<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Catholic Church and Second-Class Gays</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wakingupnow.com/blog/catholic-church-washingto/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wakingupnow.com/blog/catholic-church-washingto</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:23:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://wakingupnow.com/blog/catholic-church-washingto/comment-page-1#comment-1279</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:34:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wakingupnow.com/blog/?p=475#comment-1279</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m under the impression religious institutions may discriminate at will based anything they like. That&#039;s somewhat logical as no one could claim someone who isn&#039;t Catholic is qualified to be a priest. Religious institutions as a whole are exempt from anti-discrimination laws. 

However they are not exempt from requirements of a government when they are receiving money from that government to provide a what is effectively a government service. Your points though about them recognizing non-Catholic marriages for their employees though is totally valid.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m under the impression religious institutions may discriminate at will based anything they like. That&#8217;s somewhat logical as no one could claim someone who isn&#8217;t Catholic is qualified to be a priest. Religious institutions as a whole are exempt from anti-discrimination laws. </p>
<p>However they are not exempt from requirements of a government when they are receiving money from that government to provide a what is effectively a government service. Your points though about them recognizing non-Catholic marriages for their employees though is totally valid.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mrs. Chili</title>
		<link>http://wakingupnow.com/blog/catholic-church-washingto/comment-page-1#comment-1249</link>
		<dc:creator>Mrs. Chili</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:49:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wakingupnow.com/blog/?p=475#comment-1249</guid>
		<description>And THIS, I think, is where we REALLY need to keep the argument focused.  It&#039;s not ABOUT religion, it&#039;s about CIVIL law.

I&#039;m certain (because I&#039;ve seen them do it) that many people will say that one can&#039;t separate one&#039;s religious life from one&#039;s civil life, but we do it all the time in this country.  Hell, it&#039;s even written into our Constitution.  What a lot of people don&#039;t understand, it seems, is that the separation of Church and State has got to work both ways - just as the government can&#039;t interfere in religious freedom, so too the churches have no right to interfere in matters of state.  Once we get that through our collective thick heads, I think we&#039;ll be a lot better off.

Kind of on a related note, my doctor was telling me a story the other day while underlining how important it is to check my coverage for specific coverage details.  She had a patient who wanted an IUD.  This patient had a major, well-known insurance company whose policies routinely cover such things.  THIS patient&#039;s policy didn&#039;t, however, because this patient&#039;s husband (the primary policy holder) worked for ... wait for it... a Catholic school.  The school (i.e. the Church) was able to rewrite the policy to exclude birth control and sterilization from the policies.  The IUD had to come out of pocket.  

This is all to say that the Church is well used to being able to impose its views on other&#039;s lives, regardless of whether those others wish it or not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And THIS, I think, is where we REALLY need to keep the argument focused.  It&#8217;s not ABOUT religion, it&#8217;s about CIVIL law.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m certain (because I&#8217;ve seen them do it) that many people will say that one can&#8217;t separate one&#8217;s religious life from one&#8217;s civil life, but we do it all the time in this country.  Hell, it&#8217;s even written into our Constitution.  What a lot of people don&#8217;t understand, it seems, is that the separation of Church and State has got to work both ways &#8211; just as the government can&#8217;t interfere in religious freedom, so too the churches have no right to interfere in matters of state.  Once we get that through our collective thick heads, I think we&#8217;ll be a lot better off.</p>
<p>Kind of on a related note, my doctor was telling me a story the other day while underlining how important it is to check my coverage for specific coverage details.  She had a patient who wanted an IUD.  This patient had a major, well-known insurance company whose policies routinely cover such things.  THIS patient&#8217;s policy didn&#8217;t, however, because this patient&#8217;s husband (the primary policy holder) worked for &#8230; wait for it&#8230; a Catholic school.  The school (i.e. the Church) was able to rewrite the policy to exclude birth control and sterilization from the policies.  The IUD had to come out of pocket.  </p>
<p>This is all to say that the Church is well used to being able to impose its views on other&#8217;s lives, regardless of whether those others wish it or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

