Your ignorance is showing, Erin.

Ted, no he does not. He does not think we should legislate ones religious beliefs. Never has he ever said we should have a ban on gay marriage. Not once.

Did you hear Romney mention the word hate?

I am not a Romney fan but I have never heard him 'preach hate to gay people.' I will not vote for him. I had to suffer under his time as governor and still pay the price for laws he implemented.

Jim Edward

I'll bail you out

"Romney is striving to take a position that protects the rights of all the people, not just the rights of a vocal minority"

How is he protecting the rights of that vocal minority? Like their right to marry the adult of their choice?

That's already happening, and it isn't about a bit of harmless glitter. Heck, most politicians fear the "gotcha" question far more than glitter. No, the fear of public appearances is about what happened in Tucson, and those crazies can be extreme left or extreme right or just plain brain damaged.

I remember attending a Betty McCollum event in a St. Paul park in 2010. Someone in the crowd started demanding that the congresswoman deliver on some issue. Ms. McCollum handled it well, saying essentially: "you have to sit down and let others speak, or we will have to leave". He didn't stop, and she left. We all lost the opportunity to speak with Ms. McCollum.

Afterwards, I complimented her on her handling of the matter, and noted that she had no security detail - no guards- no police. She is a small woman, and quite vulnerable in a crowd of rowdys. She has every reason to avoid this situation.

It is OUR JOB to protect our politicians, and those who seek office from people like this. They should be universally, and firmly condemned, not lionized as "brave". They are rude and disruptive. They rob the rest of us of something precious - our mutual trust that public discourse will be civil.

Think "occupy".

I'm not excusing this behavior, just saying people will take action when they feel their voices aren't being heard and their rights are being abrogated . . . think American Woman Suffrage Association, Freedom Riders, Wisconsin United.

Activism is an American tradition, long accepted as part of the democratic process.
Many town hall meetings were rudely disrupted by opposition not long ago, when Congress members were trying to explain the health care reform bill to their constituents. This is nothing new.

Just because it's nothing new, doesn't make it right. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly applies to people we disagree with as well as those with whom we agree. Claiming my right to freedom of speech while I'm taking away another person's freedom shouldn't be tolerated.

Ken, how was Romney's freedom taken away?

Is he now more limited (than anyone else) in his freedom to speak? I'd say he has a much larger platform than nearly any other American.

I don't think I miss the point of the Constitution at all. States can make laws, but they can't make laws which violate protections set forth in the Constitution. Check the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, and square that with denying gay couples the civil benefits of marriage. You can't, and that's why anti-gay marriage legislation is being struck down by the courts. They have to follow the law as set forth in the Constitution. THAT'S the point. If you are a strict constitutionalist you will support equal protection and equal rights, and therefore, yes, gay marriage.

Gays aren't asking for "special rights", just the same rights as EVERYONE ELSE. It seems to me the intolerant group is the one that is denying them these rights . . . the right to marry another adult of their choice . . . just like my great aunt was denied her right to marry outside her racial group by the (then) intolerant majority. Fortunately, that injustice has since been corrected in the laws.

Oddly, I've never heard or read the term "breeders" before. I'm heterosexual, and I'm not a "breeder", as I can't have children (too old), so it seems like a strange argument against gay marriage -- over half of heterosexual couples cannot "breed" due to age (for women) or infertility (including voluntary infertility by use of birth control or permanent sterilization).

Can you link to any piece which shows gay community using this term? This is the first I've heard of it.

" It is about behavior. We do not, nor should we, determine "rights" by behavior"

Science is blowing this notion out of the water as we speak. Sexuality is inborn, the same as left-handedness . . . not a behavior . . .

Again, this is not about civil rights, it falls under equal protection . . . 14th amendment.

This will all be a mute issue within 5-10 years. Marriage will be defined as the civil union of any two consenting adults. The next generation will wonder why we even debated it.

Nonsense.

Homosexuality is about behavior because that is the definition of the word. My being homosexual means I engage in certain practices. I think we can dispense with the gritty details, though.

Science is not part of the debate. Science can tell me about predilections, but does not tell us that our behavior is controlled by those predilections.

"Love" is also not part of this debate. I love my brother, but that does not make me homosexual.

This debate is not about civil rights. It is about a minority that does not want _anyone_ disapproving of their sexual practices, and is willing to use the power of the state to silence criticism, and disapproval. It is about forcing schools to teach children that those sexual practices are OK, so they need not feel the sting of disapproval.

"Science is beside the point."

And that's why you don't believe in modern medicine either, right?

I thought so.

Washington State just made gay marriage legal -- 7th state to do so:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/08/us/washington-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Game over.

"Science is not part of the debate. "

You changed your sentence here. Tell me why science can't be part of the debate. Is it because you make the debate rules?

Thank you for restating your question. Sometimes tone/implications don't translate well online, and I think that may have been the issue.

Ah, ok. Thanks for allowing me to restate the question.

"Homosexuals should not be discriminated against . . . "

Congratulations. You've just restated the 14th amendment reason (equal protection) for legalizing gay marriage.

This is why anti-gay marriage laws will eventually be struck down by all the courts. You cannot follow the law of the land and not legalize it. It is a basic rights issue.

"Homosexuals can marry a willing partner of the opposite sex, who is otherwise legally qualified to wed."

This sentence contradicts the first two. (By the way, would you want your daughter to marry a homosexual man?)

"This is not discrimination.It is a conditional requirement."

This condition introduces discrimination and does not pass the equal protection rule (14th amendment).

" I reject the generalization that people who support traditional marriage are engaging in hatred."

They are engaging in bigotry (intolerance of those who are different), which is a form of hatred. Of course they can't admit it to themselves, because in most cases they also call themselves "good Christians." Admitting bigotry means accepting hypocrisy and, for them, the cognitive dissonance would match the mother of all acid trips.

Another way to phrase this:

Giving someone else
equal rights does
not infringe or take
away rights from you.

It just makes it illegal
to enforce your
prejudice and hate.

It's that simple.

"I'd like to have 4 wives but the law won't allow it. Am I being discriminated against? I believe I am. What is the lgbt community views on this?"

Maybe this is a MItt Romney position ;-)

Utter nonsense.

Warren Jeffs. Prosecuted for sexual activity of which we disapprove. Multiple wives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs (not that I endorse wikipedia...)

Morality that we choose, we can change. We tamper with our God given standards at our peril.

Renee, having 4 wives is as unnatural as same sex marriage. That's how my comment fits into the discussion.

"Renee, having 4 wives is as unnatural as same sex marriage.That's how my comment fits into the discussion."

If you take a "biblical times" worldview then 4 wives should be fine. It was common back then to have multiple wives, and the Mormons practiced it (multiple wives, but not a woman with multiple husbands) until recently. Multiple wives is still considered normal in some other cultures. Culture decides what is "natural", and cultural norms change over time and with level of civilization. Our civilization is one where granting and observing equal rights is the cultural priority . . . thus, if marriage is defined as being between two adults (as it is), then to be equal it has to be between any two adults (regardless of race, gender, or disability). If marriage were culturally defined to be between 3 adults (or more) then, to be fair and equal, we'd have to allow it to be between ANY 3 adults (regardless of race or gender -- a woman would have to be allowed to take 3 husbands or a man would be allowed to take 3 husbands (all men)), and in this way it would offer equal protection under the law (the 14th amendment test).

The PRESENT legal definition of marriage (2 people in a marriage) does not pass the 14th amendment equal protection test.

Excellent video which goes to the point:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rep-walsh-remarks-on-same-sex-marriage-bill-416/2012/02/09/gIQAzhGV2Q_video.html

The battle over "gay marriage" is a battle over the definition of marriage, and standards of sexual behavior. LGBT activists say otherwise, injecting "science" into the debate, but values and morality are not about science. Science can tell is how to make an "abortion pill", but says nothing about whether it is right or wrong to use it. Likewise, marriage is a question of values, standards and morality. Science is silent in these areas.

