The proper role and scope of government

[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?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

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?

Again, you are mixing things that happen at the state level and the Federal level. It is not a two way street.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Again, you are mixing things that happen at the state level and the Federal level. It is not a two way street.

How?

[richlevy]

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

The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that “ Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

FYI, the judge's archive page at the Virginia Historical Society makes no mention of the Loving case.

[SamIam]

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

How?

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.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

HOW is it unconstitutional to force religiously-identified private employers to insure birth control, but LEGAL and constitutional to force them to insure, for example, remarried employees?

You have NOT yet answered what the difference is.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

HOW is it unconstitutional to force religiously-identified private employers to insure birth control, but LEGAL and constitutional to force them to insure, for example, remarried employees?

You have NOT yet answered what the difference is.

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.

[Lamplighter]

While some have focused on the "contraception" issue, I've posted previously
that this is a fight by the Council of Bishops that goes far beyond birth control.

But the push back from the public is giving some Bishops concern,
and the thrust of their fight may be changing in more obvious ways.

Reuters
Stephanie Simon
DENVER | Tue Mar 13, 2012

Bishops consider broader focus in birth-control fight

(Reuters) - Facing small but clear signs of discontent within their own ranks,
U.S. Catholic bishops may be poised to rethink their aggressive tactics
for fighting a federal mandate that health insurance plans cover contraception,
according to sources close to influential bishops.

There are no indications that the bishops will drop their fight against the federal mandate.
But dozens of bishops, meeting this week in Washington, are likely to discuss concerns
that their battle against the Obama administration over birth control risks being viewed
by the public as narrow and partisan and thus diminishes the
church's moral authority, the sources said.<snip>

One sign of a coming recalibration: A sweeping statement on religious liberty, now circulating
in draft form, that aims to broaden the bishops' focus far beyond the contraception mandate.
The draft statement, slated to be released soon to a burst of publicity,
condemns an array of local, state and federal policies as violations of religious freedom,
said Martin Nussbaum, a private attorney who has consulted with the bishops.<snip>

Polls have shown that a majority of Americans, including most Catholics,
support President Barack Obama's policy of requiring health insurance plans
to offer free contraception, including sterilization and the morning-after pill.
<snip>
There are some indications that the bishops would come to negotiations
with more flexibility. Earlier, they called for rescinding the birth-control rule altogether
and for allowing even secular employers to opt out if they had a moral objection.

The Obama administration, however, has made clear
it's not interested in negotiating changes to the policy.
Instead, an administration official said the White House would value input
from the bishops on practical questions such as how to accommodate Catholic institutions
that provide their own insurance and don't want to pay for birth control.
But such accommodations would not change the bottom line:
"Women will still have access to preventive care that includes contraceptive services,"
the official said, "no matter where they work."