Catholics Backing Away From Politically Fighting Gay Marriage.

[frankenstein]

Daniel, no reason to say "legally speaking". It is dishonest to claim prop 8 did jot remove a right. I say it is better to know who the dishonest are than to have to worry who is. Thanks stargazer and jwhitlock for showing all here your true character.

And jwhtlock ssm in california was not limited to homosexuals, it was open to all persons regardless of sexual preference. So once again thank you for showing yourself as one who will dishonest so long as your dishonesty favours your side.

[california boy]

CB in fact said "Are attitudes changing about the need to impose Mormon doctrine on non-members?" The point of course is this isn't Mormon doctrine but a widely held belief among many groups.

There are lots of widely held beleifs that the Mornon church does not rally its members to pour millions of dollars to support. To say that the reason why the Mormon church pushed prop 8 was not because of their religious beliefs is ridiculous don't you think? Or are you trying to say it had nothing to do with the religious dogma Mormons have concerning who should marry and who should not?

This argument has no validity since they do have the same rights as tax payers and citizens. The agenda to push the marriage envelope overreaches the desire for equal rights.

Can I ask you a question? Do you think marriage is an important institution in your life? Does it have any meaning to you at all? Is it so difficult for you to understand that just because a person is gay that they might have the EXACT same reasons for wanting to be married? Do you not get what this whole struggle is about? Do you really think that it is all about you and your beliefs and gay people trying to tick you off by wanting what you want? Is that what you really think this is about? Maybe you could articulate why you feel marriage is important to you and why a gay couple might possible want to be married?

And you also know that gay couples do not have the same legal rights or tax rights as a straight couple that is married. A gay couple can not federally file as a legal married couple even if they have a civil union. You think that is equal????

This is not the first time you have been around the block on these issues. What possible reason do you have for using arguments that you know are just not justified.

[jwhitlock]

If you would have started out saying, "from my religious perspective" SSM is not some benign practice that will not effect our religious beliefs, I would not have an issue with what you are saying. However, you seem to be making this a statement of fact that everyone shares. They obviously don't.

I made no such statement that everyone understands this particular fact. Whether they acknowledge it as fact or not is entirely irrelevant.

You seem to be confusing the discrimination laws of this country with marriage rights in this country. The issues you refer to have to do with the federal government not allowing discrimination of businesses that deal with the general public. It also has to do with religious institutions WHEN THEY GET FUNDING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. You seem like a bright guy, are you just disingenuous about this issue or have you not really studied what this issue is about??

The abuse of discrimination laws and the direction they're taking has everything to do with SSM. If SSM becomes the law of the land, discrimination laws will be used to punish those who do not recognize or will not perform same sex marriages. Hence, looking at how discrimination laws are used today gives us firm evidence on how they'll be used with SSM. Nothing disingenuous about it; anyone who wants to dig into the trends of where this is going will readily recognize what can and will happen with SSM.

For example the well known case of the photographer in NEW MEXICO where gay marriage is not legal who got sued for not taking photos of a lesbian wedding. Or Catholic Charities who closed their adoption agencies BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WITHDREW FEDERAL FUNDING for their discriminating agains gay couples wanting to adopt.

Your reference to Catholic Charities is a misrepresentation; they did not primarily shut down because of federal funding. They were shut down for refusing to compromise valid religious principle.

On the other hand, if you can name ONE CHURCH who has been forced to perform a gay wedding then you have a point. Until then, YOU HAVE NO POINT and it is you that is misrepresenting the facts on the issue. Again, I go back to the Mormon church simply trying to impose their religious doctrine on those not of their faith. You have no argument to support your claim. It is the very reason this issue was not brought up in the prop 8 trial. No legal basis for this erroneous falsehood. In fact if you read the Prop 8 trial as a defense for prop 8. This very issue that was touted in the prop 8 trials was used by those supporting gay marriage as an example of the prop 8 campaign (funded by the members of the Mormon church) lying to create undure prejudice against gay couples. You are so wrong on this issue, and you should know better.

