The heterosexual dating website agreed to start Compatible Partners for same-sex couples as part of the settlement of a discrimination suit.
But EHarmony’s new relationship with the gay community is more like a shotgun wedding: The company agreed in November to start the dating service as part of a settlement with the New Jersey attorney general in the wake of a discrimination suit.
How long till suits are filed againt Catholic churches for refusing to offer “marriage services” for gay couples? If America continues on the path its going, I would not be surprised if this happened within 10 years. The Catholic Church would have to go underground with the sacrament of marriage.
I don’t agree that the Church is going to have to “underground” with the Sacrament of Marriage in the next ten years.
But I could see them filing similar suits against places like CatholicMatch.com or Ave Maria Singles. That would be sad if Catholic groups like these had to shut down or else offer same-sex dating services.
…i cannot see eharmony having a huge issue with the requirement if it indeed becomes a requirement (and i don’t think that is going to happen). After all they will pay for the venue just as the traditional couples do… eharmony is a business just like any other. They don’t want government interference as all business do not wish to be regulated. I personally hope it does not happen…
This is terrible. I wonder why they do not simply move their business to another state, since it is a state court who ordered them to add gays to their service? Frankly, if I was in such a situation though and there was no recourse, I would close the business. I would not enable gays to have sex with one another.
There can come a time when you have to stand up for what is right. Some Catholic bishops have said that if the law requires Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, they they will close the hospitals.
First of all, E-Harmony has already launched a separate website for gay matchmaking. Second, no one in the gay community is trying to force the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages.When people marry they enter into a contract with the State and the State does not have the Constitutional authority to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man” so the issue, for the gay community, is a legal one between us and the State not between us and the Catholic Church.
Oh I don’t think so. There are gay and lesbian people in the Catholic Church who call themselves "Catholic"and think the *Church *needs to change. So don’t be so confident that someone out there wouldn’t try.
I’m confident that it isn’t the goal of the gay community to force the Catholic Church to approve of and/or perform gay marriages and I’m speaking from personal experience. I’ve NEVER met a gay Catholic who insists that the Catholic Church should perform gay marriage ceremonies.
I don't see how these remarks mean anything. You remark that no gay person is trying to force the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages. But I presume that gay people consider this unjust discrimination even now. Gay people have been constantly trying to assert "equality" in an ever broadening number of fields. Since many gays call Church teaching and practices unjust, which in fact teaches that homosexuals acts should never be accepted, I don't see why these these same people would not move against Catholicism in this and other areas to come. The State is cooperating in these efforts by gays in ever broadening areas of concern.
The issue is not ceremonial pomp and circumstance or ideology. It’s an issue of Federal and State rights and benefits bestowed upon couples upon the acquisition of a marriage license. The Supreme Court has already acknowledged marriage as “one of the basic civil rights of man” and the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments specifically prohibit discrimination in the dispensation and acknowledgment of civil rights.
What we are doing is forcing the Federal and State governments to confront and rectify the violation of our civil rights. We are not soliciting approval or participation from the Catholic Church because religion has absolutely nothing to do with it and the Catholic Church considers State-issued marriage licenses to be meaningless anyway regardless of sexual orientation.
So much for freedom of association in America. The Left and powers that behave seen to it that Americas are free to associate with everybody that the government dictates is the correct choice in these matters.
Marriage has to be between two people of opposite sex because marriage is about *family, *the generation of children, which cannot happen between two people of the same sex.
However, I see that because our society has allowed marriage to fall into a state of being “until you no longer make me happy,” and ZPG/open marriage/etc. IOW, just a continuation of the high school dating scene, things have come to this, that everyone sees marriage not as the creation of a family but as a sort of more-serious form of going together, and why should that be denied to anyone? Why shouldn’t we have homosexual marriage, if this is all that it is? Why shouldn’t we permit polygamy, why not inter-species marriage… ?
The problem is with society’s view of marriage, which fell apart long ago, and rather than bring *that *aspect up, we simply allow continued confusion…
Of course it can! Adoption and artificial insemination of a friend are options for gay couples. Besides, I don’t see any Catholics calling for barren heterosexual couples to be denied their civil right to marry or calling for the divorce of married couples once they are no longer fertile.
Polygamy would violate the contract a married couple has with the State because you cannot be fidelitous with more than one person.
Animals are not persons and cannot give legal consent.
The government forcing a business to offer a new product (gay dating service). Why not force all manufacturers of hair care products to carry products for the hair needs of people of African descent. Why not force manufacturers of female hygiene products to carry products that are for men. I’m sure the examples are endless where a company has specialized in products for a particular sub-segment of the population…should they not be force to carry products for other sub-segments?
Your argument against polygamy holds no water. If you are changing the definition of marriage from “one man and one woman” to anything else, like “any two people”, then how do you justify “discriminating” against what another person or people feel is their legitimate definition of marriage. Seems you are in favor of your definition and nobody elses.
Since Eharmony is not a religion, I don’t find your comparison very instructive. As others have noted, Eharmony can decide not to do business in states where it finds government regulation overbearing, otherwise it will have to bite the bullet if laws in a particular state require such an interpretation of nondiscrimination.
The Church, on the other hand, is protected by the First Amendment, and like any religion can refuse to marry Lutherans, or lesbians, or Libertarians, or Lebanese, or light-complected people. Down the road some states may not let churches that discriminate represent the state in conferring a legal marriage. That’s no biggie, people can satisfy the state with the paperwork and the justice of the peace at the courthouse, and then head to the church to have a sacramental wedding - same as is done in many countries.
The launch by dating service eHarmony.com of a new website for homosexuals is creating concern among customers who were attracted to the company because of its Christian foundations, but they’re not getting any satisfaction.
Further down in the article are instances where they are charging people have canceled their membership, double billing, other instances that border on, if not actually, fraud.
This company must be put out of business immediately.