Con_Alma;1085603 wrote:If if this were the case it doesn't take a State sanctioning of marriage to enforce such a desire. Keeping the State involved in the licensing procedure has enabled prejudiced practices and it is simply not needed.

state sanctioning of marriages is wished by the people, they want it. Gays want it. Their marriages do not harm others so we should allow it, Incestuous marriages harm off spring and family members and should not be allowed.

queencitybuckeye;1085613 wrote:Perhaps you'd be better served to find others who share your opinions who aren't widely acknowledged as blithering idiots, and provide links to them instead. Associating your opinions with ninnies makes your opinions look foolish without regard to their substance.

I don't consider everyone that posts on this forum as blithering idiots, just a few. I already pointed out several facts, some which were referenced on sites a few of you don't like. I already provided links to court rulings and other facts.

Fact:
1) There are 28 states that currently require contraceptives to be included in employee health plan just like proposed.
2) Of those 28, 8 do not have any exclusions for religious reasons.
3) Two of the States, New York & California the State Supreme Courts have upheld the mandates.

Where has the outrage been before? This is a wedge issue that some right wingers have jumped on because it is in the news and you are convinced it's all Obama's idea therefore it is bad. Where were you when the Patriotic Act was passed?

Bigdogg;1085647 wrote:I don't consider everyone that posts on this forum as blithering idiots, just a few. I already pointed out several facts, some which were referenced on sites a few of you don't like. I already provided links to court rulings and other facts.

Fact:
1) There are 28 states that currently require contraceptives to be included in employee health plan just like proposed.
2) Of those 28, 8 do not have any exclusions for religious reasons.
3) Two of the States, New York & California the State Supreme Courts have upheld the mandates.

Where has the outrage been before? This is a wedge issue that some right wingers have jumped on because it is in the news and you are convinced it's all Obama's idea therefore it is bad. Where were you when the Patriotic Act was passed?

Because it's at the State level vs. Federal level.

And I guess you missed the 24/7 meltdowns over the Patriot Act.

isadore;1085621 wrote:state sanctioning of marriages is wished by the people, they want it. Gays want it. Their marriages do not harm others so we should allow it, Incestuous marriages harm off spring and family members and should not be allowed.

I'd like a link to a study saying that people would prefer state sanctioning of marriages vs allowing marriage to be solely a contractual/religious affair.

fish82;1085656 wrote:Because it's at the State level vs. Federal level.

Really, I thought you claimed it was a religious freedom issue. I guess I do not see the difference although Federal Law trumps State Law. I see health care coverage as an additional compensation for my employment. If I want to include contraceptive coverage as part of my individual plan then it is not anymore my employers business as spending it out of my own paycheck. If fact contraceptive coverage actually reduces the cost of my insurance plan. Look it up.

Bigdogg;1085828 wrote:Really, I thought you claimed it was a religious freedom issue. I guess I do not see the difference although Federal Law trumps State Law. I see health care coverage as an additional compensation for my employment. If I want to include contraceptive coverage as part of my individual plan then it is not anymore my employers business as spending it out of my own paycheck. If fact contraceptive coverage actually reduces the cost of my insurance plan. Look it up.

It is still a First Amendment issue IMO. That said, you framed your position with the "states do it" argument, and I was merely offering the other side of the coin. I'm not sure where you get "Federal Law trumps State Law," as there are numerous examples of Federal Law being overturned in favor of the States.

If the employer is paying for it, then it's not unreasonable for them to have a say, just as they have a say in how much you are paid, when you're paid, etc, assuming you view insurance as "part of your compensation."

fish82;1085836 wrote:It is still a First Amendment issue IMO. That said, you framed your position with the "states do it" argument, and I was merely offering the other side of the coin. I'm not sure where you get "Federal Law trumps State Law," as there are numerous examples of Federal Law being overturned in favor of the States.

If the employer is paying for it, then it's not unreasonable for them to have a say, just as they have a say in how much you are paid, when you're paid, etc, assuming you view insurance as "part of your compensation."

Seems pretty obviously within the first amendment to me. There was a case I remember where it was a religious belief of some group that they ought to be able to work without compensation and yet the Supreme Court Ruled that they still had to be paid the federal minimum wage. The government is free to compel the devout to comply with laws that might violate their religious beliefs, and offer no exemption, so long as they don't single a particular religion out.

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.

Congress isn't regulating human sexuality...they're regulating Health Insurance Companies which they've had the power to regulate since United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association in 1945.

BoatShoes;1085875 wrote:Seems pretty obviously within the first amendment to me. There was a case I remember where it was a religious belief of some group that they ought to be able to work without compensation and yet the Supreme Court Ruled that they still had to be paid the federal minimum wage. The government is free to compel the devout to comply with laws that might violate their religious beliefs, and offer no exemption, so long as they don't single a particular religion out.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, as I've not read the entire 2000 page ObamaKare legislation nor the tens of thousands of regulations being concocted by bureaucrats, but I'm fairly certain the Amish, Quakers and Menonites are exempted from the law. Now the question is, are they religious sects? If you wish to claim they aren't, then what are they?

Beyond the question of the Amish et al, what about the thousands of waivers given out by the Administration? They haven't held the entire country to the tenets of the law, so why single out the Catholics?

FWIW...Bam is now upside down with Catholics by 19 points (and dropping like a rock), a group he carried with 54% in 2008.

