Gay Marriage/Civil Unions
February 22, 2009, 10:59 pm
Posted by John McGreevy
An interesting piece in the NYT urging compromise on the question of gay marriage/civil unions. One wonders — given the public opinion data showing very strong support for gay rights, generally, among people under 30 — if this will be a hot issue at all 20 years from now. In this sense the contrast with abortion — 36 years after Roe v. Wade – is striking.
A reluctant convert to the idea of gay marriage, I find the following argument morally telling: civil unions, PACs in France, have become very popular with heterosexual couples, who see them as a form of “marriage lite.” This can be avoided simply by opening the institution of marriage to gay couples.
On the other hand, I wonder if the institution of marriage has not become too heavy and too much of a monopoly for its own good.
What if a church auxiliary or charity is told it must grant spousal benefits to a secretary who marries her same-sex partner or else face legal penalties for discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status?
Well, it seems to me that the church auxiliary or charity would be discriminating based on sexual orientation or marital status. If they offer spousal benefits to someone who enters into a heterosexual marriage, they ought to offer them to someone who enters into a legally recognized same-sex marriage. They are offering benefits as an employer. They are not giving their blessing to the marriage of the secretary. Just how much responsibility does an employer have when it comes to whom an employee chooses to marry?
What is the purpose, after all, of antidiscrimination legislation, if it is not to require those who want to discriminate not to discriminate?
David: I think your point is exactly right. In the article, the question you highlight is followed immediately by a question suggesting the possibility that a church could lose its tax-exempt status if it did not allow same-sex ceremonies to take place on its property. I think putting these two questions side by side is misleading. The question you highlight speaks to the status of the church as an employer, the second speaks to the status of the church as a church. I find it far less likely that a church will be penalized for not allowing ceremonies that could take place in many other places; whereas an employee is an employee, and should churches wish to employ people, they should be asked to follow anti-discrimination rules regarding employment. To pay benefits for a gay employee would imply no tacit endorsement of same-sex relationships whatsoever.
It might help to differentiate insisting that religious employers observe all employee regulations from insisting that a Catholic hospital provide abortion services or contraception. Even if one believes that one has a right to abortion services and contraception, it does not follow that a Catholic hospital is a required respondant to that right (as opposed to a governmental agency). Whereas, an employer must be the respondant to all employee rights.
The whole tax-exempt status issue is somewhat misleading. There is no constitutional requirement that such status be granted. It is granted because we the people wish to support the mission of religious institutions. We the people are free to withdraw that status for whatever reason we want, if we come to such a conclusion through democratic means (Personally, I have been surprised that more churches have not given up entirely on this status so as to pursue more clearly and forcefully political activism). Whether a religious institution is granted a tax-exempt status is a different matter from what that religious institution is told that it must do.
Some might suggest that threatening to withhold tax-exempt status if a religious institution refused to follow a law or regulation would be a form of coercion, and they would be entirely correct. However, they would likely fail to note that such coercion already takes place with respect to political activism. Religious institutions do not engage in explicit political endorsement (in theory at least) because they think the price of such action would literally be too high.
Now, if important religious programs such as those that support our social safety net start going away because religious institutions would rather shut them down than follow certain laws and regulations, they we the people will have to decide which we value more: the enforcement of rights, or the now lost services of the religious institutions. While I could see a religious hospital shutting down if were forced to do things like provide abortions or contraception, I think it very unlikely that a major charity organization would shut down if it were forced to pay health insurance for a same-sex partner. At the very least, I would like to see what the fallout among the faithful would be if the charity shut down on these grounds.
The Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco offers benefits to any individual who lives with one of its employees including a same-sex partner. This happened while William Levada was Archbishop of San Francisco. The City of San Francisco does not provide funds to any institution that did not offer domestic partners benefits to its employees. The Archdiocese of San Francisco did not want to lose the City as one of its sources of funds.
