The proper role and scope of government

[Ibby]

Here's another poser for you (collective you, but mostly people like merc who think the church should be able to opt out): if the catholic church - or their affiliated schools, hospitals, etc - doesn't recognize gay marriages as "marriage", should they still, in states where gay marriage is legal, have to acknowledge the civil compact between a gay employee and their spouse, when it comes to health insurance coverage or other benefits that extend to spouses?

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Ibram

[snipped]Here's another poser for you, if the catholic church - or their affiliated schools, hospitals, etc - doesn't recognize gay marriages as "marriage", should they still, in states where gay marriage is legal, have to acknowledge the civil compact between a gay employee and their spouse...

Certainly this poses a problem for American-British same sex unions. In Britain they are accorded spousal status. In America the Brit has to queue separately as an Alien. The union is not legal and not recognised.

And the same worry occurs in case of injury or death overseas. Men who have been together 10, 20+ years (and the rest) with no rights and no say in the life of their loved one.

But of course we're talking about something as ridiculous as marrying your dog, so it doesn't matter.

[Spexxvet]

“Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,”

What about the rights and conscience of the employee?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

What about the rights and conscience of the employee?

Can you spell D-E-T-E-R-I-O-R-A-T-I-N-G

Several years ago, the Oregon Legislature made Oregon Health Sciences University and Hospitals,
fiscally independent of the Legislature, putting them into competition with other health care providers.
So OHSU elected to become the sole health-care plan (insurer) to their own employees.
Reverberations of conflict of interest are now rumbling in the bowels of "Pill Hill".
.

[Stormieweather]

Think of the precedent. If employer A is allowed to exempt certain things from being covered due to religious beliefs, where does that end?

Bill to allow employer to deny any preventative service

The bill failed, as well it should, but seriously...WTF is wrong with people? Offering coverage is not the same as forcing you to take the effing pills.

I literally had this arguement with an old friend on Facebook yesterday...he said, Obama wants to prevent us from having babies!!

ExCUSE me?

How would YOU go about reducing abortions and preventing unwanted pregnancies? How about we start with eduction and affordable contraception? And I'm not talking about the 5 month waiting list at the health department or braving the demonstrators screaming in your face at Planned Parenthood. I mean, my doctor checks me out, writes a prescription, I get it filled. Then, every month, I go to the pharmacy and pick it up.

Or, like in some places in Europe and in Mexico, buy the damn birth control over the counter without a prescription for pennies, or totally free with a prescription.

But no, that's anti-religion here in the land of the free, home of the brave.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Or, like in some places in Europe and in Mexico, buy the damn birth control over the counter without a prescription for pennies, or totally free with a prescription.

Here, contraception is prescribed by a doctor, but is free of a prescription charge. I get my contraceptive implant free every three years, but pay just over £14 a month to get my anti-deoressants and acid reflux medication.

You can buy unprescribed "morning after" pills over the counter, after a consultation with a pharmacist (who asks questions about protection, chlamydia, AIDs etc) That's comparitively expensive though - £25 last I knew. It's free from sexual health clinics and in certain pharmacies, depending on region and age. Again, the same sexual health questions will be asked.

But no, that's anti-religion here in the land of the free, home of the brave.

Said it before will say it again. America is so full of contradictions. We have a State religion, of which the Queen is Defender. We have far more freedom not to have a religion than you do.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Here's another poser for you (collective you, but mostly people like merc who think the church should be able to opt out): if the catholic church - or their affiliated schools, hospitals, etc - doesn't recognize gay marriages as "marriage", should they still, in states where gay marriage is legal, have to acknowledge the civil compact between a gay employee and their spouse, when it comes to health insurance coverage or other benefits that extend to spouses?

You think I am a poser because I support the church's Right to not pay attention to Obama? Haaaaa.....

Oh, and no, the Church doesn't have to do that because DOMA is still being fought in the courts.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You think I am a poser because I support the church's Right to not pay attention to Obama? Haaaaa.....

Oh, and no, the Church doesn't have to do that because DOMA is still being fought in the courts.

pos·er    [poh-zer]
noun
a question or problem that is puzzling or confusing.


