Social "equality" for gays

[Newbie2]

I just read an article about gay “marriage” in California, and got to thinking. As Catholics, of course, marriage has been, is, and will always be between a man and an woman forever more, amen.

What I understand is that what might be called a “gay agenda” is to have “gay marriage” recognized on the same civil level as real marriage, with all the “civil rights” conferred therein.

Short of that, what do you think about, for example, legally allowing hospital visitation rights to non-spouses i.e. hetersexual cohabitators, gay couples, friends, as long as it was signed, sealed, notarized, etc. by both parties?

I would think this could be done in a “non-homosexual agenda” manner, that is to allow it for any two non-related people. It doesn’t seem right to me that society would disallow a non-relative to make legal medical decisions, gay or not, if both people decide that is the authority that they’d like to legally give to the other person.

I guess this isn’t necessarily a “gay” only issue…it just happened to come to mind when I read the article.

What do you think?

 

[Penny_Plain]

Works for me, but I’m a supporter of the “homosexual agenda,” so maybe I’m not the right person to ask.

GAY MARRIAGES FOR EVERYONE!!!

Just kidding about the “everyone” part.

There are a lot of legal rights that married people have that other people don’t. Often, people don’t think about those rights until they need to use them. It is maybe possible to figure out what all of those rights are and tell people exactly what they need to do to be able to exercise them.

It ignores everything we know about human nature to expect that people actually will. Most people (before the age of 50, anyway) don’t think about what would happen if they were lying in a hospital bed unable to communicate. Even if they do, most of them aren’t going to pay a lawyer to draw up a document to take care of the issue.

And I think a document called a “health care power of attorney” already exists, although I am not certain.

 

[rpp]

Works for me, but I’m a supporter of the “homosexual agenda,” so maybe I’m not the right person to ask.

GAY MARRIAGES FOR EVERYONE!!!

Just kidding about the “everyone” part.

There are a lot of legal rights that married people have that other people don’t. Often, people don’t think about those rights until they need to use them. It is maybe possible to figure out what all of those rights are and tell people exactly what they need to do to be able to exercise them.

It ignores everything we know about human nature to expect that people actually will. Most people (before the age of 50, anyway) don’t think about what would happen if they were lying in a hospital bed unable to communicate. Even if they do, most of them aren’t going to pay a lawyer to draw up a document to take care of the issue.

And I think a document called a “health care power of attorney” already exists, although I am not certain.

You position is not consistent with Catholic teaching.

Your profile says you are Catholic.

 

[hasikelee]

I just read an article about gay “marriage” in California, and got to thinking. As Catholics, of course, marriage has been, is, and will always be between a man and an woman forever more, amen.

What I understand is that what might be called a “gay agenda” is to have “gay marriage” recognized on the same civil level as real marriage, with all the “civil rights” conferred therein.

Short of that, what do you think about, for example, legally allowing hospital visitation rights to non-spouses i.e. hetersexual cohabitators, gay couples, friends, as long as it was signed, sealed, notarized, etc. by both parties?

I would think this could be done in a “non-homosexual agenda” manner, that is to allow it for any two non-related people. It doesn’t seem right to me that society would disallow a non-relative to make legal medical decisions, gay or not, if both people decide that is the authority that they’d like to legally give to the other person.

I guess this isn’t necessarily a “gay” only issue…it just happened to come to mind when I read the article.

What do you think?

I am in no way dismissing the possibility that people have experienced discrimination, but it is my understanding that with proper legal counsel, people can receive many of the benefits married couples receive.

Visitation rights, for example, are a commonly used argument. Except in a few hidden places, I can’t imagine this is still a problem. Remember when men married to pregnant women were banned from the delivery room?

Estate problems are one of preparation such as having the proper documentation and a will written up and notarized.

Insurance problems can be anticipated. All one has to do is research a company before working for that company. I know the company I work for insures just about any type of couple/family you can think to put together.

 

[Penny_Plain]

You position is not consistent with Catholic teaching.

Your profile says you are Catholic.

Wow. You got me.

What happens now?

 

[rpp]

Wow. You got me.

What happens now?

I suspect this question was asked in something other than earnest. But I will treat it as an honest question.

You really have two choices.

