G
- Status
G
gracepoole
Guest
Huh? The Congressional Budget Office is relying on anecdotal evidence?
F
Farsight001
Guest
I see what amounts to an op-ed article, not evidence. It also, as the other poster pointed out, completely and intentionally ignores any potential negative impacts of such a change.
G
gracepoole
Guest
And did you read the sources linked through that article?
L
LisaA
Guest
And assumptions and calculations based on those assumptions. Did you read the report? It was full of “If this then that” all assumptions. Further the CBO’s math is questionable at best, the CBO also claimed Obamacare would cost less than 1 trillion and now that it’s being implemented the costs will exceed 2 trillion.
Again the reports are speculation on the impact if a certain set of circumstances exist but they fail to acknowledge that the same results would occur without redefining marriage and they completely ignore the potential costs (financial and emotional and physical) if the rosy scenario doesn’t take place.
Lisa
F
Farsight001
Guest
I looked at them. Frankly, I don’t see much in the way of real meat for the issue. I’ve read too much scientific literature to fall for weak information like that.
L
LisaA
Guest
Thank you for the thoughtful and well cited post on the subject. I think the most important element is the demand that homosexual sex be federalized and protected as were abortion and Obamacare. This truly denies people the right to vote with their feet and move out of or into a state that supports the moral and societal mores they accept. When judicial tyranny reigns as in this case, the people of the state are forced to accept something they find completely egregious and morally repugnant. How ironic in a state that was able to throw off its past of polygamy is now forced to accept something that is so opposed to the moral code and beliefs of the Mormon Church.
Lisa
R
rossum
Guest
There are legal limits on freedom of religion: human sacrifice is illegal, even if you worship Huitzilopochtli. As when any freedoms clash, it is up to the courts to resolve the disputes.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Not a red herring, merely an extreme example to make the point. Do businesses have a right to impose their anti-contraception religious beliefs on their workers, who may follow a different religion or be atheist? There is a genuine clash of freedoms here.
rossum
F
Farsight001
Guest
As others have pointed out, these personal issues are strictly up to individual states according to the constitution. The federal government does not have the authority to intervene, and yet they are doing so anyway. This should terrify everyone - regardless of which side of the issue you are on.
I would also point out that freedom of religion is constitutionally guaranteed. Gay marriage is not. Hence, according to the constitution, freedom of religion should trump gay marriage.
I must also point out that since there are several states where gay marriage is already legal, and since states must recognize licenses produced in other states (which is why you don’t get arrested for having no license when you drive to another state), I would have to argue that no freedoms are really clashing. Gays can get married. Not necessarily in the state they would prefer to, but they can still get married. (I can’t get married in the state I would prefer to either - Hawaii - because I can’t afford it)
And if you really do think that this is going to stop at legal gay marriage, you are truly naive. In the push for power and rights in society, no one ever stops when they get to their goal. They ALWAYS push further. Its anthropologically the mob mentality. The individual is satisfied with getting to their goal, but the mass of people around them is moving, so they go with the flow, just as everyone else is doing, and push more and more. Look at the law suits against churches that are already going and sometimes suceeding because gay couples aren’t allowed to be married on that church’s property. Here’s this ruling, where the Judge said, and I quote, ""the Constitution allows some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”
adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf
J
jmr_1985
Guest
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by President Clinton, the majority of legal scholars believe that they do. The HHS mandate is an executive order, not a “law.” If the President had said he was going to require Catholic organizations to violate their religious beliefs, Obamacare would have never passed. If the LCWR hadn’t intervened in express opposition to the USCCB, the law would have never passed. Trust me, I was working in Congress at the time. I digress…
The imposition of Christian morality is traditional in American law. You are the ones trying to change the norm, not us. Furthermore, we have always been a country of negative rights. The Constitution prohibits the government from doing certain things to us. Even when the country gives someone a welfare payment, the government always has the ability to remove it because there is no right to have it in the first place. Now, the liberals want a positive right to birth control and abortion by forcing my company to use my money to pay for it.