Since SSM is not the law of the land, your argument of any church being forced to perform one is irrelevant. My point continues to be that trends in society are valid indicators of where things will head with SSM. You haven't addressed the points of my previous posts, other than to broadly dismiss them, concerning how religious belief is and will be subordinated to government and judicial mandates concerning special privileges; the current contraceptive fight is evidence of that. I, and others that oppose SSM, have very valid concerns about the willingness of SSM supporters to broadly punish those who don't believe the same way they do. The demonstrations outside the temple in CA after Prop 8 passed are additional plain evidence of this.

I find it interesting that SSM advocates make so much effort to misrepresent members of the church as trying to force their doctrine on everyone else. It simply doesn't hold up under even casual scrutiny; however, the very specific demands of SSM supporters to force others to accommodate them is magnitudes greater than anything the church and its members can rightly be accused of.

The fact is, I do know what's going on. And I don't succumb to trendy shallowness when it comes to looking at the very real problems of SSM.

[jwhitlock]

So your feeling is that it is ok for the government to not extend the same equal rights to gay couples as straight couples because YOU are afraid that the government will force the Mormon church to marry gay couples?? Is that really your argument???

You continue to make the false claim that gays don't have the same rights as anyone else. This is absolutely false.

[jwhitlock]

Btw... I'd consider this line of thinking having to "split hairs" to even say so, but same-sex marriage did not create a "narrow priviledge" for a "special interest group without providing equivalent privileges to other special interest groups." Same-sex marriage as much a civil right for straight people as it is for gay people. Gays can marry each other, straights can marry each other, or gays and straights can marry each other. Opposite-sex, mixed orientation couples are still free to marry one onother, according to the dictates of their own religious beliefs, should they believe that it would be immoral to act on "same-sex attraction." It's not the government's business to tell consenting adults they must marry someone of the opposite gender, just like it isn't the government's business to tell consenting adults they must marry someone of an opposite sexual-orientation. Whether straight or gay, male or female, states that have legalized same- or opposite-sex marriage allow their citizens to have the right to consentually marry the person of their own choice, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Daniel2

It's a special privilege when something is legally extended to a narrow special interest group, and that privilege is of no interest to the general population. Evidently you seem to believe that there should be no restrictions to what / who anyone should be able to marry, including group arrangements. Is that correct? If it is not, where do you draw the line? If it is correct, let me know.

[jwhitlock]

Daniel, no reason to say "legally speaking". It is dishonest to claim prop 8 did jot remove a right. I say it is better to know who the dishonest are than to have to worry who is. Thanks stargazer and jwhitlock for showing all here your true character.

And jwhtlock ssm in california was not limited to homosexuals, it was open to all persons regardless of sexual preference. So once again thank you for showing yourself as one who will dishonest so long as your dishonesty favours your side.

Since you don't seem to be able to discuss anything without throwing around personal character accusations of dishonesty, there's not much purpose in otherwise responding to you.

[Deborah]

Evidently you COMPLETELY IGNORED my point that the New Mexico case was NOT about nor did it have ANYTHING to do with gay marriage. It had to do with DISCRIMINATION laws in this country. The article pointed that out specifically

And where did these discrimination laws originate? From vocal minorities wishing to push their agenda on the majority. Are you seriously arguing that gays who aren't getting their way are going to use an argument different from discrimination? And why should there be discrimination laws anyway. This is supposed to be a free country and employers, religious groups, and most importantly private parties should be able to discriminate with whom they want to interact with. Nothing could be more unconstitutional than to take away the rights of people to choose whom they want to associate with or do business with.

[Deborah]

All this administratioin did was allow the individual/you to decide, and not the Catholic church /your boss.

And please explain why this administration has the right to decide whether the Catholic church or my boss provide something they do not support? That is the issue. If I want something my boss doesn't provide I have the right to seek it on my own.

[Deborah]

Deborah, ss couples are not entitled to the same federal tax breaks as heterosexual couples. Federal tax rules for ss couples deends on the laws of the state that couple lives in. And before anyone CFR, to the instructions for IRS FORM 1040

Well if you are going to argue about taxes they are better off. They don't face the marriage tax penalty which even though reduced still affects some couples.

