Religious Freedom in the 2012 Presidential Election | Capital Commentary

Religious Freedom in the 2012 Presidential Election | Capital Commentary by Stanley Carlson-Thies.  MGB: The contraception mandate is an overblown issue, because it has been required of all people with third party insurance since December 2000 when the insurance covers preventative care.  This includes some Catholic agencies - who likely provided such care even earlier (I know Catholic Charities USA did).  We vote morally because God gives us the freedom of choice as individuals to do so.  That is where our rights are expressed.  I find it odd that the Catholic Church is using a Freedom argument to restrict the options of its non-Catholic employees - or even its Catholic employees who disagree with them.  This is an employee rights matter and the Church is on the wrong side compared to its prior positions on employee rights and freedoms.  It needs to walk what it talks on this issue and respect the moral judgment of its employees.  As for the immigrant case, it was badly botched - possibly with Valerie Jarrett's urging, however the Church should have protested the grant announcement before submitting its bid.  These are not political questions, however, but judicial ones - as is marriage equality especially.  The liberties of the few are not subject to the whims of the many in a society that calls itself free.  That especially includes the right to marry.  Indeed, if you modernize the text from both Genesis and Mark on what a family is meant to be as a separation from the parents and a cleavage to the other as one person, the biblical understanding should favor, rather than object to gay marriage, since the alternative is the legal infantalization of gays and lesbians and a denial of their rights to form the families of their choice.  Churches mainly resist this because they know that largely gay clergies will gladly bless such unions - and may indeed prefer them rather than join a celibate priesthood.