Con_Alma;1081177 wrote:Unless you are very forgetful you know my answer to your question for we have discussed it before. Minors are not able to enter into a legal contract.

Can you provide one reason an incestuous couple or a polygamist adult should be restricted from such a basic human right as marriage?

A State need not provide the service for there's no service required to get married other than a signature on a contract. Contracts are executed daily without State sanctioning. It is simply not needed. State involvement creates a potentially prejudice authority based on the the requirements defined in order to gain their permission of such a basic right.

Con_Alma wrote: The age of consent doesn't respect the clear differences in young people's development, and as such 'punishes' the fast developers in order to protect the slow developing.

BoatShoes;1081507 wrote:Taxation in a representative democracy is not anything close to the arbitrary imposition of military rule by military authorities in which the citizenry nor their representatives have any say because the military as consumed all the power of the former legislative, executive and judicial branches...which is what full-scale martial law is.

BoatShoes;1081498 wrote:The Law isn't singling out Catholics...it applies to all health insurance providers. It just isn't allowing certain Catholic Health Insurance providers to be exempt from a rule that it is applicable to all health insurance providers.

Manhattan Buckeye;1081605 wrote:And the point of the rule is what, that insurers can't decide not to provide coverage for certain issues - and with Obamacare they are forced to provide it? Awesome. The religious angle is only the foundation of the ridiculousness of this decision. What gives the federal government the ability to dictate what services a business may conduct?. I can see the Constitutional reasons for federal anti-discrimination laws, in that if a business decides to provide services, it cannot withhold services from people in a discriminatory manner. That is based in the Constitution. I don't see the Constitutional basis for this.

isadore;1081516 wrote:There are some requirements that are necessary to protect individuals and society. Incestuous relationships have a very great potential of serious physical and mental harm for any off spring. Sexual relationships within a family are rife for abuse. And we are on a very slippery slope when we get arguments like this
as a situation we may have in the future.

arbitrary imposition of military rule by military authorities

Manhattan Buckeye;1081846 wrote:"if it has a rational basis on which to conclude that the activity in the aggregate substantially affects interstate commerce. "

Key point, which has been argued for ages. There are rational interstate commerce issues, human sexuality isn't one of them, it belongs in the bedroom. It's just a piss-poor reason for our government to intrude into our lives.

Manhattan Buckeye;1081942 wrote:Backpedal:

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-source-obama-change-birth-control-rule-133402851.html

fish82;1081946 wrote:Wow...from "we're willing to negotiate," to full cave in 24 hours. Is that a record?

Props to BO for realizing what an idiotic move it was in the first place. Perhaps there's hope for him after all.

fish82;1081946 wrote:Wow...from "we're willing to negotiate," to full cave in 24 hours. Is that a record?

Props to BO for realizing what an idiotic move it was in the first place. Perhaps there's hope for him after all.

fish82;1081946 wrote:Wow...from "we're willing to negotiate," to full cave in 24 hours. Is that a record?

Props to BO for realizing what an idiotic move it was in the first place. Perhaps there's hope for him after all.

BoatShoes;1081496 wrote:It is well established in First Amendment Jurisprudence that the government may regulate general conduct and is not required to provide exemptions from governmental regulations for persons whose religious beliefs prevent them from complying with the requirements of the law. The law regulates all providers of health insurance and not just Catholic employers and under the Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence such laws are totally fine.

For instance, there was a case wherein an employer challenged the federal minimum wage law arguing that minimum wages interfered with its members' religious desires to work without compensation and the Court said the government didn't have to exempt them from paying the minimum wage.

Religious Persons are mandated to comply with laws that violate their religious beliefs all the time.

Furthermore, 28 States already require Catholic Organizations to cover Contraception and yet I don't hear much uproar about any of that.

(Now perhaps somebody will say that this is a Federalism issue but that's not why Catholics are up in arms over this.)

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1082073 wrote:He didn't do ****. They still have to offer it and pay for it, just not promote it. They'll have the insurance companies promote it. What company does promote drugs for its employees?

Con_Alma;1081860 wrote:All sexual relation have a potential for emotional strife and abuse. Slippery slopes are exactly what we are addressing. There are and can be very healthy sexual relationships with many different scenarios of adult humans. TO decide which should and should not occur is discriminatory and the State should have that ability.

The State provides no benefit in requiring a license to become married and they discriminate in their selection of who can and can't be married.

QuakerOats;1081959 wrote:obama BS again ..... new position still not acceptable to bishops.

Nov '16 cannot arrive soon enough.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1082073 wrote:He didn't do ****. They still have to offer it and pay for it, just not promote it. They'll have the insurance companies promote it. What company does promote drugs for its employees?

stlouiedipalma;1082774 wrote:Those who offer health care. Every health care plan has drugs and procedures which are allowed and/or covered. You know, it's the "bureaucrat who decides your coverage" thing.

isadore;1082626 wrote:And there are a certain sexual relationships between adults that can not be healthy and are assuredly destructive.

Con_Alma;1082797 wrote:Not polygamists or incestuous relations. There's no guarantee that they will be unhealthy and they should not be denied the right to marry any more than a gay person should. We don't need the government denying a basic right from anyone.