"You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go." -- Our Lady of Fatima

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Lesbians Demand Catholic Hospital Recognizes Their "Marriage"

Remember when we were told that the government would never force the Catholic Church to perform or recognize gay marriage?

We all knew that was a lie, right?

Well, a lesbian just filed suit against a Catholic hospital in New York for refusing to cover her "spouse" in their insurance coverage. What are the chances of a New York judge siding with the Church on this one?

The New York Post reports:

A lesbian couple from Westchester yesterday filed the first suit against a Catholic institution for refusing to recognize New York’s gay-marriage law.

The Manhattan federal court filing says the women — identified only as “Jane Roe” and “Jane Doe” — were wed Oct. 15, and that “Roe,” who’s worked at St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Yonkers since 2007, later applied to add “Doe” to her medical-benefits coverage.

But the request was denied by both St. Joseph’s and its insurance administrator, Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, because hospital policy excludes same-sex spouses.

The class-action suit seeks an order declaring that both women are entitled to insurance coverage under federal law. It also says “thousands of legally married, same-sex couples” have been, or will be, denied benefits under similar policies administered by Empire, which is also named as a defendant.

The women are seeking an injunction ordering Blue Cross Blue Shield not to acquiesce to a company that wants to deny same-sex benefits because of religious beliefs, said Jeffrey Norton, their lawyer.
Look folks, if it's a "right" there's going to be no stopping it. If you are OK with legalizing gay marriage because you say you can't impose your religious beliefs on others, think for a second.

When women were granted the right to abort their children, it had to eventually happen that the government was going to force Catholic institutions to pay for it as is happening now under the HHS mandate. When gay "marriage" becomes legal, it's only a matter of time before the Church is forced to recognize it.

"Rights" aren't part time things that people or institutions can or can not recognize. They're rights - undeniable.

Your Ad Here

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Same-sex marriage laws are a social disorder as much as same-sex attraction is a psycho-sexual disorder.

Anonymous said...

As you know, women were given the right to seek an abortion; and it was then twisted into the right to have an abortion.
Marriage is not a right! Even if the gay community claims it is their right to get married, our constitution lists our inalienable rights that are given to us by God (creator for all you agnostic or atheist trolls) One of those is Liberty. That means the liberty to live out our faith. If view are faithful Catholics, we have the right given to us by God to reject to have our Church recognize and participate in such things contrary to our beliefs and that includes gay marriages. Government did not give us that right and it damn well cannot take it away!
People will hopefully be less likely to continue on with these frivolous lawsuits after the Supreme Court smacks down the Health Care Disaster! Prop 8 will be another one the court will side on the rights of the voting citizens of CA.
Let this be a lesson though to everyone on the importance of knowing who you are voting for on every level, be it President, Senate, Congress, state governments, Counties, down to your local mayor.

Lisa :)

Mary De Voe said...

If the court OKs a man and his fake wife or a woman and her fake husband it will committing perjury.

Gerry said...

More people need to read "Rights Talk" by Dr. M.A. Glendon (and really all her books), especially the ones who are the rights huggers.

Anonymous said...

Denying love and refusing to cover the sick is totally Jesus.

ProudHillbilly said...

No, Anonymous, recognizing the fullness and completeness and dignity of the human person is totally Jesus. Recognizing that "love" can be mis-defined as "warm fuzzy" or simply a sexual drive and misplaced is totally Jesus - He said to those caught in sin "Go, and sin no more" not "Party on". Recognizing that words, like "marriage" have meaning is totally Jesus - He spoke of a man and woman joining and not being put asunder, not any other combination of sexes.

I don't see a single word in the article about how "Roe" was forced to work at an institution where she knew this rule was in force when she chose to be employed there. A suggestion for her - when considering employment, carefully review the benefits package and and take it into account in the decision. If the benefits package doesn't fit what you consider your needs, look for employment elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

It seems odd - no one has a "right" to particular insurance coverage, so if the policy excludes certain relationships (e.g, adult children over 25), then why can't it exclude SS couples? Denying coverage to your 26 year old child doesn't mean he is no longer your child.

On the other hand, the policy could simply cover whomever the parties agree to cover. There is no legal impediment I know of that would prevent a healthcare insurer from allowing you to cover X number of random people, provided you ans the insurer agree and you pay the premium. If the policy is written in generic enough language, I don't see how allowing or agreeing to coverage for your "significant other" is "recognizing gay marriage" any more than denying coverage for your 26 year old son is denying his paternity.

I don't know - I could see where some accomodation could be made by both sides IF the issue is obtaining coverage, and NOT acceptance/endorsement of SSM.

c matt

Anonymous said...

In fact, I could see a very generic "additional insured" amendment that would simply allow the employee to designate any person as an additional insured who is not already covered - an aging relative, adult child, girlfriend/boyfriend, etc.

This way, coverage is obtained, and no particular recognition is made.

On the contrary, no matter how generic, it at least does encourage/reward in a way certain arrangements. I don't know, I am still unsure about whether any accomodation would be workable.

c matt

Mary De Voe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mary De Voe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mary De Voe said...

People have been claiming their "significant others" on their IRS for years. Same Sex Marriage and Same Species Marriage as well as "significant others", birds, dogs, and cats, probably a few snakes and alligators, too, needs to be defined by the voters, who are not privy to an empty blanketed contract, enforced by Federal Law, that only those in power get to define. Obamacare is an unlawful, unauthorized abuse of sovereign prerogative, the sovereign prerogative of each and every sovereign person who happens, by the grace of God, to be a born (or naturalized) citizen of the USA. Religious Liberty is from God. The Federal government does not get to redefine Religious Liberty. The sovereign citizens who constitute government, AND OUR NATION, are the individuals who get to say how God's gift of FREEDOM is to be executed by the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Departments of government.

enness said...

Anonymous: I don't see why, if they are adults, they couldn't just get their own policy and then you pay for it. While it can make a difference whose name is on a policy, I don't think they care where the money comes from. Spousal benefits, however, are there for a reason because it is a special kind of relationship (always think backward: what was the reason for having this in the first place?). I doubt that they would equally like to potentially be treated to a revolving carousel of girlfriends.

enness said...

"Denying love and refusing to cover the sick is totally Jesus."

It's not love. It's extramonetary compensation. They are not one and the same. Let's get that important distinction straight right now.

foodish said...

I'm straight myself, but my best friend is gay. I have had the privilege of knowing him my whole life, of growing up with him. No one has had more of an influence on the man I have become, other than my parents. I love him like a brother.

He has now been with his partner for longer then I have been with my wife. When I see them together I see the same love that motivated me to marry. I don't see any reason why my best friend shouldn't have the same ability to celebrate and preserve the love he has found that I did.

S. Sims said...

I vote that the state not recognize marraige of any form. Since marraige is a religious institution, and the state cannot recognize any religious institution, then marraige need be abolished completely.

As an aside, considering all of the political speech performed by religious organizations, I see no reason why any religion must be subsidized by the government in the form of tax relief and exemption. Again, the rationale is that the state support any religious institution in any way. I think it is about time that my taxes cease to support divisive, and bigotted organizations.

Tony said...

How can they claim federal law on their side when the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is still the law of the land?

Tony said...

Foodish wrote: "He has now been with his partner for longer then I have been with my wife. When I see them together I see the same love that motivated me to marry. I don't see any reason why my best friend shouldn't have the same ability to celebrate and preserve the love he has found that I did."

Because civil marriage has nothing to do with love. It is all about contract and property rights.

I love my dog. I can't marry him because he can't legally enter into a contract.

Post a Comment