[frankenstein]

Since you don't seem to be able to discuss anything without throwing around personal character accusations of dishonesty, there's not much purpose in otherwise responding to you.

If you choose to be dishonest that is your choice, just do not expect others to stand idly by and not call out your dishonest statements.

thread banned

[Jaybear]

And please explain why this administration has the right to decide whether the Catholic church or my boss provide something they do not support? That is the issue. If I want something my boss doesn't provide I have the right to seek it on my own.

Do you have a boss that thinks that women who use birth control are immoral sluts? If so, I am sorry to hear that.

thread banned

[Deborah]

Do you have a boss that thinks that women who use birth control are immoral sluts? If so, I am sorry to hear that.

Over the top. What does this have to do with forcing someone to cover birth control. Sex is an elective act.

[Jaybear]

Over the top. What does this have to do with forcing someone to cover birth control. Sex is an elective act.

Your kidding? You are actually not aware that some people, exemplified by Rush Limbaugh oppose birth control on "moral" grounds, in that they believe it allows women to be promiscuous?

BTW, I opposed the Iraq war on moral grounds, but my taxes still went to pay for that war, which was an elective act. Its called living in a democracy.

[Deborah]

Your kidding? You are actually not aware that some people, exemplified by Rush Limbaugh oppose birth control on "moral" grounds, in that they believe it allows women to be promiscuous?

What has what some people say have to do with forcing coverage of something others don't believe in? BTW Rush's issue wasn't the promiscuity but the fact that she is demanding others pay for their personal behavior.

[Jaybear]

What has what some people say have to do with forcing coverage of something others don't believe in? BTW Rush's issue wasn't the promiscuity but the fact that she is demanding others pay for their personal behavior.

Rush is an idiot. He believes that women have to take a birth control pill every time they have sex.

Rush therefore concluded that she wanted "others" to pay her to have sex.

Of course, what Rush and you fail to note, is that she and her fellow student paid for their own insurance coverage. The School was not being asked to pay her "to have sex," but more accurately to provide an insurance plan that included benefits for contraceptives.

Help me again, we are supposed to be morrally outraged, if people who run a business and have a "religious conviction" are treated like every other employer in the country. How shocking.

[Daniel2]

It's a special privilege when something is legally extended to a narrow special interest group, and that privilege is of no interest to the general population.

Marriage is not "a privilege"--It has been repeatedly identified by SCOTUS (a total of 14 times) a basic civil right.

Even so, the benefits of same-sex marriage promote many interest that benefit both LGBT couples and their chidlren, but also, by extension, the general population. The "expert witness" testifying for the pro-Prop 8 crowd admitted, under oath, to the following benefits--which clearly would serve "the interests of the general population" (as I listed a separate thread, but which are relevent here):

BLANKENHORN ADMISSIONS/Prop. 8 Trial

Defendants’ witness David Blankenhorn this morning made several admissions that bolster the key points of our case:

Marriage is vitally important in American society. Prop. 8 causes grievous harm to gays and lesbians and their children Prop. 8 perpetrates this harm for no good reason.

He admitted marriage is a “public good” and that marriage would benefit gays and lesbians, their children and society at large.

He also testified (text below as shown on screen):

• “Gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children.”
  
• “Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples would probably mean that a higher proportion of gays and lesbians would choose to enter into committed relationships.”
  
• “Same-sex marriage would likely contribute to more stability and to longer-lasting relationships for committed same-sex couples.”
  
• “Same-sex marriage might lead to less sexual promiscuity among lesbians and (perhaps especially) gay men.”
  
• “Same-sex marriage would signify greater social acceptance of homosexual love and the worth and validity of same-sex intimate relationships.”
  
• “Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.”
  
• “Gay marriage might contribute over time to a decline in anti-gay prejudice as well as, more specifically, a reduction in anti-gay hate crimes.”
  
• “Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.”
  
• “Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably reduce the proportion of homosexuals who marry persons of the opposite sex, and thus would likely reduce instances of marital unhappiness and divorce.”
  
