Rape victim denied emergency contraception based on religious beliefs of the doctor.

I regard this as functionally equivalent to gays demanding their same-sex marriage rights. Religio-medicine is as queer to American modernity as homo-matrimony.”HM

The functional equivalency is the "coming out of the closet" part, trying to make their personal persuasions overrule established social contracts. In one case it's an evangelistic religion, in another a self-righteous sexual persuasion.”HM

Do you mean heterosexual marriages? I certainly do approve of interracial heterosexual marriages. What's the issue?”Hm

According to what social contract? Define "used to." Are you forgetting about John Rolfe and Pocahontas?But that's not the point relevant to the OP. The point is that some Christian doctors are using the medical establishment to run their religious beliefs up the flag pole. And the gays are using the marriage institution to do the same thing with their homosexuality.”HM

So are you saying that Christian doctors should have the right to refuse services to a rape victim on religious grounds? They are claiming their rights to defy a social contract, too.”HM

Not during Jim Crow. Any uppity nigger who even winked a white gal back then never lived long enough to marry her.”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

I'll give you a D- for that one, Taz.”HM

OK, it's an F.

You are making the faulty assumption that same-sex "marriage" has any socially redeeming history to judge it by. The same thing is true for certain weirdos in unisex public restrooms”those with urinational fetishes. Why shouldn't people of opposite sexes who want to watch each other pee be denied their "rights" to so do in public places? Shouldn't they be granted their perversions, too, and shouldn't all public restrooms be required to function on a unisex basis for that reason?UNISEX PEE WATCHERS UNITE!”HM

Well, who's going to stand up for traditional rights and values? I think you may already know that I favor civil-union rights for queers. In my idealized world, same-sex civil unions would become legal, and "marriage" would be relegated to the churches to decide who's elegible. Maybe some churches will marry people's house pets: he was a handsome and mellow lab and she was a feisty bitch of a schnauzer. That's OK. And maybe other churches will marry the house pets to their owners. That's OK, too. The government gets out of this ambiguous business of "marriage" and puts its attention on where it ought to be”civil unions.”HM

Crash, why are you so focused on "marriage' when the legality of "civil unions" for gays is the issue? Do we have some civil need to grant "marriage" to a same-sex couple if we already have granted them their civil-union rights. I don't think the word "marriage" should appear on a civil-union license. There should be no such thing as a "marriage" license in any legal terms.”HM