The connection with polygamy is obvious. If we get to choose our morality in these areas, what stops us from choosing to accept polygamy? Incest? Underage marriage? For those of us who use an external standard - the Christian bible - these things are not ours to choose. For those who worship at the secular altar of "logic", there is no obvious limit on what they might choose.

"standards of sexual behavior"

Should the government be dictating "standards of sexual behavior"?
Should the government be telling me what I and can't do in my bedroom?

We have a secular government. This isn't Iran.

Your "connection with polygamy" argument is the same one that was used to keep the vote from women. It went like this: "If we give women the right to vote, pretty soon we'll have to give 12 year olds the right to vote! And then the five year olds! What stops us from giving 3 year olds the right to vote?"

Ridiculous, right? You're using the same logic.

Oh, and about: "those of us who use an external standard - the Christian bible - these things are not ours to choose", well nobody is forcing you to choose homosexuality. Just don't do it if you don't believe in it, but don't force your "values" on others.

"For those who worship at the secular altar of "logic", there is no obvious limit on what they might choose."

You'll find the limits if you use logic.

We do not allow 3 year olds to vote. Why not? Who is to say why not?

Incest is a crime. Why? Who is to say it should be? What is the "logic"?

I have no desire to impose anything on anyone, but I insist on being able to teach my children what is right and wrong, and to tell them that they should uphold various standards, including sexual mores. The LGBT community insists on calling that HATE. They are wrong.

The fact is that logic does not guide us here. Our ideas of right and wrong are either based on an external standard (i.e the bible) or they are ours to choose. If we are free to choose based on "logic", it is obvious that there are wide disagreements on where that logic leads, and I have zero faith in it leading to a good outcome.

Literature is chock full of this very question, and human experience is chock full of bad outcomes. Human beings becoming untethered from external morality is a very old story, and we know the ending. Read "Lord of the Flies".

This is gone way off topic, but a debate is a debate. Mr Lee, there is a push by some for the government to define marriage, and it is being ask mostly by GOP and religious groups across the country. This debate could be quickly solved simply by removing the governments roll, and instead have the government define what a union is, and let other, if they what, define what a marriage is. The governments definition of what a union is, would be legally binding. The definition of what a marriage is by others, would not. This simple act would free the government from this debate, and still let others free from more government regulation (I think, one of the cornerstones of the GOP platform). Also it would free us of your definition, and my definition. You see, I don't believe laws should be made on your religious beliefs, any more then you would what laws based on my religious beliefs. And for the record, glitter bomb bad. Title of article also wrong.

To STW - This is an appealing argument, and I wish it were so simple, but it's not.

Marriage is not about "love" or "rights". It is about children, and the law needs to get involved when the partners in the marriage get into conflict. Other institutions cannot resolve the conflict, because the conflict is often over property and custody, and the law gets sucked in.

This is one reason homosexual "marriage" makes no sense. Homosexual "unions" can acquire children, but cannot produce them. Marriage is primarily about ensuring that heterosexual couples who may produce children have a binding commitment to each other and the children they produce.

Separating morality and law is also appealing but impossible. Go back to the great philosophers of the 17-19th centuries who explored this and you will find that it is a powerful urge, unfulfilled. The fact is that our legal system - our constitution, and our very principles of self government are based on a foundation of Judeo-Christian ideals. Knock that foundation our from under those documents, and you end up with chaos. See: "Lord of the Flies"

Mr. Lee. We are not going to agree. I would finish by saying, Gay is gay. You can not pray it away. They are born the way they are, just as I am born the way I am. And last, If only people could see how this screams separation of Church and State, and how this is dividing us, when it could actually unite us. You don't need to expect this, you just need to understand it. Good day.

This is an example of why using the power of the state causes conflict. When we have freedom and the law is not involved, we can go about our business. When the law forces me to do things that violate my morality, or forces you to submit to "religiously inspired" strictures, then we have conflict. Our founders gave us a minimal government for this very reason, to minimize the interference in people's lives, and let them live their lives in liberty. We may not agree on how the power of the state should be used, but I am always hoping that we can agree that the power of the state should be kept OUT of the equation whenever possible.

"I have no desire to impose anything on anyone, but I insist on being able to teach my children what is right and wrong, "

Who is saying you can't teach your kids what you believe is right and wrong? Nobody is telling you that you can't do that.

Definintion of incest is:Incest is sexual intercourse between close relatives that is usually illegal in the jurisdiction where it takes place and/or is conventionally considered a taboo. The term may apply to sexual activities between: individuals of close "blood relationship"; members of the same household; step relatives related by adoption or marriage; and members of the same clan or lineage. (depending on the state). If they were consenting adults why can't these people be in a relationship...it is illegal in most states. You decided to paint all cases of incest as rape. Well in back home, if the heterosexual couple is past child baring age or cannot biologically have children; that couple can be together without being charged with incest. Do not equal incest with rape. It is different.

Penna1965,

Every state in the US and District of Columbia have codified incest prohibition.

Only three states: Ohio, Rhode Island and New Jersey offer "exceptions" for consenting adults.

In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include: father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and in some states, first cousins.

Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations including stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.

One can image how defense of adult incest could put vulnerable adults like the elderly or mentally ill at risk. As sadly they are.

One wonders why unnamed apologists defend committing incest?

One hopes to God that some horny 20-year-old young man in Eagan doesn't read Penna1965's comment and decide that condones him committing incest with his 18-year-old sister.

One further hopes that if they did commit incest they'll use prophylactic (preventative) birth control.

And one asks fellow citizens and Church leaders here: if they followed the rule of Church doctrine and/or couldn't afford to buy un-covered by health insurance contractions and conceived: Who would take care of their baby and the babies health--as babies of incest are likely to have birth effects--if they conceived while committing incest?

Andrea

There is value and power in standing up and articulating what you believe. If those who are right stay silent, those who are wrong win by default.

We are social creatures, and we tend to follow those with the temerity to lead. Leaders are precious and in short supply.

Thank you for posting.

Taxes that pay for the above is the top 50% of wage earners. But I some how believe this is a deeper issue. I will try and reply to a few of the topics.
First, we live in a broken world and too many people believe when you are a Christian, you some how become Christ himself. No, wrong answer. Christ is not the problem, people who pretend to act in his name are. Christ is the answer!!! Christian are to be Christ like, but as humans, we are week.
Churches pay for their own Lawyers.
It is the same Taxes payer money that helps me raise a hispanic and black child in my home.
US Military can treat cases of rape and other sexually violent crimes with a death sentence. Also, when sentenced by a Military court, and you have served your time in Leavenworth... You can face another trial in Civilian Court for the same charges.
Adultry is a Court Marshall and dishonorable discharge.
Read the 10 Commandments, there is something about adultery in there.

Why are you so filled with hate?

Big_Phish,

First a rhetorical Q: Why do so many here fear using their real name to comment?

I'm aware of the US Military Court Martial process. You assert rape and sexual violence in the military "can" be penalized by the death penalty. But, the reality is rape and sexual violence "aren't" penalized in the least in recent years.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-military

The last military execution of a US personnel was 1961. For murder and rape.

There are currently 6 men on military death row. None for sexual crimes. All for premeditated murder.

There have been numerous military cases brought against soldiers for rape, sexual abuse in recent years. Nearly every case was dismissed. Nearly none were penalized.

It is far more likely that a soldier will be prosecuted for disobeying an officer or petty larceny than for rape or sexual crimes.

Nearly no cases of adultery have been brought against soldiers. One can imagine why, given the above.

President Bush (a born-again Christian) loosened the rules for adultery in military.

I hate when people corrupt facts that perpetrate inhumane, violent and uncivil behaviors: like rape, pedophilia and adultery.

And I'm deeply unimpressed with people (and institutions) that hide behind faux names, faux facts and faux concern for real people while doing so.