• “By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.”

By way of the rest of your response:

Evidently you seem to believe that there should be no restrictions to what / who anyone should be able to marry, including group arrangements. Is that correct? If it is not, where do you draw the line? If it is correct, let me know.

No, it's not my position that "there should be no restrictions to what/who anyone should be able to marry."

I draw the main line at consentability (that is: children, animals, mentally-disabled adults, and inanimate objects that are unable to legally "give consent" to any legal contract would likewise be unable to enter into a civil marriage contract).

I don't personally object to consensual plural marriage, though it makes sense to me that additional legal provisions would need to be provided for plural marriages to avoid abuse of marital benefits through unjust "double dipping."

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Evidently you seem to believe that there should be no restrictions to what / who anyone should be able to marry, including group arrangements. Is that correct? If it is not, where do you draw the line? If it is correct, let me know.

Consider the following:

Severus believes that the following characteristics should qualify people for civil marriage licenses:

a) They both must be human

b) They both must be living

c) Their number cannot exceed two (not 3+)

d) They both must be mentally-competent

e) They both must be over the age of 16

f) They cannot be siblings

g) They must be opposite-sex

h) They must share the same race

John believes that the following characteristics should qualify people for civil marriage licenses:

a) They both must be human

b) They both must be living

c) Their number cannot exceed two (not 3+)

d) They both must be mentally-competent

e) They both must be over the age of 16

f) They cannot be siblings

g) They must be opposite-sex

Daniel believes that the following characteristics should qualify people for civil marriage licenses:

a) They both must be human

b) They both must be living

c) Their number cannot exceed two (not 3+)

d) They both must be mentally-competent

e) They both must be over the age of 16

f) They cannot be siblings

Would it be accurate for Severus to accuse John of “believing that there should be no restrictions to what / who anyone should be able to marry,” merely because John does not share Severus’s qualifier, “h)”?

Would it be accurate for John to accuse Daniel of “believing that there should be no restrictions to what / who anyone should be able to marry,” merely because Daniel does not share John’s qualifier, “g)”?

Are there still logical reasons why John can agree with Severus’s qualifiers “a)”—“g),” even if John doesn’t accept Severus’s qualifier “h)”?

Are there still logical reasons why Daniel can agree with John’s qualifiers “a)”—“f),” even if Daniel doesn’t accept John’s qualifier “g)”?

[jwhitlock]

Marriage is not "a privilege"--It has been repeatedly identified by SCOTUS (a total of 14 times) a basic civil right.

Even so, the benefits of same-sex marriage promote many interest that benefit both LGBT couples and their chidlren, but also, by extension, the general population. The "expert witness" testifying for the pro-Prop 8 crowd admitted, under oath, to the following benefits--which clearly would serve "the interests of the general population" (as I listed a separate thread, but which are relevent here):

Evidently, I need to repeat my point again: marriage as it is currently defined is available to all. There is not, nor was there ever an effort to eliminate that right, as currently defined, for gays.

SSM is a redefinition to cater to a narrow special interest group for their benefit only. It serves no purpose for the general population, since they would not have any use for that privilege.

While one can argue that such a redefinition is necessary for a particular reason, such a redefinition must also be demonstrated not to adversely affect the rights of others, nor have a long term damaging effect on what it redefines. SSM advocates have not only failed to demonstrate that their privilege will not do so, but also experience indicates that precisely those things will happen should SSM become law. Objections based on religious belief, freedom of speech, and the right of participation in the political process have all been attacked by SSM proponents; they have also demonstrated a specific willingness to punish those who oppose their agenda. One need look no further than the fallout from Prop 8 for what has and will happen.

SSM serves only the interests of GL groups, and even then of only a small minority since most do not get married where it is made available.

No, it's not my position that "there should be no restrictions to what/who anyone should be able to marry."

I draw the main line at consentability (that is: children, animals, mentally-disabled adults, and inanimate objects that are unable to legally "give consent" to any legal contract would likewise be unable to enter into a civil marriage contract).

