We reported on this news last week.
Lower Hudson News adds more this week:
The New York State Catholic Conference has called a lesbian couple’s class-action lawsuit against St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Yonkers an attempt “to compel the hospital (and all Catholic employers) to violate their religious beliefs.”
... The medical center is a Roman Catholic organization; the Catholic Church opposes same-sex marriage.
In a statement issued today, the Catholic Conference framed the couple’s lawsuit and New York’s legalization of same-sex marriages as an undermining of the separation of church and state. It put quotation marks around the word married in describing the couple’s relationship and said the Marriage Equality Act infringes “on the religious liberty of Catholic employers.”
“We urge the governor and the legislature to pass legislation immediately to approve a full religious exemption to this ill-conceived law,” the group said. “We also continue to urge other states to use New York’s experience as a cautionary reminder of the true implications of the redefinition of marriage on religious liberty.”
35 Comments
There's always someone out there wanting to make a statement and they'll ruin the freedom's of everyone else to make that point.
That law should never have seen the light of day.
The Gay agenda is against religious freedom. Their goal is to destroy the church.
Archbishop Dolan would certainly have fought harder had he only known that there was a fight.
If there is a silver lining to such a terrifying observation, perhaps it is that the Archbishop now knows about the fight.
@SW
As a member, I get the gay agenda daily updates, monthly newsletters, quarterly digests, and annual briefs. I do not recall seeing "destroy the church" as a goal of our membership. In fact, the goals in the gay agenda havent changed in years, they remain:
1) Promote equality through inclusion and diversity
2) Defend those who are treated differently for being who they are
3) Love
4) Continue being FABULOUS!
*** 4 might not have been there, but you have to admit, the gays have "being fabulous" down.
This organization wouldn't support the legislation if it had every concievable "protection" wrapped in layers of inpenetrable redundancy.
The quotes around protection are there because this organization is not a church. Curious, are there no Catholics in leadership positions at non catholic hospitals?
Now for some encouraging news from around the world:
- Russia. Moscow has banned the gay pride parade for the 7th year in a row. St. Petersburg will be passing a bill that will ban the promotion and encouragement of homosexuality on a public, militant and commercial level, especially toward children and youth. This city law might then be put into national law. All for the well being of their countries growing children. (Homosexuality is not outlawed. This is also for the respect of its citizens.)
- China. In less than a year they closed down 60,000 adult pornographic web sites. In an effort to help their children, youth and citizens to be able to grow in a healthier and less manipulative environment.
- Saudi Arabia. In vitro fertilization is legal and often used. But only legal when using a sperm from the husband and an egg from the wife; this rule held in the interest of the child specifically, and of the society in general.
- Hungary's new constitution went into effect at the beginning of this year and includes: “M. article (1) Hungary protects the institution of marriage between man and woman, a matrimonial relationship voluntarily established, as well as the family as the basis for the survival of the nation.” This to counter Europe's mounting pressure for the redefinition of marriage. And to be able to raise their children in peace with the clear knowledge of what marriage is, freed of debate. They are also working on bills that would outlaw media use, public speeches and general promotion of homosexuality; this in order to present a healthy and non manipulative environment for their children and youth to grow up in. (Homosexuality is not outlawed, so as to show respect and acceptance for all of its citizens.)
- Good news from the USA? That its good, simple, and clear minded citizens are crying out in helpless, abandoned and tormented distress over the fact that the word marriage is being redefined right under their noses; by the tyranny of their government and money loving system. This cry is healthy and good. Will it be heard?
____________________
A little criticism on the home front:
The only value that American government still holds dear, is commercial value. So to understand how values of human dignity can be practiced at a national level our children will have to look more and more to other countries for inspiration. (A country sacrificing economic benefits for the good of its people is not a contradiction ; except for those who see money as being literally synonymous with the good of humanity. An idea which much of modern America and its popular philosophy, actions, and attitudes are built on.)
Non of these above countries are perfect, but America is in the pits. Sold out and lost. Our brand of “democracy”, or governance, is showing clear and load her limits to the rest of the world; when it can't even protect its own children, nor help the parents of its families toward a healthy untainted upbringing of their children and family. Rather they give them all over to the economy – the “professional market oriented universities and experts” who “know best” on all points, and are given free reign to “socially engineer”, which must be restated as “economic (financially profitable) social engineering”. As long as it gets us easy and quick money, do what you want! Engineer away...
Today the “thank you” goes to other countries than our own. Those that will fight the good fight of human reason and dignity for us.