Andrea

Andrea,

So, because I use a Nick Name it makes my view not count. I don't make comments that try to make people mad it is a view point just as yours is. No different. Your issue with violent sexual crimes and the Military is no different then in Civilian court. Most of the time when crimes are that bad the Military will discharge the soldier and hand them over to Civilian authorities. As I said, rape in the Military can carry the Death Penality. When a charge of sexual violence has been brought forward then dismissed, is because the person was probably angry about there misjudgement and wanted revenge. Not, all but... people are people.
I dislike people who love to run on and on, are self righteous, and completely intolerant of other view points. Now get off the soapbox and enjoy the Weather.

Big_Phish,

Not trying to make you angry.

Only asking a few questions and correcting incorrect information you and others are communicating. Like suggesting military "can" and, by suggestion "does" prosecute sex crimes, which the military does not.

I'm interested in calling out erroneous propaganda so more others aren't misled.

Here's a piece featuring WallStreet Journal columnist and others very concerned about misogyny.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/meet-the-press/46697289#46697289

Which is perpetuated not only by the shrillest voices, like Rush Limbaugh, but by the incidiousness of misleading comments.

Andrea

P.S. Very much enjoying the weather. Thanks for the suggestion.

Kevin,

Regards your Q if I know how much Catholic Archdiocese gives United Way. No, but my best understanding is $0.00. Individual churches, though, sometimes donate to groups like United Way. Individual churches also must fund the Archdiocese.

Via Parish "assessments," as the Archdiocese's annual report calls them. Which are the Archdiocese's primary revenue source. The Archdiocese is not similarly "assessed" for taxes.

Here is Archdiocese's annual report, for more illustrative pie charts, graphs, etc: http://www.archspm.org/_uls/resources/AnnualReport201102-CatholicSpirit.pdf

Andrea

I have nothing against the Catholic church or any other religious organization that supports banning gay marriages. That's their choice. But I will say that the Catholic church on one hand wants the government out of it business (contraception), and on the other, it whats them to define what a marriage is based on it religious teachings. Now, I am all for following the bible for those that want too, but the U.S follows the U.S. Constitution. Separation is desperately needed. And we need people wise enough to see that.
And back to the Catholic church, If the church stands up and speak out against gay marriages, people will ask, "What about your house?". That's just a fact.

I do not see the purpose of listing the sins of the members and clergy of the church. The author does not specify, but it appears to be that these sins somehow justify a political point. I find that logic twisted at best. I wager that there are members of just about every organization who have shown their flawed humanity. This should not be news, especially to Catholics.

To be clear - our discussion is about standards. The standards are not invalidated because people do not meet them. Standards are also not "hate".

"If you want to upset a Conservative, you can tell them a lie.If you want to upset a Progressive, you tell them the truth."

That one's new to me. I hope you don't mind if I borrow it?

As a friend of mine used to say: Cruel, but fair.

Yes, labeling someone is always a good idea. Borrow away, and spread it as much as you can. I'm sure it will help a lot.

Emotional appeals are can be hard to resist, and tug at the heartstrings, but good judgement argues otherwise.

Redefining marriage is a big step, and not even for intolerable injustice, but for uncomfortable disapproval. It would disrupt family law in unforeseen ways. At best, this is social experimentation on a large scale.

As outlined above, if we redefine it to match today's fashion, what will be tomorrow's fashion? I do not see a limit on its redefinition, once we untether it from an external standard. Redefining marriage is about forcing those of us who disapprove to assent, not about any sort of "civil right". It is about calling people of faith, like me "haters" and "bigots" because they disapprove, and using the power of the law to force them to be silent.

Redefining marriage to allow this legislator to throw a wedding for her daughter seems to me a bad way to make law.

Talk about hate speech...hate against the Catholics? That is allowed?

I am a lifelong Catholic.

Questioning hierarchies doesn't equate to hating them. I was taught by my priest that God gave humans critical thinking abilities for a reason. To use them.

I choose to: "Hate the sin. Not the sinner."

Andrea

Thank you for the wisdom, Edward.

You took the words right out of my mouth!

I'm deeply unimpressed by people who whine about facts when they hide behind fake names.

And, I question the integrity of information communicated by anonymous commenters.

Despite his vitriol, Penna1965's point that identity theft is possible is true.

However, I personally am who I say I am. And represent who I am on my LinkedIn, here:

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=14407229&authType=name&authToken=s3yy&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore

Andrea

Simple, do unto others what you would have them do unto you...try applying that to all your statements/questions above...and IGNORE those that don't apply the same philosophy.

And that's from someone who leans left, and doesn't appreciate the book that the philosophy comes from.

I do not post simply to elicit reply from another poster. I speak out on principle, remembering that there are many readers who never post, but nonetheless will digest what is said here.

Always remember that ultimately, ideas rule. Get the ideas right, and the rest is much easier. Get the ideas wrong, and you'll never find your way.

Much of what is said here is badly flawed. It is only sometimes that it seems necessary to stand up and speak out when a particularly egregious bit of rhetoric would otherwise go unchallenged.

Irrational? Pot calling the kettle black, comes to mind.

quae, interesting approach....try to belittle those you know nothing about, yet disagree with, in an effort to divert attention from your real beliefs, given away by your seemingly conservative, archaic, possibly personal mantra of a name.

For the record, I believe everyone should have the freedom of religion, and I will not condemn or denigrate others for their beliefs, or their non-belief..First Amendment, and all...or don't you think it applies if you are a non-believer?

Here's a question for you, do you also agree that employers should be able to opt out of paying for insurance that covers vasectomies? How about not paying for Viagra for men, when it is taken for pulmonary hypertension?

War on women? Yes! Who makes the rules, laws, guidelines for those in the Catholic faith? Would that be older, white men? Why don't they advocate punishment for men who have sex without the intention of procreation.

And finally...yes, women can still buy contraception, but being denied health care coverage on a prescribed medication because the men at the top don't personally agree with your lifestyle, or the idea that a woman (or man) may want to have sex for reasons other than to procreate, is absurd. An employer, is an employer, no matter what their beliefs are!

"Quae Nocent Docent,"

Please cite objective outside sources when you make claims.

Hi,

Susan and AMG... how is this a war on womens issues? You still have the ability to get contraception and the ability terminate a pregnancy. Why should the employer have to pay for it? I work for a large company in Minnesota and they will not cover non-medical contraception, but if it is needed for medical issues, they cover it. How is that a war? If you are really convicted, you should go after the Rap lyrics, entertainers referring to women as the "C" word or as the "S" word, prostitution, and China for their treatment of women. This war on women is just another BS platform. The real war is on middle class, white, working, males. We are always made to look like we are stupid, bumbling idiots, with no morals, and guided by our genitlia. It take two to Tango. Whitey is not your problem... you are your own problem. Stop looking for people to give you stuff or make special laws for you. Stop feeling bad for yourself and move forward. This goes for the Militant Homosexuals too.
Still not angry AMG... just stating the facts. Yes my wife knows how I feel and she is a strong, strong women. Also, I am not writing an APA paper, so no references needed.

Bif Fish, I believe it is war, because leaders of the Republican party, and pundits on the right, are trying to roll back time, and make others conform to their "beliefs" which, in this instance is about an issue pertaining to woman. Why do I have to choose between being appalled by rappers lyrics, Limbaugh's comments, or contraceptive coverage? As far as giving me stuff, and making special laws...not my goal. My opinion is that if an employer is going to offer health insurance coverage, they should offer coverage for something 99 percent of women use, as I have elaborated on below.

Susan,

How is the republican party trying to roll back time? Are they trying to take away a womens right to vote? I understand that conservatives are trying to get rid of the Roe vs. Wade (Abortion) issue. But, that is a Moral issue and you will never get people to change their minds on this, until they change their hearts.

Don't forget Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin the "C" word. Oh, Rush also apologized, take it or leave it.