I don't personally object to consensual plural marriage, though it makes sense to me that additional legal provisions would need to be provided for plural marriages to avoid abuse of marital benefits through unjust "double dipping."

Sounds like a fairly arbitrary line in most respects - especially since one of the rallying cries of SSM advocates is that "we have to be fair." I'm sure others can make the same arguments concerning fairness that gays can, with as much validity.

The issue with legal benefits is not something related to marriage, but rather a problem with how legalities in our society have evolved. If the issue is really legal benefits, it is more appropriate to reform the legal system, which is what is really needed. Applying SSM as a panacea for inequities in the legal system will only lead to more problems and conflict as more "unintended" consequences come to light.

[frankenstein]

Speaking of plural marriage let's us not forget that the anti ssm crowd was the group who argued in federal court that polygamy fit within the traditional definition of marriage

[jwhitlock]

Are there still logical reasons why Daniel can agree with John’s qualifiers “a”—“f,” even if Daniel doesn’t accept John’s qualifier “g”?

The problem is not whether Daniel agrees with John; it's when Daniel's viewpoint becomes law, John is not allowed to retain his viewpoint without fear of being punished.

Consider the fact that Mormons are being demonized (re-read this thread) for opposing SSM on religious grounds. While SSM advocates complain about hateful LDS viewpoints and and call for the legal marginalization of Latter-day Saints because of those viewpoints (see the demonstrations outside of the temple after Prop 8, or see the comments after any article about Mormons nowadays), there is no comparable LDS response calling for the same things against gays. The amount of hate and vitriol spewed out against us by SSM advocates does not give me any confidence that the implementation of SSM will be benign, nor that Mormons will go "unpunished" for their opposition.

[california boy]

The abuse of discrimination laws and the direction they're taking has everything to do with SSM. If SSM becomes the law of the land, discrimination laws will be used to punish those who do not recognize or will not perform same sex marriages. Hence, looking at how discrimination laws are used today gives us firm evidence on how they'll be used with SSM. Nothing disingenuous about it; anyone who wants to dig into the trends of where this is going will readily recognize what can and will happen with SSM.

Once again, you are comparing discrimination laws which already are FEDERAL laws that deal with any kind of discrimination with gay marriage. They simply are not the same thing. And once again you are confusing the difference between a religion practicing its beliefs and a religion running a business. There have been NO not ONE case where a religion was forced to marry anyone they so choose. I have a friend who is Jewish marrying a Catholic. They wanted the Catholic church to marry them. The Catholic church refused because he was not Catholic. This is where the constitution protects religions. If you can point to ANY ruling that is about a church forced to marry someone the do not want to then you have a point. Until then you are simply using straw man arguments that have absolutely no connection to gay marriage.

Your reference to Catholic Charities is a misrepresentation; they did not primarily shut down because of federal funding. They were shut down for refusing to compromise valid religious principle.

I am sorry but you are wrong. The stated reason why catholic charities shut the doors because they said they could not continue to offer their services WITHOUT THE FEDERAL FUNDING. I believe the Mormon church offers adoption for Mormons and refused to offer adoption to gay couples. Since they do not receive federal funding, they are allowed to do this. No lawsuit. Do you think for one minute that there wouldn't be a lawsuit against the Mormon church for discrimination if there were grounds for such a suit? Come on.

Since SSM is not the law of the land, your argument of any church being forced to perform one is irrelevant. My point continues to be that trends in society are valid indicators of where things will head with SSM. You haven't addressed the points of my previous posts, other than to broadly dismiss them, concerning how religious belief is and will be subordinated to government and judicial mandates concerning special privileges; the current contraceptive fight is evidence of that. I, and others that oppose SSM, have very valid concerns about the willingness of SSM supporters to broadly punish those who don't believe the same way they do. The demonstrations outside the temple in CA after Prop 8 passed are additional plain evidence of this.