Gay rights were certainly emphasized at the Academy Awards last night. I am a gay man who has lived in San Francisco for 45 years. I met the late Harvey Milk and I met the late Randy Shilts. Shilts did a well known documentary about Harvey Milk . I know Dan White’s widow. In fact I see her socially a couple times a years. She and I have a close friend in common.
“The Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco offers benefits to any individual who lives with one of its employees including a same-sex partner.”
I confess I probably haven’t thought as deeply about this as other folks here with more of a personal stake in the issue, so forgive me if this is naive or even ignorant. And it is with much trepidation that I comment. Fraternal corrections very welcome.
Here what I see as the core problem – I mean “problem” in the sense of, “the knot that must be untangled”. I’m going to try to write this in the spirit of being non-judgemental and non-condemning – I apologize if it comes across as intolerant, that’s not my intent. To me, the core issue with gay marriage for church employees is the church’s reasonable right to expect that all of its employees promote the church’s teaching, and do and say nothing to undermine the church’s teaching. In addition, those who minister for the church are expected, reasonably I believe, to live a life of holiness. This is where I think it could be problematic for employees (gay or otherwise) who are known to live in an extramarital relationship as the church defines marriage.
As the church sees marriage, (a) as between a man and a woman and (b) with a public dimension, I don’t see how it is reconcilable with the notion of a state-approved gay marriage. And I disagree with the authors of the article that their suggested compromise may be workable. Draping all of the benefits and responsibilities that accrue to marriage under another rubric may just reduce to legalistic obfuscation.
I apologize again if this comes across as strident or intolerant. Trying to raise issues without causing undue strife.
The Franciscans in San Francisco employee a large number of people. The reason that they do is that they own and operate a huge non-profit named St. Anthony’s Foundation. Long before there were any domestic partner ordinances and laws, the Franciscans offered benefits to any individual who lived with one of their employees. It didn’t matter to the Franciscans if the individual who lived with their employee was a same-sex partner, a family member, a friend or even an enemy. The Franciscans took a very generous approach to benefits for their employees. These days more and more people seem to be without health insurance. This Franciscan approach is a good way for people to get insurance who might not otherwise be able to. I think that it is especially fitting that the Archdiocese of San Francisco imitated the generosity of its Franciscans.
http://www.stanthonysf.org/home.html
To me, the core issue with gay marriage for church employees is the church’s reasonable right to expect that all of its employees promote the church’s teaching, and do and say nothing to undermine the church’s teaching.
Jim,
I am not sure I have a quarrel with what you are saying. But the example both Joe and I were commenting on involved a secretary. If people are going to represent the Church in the course of doing their job, that’s one thing. But if a person is expected to show up, do a job (such as secretary, of janitor, or security guard, or whatever) and go home, then I don’t see it is the business of the employer — no matter what that employer may represent — to balk at complying with nondiscrimination laws.
I would say if a church or other religious or charitable organization has a legitimate right to concern itself with how an employee spends his or her salary, then perhaps it has a right to concern itself with how that employee uses his or her benefits. Certainly if you are hiring elementary school teachers who are going to be teaching religion to children, you have a right to hire faithful Catholics. But if a religious organization is going to hire an electrician or a chauffeur or a gardener, I don’t see how their private lives would be of any concern.
David, I do see your and Joe’s distinction in job role, and it may turn out to be the right solution (compromise?). As a practical matter, it may require classifying the various jobs as ministry/non-ministry.
My only caveat is that most jobs in the church involve contact with the public in some way. Certainly that is true of a secretary who is staffing the “front desk” of a parish or school office.
The experience with No Child Left Behind bas been that, as a practical matter, virtually every employee and volunteer needs to go through the training because nearly everyone comes in contact with children. By way of analogy, I believe the vast majority of jobs in the church could be classified as teaching/ministry.
Jim: I do not think your presentation of the problem is intolerant at all. Let me add a few thoughts to what David has written.
