Something I've been wondering about . . .

[Mary Ann]

I absolutely 100% believe that Jughead's birth control mandate is an attack on the 1st Amendment. I don't believe that the government has a legal basis for telling Catholic organizations that they MUST do something that violates the tenets of their faith. But--there are laws against polygamy which restrict the rights of Mormons to practice their faith according to the tenets of the LDS. I'm sure there must be other examples.

Please tell me how this is different. (I'm not trying to be argumentative on this issue. I really, really want to know!)

[JohnnyReb]

Something I've been wondering about . . .I really, really want to know!)

...has Wonder Woman's chest fallen yet?

[Eupher]

I absolutely 100% believe that Jughead's birth control mandate is an attack on the 1st Amendment. I don't believe that the government has a legal basis for telling Catholic organizations that they MUST do something that violates the tenets of their faith. But--there are laws against polygamy which restrict the rights of Mormons to practice their faith according to the tenets of the LDS. I'm sure there must be other examples.

Please tell me how this is different. (I'm not trying to be argumentative on this issue. I really, really want to know!)

Your example needs a little work. The LDS Church (Mormons), as a matter of official policy, do not sanction polygamy. That practice ended -- officially -- in the early 1890's as a condition of statehood for Utah, which became a state in 1896. Now, I've seen plenty of examples where polygamy -- while not officially sanctioned -- was tolerated by the mainstream LDS church. They know about it and basically turn a blind eye to it, but when it becomes a legal or media issue, the church will excommunicate those who blatantly practice it.

The fundamentalist LDS church with enclaves in Colorado City, AZ and its Utah neighbor Hildale to the north, along with communities in southern Alberta, Canada and in northern Mexico, tend to practice plural marriage as a tenet of their faith along with the so-called "United Order" that calls for a more communal-based living concept. The fundamentalists are NOT a part of the mainstream LDS church, however. They are separate and distinct, though as I said, there are plenty of examples I've seen where plural marriage is practiced openly and without pretense. The law and the courts turn a blind eye to that until the media runs it into the ground, or in the case of Warren Jeffs, the despicable scumbag that fancied himself as the "president" of the fundamentalist LDS church, who was convicted of child sexual assault (later overturned by the Utah Supreme Court).

There's plenty of ugly in this theme.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Compelling state interest.

It's what gives the state the power to legislate against a host of issues. i.e. prostitution, gambling, adultery, drug use, public intoxication, etc. While indiviual acts in and of themselves may have a debateable or negligible impact on society if permitted wholesale society itself becomes untenable. Nothing in the Catholic teachings about BC or not funding is going to destroy society. On the contrary the sexual revolution has had demonstrably ill effects on our society (DISCLAIMER: m r fornuhkater).

I call compelling state interest, "The Idiot Sanction." Yeah, you're gonna do it but if you're mindful enough to keep it out of sight of the authorities you're probably exercising enough discretion to not ripple the world of those around you. However, if you do get caught than society has the right to impose "The Idiot Sanction" because if everybody acted as dumb as you then the number of fatherless children, drug addicts and stoned layabouts would be too great to allow for a functioning society. Moral anarchy ALWAYS leads to social anarchy. Every time. 100% surety. Guaranteed results. It's as much a law of nature as the laws of thermodynamics.

Now as far as the COTUS is concerned Obama has undoubtedly attacked not only the Catholics but the very COTUS he is sworn to defend.

The argument need not proceed any further. It's as malicious as it is unconstitutional. To engage in debates of whether or not Catholics are superstitous is to make our rights contingent upon matters of practicality. They are not, nor can they ever be; otherwise they cease to be rights.

The law is the law is the law and the COTUS is the law that governs the lawmakers...not the people.

Your example needs a little work...

Be that as it may, at one time the LDS church did endorse multiple wives (dumb asses!) and the government did outlaw the practice in direct confrontation to those teachings. If the muzzies ever tried to play that shit here (dumb asses!) the state still has a compelling interest to say, "I don't."

[DumbAss Tanker]

Actually I see it just as much as an attack on the 5th Amendment prohibition against taking property without due process of law, by ordering someone to provide something of value for free to others.  Perhaps also a 14th Amendment issue on both due process and equal protection grounds, though through somewhat different routes.

[thundley4]

Actually I see it just as much as an attack on the 5th Amendment prohibition against taking property without due process of law, by ordering someone to provide something of value for free to others.  Perhaps also a 14th Amendment issue on both due process and equal protection grounds, though through somewhat different routes.

If Obama can order the Catholic Church or in his supposed compromise, their insurance companies to completely pay for birth control with no out of pocket expenses, then why not force employers or their insurance companies to provide all medications for free?  Why stop  there, why not eliminate all co-pays for all treatments and surgeries?

[Rugnuts]

I absolutely 100% believe that Jughead's birth control mandate is an attack on the 1st Amendment. I don't believe that the government has a legal basis for telling Catholic organizations that they MUST do something that violates the tenets of their faith. But--there are laws against polygamy which restrict the rights of Mormons to practice their faith according to the tenets of the LDS. I'm sure there must be other examples.

Please tell me how this is different. (I'm not trying to be argumentative on this issue. I really, really want to know!)

im no expert and just spout off what comes to my mind first, then someone else with better knowledge usually corrects me but here goes anyway. EDIT: see sgt bunny posted a much better response while i was typing my post

well marriage is civil institution. it just happens to be conducted by religious institutions most of the time. if a church wants to marry gays, let say, in a state where it is prohibited. they can, it is just not recognized by the state. i assume the guy on TV with 3 wifes may have gone through a ceremony with each of them. So they "feel" married, but in the eyes of the state, they are not.

another key factor here, for me anyways, the state does not force churches to perform a polygamy ceremony. Thank god they cannot force us men to marry more than one wife. that would be cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th amd. but the state forcing the church to do something it deems is against its creed is the violation.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Actually I see it just as much as an attack on the 5th Amendment prohibition against taking property without due process of law...