Now, health coverage is subjective... it is up to the Companies(Business and ethics) and their negotiations with providers on what they cover and not cover. Contraception is not a right, nor should the Government get involved. I know some Companies health care packages cover it...so it is simple... work for a company that provides it, if it is that big an issue.

Good News: It is going to be another beautiful weekend. Enjoy what God has given!!!

Yes, I agree with you about Bill Maher too. And watching Bill Maher, like not choosing an employer based on their benefits, is a choice. And, for the record, Limbaugh apologized for using the two specific words, but not for the premise of his reasoning.

We will agree to disagree on the employer/employee relationship. Enjoy the weekend.

Fluke said before a meeting that Georgetown Law School should subsidized $3000 for women students annually require for birth control to exercise their sexual freedom.
$3,000.... come on, that is a stupid number. He simply said that she would have to have sex 21 times a week, using condoms and drew a conclusion from that. He admited that he went to far, but using absurd numbers caused an absurd conclusion.

I am aware of that. The state of MN has gotten heavily into the business of micro-managing health insurance, which is a big reason why medicine is too expensive and no longer serving patients. MN is a near the top of the list, with the most mandates of any of the states, last I heard.

Donald, you make a good argument here, but I still believe that the contraception issue is a war on women issue. If we could make the playing field even, and somehow make men just as responsible for unintended pregnancies as women, there might not be as much opposition to employer's paying for the insurance which covers contraception.

If employers are going to offer health insurance, it only makes sense that they offer insurance that covers the most often utilized drug by women.

Sexual activity is voluntary. Insurance is about taking on liability for *unforseen* events. "insurance" that covers voluntary activity (and its costs) is no longer insurance. On what basis do I have a right to force others to pay for my voluntary activity?

Pregnancy and birth traditionally were not covered by insurance. Complications were. Same principle. Choosing to have children is expensive. On what basis to I have a right to force you to pay for my choosing to have children?

This is much like my saying that I need to eat steak to stay healthy, and then saying that you have to pay for it, because I need it.

Get the principles right. If they are wrong, then there are no clear boundaries.

So with this reasoning, would all preventative care be voluntary, and therefore not covered?

Your line of thinking makes sense, but just to make a point...pregnancy and child birth are now covered. Times change, things (insurance) evolve to the changing times.

As an employer, I too am faced with health insurance issues. I do not necessarily believe that it should be the employer that is required to pay for health insurance. After all, we don't have to pay for an employee's personal car insurance, why their personal health insurance. But the bottom line is that healthy employees are better employees. And I know I may get blasted for this point, but it is really better for an employer when women aren't on maternity leave, or home sick with children....so why not contraception? Which brings us back to the religion/faith issue. I believe it needs to stay out of the employer/employee relationship. If you are going to provide health care insurance, then make it insurance that is most beneficial to all.

Donald,

Sexual activity is not voluntary for married Catholics. It is mandated by Church doctrine.

Andrea

I'm not arguing with you, but I do have a question. Why has an exception been made for a woman with cancer? Wouldn't it be God's will that she continue the pregnancy, and accept His outcome?

Kevin,

The Catechism is considered more "hammer" than "guide" by most in the Church. Including priests.

Archbishop John Nienstedt, head of Archdiocese of St. Paul/Mpls sounds like he's wielding a hammer in this letter to his colleague, the President of Notre Dame:
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2009/04/02/archbishop-nienstedt-calls-obama-‘anti-catholic’-vows-pull-support-notre-dame.htm
In it, he assails Notre Dame's President for honoring President Obama, insisting if l Obama's visit isn't cancelled: "Do not expect me to support your University in the future."
Notably Notre Dame does not pay US taxes. Yet, receives over $60 million in government grants, paid by multi-faith taxpayers.

And this letter to head of Health and Human Services, threatening of an "imperil" to Catholic Charities (which is actually primarily funded by taxpayers, not the Church), reads like a hammer:
http://mncc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/11-0916-Legislators-Kathleen-Sebelius.pdf

Finally, few priests interpret the Archbishop suggesting the Cathechism is only a guide. Most believe they'll be fired, if they don't conform. This from a letter to them by him:

"There ought not be open dissension on this issue (the marriage amendment). If you any have personal reservations, I do not wish that they be shared publicly."
(http://www.minnpost.com/political-agenda/2012/01/archbishop-nienstedt-priests-support-marriage-amendment-or-be-quiet-if-you-)

Andrea

It was stupid.

Kevin, thank you for the reply. Intersting to read the reasoning for the exception.

Kevin,

I am aware the Archbishop is the authoritative leader of the local Catholic Church, in union with the Pope. And that the Church is not a democracy. Did you know he worked at the Vatican in it's political office?

Your comment here, though, reverses the comment you made earlier that I was responding to. In it you said: "The Cathecism is a Guide, not a Hammer."

Here you are saying the Cathecism is not a Guide, it is what Catholics must believe.
My comment, supports this truer reality. And it is entirely fair for a faith to have its own rules of membership.

Where it becomes problematic, is when the faith is paid for by government grants and taxpayers dollars that represent all people, not only Catholics.

Andrea

Mr. Lee --

Your point is well taken, but there is far more to the issue.
Like it or not, fathers in more cases than not now, are not present to raise the children they conceive. Which leaves mothers and children strapped, and along with them, straps both the esteem and economy of our country.

Unfathered (as un-mothered) children struggle more to succeed than those in two-parent homes. They tend to require more academic, social, economic and public safety problems. Those who don't still have higher hill to climb to navigate self-worth and personal mastery we value in the US.

All of these amount to big picture issues our society faces together, like it or not.

The challenge is our society does almost nothing to incent fathers to:
1. not impregnant women. (In fact, one could say it encourages them. For example, Catholic hospitals which refuse to pay for contraceptives will pay for Viagra, as will Medicare.)
2. remain committed to raising children.

This wouldn't be a problem if each man (and woman) had the moral fortitude to stay committed to their children.
But, the well-researched fact remains, they aren't. While restraint would seem the convenient answer, this is tricky. One could say: Women! don't sleep with men who are irresponsible. But, women often don't know a man will take a powder until he does!

I'd be far less critical Catholic church were it investing as much to manage paternity, as it is spending to manage maternity.

Andrea

As Andrea alluded to above, why, as tax paying citizens, are we required to subsidize your "choice" of faith. Attending, or belonging to a church that receives government funding, or tax breaks, is taking advantage of someone else paying for your personal beliefs. How is this different that an employer paying for insurance for something that employee believes to be a responsible drug or device?

No doubt about that!

Being as I reject the basic premise of most religions, to me, one is no better or worse than another. So your statement does not apply to me.

Now if your are talking about terrorists, and I hope you are not implying that all Muslims are terrorists, then they come from all religions. Need I remind you of Timothy McVeigh, the kids from Columbine, or any other Christian terrorists?

Probably best to ignore those that cannot stand behind their comments.

Quae Nocent Docent --

I prefer faith leaders don't cop deals the "implicitly diminish" their advocacy "of human rights and justice."

I prefer faith (and all) leaders put human rights and justice ahead of religious indoctrination.

I believe if they did, their model of humane behaviors would provide them far better credibility than civic adjudicative methods do.

And, absent the need to sort devilish and dissonant details, humans would perhaps be moved to more deeply reflect their behaviors, including the implications of their sexual lives.

And accept their responsibility to fellow humans, including the children they conceive and the children who haven't, for whatever reason, the benefit of nurturing care. As, indeed some of them didn't have.

Without question, or judgement.

But, inspired by witnessing Fathers, fathers, mothers and good Sisters who model (as non-heirarchial Catholics and others, absent the support of government or religious rules did hiding Jews from Nazis) far more how to love. Then how to regulate and cop dubious deals with, well, you know who and his latter-day uncivilized ilk.

In as unconditional, unbiased and sustained relationships as possible.

Andrea

Excuse me. From whence come our ideas of "justice" and "human rights"?