There is already written into law the ability to discriminate in hiring based on the idea that some jobs come with specific requirements. Such laws also allow for firing when a person no longer fulfills those requirements. The question becomes then, what requirements can a religious organization claim as legitimately required of all of its employees, as opposed to employees with particular specializations (e.g. teacher of theology)?
Notice, however, that this is a question of hiring and firing, not of employees benefits and protections. Once someone is hired, I think certain responsibilities ensue as a result of both contractual and civic obligations between employer and employee. Thus, the issue of focusing on benefits rather than hiring/firing is a bit misleading. If it was O.K to hire a gay person before a benefits plan required payment for a same-sex significant other, then it should be O.K. to pay the benefits, as well. If there was a problem with having a gay person on staff, it should emerge in the hiring process.
Should an institution that teaches that same-sex relationships are wrong be allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians in hiring and should they be allowed to fire someone who “comes out” while an employee? Well, if the answer is a straightforward (no pun intended), “yes” then I have wondered why another organization could not define itself as a white supremacist organization that believes that a woman’s place is in the home and so insist that it be allowed only to hire white males. It does seem to me that allowing religious organizations to discriminate against gays and lesbians opens the door to such a possible reality.
From a constitutional perspective, the real question is whether or not when the federal government enforces what it takes to be legitimate civil rights it is infringing in an unjustifiable way on the “free exercise” of a religion by insisting that a religious institution respect those rights in its employment policies. I think the answer is no, there is no free exercise violation. There cannot be a constitutional right to federal money, and so long as the federal government spends that money in accordance with its own civil rights regulations, I do not see an establishment of religion, either.
Michael Miller has it right. Jim, my experience is that most jobs in chanceries are not ministry.
Lay parish school teachers are not Sister Mary Elizebeth of old either. Catholic Charities, receive abundant civil/tax funding and have reflected that in hiring etc..
‘To me, the core issue with gay marriage for church employees is the church’s reasonable right to expect that all of its employees promote the church’s teaching, and do and say nothing to undermine the church’s teachings’ Expecting and getting is a huge step….
My 10 year experience with working for the archdiocese, is that if 50% of the employees were regular Mass attendees, no less agreeing with Church teachings,it would be a stretch.
With eco downturn , the shut down of health benefits for spouses/live-ins/whatever is the question becoming moot.?
The ministry/non-ministry distinction doesn’t work. Where do you draw the line? For many people, for example, the parish secretary is the day-to-day working face of the parish. The person in the pew isn’t going to make the distinction. What about the Music Minister? What about the business manager? It is not just about what the person does, it is about what they represent.
Also, the tax exempt-issue is far more complex than as outlined in some of the comments. Certainly tax exemption isn’t a necessary outgrowth of the first amendment. However, selective tax examption would have first amendment implications. In other words, a system that said – Unitarians exempt – Catholics non-exempt – by conditioning that exemption on behavior and positions that the Church objects to on religious grounds has free exercise implications – and maybe even establishment implications.
Sean: I guess I disagree with your conclusion regarding “selective tax exemption.” The issue would be the basis of the selection. If it were either a religious, or perhaps generically anti-religious, criterion, then one might have establishment issues. I do not see how this is the case with civil rights laws. Regarding free exercise, as I noted before, we already do have what you call selective exemption. Religious instituions choose whether or not they wish to engage in partisan electoral politics. If they choose to do so, they (in theory) lose their tax exempt status. I fail to see where there is a violation of free exercise here. No one is forcing a religious institution to accept federal money.
As a general observation to all, part of this debate revolves around what we the people are willing to sacrifice in order to support religious institutions. We have decided that we are willing to forego some tax revenue to support these institutions. Now, some religious institutions want us to forego recognized federal civil rights. To be sure, many of those doing so do not believe that protections related to sexuality ought to exist in the first place. But if we are willing to water down some civil rights today so as to promote a seemingly greater cause, what civil rights will we water down in the future to promote other causes? If one does not like the rules, work to change them, but don’t say that the rules shouldn’t apply to you.
