Redefining marriage won't affect religious liberty? Tell that to this Catholic hospital in New York:
A lawsuit that could impact religious liberty in at least six states — and which also has implications for the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — was filed in a federal district court in New York Tuesday.
St. Joseph’s Medical Center — a Catholic hospital in Westchester — and Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, the private company that insures it, are the targets of a class-action lawsuit waged by an employee who was denied spousal benefits for her partner. The two women — named as Jane Doe and Jane Roe in the lawsuit — were legally married after the New York Legislature created same-sex marriage last year.
“I remember almost a year ago when this bill was signed into law, we were told that it would have no impact on religious freedoms,” said the Rev. Jason McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. “Less than a year later it’s very clear that gay marriage is indeed having an impact on religious freedom here in the Empire State.”
St. Joseph’s Medical Center insurance plan is self-financed, which means it falls under federal law — -i.e., DOMA — rather than the laws of New York State.
“Our clients have a right to enjoy the full benefits of marriage afforded to other married couples in New York,” said the women’s lawyer, Jeffrey Norton, “and we are determined to achieve that right for them.”
Norton told CitizenLink any business headquartered in New York — or any of the other five states which currently allow same-sex marriage — must be governed by the laws of that state. -- CitizenLink
65 Comments
Of course, the liberals always have an excuse. They believe they're not hurting the churches, however if it's a religious facility other than a church, then it's fair game to the social left.
But then they'll turn around and say "there is no war on religion". And we all know that's a bald face lie.
No war on religion, Zach. Just a war on discrimination.
OK, let's add this story to the Minnesota Marriage Minute, as well as to ads that will run in states with marriage battles.
I'm hoping to see this news shared in coming days by the Maryland Marriage Alliance.
@Doug
So discriminate against people of faith which is a direct violation of the 1st amendment and the fabricated "Separation of Church and State" law that social liberals throw out.
That makes perfect sense.
If the claimants paid taxes, and those taxes were used to fund a medical facility (church affiliated or not) then said taxpayer should receive the same benefits as any other taxpayer.
Zack, the opposition knows what they're doing, but they're entirely focused on their agenda and they simply don't care about the consequences of their actions. They are bulls in a china closet.
We just need to keep sharing the stories and trust readers to determine whether their freedoms are important to them or not. I believe that the more people learn about the negative consequences of marriage redefinition the less likely they are to support it.
GZeus,
The article clearly states that they are a privatley funded institution.
Barb @ 3, I totally agree...
GZene,
Glad you brought up the tax issue: Sexual orientation speaking, who makes up the tax payer pool? what % is of the tax payer pool consider themselves to be gay or in a SSU? Then, tell me why would the majority pay benefits for a minority who wants to discriminate against the sexes, or find same sex partnering to be morally wrong.
And, how does the want of this group constitutionally translate into a right for benefits equal to the opposition?
@Barb
Oh I understand entirely. It's amusing and sad at once.
It's like a child lieing about taking a cookie even though his hand is in the jar.
A 3 % taxpayer pool in the US as a whole, does not represent a taxpayer in my book... Now, divide that number between all 50 US States, you do math or the lack there of, is hardly a contributor to the hospital.
Better come up with a better delusion to get us to believe that argument.
So... providing health insurance to employees and their spouses/partners is... a religious act? You guys do realize you're talking about the availability of employee-subsidized health insurance, correct? We're not talking about denial of the sacrament of communion or forcing the Catholic Church to oversee a marriage ceremony for a gay couple, right?
Glad your religious freedom trumps the health care costs of an individual who is not of your religion...
Is it me, or is the so called 'separation of church and state" only apply to the church?
Is it a religious freedom to deny health insurance benefits to those you morally disapprove of (RJ asked the question better, so see his post #10)?
This debate of "religious freedom" vs. "SSM" is a confusing one, as it seems losing the "freedom" to deny health benefits is not really losing a "freedom" at all, whereas being denied the ability to marry the person one has fallen in love with does seem like quite the denial of "freedom". If there were a religion that had moral disapproval of , should they be allowed to deny health care benefits to only employees of that minority?
Disgusting to know that if you are a small enough minority you just dont coutn at all. Shame on you NOMer's
RJ, because the church, the Catholics don't want to be seen as indorsing same sex marriage. Yet those couplings are not banned from receiving Insurance, just not as a couple that would represent sponsorship. Most of society including Internationally, don't find SSCs equal to GSMs and rightly so. SSCs DO NOT hold any value to any society. It is counterproductive, oxymora, irrelevant to the growth and well-being of any society. These relationships serves to destroy lives and meaningful relationships, not create them.