You can send their embassies a thank you. For believe me, our own nation and Europe is putting enormous financial, media and psychological pressure on them to come on over to “our” way of seeing marriage and sexual education for children and youth (and our idea of freedom of expression on internet etc). And we know here at NOM, how these forms of insidious pressure can wear one down in the political and public square, just as Mr. Blankenhorn was. You could hear the enormous sound “CRACK” a mile away when he finally could no longer support it all, and went down with a crunch. To bad, when he seems to clearly know what true marriage is and why it matters. Him stepping out of the fight is one thing, but him affirming same sex union is marriage is another. Oh well, go Russia go!... And keep up the good fight NOM and its supporters.
"This organization wouldn't support the legislation if it had every concievable "protection" wrapped in layers of inpenetrable redundancy."
>>Absolutely correct. But then again, neither could the law have been passed without the drearily predictable lie that religious freedom would be respected.
"The quotes around protection are there because this organization is not a church. Curious, are there no Catholics in leadership positions at non catholic hospitals?"
>> Religious liberty is not something we are prepared to surrender to clever change agents careful to prevent a vote of the people.
The courts can deal with this, but you knight want to consider that no court can compel the Catholic Church to abandon the truth concerning marriage, and at some point it becomes a numbers game.
By the way, that is the precise point at which your clever legal strategy is revealed for the astonishingly grave miscalculation it always was.
You will either learn this at SCOTUS, where on must first be able to count to five before successfully prevailing, or else you will learn it in November, at the polls.
"This organization wouldn't support the legislation if it had every concievable "protection" wrapped in layers of inpenetrable redundancy."
>>Absolutely correct. But then again, neither could the law have been passed without the drearily predictable lie that religious freedom would be respected.
"...or prohibit the free exercise thereof."
Translation:
The government cannot mandate a litmus test in exchange for access to public commerce.
And if I'm not mistaken the whole point of Obamacare was to keep the medical profession a part of the public domain.
Yes, Good News---let us strive to be more like the Russians, Chinese and the Saudis....
I swear to God if there was an athiest country whose government sponsored daily cross and Bible-burnings, you'd love them as long they hated the gays too...
Identity politics do not trump Constitutional Freedom of religion.
@Layne
Don't get confused Layne. And keep an open mind.
Good is not spelled a.m.e..r.i.ca. And people will desperately look for good, wherever they see glimmers of it. America is becoming the enemy of many of its own citizens. For they feel that America is threatening their own children and family. Let them find some hope wherever it might show its face; when hope is not to be found at home.
you do not have to be a church to have protection under the law... the constitution promises freedom of religion and the practice thereof... Catholic hospitals are what they say... Catholic and it is against our faith to accept abortion or same sex marriage. it is a matter of conscience and the free practice of our religion...and just because the homosexual lobby doens't like it , it does not change the facts... and no I think you fall far short of "fabulous" I think misguided is more like it.
Whenever homosexual sexual behavior is wholeheartedly accepted, religious freedom is always attacked and marginalized, and that is what pleases the radical, fringe left in this country.
Do you know if your wife, daughter or sister faces a medically challenging, life or death difficult labour in childbirth it is the policy of Roman Catholic hospitals to save the life of the newborn, not the mother. Husbands, families and fathers have absolutely no choice in any medical decision in this case. Are these religious freedom protection we should encourage and fight for? Church doctrines trump family rights.
John:
Thank you for pointing out that the pseudo-marriage movement is merely one aspect of a broader, anti-religious movement which seeks to compel even Catholics (!) to participate in the slaughter of unborn children ("redefined" as a medical procedure).
No Catholic would ever comply with such a Nazi law, even were it to be, somehow, enacted.
So, if you support pseudo-marriage, and forced participation in the slaughter of children in the womb.......
Vote Obama.
We'll take the other choice and compare notes in November.
But please consider, John McLaren, that the Catholic hospital will do everything within their power to save the life of the mother AND the child; contrast that with abortion laws, which allow a mother, for no better reason than mere inconvenience, to murder her unborn child, while husbands, families, and fathers have absolutely no choice in any medical decision regarding the unborn child. Catholic Church doctrine upholds the sanctity of both mothers and unborn children, recognizing that both are important, while abortion laws put women in danger, and unborn children in peril.
@John,
We should all fight for their right to live as their immutable conscience dictates.
@daughter of eve
But I personally know a family who lost their mother in childbirth because of RC hospital policy. The doctor advised her husband they they would choose to save the baby. The family had only a funeral to look forward to. Religious freedom and church doctrine prevailed. Cold comfort for pro-life activists.
@Rick
You have so much vindictive, vile venom that you did not even carefully read my report about a husband who lost his wife because a RC doctor in a Catholic hospital chose to save his baby while his wife died. Nobody is endorsing the slaughter of the unborn. I was at his wife's funeral. His oldest daughter had to care for the newborn while mourning her mother who died for RC doctrine. How cruel and insensitive you are to a family's tragedy. You comments are not reasoned but shrill and hysterical without regard to content.
