Catholic institutions grapple with handling married gay workers

Catholic hospitals and schools compete in the very same market as private institutions, for customers and employees. Government hospitals and schools already have loads of regulations on them, every law that is tried out uses them as the guinea pigs.

We give exemptions from our laws to the core work of religious institutions so they can do the work of their deities in converting people and maintaining them in their faith. I even question the tax exemption for that, but I'm willing to let the White Aryan Nations Church exclude black people from its congregations, even though I'd like their "church" building on the county tax rolls.

As for "social justice", its whatever anybody who wants to impose it on someone else says it is. Back during the Reagan Administration, the RCC was saying that social justice consisted of not building up our military, because it was taking too much welfare away from the poor. Now, some other people's idea of "social justice" is having employers pay for spousal benefits for same-gender relationships, once those relationships declare their exclusivity with at least the same commitment that the average heterosexual enters into marriage with. Does this offend the Catholic sense of propriety? No doubt, but it probably offends their sense of decency to pay spousal benefits to people who have been divorced and remarried, too. But that's the way the game gets played. Our society, at least in Massachusetts, is starting to broaden the definition of what is a committed couple.

As for law changes, you either change with it, or go out of business. That's the way that environmental law, tax law, and worker safety law all work, and the RCC has always fought hard for changes in those areas, no matter what it cost employers, either in terms of cash or philosophical beliefs.

As to whether marriage is meaningless or not, that's pretty much up to the people in each particular marriage to make that relationship either a source of strength and value in their lives, or to make it a sham that eventually is broken. A gay couple across town that either chooses to live together, get a civil union, or get a marriage certificate has no bearing on the marriage that my wife and I have. Our marriage is either sanctified or cheapened by our own behavior toward each other, no one else's relationship has any effect on ours, if we don't let it.

As for the market for medical services not being a totally free market, I'll agree. But you recognize that there is a market for labor services provided to hospitals and schools, and it is a free market, at least a far freer one. The spousal benefits discussed in this thread are a part of the compensation package that employers extend to employees in trade for their services, and there's a fundamental question of fairness when one class of institutions is treated unequally over another, with regard to paying benefits required by law. If it's just a custom in Massachusetts for a hospital or a school to pay spousal benefits, then the employer should be able to set whatever rules they want to on it.

That employer should also be willing to deal with whatever consequences that result, too. Once upon a time, before housing discrimination was outlawed, you couldn't get a Federally insured mortgage on a house in an area that had racial restrictions in the deeds.

Catholic hospitals and schools compete in the very same market as private institutions, for customers and employees. Government hospitals and schools already have loads of regulations on them, every law that is tried out uses them as the guinea pigs.

I wish you would use "public arena otr somesuch instead of "market,"because the word is hypothetical. It remains to e provens whether such a thing exists and if so in any definite form. Government schools and hospitals are also monopolies which are sheltered from the "competition" you talk about. Furthermore they are backed by lobbies who furiously fight any efforts to open their clientele to "competition."

We give exemptions from our laws to the core work of religious institutions so they can do the work of their deities in converting people and maintaining them in their faith. I even question the tax exemption for that, but I'm willing to let the White Aryan Nations Church exclude black people from its congregations, even though I'd like their "church" building on the county tax rolls. Generous of you, but schools and hospitals have been an important part of the Church's mission to the world for many, many years. So they are as much a part of as the "core" as church buildings. Secularists wants to eliminate both because they think that attempts by churches to expand their membership should be greatly curtailed.

As for "social justice", its whatever anybody who wants to impose it on someone else says it is. Back during the Reagan Administration, the RCC was saying that social justice consisted of not building up our military, because it was taking too much welfare away from the poor.

Don't confuse the RCC with the USCCB, the Majority of whom were Democrats and so more interested in the minimum wage than the issue of abortion. Now, some other people's idea of "social justice" is having employers pay for spousal benefits for same-gender relationships, once those relationships declare their exclusivity with at least the same commitment that the average heterosexual enters into marriage with. Does this offend the Catholic sense of propriety? No doubt, but it probably offends their sense of decency to pay spousal benefits to people who have been divorced and remarried, too. But that's the way the game gets played Our society, at least in Massachusetts, is starting to broaden the definition of what is a committed couple.