Humbly learn what the Church teaches and why. Then conform your conscience to what the Church teaches.

or

Continue to operate on the belief that you are smarter and more holy than the Pope and God and continue to believe this way. Oh, and you should call yourself “protestant” and not Catholic.

If you choose the later, you should never receive Holy Communion.

 

[Penny_Plain]

I suspect this question was asked in something other than earnest. But I will treat it as an honest question.

You really have two choices.

Humbly learn what the Church teaches and why. Then conform your conscience to what the Church teaches.

or

Continue to operate on the belief that you are smarter and more holy than the Pope and God and continue to believe this way. Oh, and you should call yourself “protestant” and not Catholic.

If you choose the later, you should never receive Holy Communion.

And you were correct. It was asked from malevolent – almost demonic, really – curiosity, not from any sincere desire to learn.

(sigh)

I’m just so BAD.

I am not in the mood to hijack this thread anymore than I already have. I would suggest, though, that one can learn what the Church teaches and why, disagree with it, and still not set oneself up as being “smarter and more holy than the Pope and God.” There’s a middle ground.

 

[rpp]

And you were correct. It was asked from malevolent – almost demonic, really – curiosity, not from any sincere desire to learn.

(sigh)

I’m just so BAD.

I am not in the mood to hijack this thread anymore than I already have. I would suggest, though, that one can learn what the Church teaches and why, disagree with it, and still not set oneself up as being "smarter and more holy than the Pope and God." There’s a middle ground.

This attitude is also not supported by Church Teachings.

God did tell us what truths we can choose to believe and which we can disregard.

Remember, when you disagree with someone, you believe they are wrong. When you disagree with the constant teachings of the Church, you are claiming the Church is wrong and you are right. That means that you are smarter, and since this is an issue about morality, more holy as well.

There is no middle ground.

And I am not stating this in a malevolent manner. Rather I am saying this in the Ezekiel 3:17-21 in mind.

But if you want to try to fool yourself, go ahead. It is only your immortal soul we are talking about here.

Homosexual acts are gravely disordered. Giving legal protection and recognition to self-destructive behavior because some find it somehow titillating or out of a false sense of fairness, is in fact not fair at all. Those who suffer from same sex urges are being dealt a great dis-service. A person may as well start passing out free beer to alcoholics.

 

[Penny_Plain]

This attitude is also not supported by Church Teachings.

God did tell us what truths we can choose to believe and which we can disregard.

Now that we have that cleared up, can we go back to talking about the topic?

 

[mlchance]

There are a lot of legal rights that married people have that other people don’t.

Such as? I often hear people say this, but no one ever actually lists “a lot of legal rights” being denied unmarried people.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[puzzleannie]

hospital visitation, health care power of attorney, power of attorney, inheritance, guardianship if minor children, property transfer of jointly owned property after death, and most of these other “rights” can be had w/o marriage by executing the appropriate legal documents now.

One right that does need marriage is the right to be taxed at a higher rate on the second income. The other is insurance for spouses on most employer health plans. The California bishops have the solution for this, when forced to provide for gay partners under diocesan health plans, which is simply to allow coverage for all members of a household. That way, we could put our adult (unable to work) child on our health plan (something we cannot do now). But since that frustrates the political agenda it was not accepted.

If you want to know the gay agenda you don’t have to speculate, simply explore the literature, websites and lobbying of groups such as GEAR and Lambda.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Such as? I often hear people say this, but no one ever actually lists “a lot of legal rights” being denied unmarried people.

– Mark L. Chance.

From religioustolerance.org:

Ask and ye shall receive:

Web site logo
Marriage: same-sex and opposite-sex
Legal and economic benefits of marriage

horizontal rule

Sponsored link.

horizontal rule

The following material was provided by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. It is used by permission. The list appears to be based on a request by Representative Henry J Hyde, in 1996-SEP. He was chairperson of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and asked the General Accounting Office “to identify federal laws in which benefits, rights and privileges are contingent on marital status.” Their response, which runs 75 pages, is available online. 1

The list below was compiled for a couple living in the United States. However, similar provisions exist in many other countries.

horizontal rule
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims’ recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more…

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

horizontal rule

yes, some of the above can be arranged through other legal documents-however, that imposes a burden that does not exist for other citizens.