Joe,
The example you chose demonstrates the point. The constitutionality of the partisan electoral issue is far from settled – and what we are talking about here is far more clear. In the case of political action, as you say, there is a choice but it is a choice about means. In the case we are talking about the state uses its power to compel religious institutions to implement its policy choices in contravention of the institutions religious teaching.
Second, your “general observation” really just boils down to pure majoritarianism – something contrary to an effective view of civlil rights. There is such a thing as conflicting assertions of rights. What you neglect to consider is that the Church and its members have rights too. All you are saying is that if a group is able to get its rights enforced by the state, then another who’s rights are impinged just better lump it.
The ministry/non-ministry distinction doesn’t work. Where do you draw the line?
Sean,
As I understand it, religious organizations since 1972 have had an exemption from civil rights laws and may hire, if they so choose, only those of their own religion. And that applies to any and all jobs. However, I am wondering how many of them do. I note, from the Catholic Charities web site, the following:
Suppose a Catholic organization gives benefits to employees’ spouses, and suppose they also hire non-Catholics to positions they consider not to compromise the religious character of their organization. I fail to see how it would not be discrimination for them to refuse benefits to a same-sex partner. If they don’t object to hiring a non-Catholic, why should they object to giving non-Catholics the same benefits as Catholics?
No religious instituion is compelled to accept federal funds. My position on civil rights is not majoritarianism, but rather consistency. If federal civil rights are explicitly affirmed, then the federal government is not being unfair in enforcing those rights. If some religious instituions agree to abide by those rights, then they can receive federal funds. If some do not, there is no violation of any rights. They may continue their ministry as they wish without federal funding. Why do religious insitutions have a right to cherry pick which federal rules should apply to them and which should not?
Sean: My brain was on Faith-Based funding there for a minute. I lost track of the compromise on same-sex unions which is the heart of the argument. Here, I think David’s question is apropos. But, I will return to my point about hiring and firing vs. benefits. It still seems to me that the issue is what religious instituions are allowed to do on the hiring and firing side of the debate. Not on the employee rights side.
On the faith-based initiatives matter, I don’t know why any religious organization needs, or should get, federal money to carry out their mostly religious mission. It seems to me that it flies in the face of reason to give government money to organizations that are carrying out a mission the character of which is so much determined by their religion that they can hire only those of their own faith. If the federal government is going to fund a Catholic soup kitchen, can the people who run it specify that they will feed only hungry Catholics?
If you don’t want to follow the queen’s rules, then don’t take her shillings.
It should be a cold day in hades before any minority group should sit back idly while its tax dollars are used to openly discriminate against them.
Back up to Joseph O’Leary, how is French civil union “marriage lite”?
Just wondering, since Raber and I were married in a civil ceremony before we converted (long story), which the Church recognized as a valid marriage because it was our one and only, and we are held to the same standards as any other married Catholic couple. As far as I’m concerned (and as far as Raber better be concerned), there’s nothing “lite” about our marriage.
Sorry, Joe, David, Michael and all, I’m already hopelessly behind in this discussion. Just a few random thoughts:
* I agree that tax-exemption isn’t the be-all and end-all, but it’s a nice to have, and I’d like to preserve it if possible
* By its own internal rules, the church can and does occasionally terminate the employment of employees who happen to be gay and living in an openly and sexually active gay relationship. For the sake of consistency, she could/perhaps should do the same with heterosexual employees who are openly living with their boy/girlfriends. But I can’t point to any instances of this ever happening.
* Gay marriage is a new situation for the church. Not everything in our private lives is irrelevant to our jobs – all of us can do things in our off-hours that will cause our employers to fire us because they present a conflict of interest, or because our behavior embarrasses the employer. Gay marriage is, in a sense, a conflict of interest – it runs counter to something (marriage) that is integral to the church’s religious mission. Public officials, college football coaches and soldiers are held to high standards of personal conduct because of the nature of their professions – clergy, too. From that point of view, it would seem to make sense that the same is true of even non-clerical employees of Christian churches. All of us, in a sense, represent our employers, even when we are clocked out for the evening.