And How IS the game played? By allowing a narrow majority of a state high court to dictate public policy? Fromn that decision has come the order to JPs that they MUST marry homosexuals or lose their licenses. Can it be far down the road when in the name of "fairness: that priests and ministers be given the same choice, so that no one can be validly married in the Church? This is, of course, autocracy or whatever the name one gives to rule by judges. The game was up when the AG of Massachusetts agreed to abide by what is obviously an abuse of power by the High Court. Only a government staked with lawyers would ever confuse rule by judges with "the rule of law."In a tripartite government, indeep rather expressly in the Massachusetts Constitution, the judicary is the last among equals. The failure of the executive to exercise its right to interpret the Constitution is a failure of will. As for law changes, you either change with it, or go out of business. That's the way that environmental law, tax law, and worker safety law all work, and the RCC has always fought hard for changes in those areas, no matter what it cost employers, either in terms of cash or philosophical beliefs.

One does not go along with changes that do in effect force it to go out of business. Business spends billions of dollars each year lobbying government every year to make things go their way. The RCC, therefore, has better join forces with other organization such as the SBC, to fight what is happening tooth and nail. Except they are kept from doing this, are they not by, by election laws that prohibit them from endorsing politicians who see things their way? At least that is the way that the ACLU and much of the judiciary see the matter.

As to whether marriage is meaningless or not, that's pretty much up to the people in each particular marriage to make that relationship either a source of strength and value in their lives, or to make it a sham that eventually is broken. A gay couple across town that either chooses to live together, get a civil union, or get a marriage certificate has no bearing on the marriage that my wife and I have. Our marriage is either sanctified or cheapened by our own behavior toward each other, no one else's relationship has any effect on ours, if we don't let it.

This is your own peculiar way of looking at marriage. Marriage is and always has been a social institution, whose form and content, is pretty much independent of what individual couples think about it. This is like saying that a partnerships is what two individuals have shaken hands on. Marriage is at minimum a contract and so government by the law of contract. Whatever shape it has is imposed on the couple. The individual contribution is having entered into the contract voluntarily. The same is true of marriage viewed as a Sacrament. The grace comes from without. As for the market for medical services not being a totally free market, I'll agree. But you recognize that there is a market for labor services provided to hospitals and schools, and it is a free market, at least a far freer one. The spousal benefits discussed in this thread are a part of the compensation package that employers extend to employees in trade for their services, and there's a fundamental question of fairness when one class of institutions is treated unequally over another, with regard to paying benefits required by law. If it's just a custom in Massachusetts for a hospital or a school to pay spousal benefits, then the employer should be able to set whatever rules they want to on it.

"Fairness"is a bunch of baloney. The purpose of the law is to discriminate and it sure does.

That employer should also be willing to deal with whatever consequences that result, too. Once upon a time, before housing discrimination was outlawed, you couldn't get a Federally insured mortgage on a house in an area that had racial restrictions in the deeds.

Again, epmployers fight like hell to avoid such consequences. They is why they employlawyers, lobbyists and accountants.

Sorry, the use of the word "market" doesn't seem appropriate to you, and perhaps on the consumer side, it is not fully appropriate, for the reasons you stated. On the labor side, "market" does indeed define the competition among employers for qualified employees.

The question of whether or not "side" activities of churches are the same as the "core" missions of these churches has been long settled. If you think it's not, then you should see how the IRS has regarded an employee of a hospital or school treating their income as that from the ministry, if that particular person is not a member of a religious order, doing the work for room, board, and a pittance. The independence that is nominally asserted by such organizations is what makes them eligible for government funds from scholarships and Medicare/Medicaid.

