With a "conscience-protection amendment," how are Catholic negatively affected by (SSCUs)?

[Miserissima]

Provoked to deeper thought by this thread:
Does gay marriage harm heterosexuals and their families? How?

and this thread:
State moves to restrict Catholics in politics,

I was concerned time that SSCUs would mean that the Church could be sued or at least lose it’s tax exemption status for not recognizing or performing SSCUs. However, that is not the case.

Yesterday I read an editorial in the Examiner with a critical eye and this paragraph resonated with me:

… the Bridgeport Diocese fought to ensure that a law instituting gay marriage included a provision protecting the right of churches to set their own rules. In effect, the church wouldn’t resist gay marriage as long as nobody would force the church to conduct or recognize gay marriages. The Bridgeport Diocese home page encouraged Catholics to call for a conscience-protection amendment to the gay marriage bill, which was eventually included.

Please disregard the State of Connecticut’s current retaliation over lobbying laws, and focus on the “conscience protection amendment” for a moment. Isn’t that alone, a victory?

Question 1: With a “conscience-protection amendment,” how are we negatively affected by Same Sex Civil Unions (SSCUs)?

Because residents of a state are allowed the the ‘civil liberty,’ it does not mean that as Catholics, heterosexual married couples, and Catholics with same sex attraction (SSA) have to exercise said civil liberty, and because of our formed consciences, we wouldn’t.

I am not advocating SSCUs (as they are different from the fundamentals of true “marriage”). However, I can’t see where SSCUs would impact my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

We don’t even have to recognize SSCUs either socially or within the framework of our institution. Taking the social aspect a step further, however, it would negatively affect me is if I spoke out against gay marriage on philosphical reasons and was cited for “hate speech.”

Question 2: What has been the reaction of the orthodox Catholics in Spain in reaction to the same issue?

 

[True_Believer_1]

And here, perhaps, is an example of what could be the greatest weapon of the dark side. Political Correctness.

You see something as wrong, you do not in anyway support the behavior, (in this case same sex marriage) but still you look for a compromise. You do not want to hurt any feelings or to be judged yourself as being hateful.

When something is wrong, it is wrong. The people that are taking part in the activity, while I’m sure that many are quite wonderful folks, are also wrong.They need to recognise the error of their ways and seek forgiveness from God, Period!

As Catholics we have a duty to stand firmly, yet lovingly against all that is wrong in this world. Believe me, I am the first to admit that I am a fallen man. I constantly error and drift away from the ways of Christ. But, I do not give up. I continue to fight the good fight, and to run the good race.

Like that old saying goes, Hate the sin, Love the sinner. This does not mean that we have to spare the feelings of the sinner. We need to continue to stand up and call a spade a spade. Homosexual activity is wrong! Abortion is Wrong! Pre-marital sex is wrong! Men & Women living together outside of marriage is wrong!

I hold these to be absolutes! Do I know people who take part in some of these activities? Yes I do, and they know how I feel. I pray for them, but I do not apologise.

So, don’t be wishy-washy. Be either hot or cold. Pick a side and defend that opinion with passion.

May God Bless You Always!

NOT JUST STRONG…CATHOLIC STRONG!!!

 

[Miserissima]

You see something as wrong, you do not in anyway support the behavior, (in this case same sex marriage) but still you look for a compromise. You do not want to hurt any feelings or to be judged yourself as being hateful.

I demur and apologize if that is how my statements were written.

So, don’t be wishy-washy. Be either hot or cold. Pick a side and defend that opinion with passion.

I understand that it is inherently wrong. I have chosen a side. I am looking for reasoning to defend my position.

Perhaps you may try to help me to answer my questions.

Question 1: With a “conscience-protection amendment,” how are we negatively affected by Same Sex Civil Unions (SSCUs)?
Question 2: What has been the reaction of the orthodox Catholics in Spain in reaction to the same issue?

Perhaps these questions weren’t clearly pointed out. I am asking how SSCUs hurt American society, both secular and religious aspects, to include finances, immigration, insurances such as health care, etc. – not just the Body of Christ.

Since we would have the separation of church and state as demonstrated in the conscience protection amendment, the moral aspect is very well defined. What are the *other *reasons that we may explain that it is in the public interest to not allow SSCUs?

…and what have the Catholics in Spain done about the similar situation there?

 

[BobCatholic]

SSCU’s will be used to deprive Catholics and other Christians of their freedom of religion.

 

[Corki]

The conscience protection as stated above looks like it would protect parishes and allow them to only marry one man to one woman.

I am not so worried about the parishes as the schools.

