Thursday, June 21, 2012

Litigious Lesbians.



Gay Rights.

Lesbians suing a Catholic institution for same sex benefits?  Surprised?  Such litigation is a form of gay political activism focused upon changing law and morality - forcing - demanding the acceptance of LGBTQueer upon culture.  Don't be fooled. 
A lesbian employee of St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Westchester County filed a class-action lawsuit on Tuesday claiming that her spouse is entitled to the same medical coverage as the spouses of heterosexual employees.

Since same-sex marriage became legal in New York last July, most companies in the state have extended spousal health benefits to same-sex couples. But self-insured employers, which include St. Joseph’s and other large institutions, are primarily governed by federal, not state regulations. As a result, they may deny health coverage to same-sex couples under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In the lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, the employee argued that it was illegal to use the Defense of Marriage Act to justify denial of coverage, because the law is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.
“I’m not just thinking about our particular situation,” said the hospital employee, who has filed the lawsuit using a pseudonym, Jane Roe, and spoke on condition of anonymity because she said she was concerned about the impact on her job if she complained publicly. The woman has been with her partner for 16 years, she said, and married her last autumn. 
“I’m also thinking about the folks who are behind us, the younger people in their 20s and 30s, who are thinking about getting married and who are going to have the same problem,” she said. “It’s just not socially fair.”
A number of lawsuits across the country filed by same-sex couples and their advocates are challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. At least two courts have ruled aspects of the act unconstitutional, and the matter is wending its way toward the Supreme Court. - NYTimes

 Photo:  I'm not sure that many people are willing to admit or acknowledge that there is often an underlying resentment, or jealousy - even a covetousness, many gay people experience regarding heterosexuals and heterosexual relationships.  Hence, my use of this photo.  Talk amongst yourselves.

10 comments:

  1. Didn't the Gin Blossoms sing about that? Gay Jealousy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very punny, Nan, very punny :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She's a brilliant woman. Really.

      Delete
  3. Does the hospital employ or serve only Catholics? Does it receive any state or federal monies? These are important questions, and they would need to be answered before anyone could offer an informed opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, it seems clear: if the hospital receives federal funding, it should provide federal benefits to all its employees. That would be the right and just thing to do. Of course, if those who run the institution have a problem with that, if their convictions tell them it is wrong to provide such benefits to their LGBT employees, then they should be true to these convictions and get out of a business that relies on federal funding. It's really that simple. They seem to have a martyr mentality already. Why not actually live up to it? Also, there are plenty of other organizations, Christian and secular, that would happily take over from these 'martyrs' and do the work they were doing - but in a more honest and fair way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nonsense,

      Catholics have just as much right to Federal funding as atheists do.

      Delete
    2. btw, cute photograph

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. The Constitution is still the law of the land, as such, the Church cannot be coerced into supporting that which goes against its teaching. Those who try to force the Church to act against its teaching are bullies.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The real point here is that businesses should not be supplying "benefits" at all. People should buy their own insurance. That ends that little problem.

    1. open up real cross-state competition for insurance companies.
    2. tort reform
    3. return to lower cost catastrophic policies
    4. Remove all those pesky government mandates and allow states only to administer all charity insurance.

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.