@Leo
Speak with experience or do not speak at all. You know nothing of what you talk about.
Plus, the SSM law in NY is quite frankly a fraud, LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!
Austin, the truth will set you free. beleive it!
@Leo
You're kidding, right? The people elect their representatives who make the law. We live in a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. Did you fail civics?
@Leo
the truth may indeed set you free... but you cannot have any idea of what you are talking about. You spout of generalizations that are only valid to those who never get to know the people they talk about. What gay mend and women actually do is probably much more similar to what you do than you care to admit. In your mind that gay world is one gigantic pride parade and gay sex orgy. Guess what, its not. Well, 364 days a year at least... Pride can get quite enjoyable
Living in a representitive democracy is great and all. However, there are elected officials who are corrupt enough to put their votes up for sale as in the case of the passage of SS"M" in NYS. That is why referendums are useful - as a check and balence against that.
Austin:
This really has nothing to do with whether gays are morally repugnant.
This has to do with whether the Catholic Church can be forced to surrender its beliefs concerning the nature of the man-woman union called marriage.
The answer is no.
You can either try and jam this through the courts and be defeated at SCOTUS, or else wait until Obama is reelected.
If Obama is reelected start building prisons, you are going to need a lot of them, because history ought to have taught you by now that we will never surrender the truth about our nature as man and woman to your "best thinking".
Austin,
I am speaking from experience, I have been a NOM member for three years now, I am well informed about the dangers and ideology of SSRs supports. Checkout NOM archives so you too can get inform and to start seeing this issue more clearly. You'll start to see sodomize as we see them as perverts that need loving reparative treat. Back at you, believe it!
This kind of conflict could be avoided if the US would move away from employer-based health insurance to portable, individually owned health insurance.
Win-Win.
Austin:
To the contrary. The Catholic Church will adhere to the Catholic Faith, everywhere and always, and there is not a force on earth that can prevent us from doing so, by the grace of God.
We precede your civilization and we will succeed it as well; tis is another fact which history has taught you but you refuse to learn.
Now I have good news and bad news.
The good news is you might possibly still succeed in reelecting Obama.
The bad news is you can never build enough prisons to enforce what can not be enforced.
Austin:
(The Cathlic Church can do whatever it pleases in its CHURCHES. But when you step out into the world of commerce and invite people of all religions to work for you and to use your services, you are bound by the rules of the rest of society. )
Defined the rest of society and who makes it up?
Unless Catholics only want to hire Cathloics and give services to Catholics, they need to follow the same set of rules everyone else does.
Follow rules, are you kidding me? Tell that to all of those same sex couples in States like MD and other State, trying to change the marriage laws of that State to gender neutral because they don't want to follow the rules for M/F marriage like every other citizen in that region.
Austin, every time you open your mouth, your foot get stuck in it!
Autin said:
If the Catholic Church doesnt want to play by the rules, then let them pay the taxes everyone else does.
Please refer to my posts @ 7, & 9...
@Leo: "Tell that to all of those same sex couples in States like MD...trying to change the marriage laws of that State to gender neutral because they don't want to follow the rules for M/F marriage like every other citizen..."
Rules? So it's now rule that gay man has to marry a woman? Can you tell me where that's written?
Just because Randy King and OvercameSSA did it doesn't mean the rest of us have any desire to pretend to be straight.
@Leo
Gay men want their coupled relationship to be recognized by the government their taxes go to support just like heterosexual couples. Same goes for lesbian women.
No one is try to tell heterosexual couples that they HAVE to marry anyone. Gay men and women want the priviledge to marry the person they love and to have their commitment recognized by society.
Stop tryting to pretend that gay marriage hurts anyone.
Gay "marriage" hurts everyone, just exactly as a law declaring men women, women men, husbands ives, brides grooms, and children accessories necessarily must.
Lies imposed at the implicit point of a gun are a typical harbinger of a civilization on its way down the tubes.
Gay "marriage" is a lie imposed at the implicit point of a gun.
@Layne
Okay you don't have to pretend anything. But can you please down play a little your love for, your life's passion of, and your utter commitment to, sex, when in the media and public square? For you're paraded and promoted habits can influence the 80 to 97 percent of our nations children who are not born that way, to maybe try that way. And forced to think that way.