What about the Catholic school that offers benefits for the spouses of teachers? Would they be forced to included SS partners?

And what if a teacher applicant was in a SSCU? Would the school be allowed to refuse to hire him/her under their morals clause?

Many Catholic schools use state approved text books in order to maintain consistency. Will those texts now contain references to SSCU as a valid and acceptable form of family?

Not to mention the kids and teachers in public schools who will almost surely be forced to give at least lip service to the validity of SSCU as acceptable. Faliure to do so would probably cost a teacher his/her job and get a student labled as intolerant and ssent to counseling.

Would Catholic hospitals be forced to recognize SSCUs as on par with marriage for purposes of employee benefits and privacy laws?

Would Catholic Social Services be forced to offer “marriage” counseling to couples in a SSCU if they offer that service to married couples?

All of the above are negative effects that Catholics and others opposed to SSCUs would be forced to endure.

 

[Drawmack]

What about the Catholic school that offers benefits for the spouses of teachers? Would they be forced to included SS partners?

That would depend on how they write their contracts. Just have them word the contract as something like, “The spouse of any teacher in a Church recognized Sacramental Marriage is eligible…” This will discourage all married non-Catholics from working in the Catholic school system, which I think is a good idea. And, contractual terms cannot be deemed rights violations because one of your rights is the right to give up your rights.

And what if a teacher applicant was in a SSCU? Would the school be allowed to refuse to hire him/her under their morals clause?

Does an employer have to provide a reason they decided not to hire someone?

Many Catholic schools use state approved text books in order to maintain consistency. Will those texts now contain references to SSCU as a valid and acceptable form of family?

The Catholic schools do not have to do this, they could use non-approved books if they chose.

Not to mention the kids and teachers in public schools who will almost surely be forced to give at least lip service to the validity of SSCU as acceptable. Faliure to do so would probably cost a teacher his/her job and get a student labled as intolerant and ssent to counseling.

I’ve worked in corporations where corporate policy was in conflict with my personal stance and I learned two words very quickly, “No Comment.”

Would Catholic hospitals be forced to recognize SSCUs as on par with marriage for purposes of employee benefits and privacy laws?

See Above for employee benefits. For privacy laws, yeah probably they would have to recognize the marriage in that case, but really how does that affect anything?

Would Catholic Social Services be forced to offer “marriage” counseling to couples in a SSCU if they offer that service to married couples?

With what recently happened in England this could be a worry, but I think a bit of linguistic gymnastics can fix the problem. Stop providing marriage counseling and start providing Sacramental marriage counseling. No Sacrament; no counseling.

I offer these for points of discussion, not points of contention.

 

[Brendan]

How about Catholics who have kids in the public schools. Will they have the right to reject any texts or assignments that portray a SCCM lifestyle as equal to that of marriage?

Will they be informed with lectures will cover the subject so that they can pull their kids out?

 

[Corki]

That would depend on how they write their contracts. Just have them word the contract as something like, “The spouse of any teacher in a Church recognized Sacramental Marriage is eligible…” This will discourage all married non-Catholics from working in the Catholic school system, which I think is a good idea. And, contractual terms cannot be deemed rights violations because one of your rights is the right to give up your rights.

Even in this market it is hard to staff a Catholic school with only Catholic teachers. And private schools, even with teachers’ contracts, are not exempt from federal and state employment laws. A requirement like that is unlikely to pass scrutiny as a BFJQ (bona fide job qualification). BFJQs are the only real way to exempt the hiring for a position from a protected class EEO requirement. You might be able to stretch a BFJQ for a teacher but not for other staff members. Can you think of anyway to say, for example, that faithful Catholicism is a BFJQ for the school bookkeeper?

Does an employer have to provide a reason they decided not to hire someone?

Not at the time of hire. But if a less qualified person is ultimately hired, they have to be able to defend the hiring decision to the EEOC or the state equivalent.

The Catholic schools do not have to do this, they could use non-approved books if they chose.

They could, but this would drive the cost of Catholic education through the roof. So again, this is an example of a negative effect of SSCUs on the Catholic education system and Catholic parents.

I’ve worked in corporations where corporate policy was in conflict with my personal stance and I learned two words very quickly, “No Comment.”

Me too. My career was in human resources and “no comment” was one of my top ten responses to many topics. But for an individual in a job that does not usually call for such circumspection, this amounts to a reduction of freedom of speech when compared to other individuals in the same job.

See Above for employee benefits. For privacy laws, yeah probably they would have to recognize the marriage in that case, but really how does that affect anything?

