Catholic Charities of Washington DC will cut off spousal benefits to all its employees. Why? Because DC is about to start permitting same-sex marriages, which aren’t valid in the eyes of the Church. From the Washington Post:
“We looked at all the options and implications,” said the charity’s president, Edward J. Orzechowski. “This allows us to continue providing services, comply with the city’s new requirements and remain faithful to the church’s teaching.”
This is the only way they can legally deny benefits to same-sex spouses. So what is this — a brave commitment to religious principle? Craven homophobia? You decide.
As I’ve reported before, same-sex marriage isn’t the only invalid marriage under Catholic doctrine. For instance:
A Catholic and a Jew married by a rabbi and not a priest.
A Catholic and a Baptist married by a minister and not a priest.
A Catholic and anybody not married by a priest.
A Catholic must be married by a priest for the marriage to be valid in the eyes of the Church. Interestingly, this requirement doesn’t apply to non-Catholic couples — the Church is fine with marriage outside the Church as long as neither partner is Catholic.
So Catholic Charities would insist on denying spousal benefits in the three cases above, right?
Right?
Except that the cases above would be toxic PR, requiring the Church to say:
We won’t give the same employment benefits to Catholics married to Jews (in a Jewish service) as we do to Jews married to Jews (in a Jewish service) or to Catholics married to Catholics (in a Catholic service).
It’s hard to spin religious discrimination as a moral principle. Anti-gay bigotry’s a lot more palatable.
Don’t let Catholic Charities get away with claiming a principled stand in the fight for religious liberty. They’ve been giving spousal benefits to legal but “invalid” marriages for years. This is about targeting the gays.
This is a movement driven to lawlessness and lies by a self-righteous sense that only they are right, and therefore only they have rights. We are fighting, in other words, not only for marriage but for fairness, for democracy, for the rule of law, for civility and for the ordinary civil rights of all Americans.
Can you guess who said that? Cleve Jones? Rick Jacobs from the Courage Campaign? Our attorneys from the Prop 8 trial?
And in the same article, with absolutely no irony, he links to the Fox News piece where “Miss Beverly Hills” Lauren Ashley talks about how gays “shall surely be put to death” — and NOM president Maggie Gallagher praises her for standing up against hate.
I investigated how much it would cost to add a domestic partner to my heath plan. If I were a straight man adding a wife, I could find the answer right in my employee handbook: $729.04 a year. And of course I wouldn’t have to pay taxes on that money, which eases the pain.
But a domestic partnership is more complex, because the law says I do have to pay federal income tax on it — and by “it” I don’t just mean my own contribution. The feds tax me on my employer’s contribution, too: $5876.52 a year. This appears on my W-2 as “imputed income.”
Add it up, and being gay means my taxable income would be $6605.56 greater than if I were straight. So, at my marginal tax rate, my federal taxes would be higher by $1849.56.
But there’s more. That’s $1849.56in take-home pay. What kind of salary cut does that represent? Don’t forget, take-home pay is only a fraction of your actual salary. My employers sent me to this site for calculating that sort of thing. It turns out a take-home hit like that is equivalent to a $3500 salary cut.
That’s right. Adding a spouse to my health plan is like getting $3500 pay cut, compared to what would happen if I were straight.
And this is at a company with full domestic partner benefits. Read more…
This morning while I was making a huge omelet scrambled eggs with onion, bell pepper, mushrooms, tomatoes, and cheese, Will came into the kitchen, said, “Good morning to you,” and proceeded to me that I lived in a shoe, that I looked like a monkey, and that I smelled like one, too.
I had an email exchange with NOM president Maggie Gallagher. By now you’ve probably heard the following quote from Lauren Ashley, Miss Beverly Hills (trying to become Miss California and then Miss USA):
The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, “If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.”
Best case: She doesn’t realize she’s saying we should kill gays. Worst case: She wants to kill gays.
Either she’s either dumb as a box of tiaras or she’s utterly craven. She’s also easy to dismiss — I mean, the city of Beverly Hills says there is no such contest or title, exposing her as a fraud. As so often happens, conservative Christian moralists violate their morality while moralizing.
I’m not surprised that Miss Beverly Hills, Lauren Ashley, opposes gay marriage — after all 45 percent of young Californians voted for Prop 8, as did 7 million Californians generally. But I have to say, I am impressed with her courage in coming forward and for speaking up for Carrie. The elected officials of city of Beverly Hills are not demonstrating tolerance or kindness by continuing the avalanche of hatred against supporters of Prop 8. [emphasis added]
Some interpret this as a total endorsement of Lauren’s statement. I try to be factual here, so I did the obvious thing. I wrote to Maggie. Read more…
Wellpoint — the parent company of Anthem/Blue Cross, posted 2009 profits of $4.7 billion. That’s up from $2.5 billion in 2008. Wellpoint celebrated by cutting rates for Anthem Blue Cross customers by up to 39%.
Oh, wait.
Sorry, no, they raised rates for many customers by up to 39%. I get confused. But then I think of my best friend and I remember his monthly premium went from $219/month to $298. Which is — do I have this right? — yes, an increase of 36%. His premium isn’t as high as some because he’s chosen a $5000 deductible and a $7500 annual out-of-pocket. He got the best coverage he could afford. Coverage he can no longer afford. The situation is much worse for parents with children — and God forbid they should be special needs children.
Profits in the range of 2.5 to 5 percent I think are reasonable profits, I think they are appropriate profits and I think [the] profits are a responsibility that we have to have to keep a viable business surviving and thriving.
It’s mainly to talk about this. Tune in if you want to hear what I sound like when I’m not trying to recite a written speech from memory while staring into a low-end video camera.