Our founders considered us "endowed by our creator" with rights. see "Declaration of Independence" (T. Jefferson, 1776)

So what does it mean to "put human rights and justice ahead of religious indoctrination."? Absent "religious indoctrination" - and very specific Judeo-Christian indoctrination - "justice" is often meted out at the point of a gun, and the idea of "human rights" depends on who you talk to.

Our idea of "rights" and "justice" are rooted in, and dependent on the very "indoctrination" you condemn.

The Catholic Church is not funded by taxpayers. I don't know what AMG is referring to. I'm betting that she is referring either to he church's tax exempt status, or its charitable operations, where they do get funding from tax funds - just like other charitable organizations are partly funded by tax money. (like MPR, for instance)

Asserting that taking a dollar of public subsidy disqualifies you from expressing opinions or following your moral compass is nonsense, and if followed is poisonous to civil discourse. Imagine this logic applied to those who take food stamps.

Donald, I'm not speaking for AMG, but my personal feeling is that if you choose to participate in an organization that benefits from a tax exemption, then yes, your "choice" (which you are using as your argument for the other discussion), is being subsidized by those who do pay taxes into the same system.

The following was deleted from here, by the poster:

quae nocent docent said:
"Donald, good comment. as for Susan she obviously would like to muzzle the Catholic church, one way or another. that aside, as to the tax exempt business, there is an issue here that goes beyond the question of religious "subsidy". so far as I can tell, Susan has no use for a society that sees good in mediating institutions (those "little platoons of meaning as Burke put it). for her, I fear, it's just the individual and the state. in this regard, then, tax exemption recognizes that society has an interest in preserving one of those, independent mediating institutions. it's no accident that one of the first targets of dictatorships is the churches. they must either be co-opted (as in Nazi Germany) or destroyed outright (as in the old Soviet Union). in fact, this has been an issue at least since the advent of Christianity and its struggles with the various states and empires of history."

That logic says that all money is the government's, and any money not taken in taxes is a "subsidy". How about your house? You probably take the mortgage deduction on your income taxes. Is that a "subsidy"?

No. Taxpayers do not subsidize the church, nor should they. Taxpayers help fund activities, like food shelves, that are sponsored by churches. Those are entirely different matters.

We are also not talking about "insurance" when we are talking about voluntary behaviors and their consequences. We are talking about prepaid medical care. You get to choose when to engage in activities that require contraception. It would be like forcing me to pay for your mountain climbing safety equipment. It's not a war. It's not insurance. Climbing mountains is your choice, and you should shoulder the costs. If this is "insurance", then I could name dozens of similar things where "insurance" would be required to pay - motorcycle helmets, life preservers, leather gloves for welders, and on and on.

No. I should not pay for your choices and you should not pay for mine. That is how free societies work. When we insist that other pay for our choices, don't be surprised when they insist on limiting your choices. That's where we sit now.

The question is: Do we have the guts and the character to stand up and pay our own bills and accept the full consequences of our actions, or do we insist that others pay our bills? On this question hinges the future of our freedom.

Compelling....but I will once again go back to the place where disagreements with integrity should end.....how about we agree to disagree?

For those who might question my next comment, it was in response to:

quae nocent docent says:
there are none so blind as those that don't want to see

The second comment that was deleted below:

quae nocent docent said:

"really intelligent comment. maybe we should ask Harvard to award you an honorary doctorate.incidentally,I am wondering if you will ever get around to addressing any of the questions that I have raised in the course of this so-called "discussion". so far the silence has been deafening."

Deleted comment:

quae nocent docent said:
"Good God is right! Susan says she doesn't want to muzzle the church, just wants it to pay for everybody's Pill (presumably so folks will have fewer babies and help to deepen the forthcoming entitlement crisis). and I believe her. but you? what you are saying is that the church (es) because it/they are tax exempt have no right to participate in public debate. to have a voice in the public square.. as I said (or tried to say) in an earlier post, we do not tax the churches precisely so that they can participate in the public square w/o fear of direct government reprisal. "separation of chruch and state" (which was read into the first amendment by the anti-Catholic justice Hugo Black, a former KKK boy) is based on a letter Jefferson wrote to some CT Baptists. needless to say it's not in the original. anyway, for you it seems that the church has no right, no obligation to speak out on the moral and philosophical issues of the day. just shut up and swing the incense. lady, you are scary. and then you have the temerity to condemn Pius for not taking Hitler head on. or closer to home, just a week or so ago there was a blogger who invoked the name of a local parish in opposition to voter ID and in support of various entitlement programs. presume that he was meddling in politics and should be told to shut up. or is a matter of when you talk the leftist line it's OK to go political but when you talk the conservative line, it's not."

Andrea, I find your comments and information very interesting. I also like to read those opposing comments posted here as I think balance is good, and can be a learning experience. As far as Quae's comments, I have found it helpful to copy and paste, as you mentioned, and then I repost (as above), so it doesn't look like I was debating with a ghost.

Andrea, I wonder if asking for supported answers might be too much in all circumstances? I think opinions are okay, if not stated as fact. Opinions can inspire reflection, and get an interesting dialog going. It's only when parties write as though they are the king of knowledge (no names necessary), and anyone disagreeing is somehow beneath them, does the discussion break down, and go in the wrong direction.

Susan,

I agree with you, opinions are fine. As long as they are not claimed or implied as facts.

Where opinions are suggested (in word or implication) as facts, without support, (I've learned the hard way), it is best to seriously scrutinize them.

And, when commenters continually claim questionable (if not clearly false) facts and refuse to support them with real and robust data, my choice is to write off all their comments as propaganda.

To be clear, this is my choice. Not intended to be personalized, except by those whose comments reflect these patterns.

Which, in my view, you don't. From a personal perspective, I find supporting my claims with data is a good acid test for whether I'm on a reasonable and right track -- or just reacting.

Andrea

(quality of this post is poor. I wrote a clearer one, but Patch got an error and lost it! i.e. the dog ate it. ;->)

Abortion happens when three things are true: 1) a woman is pregnant, 2) the baby is not wanted, 3) abortion is considered an acceptable method of ending the pregnancy.

Linking contraception to abortion is like linking Mr. Donut to Weight Watchers. Mr. Donut may make you fat, but that may not be considered bad. If so, you might join Weight Watchers. WW is not the ONLY way to get un-fat.

This is the difference between correlation and causation. They are not the same. "Studies" like the one cited are flawed. (and in my opinion almost useless) They ignore human choices and behavior.

Linking contraception and abortion is similarly flawed. They are at best loosely tied because they ignore human volition.

Insurance is intended to cover _risk_, not choices. Imagine getting your auto insurance to pay for you to paint your car a different color, just because you wanted it.

It is not my definition of insurance. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance and also Moral Hazard: http://banking.about.com/od/loans/a/MoralHazard.htm

Yeah, the "Patch site work" gave me a hiccup too.

So do you believe everyone will have the moral conviction to abstain from sex, and therefore not take the chance of becoming pregnant, or of impregnating a woman? You cannot impose your morals on all, or expect everyone to conform to those morals. People will have sex, no matter what YOU believe - I would hope that you would do everything in your power to reduce abortions...which may mean helping women to afford contraception.

And BTW, Mr. (Dunkin') Donuts (or other fat enabling restaurants) and obesity have been linked....yeah, yeah, yeah...it's a choice to put it in your mouth, but I really do hope you see the correlation.

People believe different things, and may not act in accordance to your morals. It is basic fact, and has been proven that contraception reduces abortions.

Donald, one other thing regarding your last statement - "insurance is intended to cover risk, not choices".

Insurance does cover preventative care. Screenings to find and cure an early stage of cancer come to mind. Now, I know that the big hang up here might be that "preventing" something means it is bad, and pregnancy can not be viewed as bad. I am sorry to say, but many times, pregnancy is bad. The timing, cause (rape, incest), causing life altering, or ending conditions for the woman (without her previous knowledge), or other situations which may make pregnancy bad for a woman. In these cases, and because abortion is legal, it is very possible that a woman may make the choice to have an abortion. And simply, if she had been able to afford contraception (meaning it was free), she may not find herself even having to consider an abortion.

