologically self destructive & it puts them at a high risk of contracting & spreading diseases. Would you get them help?

True love sometimes means telling the person with the destructive behavior “NO” & telling them what they are doing is wrong, even if they yell & scream & call you names.

The Church teaches us in the Catechism; "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC 2357)

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[manygift1spirit]

There was another thread on this DC situation earlier where it was pointed out that depending on the language, it might be possible for the Church and its charities, etc. to accept the change without having to change anything. This would be due to the language not being indicative of a “spouse” but rather covering those in the same household (or some worsd to that effect), including spouses but also elder dependents, children, roommates, etc. This would have allowed SS partners to be covered, but the law itself would not be scandalous as it was written.

But this language was shot down by those in the homosexualist lobby (or those in their take) for language that not only was scandalous and contrary to natural law, but actually risked being less inclusive (by enumerating the types of people in the household in its scope). Here we have the rejection of language that would cover at least as many people, not cause scandal, not force the Church into doing something surely to be twisted against it (cf parts of this thread), for what? To use the word “spouse”?

The motives are clear as crystal.

Let’s pray for everyone here, everyone loses. There are no winners. Except for the Evil One. And perhaps the lawyers down the road. Whether or not that is coincidence is best left to another thread.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My workplace covers the employee (for free) and any other person they permanently live with and designate as the second person to be covered (for a cost). Spouse, partner, live-in relative, whatever. No one asks the relationship. I don’t see why this could not have been a viable option.