In this country, any matter of women’s healthcare involving abortion (or even birth control) is a political issue, and will remain one for at least the next generation.
Well, one thing’s for sure, when the decision of what an insurance policy has to cover and how much it will cost is solely between a woman and her doctor, that will certainly spell the end of the private insurance industry. But maybe that’s what you mean by “truly progressive.”
I agree! The federal government should not recognize ANY marriage for any purposes whatsoever. Everybody’s single in the eyes of the Fed. Are you and the other small gov people happy now?*
*I recognize that you have changed your mind re marriage equality, but you’re espousing a wider philosophy here, so I’m just following the philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Oh, have pity, Bricker.
Except that “big government” is state (and smaller localities) government. The federal government mostly doesn’t interact with individuals at all, and of the few ways in which it does, many are just curtailing the intrusive powers of the states.
So you agree with those of us that say one main reason for the 2nd Amendment is so the populace can defend against a tyrannical government? That tyrannical government could be the feds, but more likely could be the state, or even a rouge county sheriff? (this has happened, folks!)
Glad to see you finally get it!
When was the last time a rogue county sheriff necessitated an armed citizen militia to remove them from power?
I’d forgotten how many times the phrase privatim et seriatim (“privately and one after another”) occurs in Stalky & Co., though I knew I’d seen it there. About half a dozen times during the course of the book. Ah, Kipling.
/aside
That’s obviously one of the main reasons for the Second Amendment (except for when you gun grabbers insist it isn’t), but it’s a stupid reason. The guns you cherish are at least as likely to impose a tyranny as to resist one.
And what does the second amendment have to do with the Michigan law which is the topic of the thread?
Hint: there is more to the world than just guns.
I have to wonder whether I’d see the same amount of outrage in this thread about government pushing around private business if Michigan were passing a law that said that health insurers were *required *to cover abortions in private health plans?
Yes – in fact, several years ago, I posted in several threads supporting this approach – get the government out of the “marriage” business altogether. Let them issue civil unions to any two adults. “Marriage” is left for whatever the churches wish to make of it.
I have no objection to a county sheriff using rouge. Not much point to it around these parts, where frostbite is so freely available.
The whole industry? No. It would mean, though, that we’ve moved away from the silly idea that routine, predictable healthcare expenses such as birth control should be paid through insurance. Basic understanding of the math behind risk modeling would dictate as much.
Marriage is a long-established legal relationship. Civil union is not. Which means people could define couples in a civil union however they wished and deny them all kinds of rights that married people have.
The only way I’d see civil unions being an acceptable substitute is if it’s explcitly established that civil unions are the legal equivalent of marriage in all circumstances.
I agree that would make you and me happy, but do you think that would make the small gov people (as currently defined by the GOP and the Tea Party happy? Or do you think that would immediately spark cries of how “teh gays” destroyed marriage? My position is that most small gov proponents don’t really want actual small gov, they just want gov to only do the things they want it to do and call that small gov.
This is my perception of “small gov” types too.
I’m not sure that that’s actually two seperate things. I mean, so long as the things they want the government to do is short, then effectively they want both.
I would adjust that to say that oftentimes I see small government advocates prefer a level of involvement on one issue by the government that would seem to indicate a more general involvement they then don’t espouse. Free speech as wide and open as possible except Group X or Language X, for example. I don’t know how widespread that actually is, though.
That would be fine too. And of course extending marriage to same-sex couples is also perfectly fine. 
Why do churches get to decide on something that’s so intrinsically important to a great deal of people that it becomes a standard human condition? Are you so afraid of government that you’d support the government abrogate its duty to ensure people are treated fairly?
The correct and moral thing to do is for the government to force churches to accept the government’s definition of marriage because the churches are wrong and harming people.