Gay Marriage

I think it's important to point out that the divorce rate--when reported as a raw number--is misleading, in that many of the divorces that make up the statistic involve repeat offenders; people who have been married and divorced multiple times. There are far more one-time, successful marriages out there than the statistic suggests.

Not in Payton Place.

Here's some interesting news.
************************
Catholic Group Must Offer Birth Control in Calif.
40 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!



SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a Catholic charity must offer prescription contraceptives in its employee health insurance plan even if church teaching opposes birth control measures.



The state's highest court upheld a lower court decision rejecting Catholic Charities of Sacramento's claims it did not have to offer prescription contraceptives because it considered itself obliged to follow the Roman Catholic Church's religious teachings, which hold that the use of artificial birth control is a sin.


The state supreme court said the charity, incorporated separately from the church, was not a "religious employer" exempt from legislation mandating such coverage.


While affiliated with the Catholic Church, the charity's purpose is not to inculcate religious values, a majority of court justices noted.


The charity could avoid any conflict with religious values by not offering its employees prescription drug coverage, the justices held. Employers in California are not required to offer such coverage.


Only Associate Justice Janice Brown dissented.


"Here we are dealing with an intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization's expression of its religious tenets and sense of mission," Brown wrote. "The government is not accidentally or incidentally interfering with religious practice; it is doing so willfully by making a judgment about what is or is not religious."


Timothy Muscat, the California deputy attorney general who argued the state's case before the state high court, said the justices drew a line between purely religious employers and affiliated groups with broader purposes.


Purely religious employers would remain exempt from the law requiring prescription contraceptives coverage, Muscat added.


"The religious employer exemption stays," Muscat said. "A church, synagogue or mosque qualifies for an exemption."


The attorney who argued before the California Supreme Court on behalf of Catholic Charities of Sacramento could not immediately be reached for comment.

So much for freedom of religion in the US.

C'mon Scrat. I just saw you argue against over-reacting and overstating a position in a well reasoned response in anther thread -- and then you went and did just that here.

Freedom of religion in the US is in fine shape.

With respect, Frank, when a court orders a Catholic organization to do that which goes against the Catholic faith, religious freedom is on the ropes. What next? Are they going to order Muslim schools to feed their students a full, nutritious lunch during Ramadan? Think about it.

I did not write what I wrote capriciously. If anyone's right to worship as they choose and to adhere to the principles of a chosen religion is taken away, religious freedom is damaged for us all. Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, Frank.

I don't know enough about US-law to response in this special case.

However, this would be impossible in e.g. Germany, since here all states have a so-called concordat with the Holy Seal (and similar agreements with the Protestant Church(es) and the Jewish Congress.

I was unaware that acquatic mammals went in for for organized religion . . .

Frank has you nailed on this one, Scrat. The court has ordered an not-for-profit organization which is affiliated with the Catholic church to do something which it requires of all such organizations which received state and federal funds for their operations. As usual in such cases, conservatives are crying foul disingenuously, or ignorantly. The organization in question is not a religious establishment, it is simply affiliated with one.

A schul of whales?

Only when they congregate.

Frank isn't trying to "nail" me on anything. (Curious that you see it that way.)

I'm not sure I can split hairs as easily and absolutely as you seem able to. You may be right on this one from a purely legal sense. (I don't knwo, and lack the time to really look deeply into this.) That's fine with me. But, as someone who believes in the liberties we are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and as a libertarian, I remain troubled by this ruling.

Of course, we wouldn't need such a ruling if the federal government simply stayed out of the charity business.

Yeah, Scrat, he nailed ya. That was overreaction--and given the standard to which you like to hold others, your admission here that you haven't the time to look into it just makes your overreaction all the more telling. I have just one quibble with what Frank wrote, and that is inferential, not direct. Freedom of irreligion in the U.S. is in danger.

Scrat

You are correct that I was not trying to "nail" you.

But Setanta is absolutely correct that if there really is any danger in this area -- and I think THERE IS...

...the danger is for those of us who are agnostics and atheists.

We are the ones under assault right now.

I personally do not want to put my trust in any of the gods now being hawked. I resent the fact that our money represents that our country officially puts its trust in any of these gods.

I do not want this nation to be "under" any god -- no matter what that "under" is attempting to denote. I resent the fact that our government has made that notion an official part of our national philosophy.

If the religious want freedom OF religion -- good for them. I will fight to help then retain that right. But I want I want freedom -- and protection -- FROM religion, because quite honestly, I see it as a VERY GREAT net negative for society.

I can only hope that the Republicans, who seem intent on establishing this country as an officially religious country -- finally are put back where they can contribute best to our society -- as the loyal opposition.

Frank, the christians feel just as strongly that they are the ones under assault right now.

Christians haev an amazing ability to see them selves as an oppressed minority when they are, in fact, an oppressive majority. I have never figured this one out!

True dat.

Catholic Charities is a separate corporation that does charity work. As such, the law does not protect them from separation of church and state.

As i've mentioned before, Charles II was quoted by Bishop Burnet as having said that: "The only things which God hates are that we be evil, and that we design mischief."

The christian right in this country is designing an awful lot of damned mischief these days--and the homophobia which they would make public policy is simply one of the more obvious, sterling examples.

Can you give me some specific examples of how?