I agree, they have the right to do what they want no matter how bone headed it is.
Personally though, I find it unfair and despicable.

It is discriminatory, but at least they are discriminating equally I suppose. As far as I'm aware, employers don't have to offer coverage to anyone but their employees (and even then only if they have a certain number of employees) so they're not doing anything illegal by denying it to all spouses who aren't already enrolled. As long as they aren't breaking the law, they can deny coverage all they want. Doesn't make it right, but there it is.

They have a right to do it and it's not illegal because it is non-discrimatory.

I think it is a horrible decision and I don't see the logic in it. Punish everyone so you don't have to cover those that you "think" are sinners? I just don't get it...I wish they would show acceptance of all people. They aren't God...they don't have the authority to make that call.

Originally posted by reptoidsonice
that way they don't have to go against their religious beliefs and every employee, gay straight, whatever, can have some extra cash for health insurance.

I just don't see that happening. They're making sure they don't pay anything for a gay spouse's insurance by not letting them enroll (or any other spouse who isn't enrolled already). I don't see them handing a gay employee more cash for it because they would still be paying for it in a round-about way.



Edit for clarity

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Jenna]

I will never underestand it. Why do churches, which are supposed to be the example of Christ on Earth, want to deny health benefits to gays? I understand the religious dogma against homosexuality, but this is just petty.

Is it there right to do it? I suppose so....but its still a pretty horrid thing to do.

The government recognizing gay marriage – or any marriage, for that matter - is more of an entitlement than an 'equal right'. Whether one believes in gay marriage or not, forced equality is not the same as equal rights under the law. Equality here would mean, for all parties, that the government stay out of the game of marriage completely, not limiting it in legal terms but also not propping up the "traditional" marriages of morons who happen to be men and women but can't get their lives together. This only fuels the fire of people who may live within the bounds of traditional marriage, but are otherwise foolish about the reasons they would want to protect that tradition.

What we see is a confused, neurotic group of people, some of whom are crying foul because the people they live with do not approve of their lifestyle. Whether you're for or against the measure, the problem here is that the U.S is a large country with millions of people, and not everyone is going to agree on what to allow and what not to allow.

This is exactly why some prefer parallelism – the idea that if certain people want to behave in certain ways, they are free to do so within their own groups and communities. It doesn't matter how open-minded one is; humans are simply better suited, more productive, and more happy pursuing goals with like-minded individuals, where debates are intellectual in nature in the sense that everyone is striving for the same ultimate goal. Debating traditional marriage vs. gay marriage when the institution of marriage has been so corrupted by a flawed value system is counterproductive.

The solution here, as always seems to be the case where we end up bickering about rights and entitlements, would be to allow people to live out their own lives in their own communities, with others who share their values. Encouraging this for the future would be the mark of an enlightened society, and that's how America started out – states were given far more rights, initially, and each state was its own society. If you didn't like the state you were in, you could leave or secede – Maine sought independence from Massachusetts, and some Massachusetts residents formed the city of Providence outside the borders of Massachusetts when things became overly corrupt for their taste.

Government as it's currently structured should stay out of the institution of marriage, and not attempt to redistribute wealth via income taxes. Eventually, the result would be strong communities growing to replace the weaker ones. Only then would we have a focused vision on the values and goals of our country, and even then, parallelism should still be supported. Today, voter propositions and the resulting political posturing merely highlight the fact that we've slowly become a lazy, materialistic, and anti-intellectual society.

The reason I say it's discriminatory is that they clearly changed the policy when the possibility of gays came into the picture. They don't want to benefit gays in any way, so they changed their policy. I mean, it's clear where they made their discrimination.

But since they are applying it to everyone, by law, it's not discriminatory.

And it IS evil, IMO. It's not like I thought the Catholic Church or its affiliations were anything close to good before this.

I am not upset by this, though. For one reason. And that is because gays are being treated EQUALLY to straights in this situation. It's ALL about equal treatment under the law, to me.

Apart from the childness of the ruling, I will say it is a wise decision. Now before you get on me, hear me out. The key to ending the debate and all of the social problems with gay marriage, is to remove all of the bennifits associated with marriage. When you take the bennifits out of the loop, making every one equal, then where is the debate? If the lawmakers would do that, removing the bennifits that comes from marriage, and returning it back to the religious area, and take the politics out of it, the taxes and alll revenues for such, then it ends the debate, as it would be up to the church to make that determination as to who they will or will not marry. I also believe that they are doing this on the basis of principle, but those come from ROME and the vatican, not from public opinion, so this is not just only the doing of the Archdiocese of DC.