Catholic bishop supports benefits for gay couples

Ch 6 ^

[narses]

Boston-AP) -- The Catholic Church in Massachusetts may be open to extending some benefits to gay couples.

That was the message of Worcester Bishop Daniel Reilly at today's Statehouse hearing on legalizing gay marriage.

Reilly said the church is firmly against gay marriage and civil unions, but believes that the state should provide gay couples with certain economic and social benefits, including bereavement and hospital visitation rights.

Gay rights advocates welcomed the Catholic Church to the debate, but said that denial of marriage would be a violation of same-sex couples' civil rights.

The Judiciary Committee today hosted the first-ever legislative hearing on the legalization of gay marriage or civil union.

The panel also heard testimony on an abortion bill that would require women to wait 24 hours before consenting to the procedure.

[narses]

How many Bishops have protected criminal abusers of children sinky? They can claim what they will, but standing up for sodomites is NOT Catholic.

[sinkspur]

Your worldview is sick and sickening.

I'll take my chances with O'Malley, narses.

You can continue in your hatred.

[Loyalist]

Are you against a gay man being able to leave his possessions to his partner?

They've been doing that in wills long before the love that dared not speak its name became the love that will not shut up.

The subject is intestate succession, deacon, in which a homosexual partner of possibly dubious commitment to his late lover would stand in the same position as a legally married husband or wife.

You and the bishop favour letting homosexual lovers and their collateral and lineal ascendants and descendants stand in the same legal position as blood relations of married couples.

Why? Not even common-law couples, in many common law jurisdictions, benefit from intestacy.

[Antoninus]

And what's taking so long for them to find a replacement for the bishop?

Have you seen the Pope lately? If he makes it to the end of the year, it'll be a miracle. We're still waiting for a new bishop here in NJ too.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Weekly? Once would shock the purple panties off of some people!

[Qwinn]

"What's wrong with hospital visitation rights? If somebody's family has abandoned them because they're gay, maybe the partner is the only person they've got."

"because they're gay".

See, I have a problem with the entire notion that a sexual preference has been turned into an identity trait. I reject that as much as if someone demanded special rights to abuse and hurt each other "because they're into S&M".

As far as it goes with gay men, the medical dangers involved with sodomy (even when wearing a condom) are extreme and completely ignored in our politically correct culture. It is possibly the single most dangerously unhygiencic action a human being can attempt. In a lot of cases, one of those gay men is in the hospital because their "gayness" put them there.

To me, it's like the diseases transmitted by high school kids who form blood pacts by all cutting themselves with the same knife. Demanding hospital visitation rights is like demanding that the kid who infected you in your "blood pact" must, automatically, legally, have the right to visit you.

But naaaah, Lawrence vs. Texas would never lead to incrementalism. That's just right-wing extremist talk.

Qwinn

[NeoCaveman]

But I still can't see denying people many of these things simply because they are gay and we want to see them suffer for it.

Valid point. I know this, I wouldn't want to be judged for "muddying the waters" and hence encouraging someone to behave in such a way that they damn themself.

[narses]

My hatred "deacon" is hatred of sin. Your embrace of same is sickening.

[NeoCaveman]

Have you seen the Pope lately? If he makes it to the end of the year, it'll be a miracle. We're still waiting for a new bishop here in NJ too.

Good point. Great point.

[narses]

Well said, bravo!

[Torie]

Well perhaps the point is that "true" Catholics think children should be taken away by force of law from their gay parents. That appears the only way out of the theological maze, for those who enjoy running such mazes, the architecture of which is so often of their own design to fit their own agenda.

[Antoninus]

The bishop is expressing support for a fait accompli.

That being the case, I guess all our bishops should be out there advocating for health plans to cover contraception and abortion too. After all, they are fait accomplis as well. And for homo-marriages. After all, that does seem to be the way society is headed.

For a 'deacon,' your dedication to Catholic teaching seems unbelievably tenuous.

[sinkspur]

Demanding hospital visitation rights is like demanding that the kid who infected you in your "blood pact" must, automatically, legally, have the right to visit you.p>Actually, it's not, unless the kid who forms the blood pact is abandoned by his blood family, which is often the case with gay people.

You would deny hospital vistation to a partner of a gay man when that partner is the only person he's got?

You see no cruelty in that?

[sinkspur]

My hatred "deacon" is hatred of sin.

Right.

[sinkspur]

For a 'deacon,' your dedication to Catholic teaching seems unbelievably tenuous.

I'm sure it looks that way to a kid such as yourself.

Perhaps you should pray for the gift of compassion.

[Antoninus]

It is good to see that Archbishop O'Malley supports the welfare of children.

Yeah, the same Abp. O'Malley who has been such a bitter disappointment already by giving communion to notorious public sinners and trying to force a perverted sex ex program on unwilling Boston parents. He's just doing a bang-up job up there.

[sinkspur]

Compassion, Tony. Pray for it.

[Antoninus]

You're out of step with the good Archbishop as well, Tony

Happily so. Abp. O'Malley has not been the strong hand on the tiller that Boston needs. He seems just as flaccid as the previous occupant of that particular cathedra.

[Qwinn]

"You would deny hospital vistation to a partner of a gay man when that partner is the only person he's got?"

"You see no cruelty in that?"

Imagine someone who's family has all died - but he's got a best friend. They've been friends for 50 years. Hospitals would still deny that friend the right to visit them.

Why are we fighting for the right of gay partners before fighting for the right of lifelong friends?

To give gay partnerships hospital rights would elevate gay unions above and beyond lifelong friendships. I can think of no argument that would explain that -unless- one actively believes that gay sex is morally no different from marriage. By giving special privileges, it elevates gay relationships above EVERY OTHER human relationship except marriage and direct blood ties. I have a real problem with that.

Qwinn

[joesnuffy]

God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit

Jesus aka God the Son has existed with the God the Father and God the Holy Spirit since the beginning of time..

Jesus is the creator..nothing is that was not made by Him

He spoke eloquently to Sodom and Gomorahh on his views of sodomy and homosexual deviancy
God is not tolerant...nor compassionate to sin...on judgement day He will righteously condemn most of mankind to eternal separation and damnation...

To not warn of this is to both mankind a grievous injustice and to not properly explain who God is and who that Jesus is God...is doing God a great injustice..God is not only sovereign He is also to be feared..

The fear of God...is the beginning of Wisdom...(The fear of Christ-God is also the beginning of wisdom..Jesus is anything but an all forgiving wimp..Jesus-God will not be mocked)
He is quick to forgive those who confess their sin and who sincerely ask for forgiveness and bring forth the fruits of repentance..

Those who insist on continuing in their sin...are not sincerely sorry...and are condemned..they should be told this..and not conned into believing some false perception of the nature of Jesus-God The Almighty One

imo