DC has had a domestic partnership law in place for some years, which gives registered gay couples all the rights and benefits of marriage. It was unlawful to discriminate against DP couples.

This law was and is opposed by the Catholic Church. So how is it that the Catholic Church was able to continue to provide services under the DP scheme, without withdrawing partner benefits, but when the name of the DP arrangement is changed to "marriage", it suddenly provokes a crisis? It seems to me that there is no rhyme or reason to their actions. If they can provide benefits to DP couples, which they find morally objectionable, there is no logic in their being unable to provide benefits to the very same couples who now call their arrangement marriage.

SSM is presented here as about personal motivations only. However, the SSM campaign promotes gay identity politics as a big ole trump card over everything else. That's the societal significance of the SSM idea.

And the SSM idea is at odds with the marriage idea. Merger does not make the two things compatable; rather, it guts the marriage idea of its core and promotes the SSM idea's central purpose regarding identity politics pressed onto all of society.

The government doesn't have to promote homosexuality or heterosexuality, these are things that happen with or without the endorsement of the government. Since when has anyone seeking a marriage license had to prove that their union and/or sexuality would some how provide a benefit to those not part of the union? I can think of several marriages that not only did not benefit others outside the marriage but left the partners broke. If someone applies for and obtains a marriage license, the government is not promoting their sexuality. A couple can engage in asexual activity and still get a marriage license. Are the applicants' sexualities requested on the marriage license application? Let's not pretend that everyone's marriage revolves around their sexuality or that sexuality is a requisite for marriage. The government is simply providing a vehicle for a legal contract between 2 people with certain rights and responsibilities with. If the majority of people are not required to prove why their particular marriage and sexuality should be promoted and some are, then it's unjustifiable discrimination.

Onlooker, if you read the thread, we actually covered this quite extensively. The government is not there to enforce one religion's ideas over another. Consider the promoters of homosexuality to be part of a religion. They have ideas about the way things ought to be and philosophies they live by just like everyone else does, so let's call it what it is, a religion, a philosophy, a way of life. How does the government choose societal policy? Government may choose to promote something that a particular religion also promotes, but it has to do so because it is good for society, not because it is some faith based tenet of religion, otherwise it would be the equivalent of promoting state religion. That's why the question was asked, what good is homosexuality to society? Why should society, and government by extension choose to promote it at the expense of others?

The rest of your comment is an exercise in irrelevance. Respect for personal choice, people with same sex attraction, reproductive rights or human life are not points at odds with each other.

You never responded to this comment by Rob: "So what do you think about the religious freedom of churches that want to marry gays? Wouldn't your principle indicate that the government should let each church choose whether to marry gays?"

I feel that the question merits a response.

I assume you are a parent, as you state, "Quite a difference from the healthy respect for the creation of human life that most parents desire to pass to their children."

Actually, that is your own perspective. Most parents want their children to respect other people; but as you very well know, many parents have greater respect for women's reproductive rights than for the "creation" of human life, which even birth control pills prevent. Are you against birth control? If you aren't, then you certainly cannot claim to be "respecting the creation of human life."

As a parent, how would you reaction if your son or daughter came out as gay?

"Who are you talking to? If you're referring to me, then I ask you where I ever said -- or even implied -- "that people's opposition to SSM was rooted in hate of people with same sex attraction."

Did you intend your blog link to be private?

I believe that this thread is about a Catholic church based organization being required to implement changes to its policy for granting benefits to spouses of its employees based on a new law. If I understand it correctly, the church was required to either extend benefits to all spouses who meet the legal definition of a spouse of its future employees or extend them to none. In other words, the church was required to not discriminate based on gender in its policy governing the extension of benefits to legal spouses of future employees.

I also understand that the doctrine of the Catholic church opposes SSM. If the church was a non- tax exempt private entity, then it could discriminate against its employees. However the church is not a solely private funded entity and therefore it is subject to same the rules for any public money subsidized entity. This is especially applicable because some tax payers do not agree with the doctrine of the church. The 3rd option for the church would have been for it to relinquish its tax exempt status. That didn't happen because economics was critical to the church's operation. This is not a capricious attack on Christianity or any other faith for that matter. When public moneys are accepted certain rules apply. The bottom line is that the church elected to take the route that enabled it to be in compliance with the new law, adhere to its doctrine and keep the funds rolling in.

For those who do not think that this is fair, I ask 2 questions. It is also against church doctrine to divorce, eat shellfish and work on Sunday, yet secular laws allow all these activities. However, I have never heard of the church refusing to extend benefits to its employees' spouses who have previously divorced, eat crab and lobster and whose jobs require that they work on Sunday. The questions are:

1. Do you see the irony here?

2. Who chooses which doctrine to adhere to and which to ignore?

And you do? Please explain.

* * *

Rob, what is marital status, in your view?

Also, do you really think that personal motivations trump societal significance when it comes to eligiblity to marry? Really?

Marriage statutes show otherwise. Maybe you think that is mistaken and personal motivations ought to trump societal significance when it comes to a public license and public status.

Here's an example of a specific comment:

Chris Matthews asked Peter Sprigg (of Focus on the Family) whether "we should outlaw gay behavior," and Sprigg answered "yes."

I trust no one here agrees with that sentiment; rather I'm offering it as an example of what I'm looking for. Instead of characterizing anonymous people as "Sex Radicals" and doing nothing more than giving us your interpretation of their views, do this:

* Name the person
* Show why this person is significant
* Tell me what the person actually said

Then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, I'm going to keep asking people to be more specific and define their terms.

Please be specific. What is "it" in your first sentence? Who are the "gay activist leadership" you're talking about, and what is the "position" that you're concerned with.

The problem is not my ability to be honest. The problem is that all I see are vague, unspecific buzz words and loaded terms.

Sorry about my blinking ignorance, as you so charmingly call it. Your statement seemed to imply you were talking about a broad group of people in the marriage equality movement. I did not realize you were only talking about a handful of people posting on a particular thread.