Additional paperwork and exposure for the hospital and hospital staff.

With what recently happened in England this could be a worry, but I think a bit of linguistic gymnastics can fix the problem. Stop providing marriage counseling and start providing Sacramental marriage counseling. No Sacrament; no counseling.

In the US, this would be hard to implement. Catholic Social Services is not service **for **Catholics but rather an outreach and social ministry of the Catholic Church to the larger community.

I offer these for points of discussion, not points of contention

Thanks. And I don’t disagree that there are “work arounds” for all of these issues. But all of the accomodations would be either expensive or morally distasteful for those involved. So, the assertion that SSCUs can **cause negative effects ** (the original question) for others can be stated affirmatively.

 

[Corki]

How about Catholics who have kids in the public schools. Will they have the right to reject any texts or assignments that portray a SCCM lifestyle as equal to that of marriage?

Will they be informed with lectures will cover the subject so that they can pull their kids out?

I am guessing it would depend on the state and subject. For example, in Texas, parents have the right to exempt their children from sex ed when it is taught as part of a health class. They do not have that right, or even the right to be notified, if sex ed is taught as part of a science class. SS partnering would likely be presented in social studies or even literature classes and pull outs (at least in Texas) would not be a right parents would have in that case. In the science example, for instance, I know parents who are very proactive and stay on top of the progress of class so they can make sure their kids aren’t in class those days but it is at a cost to the student as an unexcused absence and sometimes a “zero” for the day.

 

[Drawmack]

How about Catholics who have kids in the public schools. Will they have the right to reject any texts or assignments that portray a SCCM lifestyle as equal to that of marriage?

Will they be informed with lectures will cover the subject so that they can pull their kids out?

If you place your child in public school, you agree to the public school curriculum. If you want your child to have an education in alignment with Catholic moral teaching put them in Catholic school. This is not a valid argument because the school’s job is not to enforce your morality. If your kids are in public school they are already being taught about birth control and abortion as family planning. C’mon really, this is a red herring.

 

[Brendan]

If you place your child in public school, you agree to the public school curriculum. If you want your child to have an education in alignment with Catholic moral teaching put them in Catholic school.

That is not always an option for all parents, especially rural ones. And homeschooling is very difficult in some states.

Do rural parents have less of a right to ma

This is not a valid argument because the school’s job is not to enforce your morality.

But if they are presenting SSCU as an equvalant lifestyle to traditional marriage, or telling kids that they must accept such arrangements, then the school IS making a moral judgement.

And, you will note, I didn’t ask that the school teach a particular morality, only to inform me when they are making moral judgements that I might oppose so I might pull my kids out of class then.

If your kids are in public school they are already being taught about birth control and abortion as family planning. C’mon really, this is a red herring.

That is why we homeschool, and I am fortunate to be in a state where doing so is allowed with relative freedom. Many others are not.

As I mentioned, this is one area where SSCU’s negatively affect Catholics. It empowers (and in some states MANDATES) that SSCU’s are presented as acceptable.

 

[Corki]

If you place your child in public school, you agree to the public school curriculum. If you want your child to have an education in alignment with Catholic moral teaching put them in Catholic school. This is not a valid argument because the school’s job is not to enforce your morality. If your kids are in public school they are already being taught about birth control and abortion as family planning. C’mon really, this is a red herring.

Not to the question at hand. The question on the table is how are Catholics negatively affected by SSCUs. You may think that a negative effect is unimportant or that what is negative for some (Catholics) is a positive effect for others (hiomosexuals) but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t still a negative effect.

For those who think that SSMs or SSCUs have a positive effect on society, the burden is on them to prove that the positives for homosexuals outweigh the negatives for the rest of us. That is a whole other debate. The point is that those who say it doesn’t affect anyone else are just wrong. It does affect us and not in a good way.

 

[Corki]

If you place your child in public school, you agree to the public school curriculum. If you want your child to have an education in alignment with Catholic moral teaching put them in Catholic school. This is not a valid argument because the school’s job is not to enforce your morality. If your kids are in public school they are already being taught about birth control and abortion as family planning. C’mon really, this is a red herring.

That statement (in bold) is simply not true. How many people have access to the actual curriculum being taught in the public schools let alone give any informed consent to it? Placing a child in a public school is not a statement of agreement with the curriculum nor an abrogation of decision making as to what is taught to our children.