That might not bother you in the least. But for others, that just might be the whole issue.
Okay Layne, you don't have to pretend anything. But can you please down play a little your love for, your life's passion of, and your utter commitment to, sex, when in the media and public square? For you're paraded and promoted habits can influence the 80 to 97 percent of our nations children who are not born that way, to maybe try that way. And forced to think that way.
That might not bother you in the least. But for others, that just might be the whole issue.
This only demonstrates that the government enforced redefinition of marriage is unconstitutional. The US Constitution protects the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof - not the freedom of homosexuality.
@ Son of Adam
If America were a Christian nation then I would agree with you. But we are NOT. No one is talking about changing the way current marriage works for those who can marry, the talk is of expanding the right to marry to those who are deserving.
@Rick
No one is calling a bride a groom, a man a woman, or any other horrid thing you can come up with. You are searching to justify a stance that you know is pure discrimination. Nothing about granting the right of homosexuals will change your life. The countries that have gay marriage have survived. The states that have gay marriage have survived. America, too, will survive. The only question remains is will people involved in NOM and the super religious zealots have the courage to change with the times as they have done before. (Slavery, women rights, segregation).
Times change, society evolves, and some people get left behind. The choice is yours.
I like the saying "Your religious freedom ends, where my civil rights begin"
@ Austin
“No one is calling a bride a groom.”
“No one is calling a man a woman.”
“Or any other horrid thing you can come up with.”
No one is calling a same sex union a marriage... that would be horrid wouldn't it?
But thank you for your effort in helping us to evolve.
Austin @ 29:
Gay men want their coupled relationship to be recognized by the government their taxes go to support just like heterosexual couples. Same goes for lesbian women.
Using your tax logic, single people could claim the same benefit as marriage couple, and rightly so. Their tax pool is much bigger then SSM supports. Those is multiple relationship could claim the same tax pool claim. I'm pedophiles would like the government to not label them as molesters; or a smoker to have the right to smoke wherever they want, rules are rules for a reason. Trying to change or modify those rules will effect others.
Austin:
(No one is try to tell heterosexual couples that they HAVE to marry anyone. Gay men and women want the priviledge to marry the person they love and to have their commitment recognized by society.
Stop tryting to pretend that gay marriage hurts anyone.)
So get married or whatever you want to call it, but society ( as stated before, do not want to be force to accept your kind of marriage). Government holds no power over the people when it comes to marriage, people create the government by free exercise( not by force) to vote. That's true democracy.
Stop trying to change our marriage laws and obeying the existing laws including DOMA ( defining true marriage) or don't get "married" at all because you do not qualify. Marriage has been and will always be ( true marriage) between the opposites sex.
So-call gay or homosexual identity politics is just that but pretentious in reality, which holds nothing of value for the betterment of the masses.
Austin @ 29:
Gay men want their coupled relationship to be recognized by the government their taxes go to support just like heterosexual couples. Same goes for lesbian women.
Using your tax logic, single people could claim the same benefit as marriage couple, and rightly so. Their tax pool is much bigger then SSM supports. Those is multiple relationship could claim the same tax pool claim. I'm pedophiles would like the government to not label them as molesters; or a smoker to have the right to smoke wherever they want, rules are rules for a reason. Trying to change or modify those rules will effect others.
Correction:
Austin @ 29:
Gay men want their coupled relationship to be recognized by the government their taxes go to support just like heterosexual couples. Same goes for lesbian women.
Using your tax logic, single people could claim the same benefits as marriage couple do, and rightly so. Their tax pool is much bigger then SSM supporters. Those in multiple relationship could also claim the same tax pool claim. Pedophiles would like the government to stop labeling them as child molesters; or a smoker to have the right to smoke wherever they want, rules are rules for a reason. Trying to change or modify those rules will obviously affect others.
This is not about being a "Christian nation", Austin. That is nothing more than a red herring. This is about how SS"M" compromises civil and religious liberties that the US Constitution protects. And the statement: "Your religious freedom ends, where my civil rights begin" has just as much validity as saying: "Your civil rights end where my religious freedom begins."
Civil rights are not arbitrarily declared by special interest groups based on their sexual desires, Austin. They are listed in the Constitution. And homosexuality is not among them.