I'll admit that certain activist groups that claim the title of "Catholic" have been the moving forces in getting socially-based legislation passed, but the non-liberal laity and the hierarchy have done little to prevent them from using a Catholic moral perspective to enter the debate on the treatment of workers or the environment, so they are subject to whatever this social activism has produced as a by-product. It does seem quite ironic that it has come around to bite them on the posterior.

You can argue about the unfairness of Supreme Court decisions, and that's certainly a legitimate angle of attack, but Catholic-backed positions have come down on the side of such judicial activism when it has suited them. If the Roe vs. Wade decision had gone the other way, the Catholic bishops would have hailed the Court as the defenders of liberty. As long as Supreme Court justices on the Federal and some State levels are appointed for life, you will have this sort of unaccountability that leads to judicial tyranny.

By the way a Justice of the Peace is a state-created office, a clergy member of a particular religion is not. We've always demanded equality from tax-paid public officials, we assert none of these claims against religious organizations. They are, and have been, and always will be free to define the tenets of their faith, whether or not those tenets are in the mainstream of American society.

Case in point: the Mormon church kept black men out of their innermost priesthood (something that every male in that faith aspires to be a member of) until about 1977. The civil rights battles of the sixties had long been fought and won, and it was only change occurring within the Mormon faith that changed this. Women are still second class citizens in that faith, and many others, and there is no governmental process going on to gain equality for them in any religious organization.

By the way, religious organizations are the only non-profits that may espouse political views and still keep their tax exempt status. Most try to do so in a non-partisan-looking way, to avoid being added to the list.

I have no argument with your comments on marriage as a sacrament, but we're talking about marriage as a government-sanctioned institution that confers benefits and responsibilities on its participants. Each church should keep "marriage the sacrament" as holy and as pure as it wants to. "Marriage the social contract" is changing, and has changed. In 1964, during his potential run for the Republican nomination, Nelson Rockefeller came under media scrutiny because he was married to a woman who had been divorced. A mere sixteen years later, we elected a Republican man who had been divorced as our President, and nobody seemed to mind very much. During all that time, and since, the Catholic church has been able to keep its teachings on divorce and remarriage completely intact.

I'm hoping that the current dilemma faced by the Catholic church causes it to rethink its stands on judicial activism, and the candidates who support judicial activists on the bench. Few things in life are not a two-edged sword.

One thing to consider is that American law, especially on its positive side, can't decide whether churches are priveleged institutions or not. The First Amendment, taken literally, does not allow Congress to legislate on religious matters at all. The states were allowed to retain the authority to establish a church. By the 1830s, of course,because of the impracticality of preferring one Protestant sect to another but also because of the tremendous growth of Church membership between 1800 and 1850,there was an unofficial establishment of all these bodies. Between Protestant bodies no discrimination was allowed and because of the rise of evangelicalism, differences of religious dogma became unimportant, and of course distinctions between Protestant clergymen became blurred and were based more on social distinction than on doctrine. Episcopal bishops, for instance, became part of the ruling class because their parishioners were largely members of the ruling class.

The Catholic Church, of course, did not fit. I won't get into the history of the rise of the power of the Church--a power that was entirely separate from the power of the Protestant bodies--but by 1947 the power of the Catholic bishops was enough to worry the ruling classes of the United States. The ruling class was determined not to allow the bishops to get federal funding for parochial schools, a possibility raised by the GI Bill, which did not discriminate against religious colleges.

Hugo Black, however, backed by some precedent but not enough to be conclusive, because he was in a rush to judgement, came up with a definition of "establishment" that no founding father, not Jefferson, not John Marshall, who was as anti-clerical as they come, would have accepted. Like the privacy right in Roe, it is an example of pure positivism.
Black did it because he and the majority on the Court hated the Catholic Church or, to put it more precisely, the Catholic hierarchy and wanted to stop the bishops from getting federal funds for the parochial schools So, just as the Massachusetts judges just did, by judicial fiat they amended the Constitution.

