I hope that what the statement Christopher Coyne made on behalf of Bishop O'Malley was taken out of context and I believe it was.There is a difference between insurance for minor children and the "significant other". The children should be "by exception" and subject to individual review. And employees and people who carry their own insurance should start screaming big time.I have pointed out in another post to you that the sharp upturn in insurance costs is probably correlated to the addition of "partners" in so many government entities as well as big corporations.It is destroying families and a crime and a sin.
Where are all those persons who have fought to tax cigarette smokers to the point they are carrying half the special programs many states offer? They call it a sin tax and go merrily along,but paying in anyway for the devastation wreaked by homosexual behavior by the people who partake of the risky behaviors,oh,that's a different story.
``I think what's actually being said is that the benefits that are necessary for the protection of children and families don't necessarily involve any kind of a redefinition of relationship or marital status,'' Coyne said. What possible context could there be, but that children in gay families should receive the same benefits as children in straight families?
You're going to have to adjust to the compassion of the Church, sara. Caring for children or the sick is just that.