J
jmr_1985
Guest
Thanks, Lisa. You are so right. We are a country of laws. Prior to the 1960s, we used to think that words had meaning in the Constitution. For example, the 14th Amendment says, “No state shall…” As it says nothing about private individuals, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (economic legislation under the Commerce Clause) was necessary to disallow discrimination in private business because there was no right in the Constitution to prevent store owners from discriminating. The point being, when change was desired, a legitimate channel was used. Now the Constitution is used as a weapon for so-called progressive social change. This is tyranny by the minority.
L
LisaA
Guest
Please rossum you are SO misinformed. Please quit tossing out ridiculous assumptions that have no bearing on reality.
The businesses do not impose their BELIEFS upon their employees. The employees are free to engage in whatever sexual behavior they wish, they can attend any church they wish, or no church at all. They can purchase or obtain any sort of birth control or abortions they wish. The employer is not preventing access to these activities or products. The employers do not want to provide certain products that violate their conscious. That doesn’t impose a belief on anyone.
You might not be aware, but contraception, abortion, and sterilization have, up until now, been options in insurance plans. For many years (in my pre Catholic days) my insurance would not pay for my birth control pills since these pills did not treat an illness or health condition in my case. This didn’t stop me from buying the birth control pills which are easily available at low or no cost. Ditto with abortions although thankfully I never went down that road.
You like so much of the Leftist media either deliberately or mistakenly claiming that in not providing a certain drug or procedure as part of employment, that the employer is preventing them from obtaining them.
Very off topic but it speaks to your complete lack of understanding of these issues. Why do you keep tossing out these specious claims?
Lisa
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
This has been discussed over and over on this form by me and other people. You brought up questions basically asking, and I paraphrase, why infertile and/or post-menopausal hetrosexual couples can marry and homosexual couples can not, but the problem with this question is that assumes that infertility is equal to impotency. That’s the point I was making in my previous post.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
You brought up questions basically asking, and I paraphrase, why infertile and/or post-menopausal hetrosexual couples can marry and homosexual couples can not, but the problem with this question is that assumes that infertility is equal to impotency. That’s the point I was making in my previous post.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
You brought up questions basically asking, and I paraphrase, why infertile and/or post-menopausal hetrosexual couples can marry and homosexual couples can not, but the problem with this question is that assumes that infertility is equal to impotency. That’s the point I was making in my previous post.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
You brought up questions basically asking, and I paraphrase, why infertile and/or post-menopausal hetrosexual couples can marry and homosexual couples can not, but the problem with this question is that assumes that infertility is equal to impotency. That’s the point I was making in my previous post
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
You brought up questions basically asking, and I paraphrase, why infertile and/or post-menopausal hetrosexual couples can marry and homosexual couples can not, but the problem with this question is that assumes that infertility is equal to impotency. That’s the point I was making in my previous post. I believe the state in Utah in its defence of upholding marriage between one man and one woman did try to defend against the claim of inferility in hetrosexual mrriages and marriage but the Judge wasn’t persuaded by it. I have not read the state defence of marriage and the section on infertility but I bet they didn’t point out that infertility for a hetrosexual couple is different from impotency for a homosexual couple. I do not think that distiniction is made enough by proponents of marriage between a man and a woman.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
You brought up questions basically asking, and I paraphrase, why infertile and/or post-menopausal hetrosexual couples can marry and homosexual couples can not, but the problem with this question is that assumes that infertility is equal to impotency. That’s the point I was making in my previous post. I believe the state in Utah in its defence of upholding marriage between one man and one woman did try to defend against the claim of inferility in hetrosexual mrriages and marriage but the Judge wasn’t persuaded by it. I have not read the state defence of marriage and the section on infertility but I bet they didn’t point out that infertility for a hetrosexual couple is different from impotency for a homosexual couple. I do not think that distiniction is made enough by proponents of marriage between a man and a woman.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
You brought up questions basically asking, and I paraphrase, why infertile and/or post-menopausal hetrosexual couples can marry and homosexual couples can not, but the problem with this question is that assumes that infertility is equal to impotency. That’s the point I was making in my previous post. I believe the state in Utah in its defence of upholding marriage between one man and one woman did try to defend against the claim of inferility in hetrosexual mrriages and marriage but the Judge wasn’t persuaded by it. I have not read the state defence of marriage and the section on infertility but I bet they didn’t point out that infertility for a hetrosexual couple is different from impotency for a homosexual couple. I do not think that distiniction is made enough by proponents of marriage between a man and a woman.
- Status