This, in my opinion, was very different from the Brown case, where the Court by a backward flip, got out of the corner earlier Courts had painted them into with the Plessy decision and most subsequent decisions. Warren reminds me of Lincoln. Lincoln could think of no real authority for the Emancipation Proclamation but he knew that he had to do it anyway. Ditto Warren. The whole purpose of the 14th Amendmrnt was to bring blacks under the proection of the Federal Government and to prevent the states from screwing them to the wall. So he came up with an opinion that persuaded no one but which had force because it attended a 9-0 decision. As a matter of law, no worse place could have a worse place to start than the public schools, since no one in 1867 had any notion of integrated schools. BUT, got to star somewhere, and of course,that would be with the case before them. The Civil Rights leaders grabbed the ball and ran with it, quite out of the control of the courts or anyone else. The Court, of course, had to go along, since their intention was to implement the 14th Amendment.

Anyway, the ruling class had no such tender feelings for the Catholic Church. Not that the Church had not tried. Catholics were part of the New Deal coalition and Roosevelt appointed almost as many Catholic judges as he did Jewish ones. Catholics were strongly represented also in the labor unions, another part of the coalition. Ditto Catholic political bosses. All of this was enough to get John Kennedy elected president in 1960.

But a new day was dawning. Some of the judges-e.g. Brennan--were anti-clericals and even liberals. Ditto many polticos. They disliked the deference that ordinary Catholics paid to the bishops. As a matter of fact, so did many priests, especially those in the colleges. Vatican II was the occasion for a rebellion against the bishops. The rebellion exploded when the pope issued his encyclical Humanae Generis, which re-asserted the traditional Catholic teachings on birth control (and abortion). Priests and seminarians bailed out by the thousands, something was uthinkable twenty years before.

Some bishops, maybe many, were likewise in rebellion, this time against Rome. After Roe came down, the bishops dutifully denounced abortion--but not too loudly--and in the new USCCB followed the path that came naturally to mst of them, the children of Democratic voters, and spent more time supporting the agenda of thew Democratic Party than they did on more painful subjects, such as contraception and abortion. Many priests quietly undermined the stated position of the bishops on matters of sexual morality but went all out in support of the political agenda of the bishops.

Sorry to rattle on like this, but I want you to know how it is that the USCCB came to be an arm of the Democratic Party.
Since 1972. however, that party has been taken over by people who hate eerything that the Catholic Church stands for, and the bishops have, pitfully, been trying to win them over by carrying their water on matters that have nothing to do with sexual morality, including, of course, nuclear disarmament.

By the 1980s, the older Protestant Churchs had lost their social power, but evangelcial bodies, such as SBC, were
in vororout growth. The Pro-life movement had at first been a Catholic thing, but now it ws joined by the evangelicals.
All of a sudden,evangelical leaders began to act like the more vigorous bishops of old, or at least like the evanglical leaders of the 19th Century. Now liberals began to talk darkly about "theocracy." They had captured the "mainstream" bodies, but the evangicals were a challenge to their power. They were now in full possesion of the Democratic Party and enjoyed the support of a substantial minority in the Republican Party. They enjoy the support of a majority of the judiciary and the legal profession as a whole. Hence what we see now is a full court press to revolutionize the relationships between the churches and American society by transforming the law.

But Catholic universities, hospitals, and perhaps other entities are competing in the free market, and sell their services alongside other providers, both private and governmental.

All these functions are core duties of the church. If you do not educate then you are failing to carry out God's command to go into all the world. If you do not operate hospitals (or other healing centers) then you are ignoring God's command to heal the sick. These are core functions of Christian belief and any imposition of perverse sexual behavior on them violates the first ammendment

(Note: The RCC and some larger protestant denominations have the means to operate hospitals etc. and they should. Some smaller denominations and independent churches can't operate a hospital but they are still called to heal the sick so they must be active some way in this calling.)