“Raber and I were married in a civil ceremony ”
I have to admit I’m not entirely clear on what the difference is between a civil union and full-blown marriage, but I don’t think a civil ceremony before a judge or justice of the peace to contract a civil marriage is the same as a civil union. As I’ve probably made clear, though, istm that for purposes of this discussion, a civil union is a marriage in different clothing.
Having spent a minute or less researching it on Google, I’d point to this article that seems to state that, in the US, there are three major differences between civil union and marriage:
* The Federal government doesn’t recognize civil unions, and so certain benefits open to married couples such as joint filing of Federal tax returns isn’t possible for couples in a civil union;
* Civil unions aren’t “portable” from one state to another – a civil union contracted in, say, Vermont wouldn’t be recognized in Michigan;
* Marriage has all sorts of cultural connotations that aren’t conveyed by the term “civil union”
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html
Marriage in a civil ceremony isn’t subject to these limitations. Even the church(!) would assume, at least as a default position, that you were married by the civil ceremony, if you and your husband weren’t Catholic at the time.
For the sake of consistency, she could/perhaps should do the same with heterosexual employees who are openly living with their boy/girlfriends. But I can’t point to any instances of this ever happening.
Jim,
Perhaps should?
Actually, if your argument about employees representing the employer is correct, Catholic organizations should not have any unmarried, cohabiting heterosexual employees period. It should not be a matter of being consistent with the way they treat gay people. What you are describing sounds to me like both hypocrisy and discrimination.
Back up to Joseph O’Leary, how is French civil union “marriage lite”?
Jean,
French civil unions are not civil marriages. They have some of the benefits of marriage, but they are easily dissolved, and without the financial issues that arise in a divorce. As I understand it, basically all you have to do (both parties, or just one) is declare “I want out!” No divorce, no lawyers, no alimony. They were apparently invented so that same-sex couples could form legal households, since they couldn’t get married, but that was not explicitly stated, and now heterosexual French couples are increasingly choosing to form civil unions rather than get married.
I would like to raise what I see as a fundamental question that goes beyond the straight-gay dichotomy.
Why are persons who have no children (including married persons without children) offered benefits that single people without children are not? E. g., they are offered much cheaper insurance rates and insurance for a friend.
I have paid onsiderably more proportionately for insurance than married friends with no children paid. I can see the interest of the state and even of employers in the well-being of children and so they give people with children breaks. But our system discriminates against single people with no children relative to married ones and gay couples with no children.
Put a little differently, why are pairs of people with no children given rights to better benefits that single people with no children are not given?
OK, so I knew it wouldn’t be a popular topic. But I think that the general topic “right to benefits” needs airing.
P. S.
I see “civil unions” of straight people as attempts to alleviate this inequity, but they still leave the singles with no kids paying more than their share. When my nephew and hsi girfriend lived in New York they entered a civil union for exactly this reason.
Ann,
Thanks for your insightful questions. I just want to address the subject of costs for health insurance purchased through employers or what we call group plans. The cost of health insurance purchased through an employer is determined by health insurers and not by employers or by the government. The cost for this type of health insurance is normally not determined on the basis of whether people are married or not. Generally it is based on the number of people being insured. In fact the more people that are insured in an employer’s group, the lower the premiums for everybody in the group. Nevertheless I am shocked by how much money couples (married or not) with children have to pay for health insurance. I am not an expert on health insurance so anything I have written is subject to correctiom or clarification.
I want to add that in San Francisco all employers who provide their employees with health insurance must provide it to any domestic partner, husband or wife and their children.
I have noticed something that is becoming much more common here. Married people are starting to refer to their husbands and wives as partners. Often you don’t know if people are in a opposite-sex relationship or not.
After reading the Week in Review yesterday, I told my wife the best thing to think about were the two arrtcicles on trying to move past the hot button issues of abortion/contaception, gay marriage/civil unions, etc. (not Frank Rich as suggested on another thread.)