I know there are many other reasons that woman make that difficult choice. I do not pretend to understand, and at this point I will simply say that I try very hard not to judge.

Free contraception will not prevent abortion. There are many cases where a pregnancy changes from desirable to undesirable. Free contraception will not prevent pregnancy. Sexual activity happens for lots of reasons, with varying expectations. It is ONLY when the participants take responsibility for their choices, and exercise discipline in their choices that contraception is effective. Simply saying that providing free contraception will yield a desired outcome is just silly.

Morality helps us make those choices, but saying that morality cannot be followed is fatalistic. Saying that morality should not be used in making decisions is dangerous. A society that has no moral guidance is a society that will rapidly self-destruct.

"Free contraception will not prevent abortion." No, it does not, but it does reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, and abortions.

This could be a circular argument, as some claim that contraceptives cause more to have sex, causing more unwanted pregnancies. My point is only that, since you can not stop people from having sex that you may find immoral, then let's help reduce the possible unintended aftereffects.

You can look at it two different ways: Free contraception may cause people to have more sex, or free contraception may help to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions. I would hope people would want to prevent the latter, more than crossing our fingers, and hoping people will not have sex outside of marriage.

Remember, the link between contraception and abortion is not the point. Forced funding of things people find morally repugnant is the point.

It's worse than that, though. Given that contraception is already widely available for reasonable prices, you have to ask what is added by making it "free".

What "free" adds is the removal of any medical pretense of volition in sexual activity. The attitude of the medical community will be transformed. Contraception will no longer be something you buy when you need it, but something that is presumed to be required for anyone with working "plumbing". After all, we have no control of our urges, and will engage in sexual activity "no matter what", so the important thing is to avoid the "bad outcomes".

Even those who reject traditional sexual mores can see that this "morality of the barnyard" is not a healthy or desirable atmosphere. We already have a "hookup" culture with many of our young adults. Free contraception will not make it better.

For those of us who attach a moral dimension to sexuality, it is galling to find that, not only are we expected to keep silent while our value system is systematically dismantled, but we are also commanded to pay for the tools of its destruction.

Birth control is a tool for the destruction of your value system? And morals of a barnyard? Wow, you are making some pretty strong statements about the 99 percent of all women who use that "tool", and all others who do not agree with your "value system". I will leave it to other readers (if there are any left) to come to their own conclusion of what you think of people who don't share your exact values.

We are choosing to look at this in two different ways:

I want to make it as easy as possible, to try and prevent an unintended consequence from happening.

You want to stop the behavior that causes the unintended consequences. The problem here, is that you will never stop that behavior.

I would hope that those who do not want to see unintended pregnancies, would want to do anything they could possibly do (of-course within reason), to help avoid them. This would include trying to spread your ideas of what is morally right, but could also include helping to make sure your female employees have contraception, if they don't choose your moral path. Which for the record, I still believe is based on your religious beliefs.

Once again, we must agree to disagree...

Susan,

You might be interested in these exchange I had with others on TEDConversations, related to feminism:

http://www.ted.com/conversations/4004/our_modern_societies_still_nee.html
http://www.ted.com/conversations/3776/the_glass_ceiling_will_rever.html

These are global and don't directly focus on US contraception debate, though one was started by a Minnesota man and there is much related to US gender concerns on them.

I was reminded, as a person from the Vatican became a resource to me while I was engaging in them.

And, because there was a similar effect of anonymous commenters stoking the debate, if not anger, and then erasing their comments. Seems to be a "tried and true" strategy for some who disagree with more progressive positions on these issues.

Andrea

Oh my! Andrea, I only read for about five minutes on the first thread, and was mad...well, not really mad, but shocked. Yes, I agree with your assessment of posting, deleting, renaming, etc....regardless of possible false reasoning.

Thanks, I have bookmarked, and look forward to reading more.

Contraception is neither good nor bad. I would hope that we could agree that sexual activity completely disconnected from its consequences is a bad thing, as is an attitude that posits that we have no control of our urges at all.

I suggest that "free" contraception leads to those attitudes.

I advocate for free contraception and have never said, nor do I believe, that people have no control over their urges. People have very different opinions about what is acceptable sexual behavior.....because someone's belief, or moral value is different that yours, does not necessarily make it wrong....only different.

No problem Shawn....it's the internet, things happen. Thanks for the attention and work on a Saturday (holiday) night.

...and insurance companies rate insurance policies by various "risk factors", usually behaviors like these - at least in a rational world (non-smokers' discounts, for instance). In those places where "insurance" has been twisted into prepaid medicine, those ratings are illegal, reducing individual financial incentive to stay healthy.

I will let Andrea handle the big items here, but Kevin, where do you think women get these STD's, and who else contributes to the unwanted pregnancies? Because women are left to decide (many times alone) about unwanted pregnancies, women must be the responsible party - and it is better if that is done before that pregnancy. Making contraception as available as possible - which means free, is the best way to do that.

As I said to Donald, people will have sex outside of marriage, you will never, never be able to change that.

Kevin --

Re: your Q where I "came up with the idea that the Catholic church requires sexuality activity in marriage." Well, er, Catholic Church.

Quote from Vatican (one of many I source, as you of course know):

"2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman."
"2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family. The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold OBLIGATION of fidelity and fecundity."

Your odd posts lead me to wonder what prism you interpret the Catholic Church? And, why you seem hell-bent to deny its doctrines when I point them out? Perhaps to evangelize Catholic dogma (for better or worse)?

Auditing the Church: great idea.

So, if, as you say, male taxpayers are "paying to prevent pregnancies" how in heaven's name are all these BABIES being born?
Divine insemination?!

P.S. The Vatican Quote from Catechism, Part III (Life of Christ), Section II (Ten Commandments) Chapter II (You should love your neighbor as yourself). Article VI (The Sixth Commandment), III (the Love of Husband and Wife).

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

If you happen to be a UST (or other) prof, can I get credits for my posts here?

Andrea

Speaking of cartoons. Let's have some fun:

Wille E. Coyote, Genius and Bugs, "To Hare is Human"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFVGbdbhF-Q&feature=endscreen&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoKA2OLJ8hs&feature=related

Sylvester overcomes his selfishness to protect, not devour his "different" child:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rFcVtobMv8&feature=related

Tweety and friends foil poor Sylvester "pooty cat:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cclvs3rfx0&feature=related

Enjoy!
Andrea

Regarding the Catholic insurance kerfuffle:

Here's what I think gets lost in all of this: the question of whose insurance it is. If it's the Catholic Church's insurance, then they can do whatever they jolly well want to with it. If it's the employee's insurance, that, or any, church should have no say. Otherwise, can the Catholic Church fire an employee if they get their own insurance and use birth control or have an abortion? Of course not. So it's obviously the employee's insurance, not the church's.

Therefore, Obama's solution to remove the Catholic Church from the equation and put it on the insurance company to provide so that the church didn't have to (and who I have no doubt provide the same services that the church finds so abhorrent to people employed elsewhere) was an ideal one, but one the Catholic Church was either too stubborn or too dogmatic to accept. (Stupid is another word that comes to mind.)

I actually think it's hypocritical of the Catholic Church to use an insurance company that provides these services to others employed elsewhere, presuming that's the case. If it's that evil to them, they need to stop that. "Here, Mr. Devil, we will feed you, but no starting fires here, OK?" Perhaps they should start their own insurance company.

I understand, Donald.

I think that sometimes the government steps in for the good of a majority....and of-course, half the population will disagree. :)

Yes.

Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.

So do you support the follow-up?

"Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote?"

And if so, what would be the definition of well-armed?