I don't know where you were in the 1960's, but I was in a suburb of Gary, Indiana, where my family got caught up in the "white flight" of ethnic Europeans from the deteriorating conditions of the Chicago area. There was definitely a cultural divide between white people and black people in that time, and part of it involved mixed marriage. I'm certain that a few religious organizations of the time would have had the same moral reservations about giving spousal benefits to a worker's other-race husband or wife.

I experienced white flight on the other side of Chicago (Milwaukee, WI) and I know of no Christian church north of Chi that had moral reservations about mixed-skin color marriages. (Some did have social reservations however)

In any event white flight has no connection whatsoever to the state imposed recognition of perverse sexual behavior

And, there's a difference between performing a murder within the four walls of your institution, and merely following the law and giving spousal benefits to a person outside of your institution.

Not according to God there isn't. We are not allowed to perform perversion or to take pleasure in those who do. Providing support that allows them to remain in their sin makes us directly responsible for them going to hell and we will answer for that. It's far better to cut off all support and make them face reality and be saved

All these functions are core duties of the church.

So are feeding the hungry, and housing the poor, but if there were church-sponsored supermarkets and subdivision developers, would you expect them to be exempt from the laws that govern Safeway and Donald Trump? I'm not against letting a church impose its tenets on workers who do purely charity work as part of that faith's mission in the world, often the workers in such an institution are not "open market" employees anyway, they're people who generally make subminimum wages (or close to it) who derive a substantial part of their compensation by serving their spiritual needs. You just can't say the same thing about the average radiologist who works for a Catholic hospital, or a sex education psychology professor who works for Notre Dame. Often, these employees are not of the Catholic faith, and they have been recruited in the labor market, and been lured away from other institutions, private and governmental. The previous type of worker mentioned is doing the work as a large part of his or her faith, and is a direct representative of that faith. I don't expect a dietician at a Catholic hospital to refuse to provide me a meat choice on Good Friday, but I would expect a Catholic soup kitchen to provide meatless meals on that day.

I acknowledge that it might be difficult to separate out core functions from peripheral business functions, but the best way to sort them out is to ask: Is the employee delivering the services with the prime mission of advancing the belief system of the religious organization that heads the institution? A priest, a nun, a brother in a religious order, or a deacon probably certainly would be; whereas a janitor, an instructor, or a nurse would probably not be, if they were not members of religious orders.

I experienced white flight on the other side of Chicago (Milwaukee, WI) and I know of no Christian church north of Chi that had moral reservations about mixed-skin color marriages. (Some did have social reservations however)

In any event white flight has no connection whatsoever to the state imposed recognition of perverse sexual behavior.

I don't know the particular denomination, but I do recall my mother telling my father about the church beliefs of the folks from across the street in our suburban neighborhood. They believed that at the resurrection, not only would we all be 33 years old (the age of Christ when he died) we would all be white! My mother was not given to telling wild tales, but she had to recount this story to my father. My folks were quite aware of the anti-black attitudes that moved out to the 'burbs with us, and were always on guard to see if any of those attitudes were filtering through to my siblings and me.

The 1967 SCOTUS decision in the case of Loving vs. Virginia, which struck down anti-race-mixing laws of some states, contained the following:

"...the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Clearly, there were religious-based sentiments against interracial marriage, as well as simply social ones. That seems to be the predominant basis for not allowing gay people the right to have a civil union or state-recognized marriage. Your contention that "perverse sexual behavior" is involved seems to fall on deaf ears when it comes to people who either don't have formalized religious views on homosexuality, or who are unwilling to impose those views on others.

I'm not saying a conscience exception for religious organizations cannot or should not be a part of the law, but it would have to be enacted as part of a gay marriage or civil union statute. If religious organizations that operate businesses not solely devoted to worship don't want to give spousal benefits to the partners of gay employees, why do they hire them?

Is the employee delivering the services with the prime mission of advancing the belief system of the religious organization that heads the institution? A priest, a nun, a brother in a religious order, or a deacon probably certainly would be; whereas a janitor, an instructor, or a nurse would probably not be, if they were not members of religious orders.