I was glad to see John McGreevy found the issue(s) important, but, as I read the posts here, I think I’ve missed the point.
I thought what was at issue was how much folk were willing to give up, yes, give up, in the civil sphere if their religious poin tof view was respected so we could all move ahead.
A friend suggested that the op-eds would do nothing because folks’ ” I believe” would override any concern for comprtomise in the civil sphere; I think i catch some of that in Jim P.”s approach.
Underlying some of the discussion here is a change from the classic views of the GOODS of marriage fidelity and procreation to have been superceded in the public square for many by commitment and good parenting – neutral to the Catholic view about the need for every sex act to be open to procreating and to fidelity being only about a man and a woman.How far apart are these values in the world of today? Will the traditional view based in societies where we needed to have big families tend to collapse under the values and real values of commitment and good parenting?
If its either/ or and there is no compromise in the public square, wil there be more credibility issues for the church in our younger more tolerant folk?
I”m sure I’ve missed out on the discussion here, but I thought the issue was about values more than legalities, and about ability to compromise in matters civil as oposed to assertion of religious practice as determentative there.
Thank you, Michael, for the information. I really didn’t mean to go into the inequities involved in being single and childles. I just wanted to raise the fundamental issue: what is the basis/bases of the right to health care?
This thread also prompts another basic question which I don’t know how to answer: how do we determine who has equal rights to what? Put another way, how do we fairly determine who should have specific legal rights to X, Y, or Z? Or: what in human nature or experience determines the basis of *any* right? Is it because we are what we are? Or because we have a certain function in society? Or simply because we’re capable of exercising a right? Or what?
Jim Pauwels wrote:
“the core issue with gay marriage for church employees is the church’s reasonable right to expect that all of its employees promote the church’s teaching, and do and say nothing to undermine the church’s teaching.”
But it may be a moral duty to do so when the teaching is wrong and destructive.
” those who minister for the church are expected, reasonably I believe, to live a life of holiness. This is where I think it could be problematic for employees (gay or otherwise) who are known to live in an extramarital relationship as the church defines marriage.”
In practice, the gay couples the church judges unholy are often holier than the conflicted clergy. By the same token the church judges contraceptive use unholy. How far are you going to carry this penalization of people for not observing clerical diktats about what is holy or not?
Ann-
Thanks for your questions. I believe that all people have the right to health care. I don’t really know what the practical implications of that kind of goal are. I am not very good at administration or organization. I hope the present system(s) are continually transitioned into something that works toward that ideal.
I also don’t know how equal rights are determined. I think we will learn more about equality with an honest and open discussion.
Specifically on the topic of marriage and couples and children, I like what Bob Nunez wrote and the questions he asked: “Underlying some of the discussion here is a change from the classic views of the GOODS of marriage fidelity and procreation to have been superceded in the public square for many by commitment and good parenting – neutral to the Catholic view about the need for every sex act to be open to procreating and to fidelity being only about a man and a woman. How far apart are these values in the world of today? Will the traditional view based in societies where we needed to have big families tend to collapse under the values and real values of commitment and good parenting?”
Most married Catholics in the United States do not believe that every sex act needs to be open to procreation. I hope everybody realizes this fact. Obviously this fact will figure into any future attitudes and ideas that develop on the sujects of sex and couples and children.
Bob Nunz,
Sorry I got your name wrong.
“Actually, if your argument about employees representing the employer is correct, Catholic organizations should not have any unmarried, cohabiting heterosexual employees period. It should not be a matter of being consistent with the way they treat gay people. What you are describing sounds to me like both hypocrisy and discrimination.”
Hi, David, I agree, and as I say, I can’t point to any instances of the church discharging a person for cohabitation, but I’d be very surprised if it doesn’t happen, at least in certain dioceses. Ideally, the church would be perfectly consistent about it (one way or another), but I doubt that it is.
This conversation has had me wondering if “don’t ask/don’t tell” about cohabitation is the practical policy of the church on these questions.