I am sorry, but do you folks really not understand the difference between CHURCH and HOSPITAL? It is very simple. One is a religious organization, the other is a government funded employer who must treat all employees equally.
Furthermore, do you not understand the difference between discrimination and religious liberty? One is illegal, the other is something that you have no idea what it means... but I'll explain. Religious liberty means that IN YOUR CHURCH you can believe as you like. It does not mean you can discriminate against people.
John McLaren
The doctor advised your friend that it was RC Hospital policy to sacrifice the mother?
You forgot to mention the name of the hospital.
Actually, AnonyGirl, you're confusing "freedom of worship" with "freedom of religion." Freedom of worship means only being able to practice your religion while at Church; Freedom of religion means being able to live your religion, 24/7. We're guranteed freedom of religion, not the watered-down freedom of worship. If a hospital is owned by a religious organization, individual hospital workers/owners are still guraanteed their freedom of religion, which includes not being coerced into adopting or endorsing behaviors or practices which are against their stated religious beliefs. If an individual wants a service not provided by said hospital, they are free to seek treatment elsewhere. Since insurance isn't a life or death emergency situation, the two lesbians should seek for medical insurance elsewhere, recalling that their sexual orientation isn't in question, their living together isn't in question, their identity politics are in question; the Catholic Church simply doesn't recognize same sex unions as marriages, and shouldn't be coerced into treating them like a marriage. But all this was foreseen by advocates of preserving the real meaning of marriage, which is between a man and a woman.
John:
In Catholic hospitals, we do not murder babies, howsoever much the atheists might insist that we ought.
If you wish your child murdered, go to an atheist hospital that considers the murder of children a legitimate form of healing.
As for your grotesque lie concerning the policy of the Ctholic hospital, let me establish the truth about Catholic procedure in such cases:
"The Ethical Guidelines of St. Joseph’s Hospital state that “Medical treatment is permitted to prevent or cure a grave illness in a pregnant woman that cannot be deferred until the unborn child is viable, even though pregnancy may be endangered. Thus, operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose, the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman, are permitted if they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even though they will result in the foreseen but unintended death of the unborn child.”
The above guidelines here referred to Catholic Church teaching on the Principle of Double Effect. The Church teaches that one may legitimately choose to carry out an act that is morally good, but which has one or more unintended side effects that are morally evil. Guidelines that must be met for that act to be morally acceptable are as follows.
· The intended act must be morally good in itself and may not be morally evil.
· The good effect of the act must be that which is directly intended by the one who carries out the act. The bad effect that results may be foreseen but must not be intended.
· The good effect must not be brought about by using morally evil means.
· The good effect must be of equal or greater proportion to any evil effect that would result.
· Acts that have morally evil effects are permissible only when truly necessary, i.e. when there are no other means by which the good may be obtained."
So, your slander of the intentions of Catholic hospitals is merely the latest chapter in the longest work of fiction since "War and Peace"........
The "arguments" of the pro-child murder extremists.
Daughter of Eve,
You have a very odd idea about what freedom of religion means. You are free to live your religion 24/7, but you are not free to force others to do so. What you propose is that we all have to live by your rules so that you can. Doesn't work that way. The way it works is that we all have to live by the laws of this country, first and foremost. You see, freedom OF religion also guarantees freedom FROM religion.
Now, one of the laws of this country says that employers need to treat their employees equally, that they cannot discriminate against them, and specifies that the reasons they cannot use to discriminate include race, religion, gender, disability and so on. Hospitals are not exempt from this rule. Even hospitals run by churches. A hospital is not a church. If the church doesn't LIKE this, they are free to get out of the hospital business.
AnonyGirl:
Quite to the contrary. Religion is protected under the First Amendment, and our hospitals will never, ever acquiesce in either abortion, or in the counterfeit of marriage imposed without the consent of the governed in New York.
If you wish to murder your child, or to have your counterfeit marriage acknowledged, go to an atheist hospital.
Or else begin to build a very great number of prisons, because, let us be very clear, in the end Caesar cannot have his incense from us.
No matter what.
Well, AnonyGirl, given your line of reasoning, all the more reason to vanquish SSM; clearly it forces the religious to have to choose between conscience and policy, and forces religion and religious based services out of the public square. Is this what was meant by so-called "tolerance?" thus are the fruits of sexual identity politics.
Rick,
No one said anything about abortion. Hospitals don't necessarily provide abortion services. But if they did, they would have to provide them without discrimination, and that is the point.
DoE,
No, in fact, it is all the more reason that hospitals should behave legally. Marriage equality is legal in the state where these two reside and are married. And if YOU don't want to have insurance, you are free to choose not to, your religious freedom guarantees it. However, a hospital as an employer is not free to discriminate. Nothing to do with religion at all. A HOSPITAL is not, I repeat NOT a church. That is the thing that you keep misunderstanding.