BoatShoes;1085881 wrote:Congress isn't regulating human sexuality...they're regulating Health Insurance Companies which they've had the power to regulate since United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association in 1945.

Yep...gotta love that all-inclusive Commerce Clause thing to really drive home the Nanny State problem.

I Wear Pants;1085672 wrote:I'd like a link to a study saying that people would prefer state sanctioning of marriages vs allowing marriage to be solely a contractual/religious affair.

It might be there but on the face of it there seems to be no interest in developing that option. As people fight in around this nation in legislatures, voting boothes and the courts to win gays the right to have state sanctioned marriage, there seems to be no real campaign to end state sanctioned marriage in the voting booths, legislatures or in the courts. People are fighting to get the right not to end it.

BGFalcons82;1085958 wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here, as I've not read the entire 2000 page ObamaKare legislation nor the tens of thousands of regulations being concocted by bureaucrats, but I'm fairly certain the Amish, Quakers and Menonites are exempted from the law. Now the question is, are they religious sects? If you wish to claim they aren't, then what are they?

Beyond the question of the Amish et al, what about the thousands of waivers given out by the Administration? They haven't held the entire country to the tenets of the law, so why single out the Catholics?

If there were an Amish University for example, they would be required to provide health insurance to their employees under the Affordable Care Act and the adminstration has not exempted such religious type institutions from the requirement that the health insurance they provide their employees cover birth control.

They're not singling out catholics. It just so happens that Catholics are particularly perturbed by one of the laws requirements...in the same way that one religious sect was particularly perturbed with the Requirement that they be paid a minimum wage.

BoatShoes;1086090 wrote:If there were an Amish University for example, they would be required to provide health insurance to their employees under the Affordable Care Act and the adminstration has not exempted such religious type institutions from the requirement that the health insurance they provide their employees cover birth control.

They're not singling out catholics. It just so happens that Catholics are particularly perturbed by one of the laws requirements...in the same way that one religious sect was particularly perturbed with the Requirement that they be paid a minimum wage.

Other religions are exempt from the law based on their beliefs. Thousands of other organizations have been granted exemptions. The administration is painting itself into a corner by "playing favorites" as to who is exempt from certain portions of the law and who isn't.

fish82;1086130 wrote:Other religions are exempt from the law based on their beliefs. Thousands of other organizations have been granted exemptions. The administration is painting itself into a corner by "playing favorites" as to who is exempt from certain portions of the law and who isn't.

Exactly. I'm guessing that if these Catholic-based organizations are union shops who donate to the Obama re-election campaign they would be exempt...for example.

I Wear Pants;1085672 wrote:I'd like a link to a study saying that people would prefer state sanctioning of marriages vs allowing marriage to be solely a contractual/religious affair.

I would like to see that also.

Con_Alma;1086419 wrote:I would like to see that also.

they do polling in areas of interest to people.

At the very least, we can see where Obamacare has taken us is just a couple of years. If the original purpose of the controversial legislation was to gain coverage for 40 million uninsured (in 2008)...now 52 million and rising....it's not doing very well. This moving towards 2014 where every one will have to have or have to purchase health insurance.....Oh,the outcries for a public option! More poeple ensnared in the trap of dependence.

Other religions are exempt from the law based on their beliefs. Thousands of other organizations have been granted exemptions. The administration is painting itself into a corner by "playing favorites" as to who is exempt from certain portions of the law and who isn't

This is a natural sequalae of government involvement in the industry and just the first of unlegislated mandates....rulings by agencies unvoted on by the people or the congress, accountable only to themselves.

isadore;1086018 wrote:It might be there but on the face of it there seems to be no interest in developing that option. As people fight in around this nation in legislatures, voting boothes and the courts to win gays the right to have state sanctioned marriage, there seems to be no real campaign to end state sanctioned marriage in the voting booths, legislatures or in the courts. People are fighting to get the right not to end it.

I think the attitude is mostly that if we're going to have sanctioned marriage then it should be fair and equal. But I'd posit that no one is really asking people "do you believe we need/should have the government sanctioning marriages?".

I Wear Pants;1086833 wrote:I think the attitude is mostly that if we're going to have sanctioned marriage then it should be fair and equal. But I'd posit that no one is really asking people "do you believe we need/should have the government sanctioning marriages?".

or the question could be 'would you support an end to government sanctioning marriage that also ended the ban on incest."

isadore;1086445 wrote:they do polling in areas of interest to people.

Where and how they do it doesn't change the interest expressed to see it.

isadore;1087071 wrote:or the question could be 'would you support an end to government sanctioning marriage that also ended the ban on incest."

The question could be anything the "pollers" wanted it to be.

Con_Alma;1087150 wrote:Where and how they do it doesn't change the interest expressed to see it.

the interest in seeing an end to state sanctioned marriage is somewhere between minimal and non existent.

The interest in seeing an end to state sanctioned marriage is somewhere between high and overwhelming.

See isadore, I can just fucking make shit up too.

I Wear Pants;1086833 wrote:I think the attitude is mostly that if we're going to have sanctioned marriage then it should be fair and equal. ....

This is really the whole point right here.It's not fair and equal and those fighting for gay marriage really if don't care if its fair or equal yet want the support of others. Allowing the State t sanction marriage gives them the authority to determine who should and who shouldn't be permitted to hve relationship contract. That's the fundamental issue.

They would have my support if they were fighting for a fair and equal movement. They aren't.