The government of Washington DC mandates that employers cover gay "spouses" identically to coverage of actual marriages.
Following this mandate, the DC Diocese decided to drop all "family" coverage for its employees. Canonist Ed Peters has some reservations about that.
...First, the archbishop's fears about his coming across as legitimizing "same-sex marriage" unless he cuts off spousal benefits seem misplaced: no action performed under compulsion can be construed as necessarily signaling approval or agreement with such action
Second.........what appears to be a very promising case to fight this intrusive legislation is being squandered by the archdiocese's capitulation to the policy
Third, as it stands, the archdiocese's decision does not deny a single gay-couple coverage, but it does deprive people who are trying to live in accord with Church teaching on marriage and the family the dignity of having their vocation recognized in something besides papal encyclicals and catechisms
I tend to agree with Peters, although it would cost the Diocese a buncha bucks to go to court with this. They could argue that the Diocese will provide family benefits to those who are married in the eyes of the Church, and assert that the First Amendment protects that decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Agreed
So then you're in favor of denying benefits to divorcees who have remarried?
The Vatican was behind the curve on slavery and the Jewish thing, too. They should try to lead for a change.
Tired canards, Anony. And yes, I AM in favor of constructing a legal case for 1A protection. "Married in the eyes of the Church" means exactly that.
Post a Comment