We passed the law according to the due process.</liberal>

[Mary Ann]

Thanks, guys. That clears things up a bit. Love the "Idiot Sanctions."

Re: 5th Amendment, if Jughead can just decree that private insurance companies have to offer "free" BC, what would stop him from ordering grocery stores to provide free food?

[docstew]

Thanks, guys. That clears things up a bit. Love the "Idiot Sanctions."

Re: 5th Amendment, if Jughead can just decree that private insurance companies have to offer "free" BC, what would stop him from ordering grocery stores to provide free food?

And there, you've demonstrated the slippery slope that comes along with any talk of encroaching on Constitutional rights, vis a vis if the gov't can require us to buy health insurance, what says they can't later require us to buy a chevy volt (or similarly acceptable hybrid, with union labor probably being one of the factors in deciding acceptability)?

[dixierose]

And there, you've demonstrated the slippery slope that comes along with any talk of encroaching on Constitutional rights, vis a vis if the gov't can require us to buy health insurance, what says they can't later require us to buy a chevy volt (or similarly acceptable hybrid, with union labor probably being one of the factors in deciding acceptability)?

That's why the individual mandate is so dangerous.

[MrsSmith]

A couple other points, the mandate does not include "just" birth control, it includes abortifacient drugs and birth control methods such as the IUD, which directly cause a fertilized egg to be discarded by the womb.  The government does not have the right to order all Christian health insurance customers, all Christian employers and all Christian organizations to purchase a product that forces us to directly pay for the murder of children.

Second point, many Christian organizations don't have separate health insurance companies.  Quite a lot self-insure.  My own hospital is Catholic-owned, part of a network of hospital owned by the same Order.  The Order has grouped all the hospitals into an HMO in order to better control the costs of all our healthcare and to keep the rates to employees as low as possible.  If our "insurance company" is ordered to provide services it currently does NOT provide, and do so at no charge, we are all going to see higher prices AND be directly contributing to the deaths of human beings.  That is far more serious, IMHO, than the government insisting that having multiple wives is not legal.

[JohnnyReb]

Lets get to the root of this....democrats/liberals are aborting future democrat/liberal votes at an ever higher and higher rate. If conservatives experience an unsuspected surprise pregnancy, they do the right thing, they have and raise the child without government help. Democrats know this but can only hope to limit conservative births by controlling there occurrence with free/abundant birth control.

The liberal/democrats have tried to increase their number by supporting and incouraging multiple births to welfare queens and single women with government subsides and free healthcare but even those women are now having abortions and using birth control.

The idiot liberal voter base has reached it's peak and is now set to decline...I hope.

[DumbAss Tanker]

...what says they can't later require us to buy a chevy volt...

I believe that one's in the 2016 Democrat platform...

[Zeus]

im no expert and just spout off what comes to my mind first, then someone else with better knowledge usually corrects me but here goes anyway. EDIT: see sgt bunny posted a much better response while i was typing my post

well marriage is civil institution. it just happens to be conducted by religious institutions most of the time. if a church wants to marry gays, let say, in a state where it is prohibited. they can, it is just not recognized by the state. i assume the guy on TV with 3 wifes may have gone through a ceremony with each of them. So they "feel" married, but in the eyes of the state, they are not.

another key factor here, for me anyways, the state does not force churches to perform a polygamy ceremony. Thank god they cannot force us men to marry more than one wife. that would be cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th amd. but the state forcing the church to do something it deems is against its creed is the violation.

The only disagrement I have with your post is the " So they "feel" married, but in the eyes of the state, they are not."  They may not be married in the eyes of the state but they are. The institution of marriage has been around longer than states or even governments and for most of if not all that time marriage has been a construct of religion. So therefore in actuality they are married that marriage just not recognized by the state and therefore not eligable for any state benefits that marriage may carry

[Zeus]

And there, you've demonstrated the slippery slope that comes along with any talk of encroaching on Constitutional rights, vis a vis if the gov't can require us to buy health insurance, what says they can't later require us to buy a chevy volt (or similarly acceptable hybrid, with union labor probably being one of the factors in deciding acceptability)?

That's why the individual mandate is so dangerous.

I used the same argument when states & the Fed decided to tax the bejesus out of cigs. Not a constitutional argument but a legal precedent one. Still one of an over encroaching govt hand.

Can anyone say they haven't seen a marked increase of govt taxes or fees since then ?

The more authority you give the Govt to "help" you the more authority you give to step on you.

[BlueStateSaint]

Lets get to the root of this....democrats/liberals are aborting future democrat/liberal votes at an ever higher and higher rate. If conservatives experience an unsuspected surprise pregnancy, they do the right thing, they have and raise the child without government help. Democrats know this but can only hope to limit conservative births by controlling there occurrence with free/abundant birth control.

The liberal/democrats have tried to increase their number by supporting and incouraging multiple births to welfare queens and single women with government subsides and free healthcare but even those women are now having abortions and using birth control.

The idiot liberal voter base has reached it's peak and is now set to decline...I hope.

But, that's why they pervade the public school system in the US. 

[obumazombie]

Quote from Zeus,
"The only disagrement I have with your post is the " So they "feel" married, but in the eyes of the state, they are not."  They may not be married in the eyes of the state but they are. The institution of marriage has been around longer than states or even governments and for most of if not all that time marriage has been a construct of religion. So therefore in actuality they are married that marriage just not recognized by the state and therefore not eligable for any state benefits that marriage may carry"
Many states consider cohabitation to be common law marriage even after as little as 2 days.