A few questions on insurance costs for Ann to factor in:
Do married couples get better insurance rates because data shows that they have better health and lower claims than single people, including widows and widowers?
But, our rather recently acquired insurance arrangement makes it cheaper for each of us to sign on separately rather than as a married couple. Are insurance companies adjusting their rates based on equity questions? I’d be surprised, but….
Ms. S. –
I don’t doubt that the possible poorer health of some single people is a factor in the insurance companies determination of rates.
But I’m still left with the question: why would gay men, who as a group have been tragically unhealthy because of AIDS, pay lower insurance premiums because they are married? This leas to my most basic question: why should anybody get insurance breaks?
J wonder if it is even possible to have a fair private insurance system for the simple reason that the insurance companies must discriminate in order to make more money for their stockholders, as is required by law. Again, we’re back at that abominable law that requires the maximization of profits for owners.
Ms. S. –
I don’t doubt that the possible poorer health of some single people is a factor in the insurance companies determination of rates.
But I’m still left with the question: why would gay men, who as a group have been tragically unhealthy because of AIDS, pay lower insurance premiums because they are married? This leas to my most basic question: why should anybody get insurance breaks?
J wonder if it is even possible to have a fair private insurance system for the simple reason that the insurance companies must discriminate in order to make more money for their stockholders, as is required by law. Again, we’re back at that abominable law that requires the maximization of profits for owners.
Ann-
In California health insurers who provide insurance for a group of employees cannot ask any individual in the group if they have a prior condition such as the AIDS virus.
In California if somebody buys insurance individually or as a family, the insurance company can ask that individual or the family members if they have a prior condition such as the AIDS virus. If somebody does have the AIDS virus, the insurance company will not sell insurance to that individual or family or the insurance costs would be prohibitive.
If insurance is purchased individually, I think the costs for a couple is proportionately less than for a single person. This assumes the purchasers of insurance are all healthy.
I hope this made sense. I don’t know what the laws in Louisiana are. Most insurance law is promulgated by the states.
“on the other hand, I wonder if the institution of marriage has not become too much of a monopoly for its own good?”
Joseph O’Leary, what do you mean by this statement?
“If insurance is purchased individually, I think the costs for a couple is proportionately less than for a single person. This assumes the purchasers of insurance are all healthy.”
Michael –
I wonder if the California gay couples and singles in the group plan pay the same proportionately. As I see it, the whole system is insane, The insurance companies in order to compete are practically forced to discriminate one eway or another, and the ones discriminated against are usualy the small groups because they have less political clout.
“This conversation has had me wondering if “don’t ask/don’t tell” about cohabitation is the practical policy of the church on these questions.”
Listening to the ambiguous statements of leading churchmen such as Archbishops Martin of Dublin and Zollisch of Freiburg and hearing rumors of liberal discussions of civil unions in theology classes in Rome I suspect that in addition to don’t ask, don’t tell about cohabitation (and birth control etc. etc.) there is a movement within the Church to accept civil unions as the pain-free alternative to gay marriage.
Nancy Danielson, the modern world will have everyone marry — even gays are now dragooned to marry gays — yet so many marriages break down that the institution itself may be suffering from fragility due to overload.
A gay friend claims to have received six marriage proposals last year! It’s a very changed world to be sure.
Joseph OLeary, while it may be true that there are many people who do not Respect the Sacrament of Marriage, this does not change the fact that, “God is the author of Marriage and that the vocation to Marriage is written in the very nature of Man and Woman as they came from the hand of the Creator.”-CCC, no.1603
I don’t at all deny that — or that everyone has a natural right to marry — but nonetheless many find that they have another vocation than marriage — or that for some reason such as immaturity they are unsuited at their present state of development to marriage. Gays were regarded as an obvious case of people not called to marriage, but now we are beginning to think that there is a gay vocation at least analogous to heterosexual marriage.
Dear Nancy–
In my experience some of the people who value marriage most are gay people.