 

[mlchance]

From religioustolerance.org:

Ask and ye shall receive:

Looks more like something akin to bad reasoning to me. For example, does anyone have a right to adopt a child? Is a joint insurance policy for a car a right?

yes, some of the above can be arranged through other legal documents-however, that imposes a burden that does not exist for other citizens.

Taking 15 minutes to fill out a power of attorney or a will is not a burden that justifies redefining marriage to suit the disordered desires of the tiniest percentage of people.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Looks more like something akin to bad reasoning to me. For example, does anyone have a right to adopt a child? Is a joint insurance policy for a car a right?

Taking 15 minutes to fill out a power of attorney or a will is not a burden that justifies redefining marriage to suit the disordered desires of the tiniest percentage of people.

– Mark L. Chance.

how about the cost of the lawyer? does a married couple have to do that? I can imagine the screaming and yelling if they did!

As we learned during the civil rights era, in secular law equal means equal. Not some separate version of equal, just equal.

 

[steveandersen]

From religioustolerance.org:

Ask and ye shall receive:

yes, some of the above can be arranged through other legal documents-however, that imposes a burden that does not exist for other citizens.

Everyone is under the same constraints when it comes to marriage.
Straight people have no more rights than gay people do.

In order to marry your prospective spouse must be above a certain age, beyond certain limits of consanguinity, must consent, must be able to give consent, must not be already married, there may be some blood tests involved, and the parties must be of the opposite sex.

That is it. Those rules apply to all.

The notion that this is some sort of equal protection issue just baffles me.

Calling a homosexual pair bond a marriage is like calling a dog a cat. There is nothing wrong with a dog… it just ain’t a cat.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

yes, some of the above can be arranged through other legal documents-however, that imposes a burden that does not exist for other citizens.

IANAL, but it is my very basic understanding is that property goes to next of kin in case. However, most lawyers will state, even if this is the case, that it is still a good idea to draw up clear documents anyways - for this as well as any other issues that may arise. This is just an act of “prudence” for all parties.

Also, many of these documents are standard, so a lawyer may have a flat rate and may want to sit with you for an hour or two. Doesn’t sound so burdensome to me.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Everyone is under the same constraints when it comes to marriage.
Straight people have no more rights than gay people do.

In order to marry your prospective spouse must be above a certain age, beyond certain limits of consanguinity, must consent, must be able to give consent, must not be already married, there may be some blood tests involved, and the parties must be of the opposite sex.

That is it. Those rules apply to all.

The notion that this is some sort of equal protection issue just baffles me.

Calling a homosexual pair bond a marriage is like calling a dog a cat. There is nothing wrong with a dog… it just ain’t a cat.

To a Catholic, yes-marriage cannot exist between members of the same sex. There is no question about how the Catholic church defines gay marriage. However, California and Massachusetts are NOT run by the Catholic Church and neither is the rest of the United States. If you want to live in a country where the rules of the Catholic church are the rules of law for all society, I would suggest an apartment in Vatican City.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Everyone is under the same constraints when it comes to marriage.
Straight people have no more rights than gay people do.

I guess it depends on how you frame the right.

Straight people have the right to marry the person whom they love and to whom they are sexually attracted. Gay people, not so much.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I guess it depends on how you frame the right.

Straight people have the right to marry the person whom they love and to whom they are sexually attracted. Gay people, not so much.

Why is it so important for gay people to “marry” anyways? Just because it “feels” good, even though there’s scientific, socilogical, religous and philisophical arguements stating it may not be a good idea?

 

[steveandersen]

To a Catholic, yes-marriage cannot exist between members of the same sex. There is no question about how the Catholic church defines gay marriage. However, California and Massachusetts are NOT run by the Catholic Church and neither is the rest of the United States. If you want to live in a country where the rules of the Catholic church are the rules of law for all society, I would suggest an apartment in Vatican City.

Is “lump it or leave it” the phrase you were looking for? I haven’t heard that one in a while.

I live in a place where we can disagree and I won’t ask you to move.

If the civil government, through the voice of the people, wants to call a dog a cat they are perfectly free do so

A dog still isn’t a cat though