Oh, and Rick, I can't imagine why you want to be sent to prison over this issue, but I am sure you will explain it to me.
And "counterfeit marriage" as a label is just so much silliness on your part. Marriage licenses in New York read "marriage", not gay marriage, not traditional marriage, not anything else you want to tag it with. Just marriage, because that is just what it is.
"Actually, AnonyGirl, you're confusing "freedom of worship" with "freedom of religion."..."
Excellent point DOE; and well said.
Thank you
AnonyGirl,
You said: "The way it works is that we all have to live by the laws of this country, first and foremost. "
Nope.
The law's moral force and legitimacy does not come from the law. Nor from governmental power of enforcement.
Perhaps you agree with me that sometimes the law gets stuff wrong. But would you know when it gets stuff right or wrong if not for some reality that is independent of the law?
Freedom of conscience applies regardless of a person's religious beliefs or irreligious beliefs. That is how it works today under the man-woman requirement of marriage law.
Both that requirement and freedom of conscience exist independently of the law. Hence the remarks by Rick and others in the comments above.
As my rebuttal, AnonyGirl, please refer to Chairm's post #31. Regards.
Moral force and legitimacy are how you argue it, but when you break the law, your morals don't keep you from having that government enforce the law.
Yes, some laws not so good. Ones that declared blacks to be 3/5 of a person, for instance. Laws that kept women from voting. And we changed those laws, as was appropriate, to promote equality and civil rights. We are doing the same now through the courts with DOMA litigation, and have done in a number of states as well.
"Freedom of conscience" means that you, personally, do not have to marry someone of the same sex. It means that in your home, in your church, wherever you go, you personally are not required to embrace the issue. It does NOT mean you can use your prejudice against us to legislate our rights away, and that is what the courts are now deciding. And in every current DOMA case, that is what they have decided so far. And in the Prop 8 case as well.
YOU can believe whatever you choose. You can marry whoever you choose. WE are looking for those same rights, which is what equality demands.
In fact, if you actually BELIEVED in freedom of conscience, in freedom of religion, you would support MY rights to those freedoms as well. My conscience says that marriage equality is the right thing. My religion says that God made us as we are, and we are perfect in her eyes. That you do not support my freedom of conscience and religion simply proves that what you believe in is the freedom to discriminate against me, which is a freedom that does not exist in any of our laws.
I support your right not to perform same sex marriages in your church. Will you support mine to do so? If not, you are a hypocrite.
Which rights, exactly, are being legislated away?
An appeal to religious belief for alternate forms of marriage has not prevailed in the past. Why will that argument work now? And if a religious argument can be made for SSM, then how about for Muslims who practice polygamy.
What law specifically singles you out to be ineligibe for marriage, and by what specific identifying factor? I support your right to perform marriages in your church. No problem there. But I believe we-the-people must decide, by popular vote, whether or not to license and regulate your church marriage. If you want your marriage to be our business, we are pleased to get involved. Regards.
AnonyGrl your thinking is muddled.
You said you agree that the law does not self-justify. The law can be wrong sometimes.
But then you said: "It does NOT mean you can use your prejudice against us to legislate our rights away..."
I am not using prejudice against you. You are free to marry.
Like your fellow citizens, you also enjoy the liberty to choose a one-sex-short alternative arrangement; that would be a right exercised not a liberty denied. Just because you would prefer an arrangement that lacked either a groom or a bride does not mean that society must treat such an alternative as marital.
Of all the variations of types of relationships and types of living arrangements that populate the nonmarriage category, why would you have society show favoritism based on gay identity? What is it about gay identity that would merit special treatment over and above the rest of nonmarriage?
Also you said: "and that is what the courts are now deciding."
The judiciary is a branch of government. It is competent in some areas and neither competent nor equipped in other areas.
You agreed, earlier, that the law's moral force and legitimacy does not come from the law nor from governmental power of enforcement.
The judiciary is another branch of the system of law -- along with the legislative branch and the administrative branch. These are tools but they are not the source of the moral force of their own authority.
Marriage has an independent reality. It is not the creation of the law. Nor is it owned by the government -- not this or that branch nor all the branches of government.
You sense this to be true. You get that sometimes the law can get stuff wrong.
Equal treatment forbids that people be treated differently -- arbitrarily; it also forbids that people be treated the same -- arbitrarily.
The SSM idea is a poor imitation of the marriage idea; it is not marriage. But you might depend on the government (whatever branch suites you) to impose a wrong by way of the arbitrary use of governmental power.
But that would set you against the independent reality of marriage and freedom of conscience.
Before you throw around the would hypocrite, you might reflect more deeply -- even a little more deeply -- on what you really believe about the law, about freedom, and about marriage. Your comment reflects superficial thinking and the thin veneer of manufactured grievance.