I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Feb 14, 2012 11:09am
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.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.
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Feb 14, 2012 11:50am
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.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.
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?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fe3d5/fe3d5e1c1793efdfc25f8d449187c8727d3d59de" alt="fish82's avatar"
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Feb 14, 2012 11:59am
Because it's at the State level vs. Federal level.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?
And I guess you missed the 24/7 meltdowns over the Patriot Act.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Feb 14, 2012 12:21pm
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.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.
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Feb 14, 2012 2:41pm
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.fish82;1085656 wrote:Because it's at the State level vs. Federal level.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fe3d5/fe3d5e1c1793efdfc25f8d449187c8727d3d59de" alt="fish82's avatar"
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Feb 14, 2012 2:47pm
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.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.
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."
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Feb 14, 2012 3:12pm
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.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."
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Feb 14, 2012 3:15pm
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.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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/04c93/04c933abbd2c3213440d71f76897a4381974a720" alt="BGFalcons82's avatar"
BGFalcons82
Posts: 2,173
Feb 14, 2012 4:37pm
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?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.
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?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fe3d5/fe3d5e1c1793efdfc25f8d449187c8727d3d59de" alt="fish82's avatar"
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Feb 14, 2012 4:52pm
FWIW...Bam is now upside down with Catholics by 19 points (and dropping like a rock), a group he carried with 54% in 2008.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5de44/5de44174ae648b06a4bee8c4183874c4fca0b9af" alt="believer's avatar"
believer
Posts: 8,153
Feb 14, 2012 6:03pm
Yep...gotta love that all-inclusive Commerce Clause thing to really drive home the Nanny State problem.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.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Feb 14, 2012 6:07pm
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 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.
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Feb 14, 2012 8:24pm
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.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?
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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fe3d5/fe3d5e1c1793efdfc25f8d449187c8727d3d59de" alt="fish82's avatar"
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Feb 14, 2012 9:04pm
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.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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5de44/5de44174ae648b06a4bee8c4183874c4fca0b9af" alt="believer's avatar"
believer
Posts: 8,153
Feb 15, 2012 2:12am
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.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.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Feb 15, 2012 5:52am
I would like to see that also.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
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Feb 15, 2012 7:50am
they do polling in areas of interest to people.Con_Alma;1086419 wrote:I would like to see that also.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1eccb/1eccba6c772143b85b44eaea2e0460b6490f8072" alt="HitsRus's avatar"
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Feb 15, 2012 7:52am
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.
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.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
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Feb 15, 2012 2:39pm
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?".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
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Feb 15, 2012 7:15pm
or the question could be 'would you support an end to government sanctioning marriage that also ended the ban on incest."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?".
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Feb 15, 2012 9:01pm
Where and how they do it doesn't change the interest expressed to see it.isadore;1086445 wrote:they do polling in areas of interest to people.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Feb 15, 2012 9:02pm
The question could be anything the "pollers" wanted it to be.isadore;1087071 wrote:or the question could be 'would you support an end to government sanctioning marriage that also ended the ban on incest."
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Feb 15, 2012 9:07pm
the interest in seeing an end to state sanctioned marriage is somewhere between minimal and non existent.Con_Alma;1087150 wrote:Where and how they do it doesn't change the interest expressed to see it.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Feb 15, 2012 10:59pm
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.
See isadore, I can just fucking make shit up too.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Feb 16, 2012 5:26am
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.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. ....
They would have my support if they were fighting for a fair and equal movement. They aren't.