And no, Merc, that's wrong. DOMA only applies to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. not to institutions. In states where gay marriage is legal, groups operating in those states HAVE to legally acknowledge the marriage in that state. Does that infringe on their religious liberty? Does it infringe on Catholics' religious liberty that insurance benefits to spouses have to be given even if said spouse is a second or third spouse after divorce?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

In states where gay marriage is legal, groups operating in those states HAVE to legally acknowledge the marriage in that state.

Not if they work for the Federal Government, they do not have to follow those rules, regardless of what state they work. And it is being challenged in every state in one form or another, for or against.

Does that infringe on their religious liberty?

No.

Does it infringe on Catholics' religious liberty that insurance benefits to spouses have to be given even if said spouse is a second or third spouse after divorce?

Good question. I believe they still provide benefits since the only place I know that you are identified as the second or more wife is in the military. But it does not effect your ability to get benefits. There is a huge difference here when you try to isolate the desire of same sex people to get "married" and the desire of the Federal Government to infringe a rule passed down by the Feds on a Religious organization.

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.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not if they work for the Federal Government, they do not have to follow those rules, regardless of what state they work. And it is being challenged in every state in one form or another, for or against.

Challenged, and lost, in states like Vermont. And I'm specifically referring to religious institutions like hospitals or schools, not federal institutions.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Good question. I believe they still provide benefits since the only place I know that you are identified as the second or more wife is in the military. But it does not effect your ability to get benefits. There is a huge difference here when you try to isolate the desire of same sex people to get "married" and the desire of the Federal Government to infringe a rule passed down by the Feds on a Religious organization.

but IF the catholic hospital knew you had been divorced, should they LEGALLY be ALLOWED to deny insurance to your new spouse? I say, no, they shouldn't. Because the civil institution of marriage (LIKE the civil institution of defining "basic health care coverage") outweighs the selective and exclusionary definition they use. I think CHURCHES, actual proper CHURCHES, can define marriage, or deny birth control, whatever way they want, and if you work for a CHURCH you surrender your rights to having civil institutions recognized, but if you work for a hospital or a college, your employer should be held to the same civil standards as any other secular institution.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No.

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?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

I would argue that's another "separate but equal" principle, and unconstitutional unless civil unions were the ONLY institution the government recognized.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

but IF the catholic hospital knew you had been divorced, should they LEGALLY be ALLOWED to deny insurance to your new spouse? I say, no, they shouldn't. Because the civil institution of marriage (LIKE the civil institution of defining "basic health care coverage") outweighs the selective and exclusionary definition they use. I think CHURCHES, actual proper CHURCHES, can define marriage, or deny birth control, whatever way they want, and if you work for a CHURCH you surrender your rights to having civil institutions recognized, but if you work for a hospital or a college, your employer should be held to the same civil standards as any other secular institution.

I think you are mixing the issues all up and trying to say they should all be treated as one thing. They can't, issues dealing with same sex marriage and the issue of the Federal Government telling a religious organization what they can and cannot do, or in this case telling them what they must do are completely different. Why? Because that is what the Constitution says. Many of the other issues are really just legal juggling that will drag on for years in the courts, along with Obamacare.

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?

The Vermont issue is an issue that deals with States Rights and is local to that state. The other issue deals with the Federal Government telling private religious organization what they must do. Completely different.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I think you are mixing the issues all up and trying to say they should all be treated as one thing. They can't, issues dealing with same sex marriage and the issue of the Federal Government telling a religious organization what they can and cannot do, or in this case telling them what they must do are completely different. Why? Because that is what the Constitution says. Many of the other issues are really just legal juggling that will drag on for years in the courts, along with Obamacare.

All I'm saying is, the catholic church as an example is against both gay marriage and birth control, but to say that one of those things, they HAVE to recognize legally, and the other, they CAN'T be forced to cover like non-religious institutions do.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The Vermont issue is an issue that deals with States Rights and is local to that state. The other issue deals with the Federal Government telling private religious organization what they must do. Completely different.

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?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

... the issue of the Federal Government telling a religious organization what they can and cannot do, or in this case telling them what they must do are completely different. Why? Because that is what the Constitution says.

Where does the Constitution stop the Federal Government from "telling them what they must do"?