Our founders wisely rejected "democracy" and gave us a republic, based on the Rule of Law. "A government of laws and not of men". A majority does not make it right, or wise. We do well to understand these concepts, and why our founders chose as they did.

Republic:

1. A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

2. A republic is a form of government in which the government is officially apportioned to the control of the people, or a significant portion of which, and where offices of state are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed.

3. a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

4. A Republic's purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.

I understand the concept, Donald. So, what about this, is not a republic?

"Should the government have the power to force some people to pay for other people's choices?" Of course they should, Donald. That's as much reality as you claim your statement is. So now we have two realities colliding, both valid.

Keeping our freedom requires us to pay taxes to people elected to represent our (ALL of our) interests, if for nothing other than our collective defense. And our elected officials frequently make decisions I disagree with regarding that.

It sounds like you want one of two places, neither of which are here: ancient Greece, where you would have had true democracy as opposed to our representative republic, or someplace with no government, like Somalia.

I'd imagine that you, like me, are well above the median income for people in the US. Some people believe that those of us who reap the most from the land's bounty have the honor of sharing with those that don't. Call it a "responsibility" even.

People in this country used to understand that. I would say that one of the main causes of our nation faltering, and FAR more important than some nebulous "lack of morality", is that a significant percentage of the population don't understand that any more. I personally think we're reaping the fruits of the "me" generation now.

Susan said: "I think that sometimes the government steps in for the good of a majority....and of-course, half the population will disagree."

This suggests "democracy", not a republic. Republics protect the God-given rights of minorities through the Rule of Law, which means majorities do not run roughshod over minorities.

It also suggests that government "steps in", as though it were an external thing. A core principle for our republic is self-government. The government is "us", not "them".

I know my use of language is not as elegant, correct, or precise as some here, but I am trying to follow along...

Donald, how is our current system not a Republic?

I was just pointing out that you said that the government "steps in.... for the good of the majority"

If a majority gets to decide, without protections for minorities, that is a democracy, not a republic. (see your definition - item 4)

Okay, based on #4... "protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general."

With liberty being defined as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.

The government would not be requiring you to use contraception, only pay for (as an employer) the insurance which provides it for your employees. Which is not oppressing, or restricting you.

I don't like paying taxes, but for the good of the entire country, I pay them...and I do not support some of the choices made by those benefiting from my tax dollars.

For the good of the majority of the country, you may have to take one for the team.

Susan says: "I think that sometimes the government steps in for the good of a majority..."

Donald makes some random points about republics and democracies.

Susan asks, "Donald, how is our current system not a Republic?"

Donald responds: "I was just pointing out that you said that the government "steps in.... for the good of the majority"

Note the subtle shift from "a majority" that Susan makes (and that Donald initially acknowledges) to Donald changing it to "the majority".

I would argue that the so-called "Obamacare" bill is good for "a majority" while it may even be opposed by "the majority". :)

Well, I think if we are talking about the contraception issue...about 50% of the population is female, and 99% use contraception. So, if even 10% of men agree that women should get free contraception from THEIR (great point Get Real) insurance, I believe we have a majority of people are in favor of this idea.

If my employer pays me, and I buy a car. It's MY car. If my employer rents a car for my use, it's the employer's car. It's your insurance when you buy it with your own money.

What if the employer buys the car, and gives it to the employee....who's car is it then?

"whose".... :)

If my employer provides me a car as part of a compensation plan, it's my car.

I think we all understand the difference between a car provided for our use, and one that we own. If you can take the engine out, and give it to your brother in law, with no one else having the right to complain, then it's your car.

With all due respect Donald, I think you may even realize this is a weak argument.

You buy health insurance for your employees....therefore it is your employee's insurance.

No one is forcing you to use contraception....they are only making you pay for something that is for the good of the large majority of the population.

Susan, in my career I've always considered the "benefit"s of a job when considering whether to work there. If an employer offers matching my 401K contribution to a certain percent, that contribution is mine. Likewise, if an employer offers healthcare, it is a part of the whole package, and it is mine, not theirs.

As a non-Catholic, it probably would not occur to me to ask whether the Blue Cross or Health Partners (or whatever) health insurance I was offered covered contraception.

Donald attempts to make an argument that doesn't pass even a cursory smell test. He's saying that the matching 401K contribution is actually the company's.

An employer pays your insurance premium every month. The employer is free to change plans, change benefits, change coverage. In a sense, the employer buys the insurance and then gives it to you. Only the insurance that has already been paid for is "yours", not the insurance that has yet to be bought.

If that's how it is, Donald, you've just unintentionally made the best argument for universal healthcare. I doubt you meant to, but there it is.

Let's be clear about one thing though: the employee without question currently pays for it. Directly, as that cost is usually shared, and indirectly, through lower wages. Perhaps the Catholic Church should offer the cost of their share of their plan for employees as an option, allowing employees to take the additional money and buy "their own" insurance.

How would you feel about that?

The reason employers pay for health insurance is that they can take it as a deduction, and you as an employee cannot. This started in the 1940s, and happened because of wartime wage controls. It was a mistake.

The single biggest and most effective "reform" in health insurance would be to change this, and give individuals the same tax treatment as employers get. I would love to see employers give the money they pay for health insurance to their employees, and see the employees buy their own. After all, the cost to the employer is the same. The employer would RATHER give the money to the employees, making employees happier, giving them more flexibility, and reducing the overhead of managing insurance plans.

I've been pushing this for years.

Donald, you've just admitted that the employees are paying for it. Whether or not it was implemented in WWII due to wage controls, it clearly is part of compensation, and it is therefore the employee's insurance.

What is a mistake is to give control over something that is yours to someone else. There's no good reason employers should have control over a person's health insurance. That includes the Catholic Church.

That said, I'd be fine with the employers giving the money spent to the employee as long as there was a requirement to buy health insurance with the additional money.

Problem solved! :) It took you two only three days, and that was only a few minutes a day. Why can't our government work this way?

It is disappointing when simple things like private property rights are not properly understood. We can't have a rational conversation without agreement on some basics, and this is pretty basic.

Things are "yours" when you have the full power and right to use and dispose of something. Nothing provided to you for the period of your employment is "yours". "Your office" is not yours. The company car is not yours. The money you have already been paid, or are owed, is yours, but "your salary" (in the future) is not yours.

Your insurance, if it were yours, would be something you could carry away with you after you left your job. It would be part of a deal made between you and an insurance company, but it's not. It is something the employer provides for you while employed. It is part of a deal made between your employer and an insurance company, with you not involved at all. That insurance is much more like the parking space provided for you while you work there than the t-shirt you are given for being the top employee. The t-shirt is really yours, and the other is not really "yours" at all.

I thought you had this solved.... :)

What about COBRA?

And 401K?

I agree with your assessment of Citizen's United. Five people have made our political system MORE corrupt.

It goes beyond Citizen's United, as those "people" ;) get to use their money for their freedom of speech at a wholesale advertising rate, since most of the media are owned by those same "people".

Clear Channel is owned by Bain Capital (a fact that Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al will, I'm sure, make clear after Romney gets the nomination as it's a conflict of interest), News Corp., TimeWarner, you know, that "liberal mainstream media".

I meant the five judges, but I also agree with your point. It seems that one person (or a small group) may almost be able to buy and election now.

Can I ask what is wrong with Citizen's United or Clear Channel? This issue is not a Conservative issue.

I don't oppose Citizen's United because it is perceived to be on one side, or the other. I oppose it because of the point I made above. A corporation, often run by a very small group of individuals, can now gives unlimited funds to superpacs, and therefore to a cause supporting one candidate. Once you can spend unlimited funds on negative ads, there is a good chance you can "buy" an election.

Susan:

Susan:

I do agree that it seems to be the norm, to out spend and win. But, you would think that it would be in both parties best interest, to cap the amount that could be spent on an election. But, we are dealing with an uninformed electorate, who gain their info from talking heads on the tube. TV time is very expensive!

