First gay-marriage suit hits Catholic institution - Page 4

Dawnia · #46 Jun 25, '12, 9:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by allrpunished

Thanks Dale and Dawnia for the clear summaries. However these two outlines really contradict each other. Is there any way to find out the which view the Church actually has? I find it very interesting. Either (Dale)

or (Dawnia)

Sorry, should have clarified that I was only speaking of non-Catholics. Catholics are required to be married in the Catholic church for a valid marriage to exist.(Canon 1059)

The part about nonCatholics came from an annulment class, so I'm not sure the exact place in Canon law for that. I did find a quick explanation that explains it better.

Quote:

3.Do only Catholics need annulments? Do only Catholic marriages need to be annulled?
No and no. In the regular course, non-Catholics only need an annulment if they desire to marry a Catholic. But if a non-Catholic has been married to another non-Catholic, and that person now wants to marry a Catholic, then the non-Catholic is going to need an annulment before the Catholic can be validly married in the Church.

Only a Catholic is bound to marry according to the form prescribed by the Catholic Church (i.e. before a Catholic priest or deacon and at least two additional witnesses) unless dispensed from this requirement by the bishop or his delegate. However, the Church recognizes the marriage of two non-Catholics, or a Catholic who has received a dispensation from form and a non-Catholic, whether they marry in their own church/or non-Christian place of worship, another church or in a civil ceremony (justice of the peace) as long as the ceremony is valid according to civil law. From the perspective of the Catholic Church, therefore, non-Catholics are considered to be validly married persons unless the former spouse has died or the marriage has been declared null by the Catholic Church. Since the Church has the right to determine who may be married in the Catholic Church, it can make a judgment on the validity of the marriage of two non-Catholics if one requests this in order that he or she might be able to marry a Catholic in the Catholic Church.
Source:http://www.canonlawprofessionals.com...s.html?vm=r#Q3

He Man · #47 Jun 26, '12, 9:38 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota Roberts

Nothing would prevent you, I fail to see what is so wrong with it especially since the amount of people doing it would be low.

Source for this fact?

So you don't have a problem with anyone being on ANYONE else's insurance? And you honestly think that number would be low? Please. We've been hearing about the plight of the uninsured for years now, and suddenly, given an option to get covered by literally anyone in America, they'd decline? If true, perhaps there is no health coverage crisis after all, or they don't deserve coverage after all?

Rence · #48 Jun 26, '12, 9:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale_M

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia
Because St. Joseph’s Medical Center is self-insured, it is not bound by New York State law that recognizes gay marriage; it is therefore exempt from granting medical benefits to a “married” lesbian. That is why the attorney for Roe is challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal statute.

Now, that is interesting. It would seem to greatly weaken the womens' case.

It may weaken the women's case. But --- if the employer is found to extend coverage to Catholics who are found to be in a marriage NOT recognized by the Church, they can be brought up on charges of discrimination against the gay couple. Remember that Catholics are not allowed non-Sacramental marriages, and *many* Catholic couples are doing just that these days. If the business is small enough they may be in luck. But if they are a bigger business, the likelihood of them having Catholics in invalid marriages rises. If they have extended coverage to these people, it will put a hole in their defense.

He Man · #49 Jun 26, '12, 9:52 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rence

It may weaken the women's case. But --- if the employer is found to extend coverage to Catholics who are found to be in a marriage NOT recognized by the Church, they can be brought up on charges of discrimination against the gay couple. Remember that Catholics are not allowed non-Sacramental marriages, and *many* Catholic couples are doing just that these days. If the business is small enough they may be in luck. But if they are a bigger business, the likelihood of them having Catholics in invalid marriages rises. If they have extended coverage to these people, it will put a hole in their defense.

At the same time, if they go that route, the State would then be inferring the right of the Church to define their view of valid and invalid marriages, and as such, the Church can turn around and acknowledge that by trying to make that point, the State is de facto acknowledging the Church's ability to define true marriage in their own eyes. If the state doesn't believe they can do this sort of definition, they can't use this line of attack since they themselves wouldn't recognize the authority to begin with.

Dawnia · #50 Jun 26, '12, 10:31 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rence

It may weaken the women's case. But --- if the employer is found to extend coverage to Catholics who are found to be in a marriage NOT recognized by the Church, they can be brought up on charges of discrimination against the gay couple. Remember that Catholics are not allowed non-Sacramental marriages, and *many* Catholic couples are doing just that these days. If the business is small enough they may be in luck. But if they are a bigger business, the likelihood of them having Catholics in invalid marriages rises. If they have extended coverage to these people, it will put a hole in their defense.

I disagree. The hospital is simply following the law, which says they are allowed to not recognize same-sex marriages. If they disagree with the law, then they should be suing the government and not the hospital.

RACJ · #51 Jun 26, '12, 12:02 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawnia

I disagree. The hospital is simply following the law, which says they are allowed to not recognize same-sex marriages. If they disagree with the law, then they should be suing the government and not the hospital.

Dawnia, you are one shrewd cookie! It's maddening to hear from all the folks who have surrendered their critical thinking skills. It's long past time that the decent folks who have constituted America's majority for so many years to tell our despotic federal government, "We're not ceding one more damn inch to you!" Rob

Dakota Roberts · #52 Jun 26, '12, 12:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by He Man

Source for this fact?

So you don't have a problem with anyone being on ANYONE else's insurance? And you honestly think that number would be low? Please. We've been hearing about the plight of the uninsured for years now, and suddenly, given an option to get covered by literally anyone in America, they'd decline? If true, perhaps there is no health coverage crisis after all, or they don't deserve coverage after all?

Not really. I think you underestimate people's laziness and apathy.in relation to helping people. Oh by the way the plans are locked per state AFAIK. I'm sure the uninsured want in, but you have to convince the people with the plans to let them on (IIRC there's usually a cost too).

MacBP · #53 Jun 26, '12, 12:32 pm

I remember, a few years ago, when people would ask how allowing same sex marriage could possibly affect those who opposed it. I bought the argument hook line and sinker (but then I was probably still in my early teens). Now I'm seeing exactly why this line of argumentation can't work.

The idea that we live in a pluralistic society is a myth. Sure we ostensibly have people of different cultures, religions and orientations working together but as soon as some group has a substantive difference they find themselves persecuted. A few years ago that group would have been the GLBT community and now it is the Catholic Church. I'm still waiting to see a society where people can actually get along.

vsedriver · #54 Jun 26, '12, 2:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

It won't happen because everyone will be required to carry their own insurance, except for children that is and provided the SCOTUS doesn't shoot down the mandate.

Jim

You can't require everyone to carry their own insurance. Some people simply can't afford it. If a spouse chooses to stay home to raise the kids they aren't bringing in an income to pay for insurance. Also if you lose your job, like I recently did, insurance would take about 75% of my unemployment check.

Dawnia · #55 Jun 26, '12, 2:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vsedriver

You can't require everyone to carry their own insurance. Some people simply can't afford it. If a spouse chooses to stay home to raise the kids they aren't bringing in an income to pay for insurance. Also if you lose your job, like I recently did, insurance would take about 75% of my unemployment check.

Exactly, in fact is the law doesn't require everyone have insurance. They only require those above a certain income level to have it and only those where cost of insurance is less than 8% of their income. Or if you belong to certain excluded groups. like those with a Dem politician in their back pocket. (I fully expect that a similar requirement of a Rep in your back pocket will be needed when the Rep gain control)