Amendment Protects Religious Liberty of Military Members

[Davidnic]

Katherine? Do you believe gay marriages are the moral equal to heterosexual marriages? Not asking from a legal issue but do you accept the Catholic Church's teaching that they are not marriages and never can be?

 

[KatherineS]

Not here in MA. Chatholic Charities always placed children with a mother and father. They're not interested in playing social engineering games where a child ends up paying the cost when it doesn't work out.

Nope. Not true. The whole controversy started when the October 2005 Boston Globe ran a story which mentioned that over a dozen homeless kids had been placed with gay people by Catholic Charities. Then the right wing machine kicked up a fuss to put a stop to it.

Children need a mother and father, especially little boys. That's a reality.

I don't. Why screw the child by giving them to two gay males, when a heterosexual couple are available?

The issue is not when a heterosexual couple is available. The issue is leaving these children homeless. There were no heterosexual couples for this children. If you think Jim these kids would be better with a married couple, I suggest you have a talk with your wife. Today.

 

[Wolseley]

Katherine? Do you believe gay marriages are the moral equal to heterosexual marriages? Not asking from a legal issue but do you accept the Catholic Church's teaching that they are not marriages and never can be?

I notice she didn't answer your question, David.

I'm still waiting for an answer as to how many years she spent in the military.

Methinks she is here to troll, not discuss.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

KatherineS

Nope. Not true. The whole controversy started when the October 2005 Boston Globe ran a story which mentioned that over a dozen homeless kids had been placed with gay people by Catholic Charities. Then the right wing machine kicked up a fuss to put a stop to it.

Well, if this is true, and I'm skeptical of anything the Boston Globe reports, being they're the left wing equivalent of Lifesitenews,
it was wrong to place children with gay couples, when heterosexual couples are available.


Yeah they did place kids with gay couples and it's wrong.

The issue is not when a heterosexual couple is available. The issue is leaving these children homeless. There were no heterosexual couples for this children. If you think Jim these kids would be better with a married couple, I suggest you have a talk with your wife. Today.

I don't buy that there were no heterosexual couples available or there would be any in a short time, especially if the kids are under 10 years of age.

Also, since the court made gay marriage legal, they must be treated equal when adopting children.

In other words, the adoption agency can't bump up a heterosexual couple ahead of a gay couple. The gay couple get equal access to adoption.

So, the kids looses out having a mother and father, and could end up with a couple of male pedophiles. Yeah I know, not all gays are pedophiles, but the door is now open for those who are.

Jim

 

[KatherineS]

KatherineS


Well, if this is true, and I'm skeptical of anything the Boston Globe reports, being they're the left wing equivalent of Lifesitenews,
it was wrong to place children with gay couples, when heterosexual couples are available.

Cardinal Sean O'Malley would've been the one to make the call, and I stand by him.

That's fine. But even if Catholic Charities changed their policy for the good, they changed their policy. They had a contract from the Commonwealth and it was not renewed after they changed their policy.

I don't buy that there were no heterosexual couples available or there would be any in a short time, especially if the kids are under 10 years of age.

Well, then you need to report the Archdiocese to the DA (not that they don't already have enough legal trouble). Because they admit they are not able to place all of these children. If they left kids homeless when there were families available, someone needs to go to jail.


Too many "aged out" of the system. Remember, Massachusetts Catholic Charities had no ministry for adoption in general (a failing, I think). Their small program only worked with "hard to place" children, mostly older, with siblings, with phyiscal and mental disabilities and often with mothers who had drug problems.

There were no healthy white newborns in this program.

Also, since the court made gay marriage legal, they must be treated equal when adopting children.

All of this predates gay marriage in Massachusetts.

In other words, the adoption agency can't bump up a heterosexual couple ahead of a gay couple. The gay couple get equal access to adoption.

Again, since Catholic Charities was failing to place all of these children, I think there is a criminal investigation needed if you are right and there were plenty of protential parents. Again, if you are right, I'm seeing jail time for someone, maybe the guy in the sandals.

Again Jim, have you had that talk with your wife?

 

[MikeK]

Katherine? Do you believe gay marriages are the moral equal to heterosexual marriages? Not asking from a legal issue but do you accept the Catholic Church's teaching that they are not marriages and never can be?

Katherine, you have been asked a simple and direct question by a very good man. To fail to answer would be an overt display of cowardice and dishonesty.

 

[KatherineS]

Katherine, you have been asked a simple and direct question by a very good man. To fail to answer would be an overt display of cowardice and dishonesty.

I'll PM you my response and you have my permission to post it publicly and unedited.

 

[Davidnic]

I'll PM you my response and you have my permission to post it publicly and unedited.

You can post it. Unless you find these hoops necessary for some reason. Do you believe as the Church does morally but feel that it can not be a legal reality in our country for civil rights reasons. Or do you disagree with the Church at the core of the issue. It's a question so I know where you are coming from. Answering would not be promotion of homosexuality unless you went on to argue it. And it would not be a violation of the OBOB statement of faith to answer...only to go on and debate against the view of the Church.

Personally if I believe something I would answer it honestly even if it meant not being on a message board. But if that is what is bothering you, I am not waiting to hit a report button if you answer you disagree with the Church unless you go on to debate it.