Irrelevant. The mission of the organization does not depend on the motivation of the employees. As long as the work gets done the mission advances.

Clearly, there were religious-based sentiments against interracial marriage, as well as simply social ones.

The instances you mentioned were not Christian. There may have been some non-christian churches with problems against mixed skin-color marriage but there's no scriptural basis for it.

That seems to be the predominant basis for not allowing gay people the right to have a civil union or state-recognized marriage.

'gays' have exactly the same rights to marriage as I do.

I'm not saying a conscience exception for religious organizations cannot or should not be a part of the law, but it would have to be enacted as part of a gay marriage or civil union statute.

Why? Since the behvaior itself is repugnant and damaging to society why should society promote the behavior? There should be no public acceptance or even tolerance of sexual perversion

If religious organizations that operate businesses not solely devoted to worship don't want to give spousal benefits to the partners of gay employees, why do they hire them?

Usually because those employees either lie about their behaviors or fall into that behavior pattern sometime after starting work. In any event they stay closeted until they can damage the organization the most.

All 'gays' have an agenda. and they are all mentally ill

The mission of the organization does not depend on the motivation of the employees. As long as the work gets done the mission advances.

And spousal benefits for gay spouses will prevent the teaching, nursing, diagnosing, counseling, etc., from getting done how?

All 'gays' have an agenda. and they are all mentally ill

Right now, there's a giant group of heterosexuals who are temporarily uncomfortable with giving marriage rights to homosexual people, even though they wouldn't be overtly prejudicial against them. Comments like the one above are fairly certain to push these "mushy middle" folks, as I like to call them, squarely into the camp of the pro-gay-marriage forces.

It's not just flaming liberals who are willing to accept the fact that there are gay people in this world. Many people who are squeamish about homosexuality are not willing to enshrine their discomfort in law, because when they get down to it, they feel they have no basis on which to base the discrimination. Sell them your religion, if you can, but if you cannot, then watch as they avoid the "religious right" on this issue, and gravitate over to the side that makes them feel more comfortable.

I just hope they don't feel so uncomfortable that they vote for Rats, too. The President has done a good job of handling this issue without calling all homosexuals mentally ill, perverted, or psychopathic criminals. He's smart enough to know that if he did, regardless of his personal feelings, he'd provoke a nasty backlash.

And spousal benefits for gay spouses will prevent the teaching, nursing, diagnosing, counseling, etc., from getting done how?

Since the central mission of these organizations is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ (that is, to lead people into the kingdom of God) and since the Gospel tells us that homosexuals can not enter the kingdom (and thus will burn in hell) then encouraging them to stay trapped in that lifestyle (say by subsidizing their sin through spousal benefits) is directly opposed to the mission of the church

All 'gays' have an agenda. and they are all mentally ill

Right now, there's a giant group of heterosexuals who are temporarily uncomfortable with giving marriage rights to homosexual people, even though they wouldn't be overtly prejudicial against them.

And every one of them recognizes deep down that 'homosexuals' aren't quite right in the head. Most people know that 'homosexuals' are ill, they're just too polite to say so.

Comments like the one above are fairly certain to push these "mushy middle" folks, as I like to call them, squarely into the camp of the pro-gay-marriage forces.

Never happen. And if it did then they were liberals to start with. The truth will set you free unless you want to stay enslaved. Most liberals keep looking for ways to stay enslaved

It's not just flaming liberals who are willing to accept the fact that there are gay people in this world. Many people who are squeamish about homosexuality are not willing to enshrine their discomfort in law, because when they get down to it, they feel they have no basis on which to base the discrimination.

Conservative Christians also accept the fact that there are people trapped in homosexual behavior in this world. We just know the truth about it and are determined to show the squeamish why the behavior should be discouraged. (I've led quite a few to the light on this topic myself. Facts are amazingly powerful things)

encouraging them to stay trapped in that lifestyle

Well then, this is the crux of the difference between us. You firmly believe that people can be shamed out of homosexuality, and I believe that it could only happen to a relative few. The amount of coercion required to "convert" even some of them is potentially appalling to the kind of people who are deeply upset right now over the pictures from Iraq.

