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.

[sinkspur]

Abp. O'Malley has not been the strong hand on the tiller that Boston needs.

It is good that neither you nor I are Pope, right?

[GOP_Thug_Mom]

One of the Spiritual Works of Mercy: ADMONISH THE SINNER. THAT is true compassion!

[Antoninus]

Perhaps you should pray for the gift of compassion.

Why don't you pray for me? I could use more compassion, undeniably.

Meanwhile, I'll be praying that the Lord will grant you an epiphany that will break you out of your worldly stupor. The positions you take on many moral issues could lead many people into grave error. My faith in Christ tells me that even someone as obstinate as you can change.

[sinkspur]

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.

I'm not aware that this is EVER the case, and I visit people in the hospital.

OTOH, gay partners are regularly denied visitation.

Compassion is the key here, Qwinn. It costs nothing.

[Jorge]

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.

That is an excellent point

But I believe we have a much better chance of promoting our moral convictions if we show compassion for others.

Nobody is going to listen to us if they perceive us as mean-spirited and hateful.

[sinkspur]

The positions you take on many moral issues could lead many people into grave error.

Allowing dying men visitation rights is "grave error"?

[Antoninus]

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

That is an excellent pont. What is it about buggery that somehow makes the homosexual relationship valued as highly as blood relations and more highly that dear friends?

This whole argument is so bass-ackwards, so unbelievably academic and SICK. Who could doubt that it's all about moving the homo-agenda forward and nothing else?

Thanks for putting it into the proper perspective.

[sinkspur]

My faith in Christ tells me that even someone as obstinate as you can change.

No doubt. I don't recognize your need to "change" other people. Perhaps if you were more compassionate, you would reach more people.

After all, Mother Teresa said we should try to make Muslims good Muslims, Jews good Jews, and Hindus good Hindus.

I'll side with O'Malley and Teresa when it comes to the objects of their compassion. If I'm wrong, well, I'll go down in good company.

[Antoninus]

OTOH, gay partners are regularly denied visitation.

Somehow I doubt this is true. What do they do, approach the desk and say "I'm here to see Bruce Smith in room 210. I'm his butt-buddy"? No, I don't think so. Provide some proof of this claim besides your own anecdotes. You have a track record of making things up to suit your arguments.

[Jorge]

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...

Jesus also said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

[Antoninus]

Allowing dying men visitation rights is "grave error"?

No, treating homosexual liaisons as if they were the equivalent of family is a grave error. And that's what you and this particular bishop are doing.

[Loyalist]

What is it about buggery that somehow makes the homosexual relationship valued as highly as blood relations and more highly that dear friends?

Sex is the chief sacrament of the worldly man.

[Bohemund]

Allowing dying men visitation rights is "grave error"?

When did the bishop's wholesale endorsement of "hospital visitation rights" for gays become specific to "dying men?" Nice straw man.

[Cicero]

I didn't see anything about health insurance in the original quotation. Yes, I see it does say economic rights, and that's vague but dubious.

[sinkspur]

Sex is the chief sacrament of the worldly man.

And you wouldn't be here without it! LOL!!!!

You hate sex, do you? Perhaps you should read some of what JP II has written on the subject.

[GOP_Thug_Mom]

OTOH, gay partners are regularly denied visitation.

How in the world would you know that? I don't know that, and I have to wonder if they all walk around with signs on that say, "I'm a homosexual", so the hospital employees can say, "There's one! Don't let him in!"

Think about this. Suppose an unrepentant homosexual is in a hospital dying. He's all alone (as you would claim). He begins to think about eternity (being there's no one there to distract him). He opens himself up to the Holy Spirit Who convicts him of his sin and he becomes remorseful and repents!

[sinkspur]

When did the bishop's wholesale endorsement of "hospital visitation rights" for gays become specific to "dying men?"

Dying or not, why should it make a difference?

You think sick gay men should not be allowed to receive visits from their partners?

[Qwinn]

"I'm not aware that this is EVER the case, and I visit people in the hospital."

"OTOH, gay partners are regularly denied visitation."

If what you say is true, then what you should be fighting for is non-discrimination by the hospital. I would side with you on that. If friends are allowed to visit, then gay partners should be able to too, because we can assume they would count as "friends". If only gay people are being refused -because they are gay-, and by no agency other than the hospital, then I would agree that that is wrong.

But I have not heard that that is the case. Why would it even be an issue? Why would the couple even say anything about being gay, and not just say "we're friends", if friends are allowed?

Know what I think? I think the situation they want to overturn is where the family -does- show up for the sick person, but the person -prefers- their gay partner to their family, and the family denies it. The family are the ones saying "don't let him in".

In hospitalization, I believe blood family that is there for them should have legal supremacy in these cases.

I feel sympathy for someone who was left totally alone - and in the visitation situation that you describe, there would be no one to object to the gay partner's admittance. If the family is there, these benefits are stating that they must be allowed visitation by BOTH families and gay partners. That the gay partner could walk right in while family is visiting, and stand around and call them bigots for never "accepting" him.

If a patient had a friend who had been a very bad influence (say, a partner in alcoholism), and the family wanted to deny visitation to that enabler, I can't blame them. Why is this different? Especially in cases where the sodomy led to the health problems that led to the hospitalization?

Qwinn

[Antoninus]

No doubt. I don't recognize your need to "change" other people. Perhaps if you were more compassionate, you would reach more people.

I have no need to "change" other people. That's God's work, not mine. All I can do is get down on my knees and pray to Him. And I believe if it is His will, even a hard-hearted person like you can change.

I'll side with O'Malley and Teresa when it comes to the objects of their compassion. If I'm wrong, well, I'll go down in good company.

While I might put you in the company of Abp. O'Malley, based on his mis-steps so far, I wouldn't put you anywhere near Bl. Mother Theresa. For you to do so is an act of extreme hubris on your part.

[GOP_Thug_Mom]

After all, Mother Teresa said we should try to make Muslims good Muslims, Jews good Jews, and Hindus good Hindus.

Whoa, show me THAT quote from Mother Theresa! Don't think so!!