 

[KatherineS]

You can post it. Unless you find these hoops necessary for some reason. .

I do. But with your permission, I will PM it to you and leave it in your hands if you would like to re-post it unedited.

 

[Davidnic]

I do. But with your permission, I will PM it to you and leave it in your hands if you would like to re-post it unedited.

Look if you don't want to answer it publicly no problem. I am not going to republish a PM, no matter what. Those are private messages. I am perfectly fine with: "I don't want to answer that in open forum"

And I won't take it to mean either or. Some people would not want to answer that openly either way. Fine by me.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

KatherineS;

Again Jim, have you had that talk with your wife?

I don't understand the question.

What does my wife have to do with my opinion on the fact that children are better off in a home with a mother and father?


Jim

 

[Davidnic]

KatherineS;









I don't understand the question.

What does my wife have to do with my opinion on the fact that children are better off in a home with a mother and father?


Jim

I could be wrong but I think she is implying that if that is your opinion you should adopt them. I hope I misread it, because it is a pretty strange thing to say.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I could be wrong but I think she is implying that if that is your opinion you should adopt them. I hope I misread it, because it is a pretty strange thing to say.

At age 60 and a father who already raised two kids, one with cerebral palsy, I think I did my share.

Jim

 

[isshinwhat]

You would be mistaken. If it is an event of a particular faith (i,e Mass, Divine Liturgy, Protestant Bible Study), they prayer is up to the chaplain and his faith. It is a general assembly of all and no faiths, a chaplain is invented to give a non-sectarian prayer.

Was. Congress mandated that the Navy and Air Force change their rules on sectarian prayer in 2006. It is now allowed at public events, though that is being fought. That background, including lawsuits involving chaplains who were disciplined for sectarian prayer at Christian events, is precisely the reason clarification is needed. I cannot help but assume from your statement above, and previous ones in this thread, that you have little if any experience with the military. Am I incorrect?

This is a good and appropriate policy.

It was a terrible policy that hindered the free exercise of religion. Hearing someone pray aloud does not equate to forcing them to pray. Thank God it was reversed.

 

[AMDG]

Originally Posted by KatherineS

"You would be mistaken. If it is an event of a particular faith (i,e Mass, Divine Liturgy, Protestant Bible Study), they prayer is up to the chaplain and his faith."

The Catholic chaplain attached to the military chapel by me would have been grateful to read such a thing. You see his head chaplain was not Catholic, but was actually from a Protestant faith that was a bit hostile to Catholics. (Seems that the Catholic chaplain was always "in dutch" with him because of this. Sure the Catholic chaplain was going to need sedatives at the rate it was going.) I thought things would be better when the head chaplain was changed, however the head chaplain assigned was Jewish, and the from that grimace we received from the man's wife, I kinda figured that there wasn't exactly a great rapport with Catholics. First thing he did was try to close the church during the week (no visits to the Tabernacle and then there was the problem of daily Mass) because the Protestant church was closed and things had to be equal. The large Menorrah while stopping the traditional manger scene during the Christmas/Hannakuh season was another "change" that chapel goers had to get used to.

Oh in case you happen to be wondering, the Catholic chapel wasn't closed completely afterall (we could still have daily Mass when we could find a Catholic chaplain--the old one was reassigned and a replacement was often not available)--but the Tabernacle was moved behind locked doors.
​

 

[KatherineS]

I think this just exposes the problems when one denomination tries to force itself upon those who do not welcome it or are members of it.

People in the military service have the right to the ministrations of their chosen religion. They also have the right not to have another religion imposed upon them.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think this just exposes the problems when one denomination tries to force itself upon those who do not welcome it or are members of it.

People in the military service have the right to the ministrations of their chosen religion. They also have the right not to have another religion imposed upon them.

I agree, but that's not what's happening.

Instead, it's gay activist. forcing religion to accommodate them.

Jim

 

[KatherineS]

I agree, but that's not what's happening.

Instead, it's gay activist. forcing religion to accommodate them.

Jim

This conversation has been all over the place, so I am not sure what you are responding to. There already is a law (probably unneeded) that says no military chaplain can be made to officiate at a same sex wedding. There is an attempt by the right wing to restrict military chaplains who are willing do perform such weddings from doing so. And there is the issue of military chaplains offering denominational prayers at non-denominational gatherings.

The first of those three has been resolved. The remaining two, it is the right wing that is opposing religious liberty.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This conversation has been all over the place, so I am not sure what you are responding to. There already is a law (probably unneeded) that says no military chaplain can be made to officiate at a same sex wedding. There is an attempt by the right wing to restrict military chaplains who are willing do perform such weddings from doing so. And there is the issue of military chaplains offering denominational prayers at non-denominational gatherings.

The first of those three has been resolved. The remaining two, it is the right wing that is opposing religious liberty.

OH, I didn't know there was already a law.

And you're saying this restricts chaplains from perform same sex weddings?

If so, I stand corrected and reject this law.




Jim

 

[isshinwhat]

The chaplains cannot perform same sex marriages on federal property because it is currently against federal law. The Navy put out guidance advising their chaplains who were so inclined that they could use Navy facilities for the ceremonies, but it had to reverse that decision because it was illegal.