Gay marriage is the law of the land in 7 states and the District of Columbia and has been for some time. You have made my point for me. No law suits You are yelling and screaming about something that is in the constitution specifically guaranteeing religions the ability to practice their religion they way they want. No such guarantees exist for a church running a business open to the general public. If a gay couple could go to the Mormon church in Mass, and sue them for not marrying them don't you think it would have already happened??? If those that believe in equality are willing to demonstrate, don't you think they would love to sue the church for not marrying them??? Perhaps if you are confused on this issue, you should talk to a lawyer about this. If these were real concerns, then tell me why this was not brought up in the Prop 8 trial. Heaven knows they needed some legal reason to support their proposition.

These straw man arguments that constantly get brought up on this board time and again when legal grounds have been pointed to and explained over and over again makes me wonder why they are continually brought up. If a member of the church are unwilling to understand the laws of this country and their only resort to justify their position is to distort what is true, then you have to wonder why they even bother to try and justify their position. Oddly enough, many of these straw man arguments are the exact same ones used in the past to justify other discrimination issues. Granted you can full a lot of people for a while, but eventually people get educated about what is true and what is the real laws in this country. Perhaps that is why every national poll continues to show greater support for gay marriage.

[california boy]

And where did these discrimination laws originate? From vocal minorities wishing to push their agenda on the majority. Are you seriously arguing that gays who aren't getting their way are going to use an argument different from discrimination? And why should there be discrimination laws anyway. This is supposed to be a free country and employers, religious groups, and most importantly private parties should be able to discriminate with whom they want to interact with. Nothing could be more unconstitutional than to take away the rights of people to choose whom they want to associate with or do business with.

So you are standing up for allowing discrimination in this country by businesses. You have no problem with a restaurant refusing to serve black people? You have no problem not allowing women equal access to jobs such as the police department or sports caster or weatherman.. You are standing for not renting to Jews. You are standing for banks not lending money to purchase a home unless you are white. You have no probem with a company deciding that if you are black you have to drink out of the colored water fountain. Geez I thought we were past this kind of nonsense in this country.

[blueadept]

I am sorry but you are wrong. The stated reason why catholic charities shut the doors because they said they could not continue to offer their services WITHOUT THE FEDERAL FUNDING. I believe the Mormon church offers adoption for Mormons and refused to offer adoption to gay couples. Since they do not receive federal funding, they are allowed to do this. No lawsuit. Do you think for one minute that there wouldn't be a lawsuit against the Mormon church for discrimination if there were grounds for such a suit? Come on.

This is not about Federal Funding

Perhaps the most notorious example of a state forcing its view on a church agency comes from Massachusetts, where Boston Catholic Charities ran an adoption agency that had been placing children with families for over 100 years.

In 2006, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley announced that the agency would abandon its founding mission rather than submit to a state law requiring it to place children with homosexual couples. (A Vatican document from 2003 described gay adoptions as ''gravely immoral.")

Every diocese that I'm aware of, the bishop chose to shutdown their adoption agencies before they would be forced to place children into SSM homes. If you want to say it was due to the cutoff of money, go ahead. I'm sure I could find similar statements by Catholic bishops that mimic Archbishop O'Malley's statement.

Here is the document from the Vatican http://www.vatican.v...-unions_en.html

5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.

...

11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

This last line is also debunking your OP that the RCC backing away from the political fight in regards to gay marriage. The bishop of Maine is taking a different tact on the issue and I'm fairly certain that most of the US bishops may have a different approach which is their choice as long as they honor the document given in the link from the Vatican.

[Deborah]

So you are standing up for allowing discrimination in this country by businesses.

I am saying the government has no right to tell private citizens or businesses what they can do or whom they can serve. If they want to be bigoted idiots there are ways to handle this without making laws that have unforeseen consequences. Those who do not support such bigotry can take a stand and not support such businesses. I've seen community moms take a stand against pornographic magazines in grocery stores and effectively get the stores to remove them from public view. We seem to want to abdicate our rights to take a stand but in so doing endanger our rights in other areas.

[Deborah]

The School was not being asked to pay her "to have sex," but more accurately to provide an insurance plan that included benefits for contraceptives.

The issue, which you and others are missing, is why should the school be forced to provide for something they are morally opposed to, whether you agree with that stand or not.