Yes, I got "the point" that you werent talking about the gay, divorced, insurance issue. That's why I said my argument was equally relevant to the birth control issue.

If the First Amendment doesn't block a state from requiring employers to cover birth control, then it doesn't block the Federal Government from requiring employers to cover birth control.

And several states already require non-church employers, including Catholic-run hospitals and universities, to cover birth control, exactly as the proposed Federal rule will do.

Again you fail.

It is not about what the states regulate.

It is about what Obama wants to regulate to the states from the Federal pulpit.

BUT THAT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT, MERC. You can be POLITICALLY against it, but you can't say ONE is CONSTITUTIONAL and the other is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. thats not how the first amendment WORKS, merc. Unless it's a tenth-amendment issue - in which case, the religious nature of an employer is irrelevant.

Why are you shouting. I don't care.

You can't take what is a State's issue and apply it nationally.

So you're saying that your opposition IS or ISNT about religious liberty?

Are you against it as a 10th amendment, states-rights issue, or a 1st amendment, freedom of religion issue?

Where does the Constitution stop the Federal Government from "telling them what they must do"?

Post 226. The Constitution in it's current form states what the Federal Government cannot do.

What don't you understand about that? It really is not that difficult. You and Ibram are mixing what has happened at the state level and what is happening at the Federal level.

So how is it legal for states to do it, but not for the fed, under the first amendment? the first amendment applies to states too under the 14th amendment.

In many cases it is a "States Right" issue. You guys are on a merry-go-round. It is quickly becoming no longer important to me if you understand it or not. Believe whatever the hell you want to believe. You are not going to change my mind as to the facts of the Constitutional aspect of this issue and so far you have completely failed to put up a cogent argument which disputes my position. We don't have to agree. Let's see how the courts settle the issue as a final resolution. It is not important to me that you see it my way, really, I just don't care.

If you invoke the First Amendment, as you did in post 226, then you are incorrectly separating the state and Federal level. It applies equally to both.

I know YOU don't care if I understand, but I -do- want to understand your argument. At this point, I only know that you think it's unconstitutional. But again, HOW is it unconstitutional? I feel like you FIRST were arguing it was unconstitutional on religious liberty grounds, in which case it does not matter if it's a state or the fed, with regards to constitutionality, and then you changed to a states-rights tenth amendment argument.

No, you introduced the issue of States Rights issue by trying to compare it to same sex union court battles. Apples and Oranges.

Ok, prove it. I never made such an argument about it applying equally to both. They are completely different. One is top down, the other bottom up. I would be glad to watch you show how they are the same. Please cite as you go.

No, I didn't. I didn't compare it to court battles. I asked if in states where it IS legal, you think colleges or charities or hospitals should be able to deny spousal insurance coverage only to gay couples, but provide it to hetero couples? Or rather, I said that as far as I know they ARE required to provide benefits to ALL spouses (or none I suppose), and that they can't pick and choose, even if gay couples violate their beliefs.

I'm still talking ONLY about insurance coverage and ONLY about how it relates to religiously-affiliated institutions.

You are beating a dead horse. You specifically ID'd states where this was an issue that had been or is being challenged in various levels of courts. This issue is being challenged at a state level or at least regionally from the point of STATES in-acting laws which then have been challenged in court. This has nothing to do with what Obama did via the FEDERAL government from the top down. I just don't understand what you don't understand about the difference between those processes.

See above.... repeatedly.