Home > Same Sex Marriage, Social Services > More unintended consequences of same sex marriage

More unintended consequences of same sex marriage

March 3rd, 2010

In the wake of the District of Columbia’s new same sex marriage policy, these changes have happened.
Item #1: In DC, the Catholic Archdiocese discontinued offering health care benefits to spouses. Why? Because the Church does not recognize same sex unions as “marriages,” even though the DC City Council insists that they are. So, to keep from running afoul of the same sex “marriage” law, they will discontinue health benefits for spouses of newly employed workers.
Conform to the new regime. Or else.

Item #2: The marriage licenses in DC no longer say “bride” and “groom.”

D.C. Superior Court officials have prepared to implement the redefinition of marriage by rewriting its traditional applications and brochures. Its materials no longer ask for the name of the bride and groom, but rather ask for the name of the “spouse.”
The final pronouncement of “husband and wife” has also been removed as the default language. According to the Washington Post, at the end of civil marriage ceremonies judges will say “I now pronounce you legally married,” unless the marrying couple suggests something different.

Check it out: people are “legally married.” No one has the “status” of bride or groom, husband or wife. The natural concepts of husband and wife have been replaced with a purely legal concept. Thus does the state shove civil society aside.
This is in addition to the fact that the Archdiocese is no longer eligible for any city contracts for foster care and adoption. However:

The D.C. City Council’s law recognizing same-sex “marriage” purported to protect religious freedom. However, it required religious entities which serve the general public to provide services to homosexual couples, even if doing so violated their religious beliefs.

How nice.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. March 3rd, 2010 at 10:38 | #1

    Has anybody done a study of the compliance costs of these sorts of laws? They are burdensome to both non-profits and for-profits. It would be a good issue to unite social conservatives and pro-business conservatives.

  2. Shannon
    March 3rd, 2010 at 14:24 | #2

    Just wait until someone sues the Catholic Archdiocese for not providing those services. Can you “separation of Church and State”? THAT’s the darling of the LEFT. Oh what a tangled web we weave… (BTW, also the achilles heel of any attempt at health care reform on the national level that has any sort of requirement for birth control and/or abortion coverage).

  3. Karen Grube
    March 3rd, 2010 at 18:14 | #3

    You should know that there were also lawsuits in California over the change to the marriage license form that said “Party A” and “Party B” after the State Supreme Court struck down the traditional marriage law, because some REAL brides and grooms wanted their marriage license to actually SAY Husband and Wife or Bride and Groom! The state ended up changing the forms a second time during the few months that gay marriage was allowed so that it gave the option of Bride and Groom as well as Party A and Party B, even before the election when they had to replace them all back to the original Husban and Wife. It would be terrific if a real husband and wife sued DC the same way. I’d love it.

  4. Liz H.
    March 4th, 2010 at 22:29 | #4

    I submit that the state does not, under the principal of separation of church and state, have the competence to define “marriage”. Its interest in the institution is only in the sphere of contract law — rights and obligations, real property, children and chattels etc. In that way, the Code Napoleon is really a better model: A legally contracted union in a city hall, and only optionally a religious or personal ceremony following that. A Permanent Conjugal Contract could be offered to all eligible partners but no one would be obligated to call those parties married if one did not believe that they were. Hence, I, an Anglican, could not be obligated to call two homosexuals “married”, nor would I regard myself as married if I had had only a registry contract. What the law knows of marriage is, after all, merely a mutual indenture.

Comments are closed.