Is gay marriage possible? I don’t know. What are the essental charistics of marriage?
Dear Ann-
If California had same-sex civil marriages or unions, I am fairly certain that health insurance for groups of employees would be proportionately less than for couples than for single people.
I agree the whole health insurance/care system is insane. As more people lose jobs, more people lose their health insurance. People with less political clout are discriminated against. It is a hard lesson more and more people are starting to learn.
Dear Ann-
In my experience, the people who value Marriage most are those who desire to live according to the Word of Love in a Holy Marriage. a Holy Union of Love, and those who understand why God desires that all Marriages be a Holy Union.
“But I’m still left with the question: why would gay men, who as a group have been tragically unhealthy because of AIDS, pay lower insurance premiums because they are married? This leas to my most basic question: why should anybody get insurance breaks?”
Hi, Ann, I’m assuming you’re already familiar with this, but perhaps worth mentioning anyway: insurance companies employ actuaries whose job it is to slice and dice the insured population in order to figure out which subsets are the least risky or most risky (risky=expensive to the insurance company). At a basic level, if single people pay lower premiums than married people, it’s because actuarially single people have been determined – as a whole – to be cheaper to cover. Perhaps that would be because younger employees are more likely to be single than older employees, and younger employees also tend to be healthier.
Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis have written this response to the Rauch/Blankenhorn piece:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2009.02.24.001.pdart
It includes some objections to the Rauch/Blankenhorn piece (objections that the Catholic Church probably would endorse) and offers an alternative proposal.
I could be wrong but I don’t think so. Couples pay proportionately less for health insurance than single people do. The reasoning is that couples live healthier lives.
Life insurance is cheaper for young people than it is for old people.
Jim –
I seem to be going in circles about the facts. I don’t really know what they are now, and we’re talking about some hypotheticals too. But when I was young (centuries ago) I worked in a Kaiser Aluminum personnel office that handled insurance claims, and I was aware that there was discrimination then on the basis of marital status. In those days married women had more pregnancy health problems than today (because American medicine just wasn’t as good then as now) , and yet married women paid proportionately less.
I brought up the gay couples hypothesis because I would expect, with marriage they would pay proportionately less than they did as singles. My reason for thinking that is that one of the complaints I here from gays is that they don’t get marital benefits such as insurance rates. Again hypothetically, if that would be the case, then I think it would be discrimination on the basis of marital status too because the gay people group is a particularly high risk one.
Actually, I think the whole system is insane because use of *all* those actuarial groups are a form of discrimination because there are people within each group who are actually not as high risk as others in their group. As I see it, the only fair system would be a single system in which everyone is treated equally.
Yesterday I betook myself to the State Capitol in Santa Fe to lobby for some senior issues – a suitable lenten penance.
One could not see or talk with a single State senator – they were all closeted from the public debating and then defeating a domestic partnership bill that had passed the House.
TV, Radio and print coverage todaty all attributed the defeat to heavy lobbying by the Catholic and Baptist Churches.
It’s my considered opiniopn that therei s not much hope for The Church moving forward in the civil sphere on this issue.
I think that after the Obama victory there is a concerted effort on the part of leadership to continue to play as hard as possible the “value” agenda of pro life (hence the FOCA postcard campaign) and the “protection” of marriage -even though here bill sponsors were saying that the bill did protect marriage and was about civil benefits.
I further think there is dissonance then between say the ministry conference John Allen wrote of this week trying to bring pro-life and justice folk together and the major players in US Hierrachy (I wonder how Chaput’s flipping off all Catholic Democrats as “Obama adulators” would play there?)
It’s further my considered opinion that the Republicans will continue (with a sweet smile) to attack the Obama administration on the same old “values” (read no tax increase) while pretending to be cooperative.
Finally, I think the perception of Catholic hierachy and the GOP as being in bed together will not only persist but grow.
Until there is some movement to move ahead not back(by lurching right), the suggestion here to try to move past the hot button will just be another false hope.