Big_Phish -

1974: Federal Election Commission (FEC), capped individual donations at $1,000 and PACs to $5,000.

2002: Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) aka "McCain-Feingold" prohibited unregulated contributions by independent organizations that do not specifically advocate the election or defeat of candidates, and funds not contributed directly to campaigns.

2008: Citizens United v. FEC unrestricted political expenditures by corporations and unions, by prohibiting the government from restricting corporate and union campaign funds.

Citizen's United is the conservative non-profit that brought the suit that led to the law.

I agree with judge Stevens, who in is his statement of dissent said:

"A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.”

Andrea

Get Real, quae nocent docent claims some secret reasoning for deleting his posts...no one really knows why, he claims some viable reason, but those paying attention can see his "real" reason...no matter what he claims. He is an antagonist who prides himself on his personal knowledge of all things....skip his posts, as they all disappear.

I think I must agree with your "genius"....all large institutions donating to any candidate, therefore trying to buy an election, are about as bad as it gets in this country. Citizens United must be repealed...any ideas?

Unfortunately, I think the only alternative to the Bush court's ruling would be a law that would have to pass the undoubted appeal to the Bush court.

Let's see how they rule on the Texas sonogram law, Affirmative Action, and so on, first.

Ice cubes in hell, anyone?

Susan - regarding Citizens United - while I think it was a bad decision, even if it was over-ruled these companies buy politicians and shovel money into elections in any number of ways but I would still like to see it done away with...

However, what I think should happen is that all money given to any politician, Super-Pac, etc... that is over some amount should be immediately made public - no exceptions.

Currently these Super-Pacs only have to disclose money long after the fact.

If companies had their names immediately revealed as soon as the Super-Pac, Politician, etc... gets the "check" then we may see companies take a second look at who they associate themselves with.

This is a good idea, rob. In my humble opinion, the only way to start fixing the corruption, is to make every political position, a one term, four or six year position. Although those running for office may still receive enormous amounts of money, they will not be so beholden to those donors. They won't have to worry about running for re-election, and would be more likely to vote what they believe is for the greater good vs. worrying about losing their donor, or party support. This would also reduce the number of career politicians, and hopefully those running would be more likely to do so because they sincerely want to serve.

Of-course the only people that can make this happen, are the people who are in the position of benefiting from the current, corrupt system.

Get Real, jaw is an internet troll. He likes to rant and ignore logic. If he does bother to read your comment, he will only hit you with a barrage of disgusting insults designed only to provoke a heated response. Ignoring internet trolls is the best way for them to disappear.

Nice try - Get Real. Democrats took over both houses in 2006. Bush, never known as a fiscal conservative - didn't help the situation (what with Medicare Part D and his contribution to the war issue), but there is no mistake in hanging the vast majority of the last 6 years of debt on Democrats.

The young are getting eaten alive by big government.

Al, subtle shift from "Obama" to "the Democrats." "Vast majority" shows confusion over "discretionary" and "mandatory" spending. 2006-2008 saw "vast" increases in DOD and war costs, certainly not the Democrats initiating that. Also, part of the increase on Obama's watch has been putting war costs into regular spending (where it should be) vs. supplemental spending, where Bush had it.

And if you want to, we can also talk about the trillion dollars the Bush tax cuts have cost so far. Debt can be created by things other than spending...

Andrea

Does your comment also apply to leftists who go "undercover"? Other than the leftist Patch writers ... won't leave many people to have a discussion, will it?

I'm not normally one to quote the Randites, but this tells a story. Time to bite off some of the myths about the "good old days":

"Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. ***Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend.*** (Emphasis mine) He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.

His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight."

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

Yet conservative Republicans hold up Reagan as an ideal...

The party of "fiscal responsibility" is a myth, no more. They are "fiscally responsible" only when not in power, and then only in political ads.

At least one writer at that bastion of liberalism, Forbes Magazine, disagrees with you:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Get Real --

Thanks for being covertly dishonest by not mentioning Ungar's (the writer you provide the link for) tagline

"Writing from the left on politics and policy".

Nice try, buddy. Nothing but fabrication and wallpapering on Ungars' part.

George Will provides columns for Time and newspaper syndicates. Are you going to now believe everything he says given the hyper liberal nature of Time/Newsweek and most major newspaper dailies?

Graphs with numbers should *always* be examined to see exactly what they are graphing, and where they got their data. That info is not in this article. The only source I see is "Data: OMB, CBO & Haver analytics". I therefore find the article unhelpful.

"Intentional deceit" would be manipulating a quote and not providing a source. I can see that you can read. Good, as I assumed as much. The author's name was right there at the top of the article in Forbes. So much for your "intentional deceit" comment and your weak justification for attack.

The author made some points that you have thus far not addressed (aside from engaging in a little more ad hominem). Not so good. That severely limits discussion.

Let me see if I follow you so far regarding high spending: Republican President, Democratic Congress: blame Congress. Democratic President, Republican Congress: Congress saves day. Republican President, Republican Congress: an aberration. Democratic President, split Congress: Blame the President.

Have I missed anything?

I love this!!

"Let me see if I follow you so far regarding high spending: Republican President, Democratic Congress: blame Congress. Democratic President, Republican Congress: Congress saves day. Republican President, Republican Congress: an aberration. Democratic President, split Congress: Blame the President."

May I borrow it?

Get Real -- not only are you intentionally deceitful.....but you missed the point. Deceit is trying to claim that Forbes Magazine agrees with Ungar's (really, Ungar just borrowed Nutters' spin for his own spin).

Republicans have spent far too much money over the past 50 years ...whether they had someone as President or Congress. But it is crystal clear that Democrats have done the most fiscal damage to this country.

Let's see the "intentional deceit."

I said, "At least one writer at that bastion of liberalism, Forbes Magazine, disagrees with you." I ask you, was the writer at Forbes, and did that writer disagree with you? Was the writer clearly identified at the head of the article?

No deceit. Logic fail. Game over.

Now on to your continued ad hominem. You have yet to address a single point the author made. You have attacked his "leftist" credentials. You have attacked the "leftist" credentials of his sources. But you have not countered one single point the article made. You have provided no sources to counter those I provided. You simply ask people to take it on your word and on faith that "it is crystal clear that Democrats have done the most fiscal damage to this country."

Logic fail, "F" in debate class, game over.

PS: 2001-2008 (and who controlled Congress?): aberration. 2009: Horrible very bad day.

Logic fail.

Every Republican President since Reagan has increased the debt significantly, regardless of who has controlled Congress. When the Republicans had both the Senate and the House of Representatives, along with Bush in the White house, it got far worse. We are still recovering from the result of that.

There's a positive, absolute statement. Prove me wrong. Please cite sources.

Al,
And your sources are?

Andrea

Most mainstream media outlets have some variety of spectrum of discourse. Note that Ungar (Forbes) notes that he is the "token" leftist writing for Forbes. Time has George Will write for them ... and Time, like Newsweek is definitely left wing.
Rex Nutter and a couple of other leftist journalists write for Marketwatch (WSJ).

Forbes, in particular, does not have a leftist slant.....some of MarketWatchs' content does.

I never said ALL writers for both MarketWatch and Forbes were. How you came to the conclusion that I said they were is beyond me.

Al,

And your credentials as a media expert are--, ? I'm unclear beyond Unger how you are so sure of the claims you make. Can you explain how it is that you qualified to determine the political views of specific media? Perhaps you could cite respected sources that buttress your points, as a start.

Andrea

I didn't see it. My "ignore switch is still on.

Of course you may borrow my synopsis of "Political reality as seen through a very biased lens." I find the "logic" behind it pretty amusing too.

I don't remember him using so many........ Or being so crude - you should read some of the disgusting stuff this guy comes up with...my vote is the fringe redneck, undereducated portion of the Conservative party.

Maybe it's Que Nocent Docent(?)

Maybe, but he didn't like capital letters, and seemed more fluent in the English language. I think he may be new, but of-course we can't be sure.