The proper role and scope of government

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The issue is one of what the States are doing vs. what the Federal Government wants individual businesses to do. You are completely and repeatedly mixing the issues. The are not the same even though they may have similar issues with Constitutionality.

WHICH issue? The issue of birth control coverage, but NOT Obamacare more widely?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

WHICH issue? The issue of birth control coverage, but NOT Obamacare more widely?

You are mixing the issue of gay marriage and the most recent issue of King Obama's edict of mandated BCP coverage. Obamacare is a THIRD issue you recently dragged in...

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You are mixing the issue of gay marriage and the most recent issue of King Obama's edict of mandated BCP coverage. Obamacare is a THIRD issue you recently dragged in...

Mandated birth control is PART OF Obamacare. That's why it's being talked about at all. To separate Obamacare from the birth control debate reveals your ignorance on the topic.

But, okay. If we IGNORE GAY MARRIAGE, if you honestly don't see how they are parallel legal arguments, let's talk about divorced and then remarried people.


The catholic church does not believe in birth control.
The catholic church does not believe in divorce.

You posit: catholic-affiliated organizations should not have to insure birth control.
I ask: should catholic-affiliated organizations have to insure remarried spouses?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Mandated birth control is PART OF Obamacare. That's why it's being talked about at all. To separate Obamacare from the birth control debate reveals your ignorance on the topic.

Really? My ignorance? Don't be a little bitch if you want to discuss this issue with adults. You fail on so many levels. If it was part of the original Bill he would not have had to come out and make an edict about it, the issue would have been inherent in the writing of the original Bill. But what Obamacare did do was give powers to the HHSS to make such edicts. Which is another huge problem with Obamacare.

But, okay. If we IGNORE GAY MARRIAGE, if you honestly don't see how they are parallel legal arguments, let's talk about divorced and then remarried people.

They are completely separate issues, they come from completely different angles and issues.

The catholic church does not believe in birth control.
The catholic church does not believe in divorce.

Sort of, but yea, I give you that much....

You posit: catholic-affiliated organizations should not have to insure birth control.
I ask: should catholic-affiliated organizations have to insure remarried spouses?

Gay marriage and or divorce of anyone is not just an issue of the Catholic Church. The issues have not just been an issue of the Catholic Church.

It just so happens that the Catholic Church has been dealing with the issue head on, but it still is not an issue of just that religion. They happen be the ones dealing with it head on.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Really? My ignorance? Don't be a little bitch if you want to discuss this issue with adults. You fail on so many levels. If it was part of the original Bill he would not have had to come out and make an edict about it, the issue would have been inherent in the writing of the original Bill. But what Obamacare did do was give powers to the HHSS to make such edicts. Which is another huge problem with Obamacare.

Actually, what the bill says is that exemptions to the UNIVERSAL provision IN the text of the bill (that is, the bill says INSURANCE HAS TO INCLUDE BIRTH CONTROL) can be granted by the executive. Sibelius (with Obama's blessing) decided NOT to EXEMPT religiously-affiliated groups from the provision, but DID exempt churches.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Gay marriage and or divorce of anyone is not just an issue of the Catholic Church. The issues have not just been an issue of the Catholic Church.

It just so happens that the Catholic Church has been dealing with the issue head on, but it still is not an issue of just that religion. They happen be the ones dealing with it head on.

What I'm saying is, Catholics could argue that having to recognize people that were remarried as legal spouses for purposes of insurance is infringing on their right to reject second marriages as illegitimate. Do you think they should have the right to reject remarried spouses from their health care coverage?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Actually, what the bill says is that exemptions to the UNIVERSAL provision IN the text of the bill (that is, the bill says INSURANCE HAS TO INCLUDE BIRTH CONTROL) can be granted by the executive. Sibelius (with Obama's blessing) decided NOT to EXEMPT religiously-affiliated groups from the provision, but DID exempt churches.

Not much different from what I said.

What I'm saying is, Catholics could argue that having to recognize people that were remarried as legal spouses for purposes of insurance is infringing on their right to reject second marriages as illegitimate.

And my point is have they? Is anyone in the Federal government saying they must do this? Or is it just being challenged at the state level and the issue has never come up at a Federal level?

Do you think they should have the right to reject remarried spouses from their health care coverage?

Haven't really thought about it much, guess I just don't care.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not much different from what I said.

I would certainly argue that "presidential edict that churches provide birth control" and "refusal to exempt employers who claim religious affiliation from having to provide birth control like everybody else" are two wildly different things. clearly you disagree.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And my point is have they? Is anyone in the Federal government saying they must do this? Or is it just being challenged at the state level and the issue has never come up at a Federal level?

Please please please explain to me why a first amendment religious liberties question has to be differentiated on state/fed lines?

Also, as far as I know, there is NO challenge to the legitimacy of laws that say that first marriages and second marriages have to be treated equally by employers, either on the state OR federal level - but legally a marriage is a marriage, and if an employer's health care plan says that it includes spouses, that plan has to include ALL legally recognized marriages.

If I understand your point, you are arguing that since marriage (as it relates to insurance SPECIFICALLY) is RECOGNIZED by the federal government, but LICENSED by states, it is completely different from birth control coverage, which is mandated by federal order under Obamacare. Okay, fine. But the first amendment applies EQUALLY to state AND federal laws, and since a religious group can ONLY claim that their religious rights are infringed upon UNDER the first amendment, if religious liberty is the problem with the regulation, it does not matter if the regulation comes from the federal government or from a state government.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Haven't really thought about it much, guess I just don't care.

But it's the same legal, religious, and constitutional principle. Why do you care very strongly that birth control insurance coverage is a religious liberties question, but don't care at all about whether divorced/remarried spouse insurance coverage is a religious liberties question?