I like the saying "Your religious freedom ends, where my civil rights begin"
Interesting saying. Never heard it before. I suspect it's a bastardization of this well known saying:
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Unfortunately, sometimes it's difficult to decide who is the fist and who is the nose.
SoA
Great point. The statement :
"Your religious freedom ends, where my civil rights begin" can be reversed and be just as valid.
The attacks on freedom of religion are coordinated:
"Soros-Funded Group Attacking Bishops on Conscience"
Rightshttp://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/21/soros-funded-group-attacking-bishops-on-conscience-rights/
Austin, don't be so ignorant.
For a quick review. Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me.
Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.
Whenever unnatural homosexual sexual behavior is wholeheartedly accepted, religious freedom is always attacked and marginalized.
Alas, Steve, you are right.
How many years we wasted imagining that a decent accommodation of "legitimate" homosexual grievances could be made, say, in the form of civil unions.
This is a war between two completely irreconcilable world views, and only one can prevail.
The election this November will settle the question of marriage, one way or the other.
If we run the table and defeat Obama, SS"M" will have reached its high-water mark, and will recede, whether quickly or slowly.
The alternative is too awful to contemplate.
Leo at 15:
We're not talking about a church. We are talking about an employee in a hospital owned and run by the Roman Catholic Church and most definitely benefiting from public subsidies.
Furthermore, we are talking about the health and well being of a spouse of one of the hospital's employees. The moment the hospital board decided to act according to their own religious beliefs and inspire harm towards another individual through denial of health insurance coverage is the moment they crossed the line.
The only way the Roman Catholic Church can endorse marriage for gay couples is by presiding over those marriage ceremonies. Providing health insurance to a spouse of an employee is a matter of fact: not an option based on what type of spouse the employer wishes to cover.
"SSCs DO NOT hold any value to any society." Yes, we do. Many gay couples adopt orphan children and provide them with safety, health, family, and love. Many purchase homes in all types of neighborhoods and improve the quality of said neighborhoods. All couples, ALL families, if serving society as a whole, are a huge benefit to society. Don't let your disgusting animus blind you to that.
Rick at 26:
"To the contrary. The Catholic Church will adhere to the Catholic Faith, everywhere and always, and there is not a force on earth that can prevent us from doing so, by the grace of God."
But there is, especially in the way of secular workplaces. If you, as a Roman Catholic, reject hiring someone or terminate someone's job on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, you can end up facing severe monetary fines to both the state and the individual experiencing harm caused by you "following your religion".
Learn this: In the secular workplace - and that is any workplace that is either private or receives tax payer moneys to operate - or provides a public service - discrimination against individuals on any grounds in most states in this country is not an exercise in religious freedom. Employing someone and treating all employees and their families equally does not violate one's religious freedoms since it is NOT an exercise in religion.
RJ:
Your word salad @52 is a ruse. The issue is whether Catholic institutions are required to acquiesce in the lie of same sex marriage, in any way whatever.
The answer is no.
Now.
There is a contest between us, as to whether the secular law shall uphold the religious freedom of Catholic institutions to uphold marriage.
I expect we will win.
It would make no difference at all should we lose, except that you would be faced with the prospect of building a great many prisons.
Hope this helps.
Whether one believes that this is a good or bad thing, whether one believes it is just or unjust, there is no doubt that it resulted from the enactment of ssm in NY.
This story (as do others) blow apart the "ssm will *only* effect same-sex couples" myth.
Like I said on a previous thread, there are those who are apathetic about ssm. They don't give the issue a lot of thought, and assume that nothing will be changed in any way by it, except for same-sex couples.
But this group of people I’m referring to are not exactly thrilled about redefining marriage. And the second they see *any* disruption to the life of someone else due to ssm, they will oppose it.
The switch will be flipped!
SSMers may think this is good. But people who didn’t care about ssm before will begin to wonder what else will result, since this situation surfaced a year after legalization.
And believe it or not, many of those people will see situations like the one above as too high a price to pay for making a small, politically influential group feel good about themselves.
Conservative America: Where being obsese is blamed on genetics, but being gay is not"
So, basically, there are two sets of rules. One for secular society and one for religious. Everyone has to follow the secular rules, but religious people get to claim an exemption from the rules everyone else plays by because of their faith. Horribly convenient if you ask me.
Austin, please cite any scientifec evidence for the existence of the "gay gene." Because such a thing has never been found in spite of several years of desperate searching.
Also, what part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution do you not understand?
