02-14-2012, 02:37 PM | #256 | |||
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Frankly they just need to change the laws to state all civil unions are subject to the same rules and benefits of a "marriage". Then the radicals who want to tell people who and cannot be married won't get their feelings hurt.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
|||
02-14-2012, 03:15 PM | #257 | ||
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
Quote:
Quote:
So why is a catholic hospital in Vermont being "forced" to cover gay spouses legitimate, but a catholic hospital being "forced" to cover birth control illegitimate? I would argue that's another "separate but equal" principle, and unconstitutional unless civil unions were the ONLY institution the government recognized.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
||
02-14-2012, 03:32 PM | #258 | ||
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
||
02-14-2012, 03:45 PM | #259 | |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
Quote:
If it's unconstitutional on first amendment terms at the federal level, it's unconstitutional at the state level. But, okay, switch "gay" to "divorced" in my example. As the law now stands, i believe, employers can't pick and choose which marriages they recognize, even if they're a religious hospital or school or whatever. By your logic, the federal government saying that all marriages count as marriages in Obamacare would be equally illegal and unconstitutional, because that's the fed telling a religious institution that it has to acknowledge divorced-and-remarried marriages against their faith. Why is including remarried spouses in mandated health care coverage not a breach of the first amendment, but including birth control in mandated health care coverage unconstitutional?
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
|
02-14-2012, 04:29 PM | #260 | |
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
Quote:
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
|
02-14-2012, 04:37 PM | #261 | |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
Quote:
Anything that states are not prohibited from doing by the First Amendment also is not prohibited by the First Amendment to the Federal Government. Other parts of the Constitution delineate differences in powers between the state and federal levels, but since the 14th Amendment, if you're making a First Amendment argument, Vermont and federal jurisdictions are both subject. If you want to say it's OK for Vermont, but not the Federal Government, you'll have to use something other than the First Amendment. And I don't know what, other than the First Amendment, could be a Constitutional block based on religion.
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
|
02-14-2012, 04:41 PM | #262 | |
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
Quote:
Further, states, Vermont in his case, can't tell the Feds or other states what to do or how to do it. Same goes for the whole issue of civil unions and what various states do about it. It is a red herring in this issue IMHO.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
|
02-14-2012, 05:46 PM | #263 |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
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] |
02-14-2012, 09:23 PM | #264 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
How?
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
02-14-2012, 09:56 PM | #265 | |
King Of Wishful Thinking
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Posts: 6,669
|
Tonight I watched part of a documentary on the Loving case, which caused the Federal courts to overturn miscegenation laws against interracial marriage. Listening to the opinion of the judges supporting enforcing the law, wrapping prejudice in the name of G-d, and listening to all of the people who were so sure that segregation and miscegenation laws made sense and were G-d approved, showed me how important a role the Federal government plays.
Because each state's citizen is a citizen of the United States. And while rights flow to the states through the 10th Amendment, the core Constitution itself and the 14th Amendment give the Federal government the right to protect the unalienable rights of it's citizens from the states. I recommend watching The Loving Story on HBO. Listening to all of these people, some obvious jerks but many well meaning, talk about their belief in the inevitability and 'rightness' of these laws, brings so much into focus. Seen through the lens of history, their arguments fall flat, but in that day a majority either believed them or lacked the will to oppose them. From here Quote:
__________________
Exercise your rights and remember your obligations - VOTE!I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. -- Barack Hussein Obama Last edited by richlevy; 02-14-2012 at 10:08 PM. Reason: add quote |
|
02-14-2012, 10:24 PM | #266 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 2,655
|
I am fed up with a Christian fundamentalist god always messing with our State and Federal Government. The fact that the concept of separation of Church and State exists proves that god doesn't want the Republicans sneaking in rules about birth control or homosexuality and turning them into laws. This is such major hypocrisy for the "party of less government" that I am astonished. Maintaining the nation's infra-structure and ensuring food and health care for our children is too grievous an oppression by the government, but government mandates on private sexual choices, birth control, abortion, women's rights etc. are perfectly acceptable because that's what god wants. God is horrified by two happily paired off lesbians but indifferent to the suffering of a child. Go figure.
|
02-15-2012, 08:14 PM | #267 |
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
Nor did I, that's the point.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
02-15-2012, 08:16 PM | #268 |
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
You can't be that dense.
What one state does at a state level has nothing to do with what happens at a national level. What the Fed does as a mandate has to do with all the states at every level, and in this case it violates the Constitution and Obama lacks the power to do it. If I were my state I would give him the finger and completely ignore the fool.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
02-15-2012, 08:28 PM | #269 | |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
Quote:
You have NOT yet answered what the difference is.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh Last edited by Ibby; 02-15-2012 at 08:37 PM. |
|
02-15-2012, 08:40 PM | #270 |
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
Simple, your example used state court findings which were confined to what the states did. Obama is using the Federal pulpit, which, IMHO and many others, is an unconstitutional mandate. It is really not all that difficult.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|