...every one of them recognizes deep down that 'homosexuals' aren't quite right in the head.

I think its just that they're not used to open homosexuality. When I was in high school, I didn't know anyone who was openly gay, at the ten year reunion, I was aware of a couple of fellow students who were. And this was at an upscale suburban high school that was quite liberal in its outlook and practices. Now, my stepdaughter knows a few gay students in her senior class, its a third of the size of mine, and we live way out in the boondocks. As straight people know more gay people, they become more tolerant of them. The "too polite to say so" will increase, just as most people are uncomfortable with a racial joke these days, whereas they might not have been forty years ago.

If gay marriage gets a major setback, such as being shut down in Massachusetts, whether before or after November 2006, you'll see a lot of gay people coming out, and will make their friends, families, neighbors, co-workers and others quite aware of their prescence. I predict a lot of shock if it gets to that point, and I strongly suspect a lot of the anti-gay people here at FR will be among the most shocked.

Never happen. And if it did then they were liberals to start with.

Interesting use of sour grapes. The handling of the Vietnam War changed this whole country. If we had gotten in, done the job, and gotten out, we would have not seen the rise of liberalism in the late 1960's. A lot of people decided their politics based on their feelings about Vietnam, and decided that anything conservatives were for, they were against. The President's smart enough to know this could happen again. A vitrolic, hateful reaction towards gays would make him and his party completely unelectable, and he's quite careful to avoid overplaying his hand. I wish I could say the same of many of the conservatives who post to this forum.

We just know the truth about it and are determined to show the squeamish why the behavior should be discouraged.

That's certainly your right. But don't be surprised if bashing people over the head with ancient holy books drives them into the other camp. I've said it before, there is a brief window of opportunity if conservatives really want to stop or slow the advance of gay marriage. They have to come up with reasons that appeal to the opening that exists in the minds of the people in the middle who are uncomfortable with gay marriage, but cannot really figure out any rational reasons to ban it. Those people will see gay couples who proclaim to be married, or in a civil union, and when they see the sky is not falling, they'll get over it.

I'm a conservative, and nobody's convinced me why I should oppose gay marriage. Being as I'm unencumbered by a religion that condemns homosexuality, somebody would have to find reasons that appeal to something other than the sake of tradition, or a religious person's discomfort at having to deal with the fact that there are gay people in this world.

If you can't convince me, then I'd say that anti-gay-marriage conservatives have very little chance with the folks I call the mushy middle. By November 2006, it will be too late, if a reason other than tradition or religion does not arise, then I predict the Massachusetts marriage amendment will not pass.

somebody would have to find reasons that appeal to something other than the sake of tradition, or a religious person's discomfort at having to deal with the fact that there are gay people in this world.

You've been shown the studies and the reasons. You just choose to refuse to believe them. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Have a great day.

You've been shown the studies and the reasons.

I've seen studies that show a relative few homosexuals can, in the face of great motivation, and with entire churchloads of people to supply public pressure, can maintain at least a veneer of heterosexuality. There have been notable cases of "relapses". I've seen studies that show all kinds of awful diseases that are rampant in urban homosexual populations, none of which cannot be caught by promiscuous heterosexuals who are willing to bubble around in the same foul stewpots. I've seen theories of how homosexuality is caused, everything from the classic "distant father, smothering mother" theories that are used as joke bait on "Will and Grace", to the lack of a religious home environment.

All of which is not going to make one bit of difference in the coming debate on gay marriage.

Have a great day.

Thank you, I will. It's going to be a pretty rough month for the folks who despise gay marriage, though. We've had Kerry's medals, Fallujah, and now this Iraqi prisoner abuse thing dominating the news for the past several weeks, but as May 17th approaches, expect Massachusetts gay marriages to bob to the top of the headlines again. I expect the threads here at FreeRepublic to be lit up again on this topic.