I didn't make any argument that was particular to the gay, divorced, insurance issue. I mentioned Vermont as an example of a state that had already come up, but my point stands if you replace it with a generic state.
A state can't tell the Feds what to do, but if a state can do it, then so can the Feds, as far as the First Amendment is concerned.
And several states already require non-church employers, including Catholic-run hospitals and universities, to cover birth control, exactly as the proposed Federal rule will do.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
|