So, basically, there are two sets of rules. One for secular society and one for religious. Everyone has to follow the secular rules, but religious people get to claim an exemption from the rules everyone else plays by because of their faith. Horribly convenient if you ask me.
Austin, your side should start practicing what you preach and start obeying the existing laws and stop trying the change them. There are no exceptions. And speaking of secular law banning gay-marriage, when will you accept it?
There you go again, Austin with the red herrings and the bogus strawmen. This is not about every segment of the population using his own rulebook. This is about the unconstitutionality of gay marriage laws that ostracize people of faith from society. The laws made in this country must adhere to the US Constitution and respect the rights of people laid out therein. When they do not, they should either be repealed or not made in the first place. How can you be a licenced attorney and not know this?!
And I have googled "gay gene found" and you know what didn't pop up? Solid scientific evidence of the existence of a "gay gene!"
@Austin,
As an attorney you should already know that the Government is not afforded the right to mandate a litmus test in exchange for access to public commerce. It has something to do with tyranny; in that it is considered to be the gateway to.
Excellent, Austin. Since DOMA is the law of the land, go practice what you preach.
I have no intention of forcing anyone, least of all you, Austin, to follow anyone's religious doctrine. But to claim that the laws you support trump the 1st amendment religious liberties in the US Constitution is the peak of arrogance and would never hold up in court. No matter how much you despise people of faith, their right to express their religious beliefs freely is a constitutionally protected right and harms no one. Any law that suppresses that right is a violation of the 1st amendment.
DOMA will fail for it unjustly makes federal what is a states right's issue.
Religious Freedom does not mean that you can claim immunity for acts which are considered discrimination under the law.
Landlord: "I evicted him because he is gay"
Judge: "That is discrimination under local oridnance XX-XXXX"
Landlord: "But I'm a Christian and believe being gay is a sin."
Judge: "Oh, in that case, CASE DISMISSED"
Is that what you really want? The entire country to be like Kansas?
Austin,
DOMA does not forbid the State from changing the meaning of the word marriage for its residents; it forbids the state from changing the meaning of the word marriage for the entire nation.
The State does not govern the Fed.
That dialogue is a false analogy, Austin, and has nothing to do with marriage. When the government claims the authority to redefine words and terms, like marriage, they are dictating what people should say and how to say it - a violation of the 1st amendment. They also pressure people to adjust their beliefs and attitudes when such laws conflict with the religious liberties of US citizens and wind up ostrasizing them for adhering to the tenants of their faith. That is the big government intrusion and coersion that the founding fathers hoped to thwart when they wrote the constitution.
And DOMA will be upheld because its very purpose IS to keep marriage a states rights issue, so that neither the federal government or a state can force the redefinition of marriage on any other state.
Austin, are you under the belief that people can't discriminate against bad behavior. Are you under belief that sodomy is a right? However, lets stay on topic...
Also your comment @ 62 about blacks is a none issue since blacks are not being segregated or banned from marriage outside their race. Still, your Apples and Oranges analogy is getting ridiculous, and shows how desperate you are to attempt to defend your arguments. Austin are you a man or a boy? It takes a real man to admit when he is wrong... Your baseless arguments would never hold up in court.
Thanks Leo comments #15 and #69 are excellent. I agree that SSC's bring no value to society.
There are many incompetent lawyers. Many among them are SSMers who play the part on the internet. They reveal their incompetency by their own words.
The law dictates. But imposing SSM as marriage is not dictatorial, they say.
Freedom of conscience is intrinsic to the nature of humankind. This is not merely a religious issue, contrary to the pro-SSM attempts to set government against religion.
Same-sex sexual behavior may or may not be the moral equivalent of coital relations of hsuband and wife, but SSMers have failed to provide the sound moral argumentation that would justify reliance on the asserted equivalency so as to abolish the bride-groom requirement of marriage law.
SSMers do seek to abolish much more than that requirement, of course, but they rely on the arbitrary exercise of governmental power.
Yet that is supposedly the basis for their complaint against the law in the first place.
When a self-described lawyer claims that he knows better than the rest of society, and when that individual asserts special authority without demonstrating competency in that area of the discussion, that individual looks like a fool when complaining against freedom of conscience.
Arbitrariness voiced by someone who plays a lawyer on the internet is hardly convincing and much persuasive than the moral and legal truth well supported by sound argumentation. Sheer assertion is about all that the SSMers manage to conjure up.