 

[Drawmack]

Even in this market it is hard to staff a Catholic school with only Catholic teachers. And private schools, even with teachers’ contracts, are not exempt from federal and state employment laws. A requirement like that is unlikely to pass scrutiny as a BFJQ (bona fide job qualification). BFJQs are the only real way to exempt the hiring for a position from a protected class EEO requirement. You might be able to stretch a BFJQ for a teacher but not for other staff members. Can you think of anyway to say, for example, that faithful Catholicism is a BFJQ for the school bookkeeper?

It is not a job qualification, it is an insurance qualification. Yes, in this market it is hard to staff a Catholic school period, because many Catholic schools pay less than their public counter parts. This might be false in your particular area, but nationwide it is pretty normal for the Catholic Schools to pay less. While it’s a different discussion, I think this should be corrected.

Not at the time of hire. But if a less qualified person is ultimately hired, they have to be able to defend the hiring decision to the EEOC or the state equivalent.

And, here the question is in the words “less qualified”. I think it would be valid to say that as an institution the school is supposed to uphold and portray Catholic morals. Therefore someone who actually portrays and upholds these morals is intrinsically more qualified than someone who lives in opposition to them.

They could, but this would drive the cost of Catholic education through the roof. So again, this is an example of a negative effect of SSCUs on the Catholic education system and Catholic parents.

It is probably just my lack of knowledge here, but why would using non-state approved texts drive costs through the roof? Additionally there other ways to keep costs under control, like allowing parents to get a discount if the volunteer at the school, thus keeping labor costs down. Let’s look back and see how the Catholic school system made it through the great depression. I bet there’s some stuff in there we can use even if we don’t have the clergy and religious to staff it with “free labor” (by the way if you’re feeding, clothing, and housing these people it’s not really free).

Me too. My career was in human resources and “no comment” was one of my top ten responses to many topics. But for an individual in a job that does not usually call for such circumspection, this amounts to a reduction of freedom of speech when compared to other individuals in the same job.

Ummm, I was working as a teacher when I had to do that. It’s common in the education field because not every teacher agrees with every decision made and I refused to lie.

Additional paperwork and exposure for the hospital and hospital staff.

I’m sorry, but this is simply put not a valid argument against what I said. You are claiming that if a Catholic hospital has to provide care to a person who is part of a homosexual union this is going to somehow make paperwork appear out of nowhere. Paperwork is not just going to fall from the ceiling if this happens. Additionally, what do you mean by “exposure for the hospital and hospital staff”? Exposure to what? Homosexuality? Do you really think that a Catholic hospital would turn away a homosexual in need of treatment today?

In the US, this would be hard to implement. Catholic Social Services is not service **for **Catholics but rather an outreach and social ministry of the Catholic Church to the larger community.

So, you don’t word it exactly like I said. You say something like you provide male - female counseling.

Thanks. And I don’t disagree that there are “work arounds” for all of these issues. But all of the accomodations would be either expensive or morally distasteful for those involved. So, the assertion that SSCUs can **cause negative effects ** (the original question) for others can be stated affirmatively.

I’m just continuing in the same vein. After all, if no one challenges the claims then we can’t formulate reasonable arguments based on fact.

 

[Drawmack]

That statement (in bold) is simply not true. How many people have access to the actual curriculum being taught in the public schools

Everyone. The public school is a state entity and it’s employees are state employees. This means that you can get access to the curriculum, teacher’s salaries, etc if you choose. As a state entity they are liable to uphold the freedom of information act. The fact that most people don’t bother is their own fault; not the state’s. I get the curriculum every summer before my daughter starts a new grade and I review it. It takes one phone call and then I go pick it up. They won’t provide me with the text books so I have to buy them. But they have to, by law, provide me with the curriculum. If the school argues with you about this, which they have been known to do just get a friend with Esq. after their name to make the call, that usually clears things right up.

let alone give any informed consent to it?

If someone chooses not to inform themselves about what their child is being taught at school, this is their fault. They have, by non-action, given up their own right to informed consent when they decided their child wasn’t worth the effort to inform themselves; it was not taken from them.

Placing a child in a public school is not a statement of agreement with the curriculum nor an abrogation of decision making as to what is taught to our children.

Yes, it is. When you place your kid in a school, ANY SCHOOL, you have made a decision about the environment, attitudes, and knowledge your child will be exposed to – period! And, don’t get on a high horse about it I send my daughter to public school because in the municipality she lives in the public school demonstrates better student performance than the Catholic school for her grade. However, every year I review the curriculum first.

If you do not like what is being taught in the public schools than it is your responsibility, as a parent, to look into alternative means of educating your child to avoid this. It is not the state’s responsibility to provide education which does not go against Catholic morals. If this were the case, it would be the state’s responsibility to provide education which did not go against anyone’s morals and that is, quite simply, impossible.

 

[Brendan]

If you do not like what is being taught in the public schools than it is your responsibility, as a parent, to look into alternative means of educating your child to avoid this. It is not the state’s responsibility to provide education which does not go against Catholic morals. If this were the case, it would be the state’s responsibility to provide education which did not go against anyone’s morals and that is, quite simply, impossible.

But if SSM\SSCU do not not exist, the state has no right or obligation to teach about it, correct?

So the very existance of legal SSM\SSCU has a negative effect on Catholic parents (which is the whole point of the thread). It means that they must either withdraw their child from the public school system or have their child exposed to it in a way that is contrary to how they want their child instructed, and in a way that did not exist when the child was enrolled.

So we have now agreed that Catholic parents would now be negatively affected by this.

 

[Corki]

Everyone. The public school is a state entity and it’s employees are state employees. This means that you can get access to the curriculum, teacher’s salaries, etc if you choose. As a state entity they are liable to uphold the freedom of information act. The fact that most people don’t bother is their own fault; not the state’s. I get the curriculum every summer before my daughter starts a new grade and I review it. It takes one phone call and then I go pick it up. They won’t provide me with the text books so I have to buy them. But they have to, by law, provide me with the curriculum. If the school argues with you about this, which they have been known to do just get a friend with Esq. after their name to make the call, that usually clears things right up.

You are only getting the parts of the curriculum that the school has available and choses to share with you. In most schools, lesson plans are approved a few weeks ahead of delivery. You couldn’t get a PIR response that fast and would have to make repeated requests through the year. What you are probably viewing is the scope and sequence documents. And you are unlikely to get any information at all with regard to “teacher created material”.

If someone chooses not to inform themselves about what their child is being taught at school, this is their fault. They have, by non-action, given up their own right to informed consent when they decided their child wasn’t worth the effort to inform themselves; it was not taken from them.

Yes, it is. When you place your kid in a school, ANY SCHOOL, you have made a decision about the environment, attitudes, and knowledge your child will be exposed to – period! And, don’t get on a high horse about it I send my daughter to public school because in the municipality she lives in the public school demonstrates better student performance than the Catholic school for her grade. However, every year I review the curriculum first.

I am not on any “high horse”. You have made a choice that academic performance is a high priority for you in your choice of school. But that only means that you are willing to tolerate or ameliorate any of the material that is taught to your daughter that might be offensive to you. It does not mean that anyone should infer your agreement with all of the material. My kids are in Catholic schools and I still don’t agree with everything that they are taught. My choice of school just means that overall it is the best choice for me and my children.

If you do not like what is being taught in the public schools than it is your responsibility, as a parent, to look into alternative means of educating your child to avoid this. It is not the state’s responsibility to provide education which does not go against Catholic morals. If this were the case, it would be the state’s responsibility to provide education which did not go against anyone’s morals and that is, quite simply, impossible.

You are right that that would be an impossible task. But why should the state provide education that goes against the majority of the citizens’ morals simply to forward a progressive agenda? but again, just because the state does it and we may have to live with it, doesn’t mean that there is no negative effect.

 

[Drawmack]

But if SSM\SSCU do not not exist, the state has no right or obligation to teach about it, correct?

So the very existance of legal SSM\SSCU has a negative effect on Catholic parents (which is the whole point of the thread). It means that they must either withdraw their child from the public school system or have their child exposed to it in a way that is contrary to how they want their child instructed, and in a way that did not exist when the child was enrolled.

So we have now agreed that Catholic parents would now be negatively affected by this.

I never said that they wouldn’t be negatively affected. My point is that I actually think it might be positive for the children and the Church if something changed the status qua with Catholics sending their kids to public school. It might make parents who have been sending their kids to a school which teaches that sex education equates to safe sex and has the nurses giving out condoms for free to step up and put them into Catholic Schools, or at least charter schools that don’t teach this. That is why when my daughter hits 9th grade she will be attending a Catholic school. The public schools are already, vastly, out of sync with Catholic morals and most Catholic parents don’t even seem to care. Maybe if something changed to make them care it would actually be a good thing.

 

[Brendan]

I never said that they wouldn’t be negatively affected. My point is that I actually think it might be positive for the children and the Church if something changed the status qua with Catholics sending their kids to public school…

It certainly would be ideal if Catholics did not have their kids in public school, but alternatives have never been universally available.

There are no Catholic schools near where I live, for example. We homeschool instead, but Michigan is a very good state for homeschooling. Others are not all that fortunate.