MI AG Schuette: Marriage is for regulating sexual relationships to make babies

[BDBoop]

Michigan Attorney General Schuette: Marriage is for regulating sexual relationships to make babies | Eclectablog

And seriously, I had NO idea.

What he’s saying is that the State of Michigan needs to regulate sexual relationships to make sure we make babies using our “unique procreative capacity” (sexy talk!)

So, this begs the question about whether or not marriage between non-fertile “opposite-sex” couples should be permitted. For example, during my first marriage, after my son was born, I had a vasectomy. When I married Anne, I was not capable of impregnating her and it was understood that we would not have children together. I probably don’t need to tell you that this didn’t prevent us from having a sexual relationship.

Should I have been prohibited from marrying her? Because, according to Bill Schuette, my vasectomy is harming society.

What about women who have had tubal ligation or a hysterectomy? What about men or women who are infertile for some other reason? Post-menopausal women? Elderly people? Are these Michiganders now prohibited from marrying in our state because they do not possess that magical and unique “procreative capacity”?

In Michigan, you are no longer required to have a blood test in order to secure a marriage license. Does Bill Schuette intend to require a fertility test now before a marriage license will be issued?

What about this whole regulating sexual relationships thing? Are married men and women now prohibited from having intercourse if there is no chance for the woman to become pregnant?

The return volley, by Emily Dievendorf, Managing Director of Equality MI;

This absurd overreach is a desperate move by a man with too much power. Attorney General Schuette’s insistence on government in our personal lives is hypocritical, and in conflict with the Supreme Court of the United States. Ten years ago when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, and this past summer when it ruled against DOMA, it found that regulating sex for the purpose of procreation is not a role for our government. Marriage is about more than just procreation, as the Supreme Court said this June, ‘marriage is a way for couples to define themselves by their commitment to each other.’ Suggesting the benefit of marriage is limited to just producing children is more insulting and damaging to the institution of marriage than anything Schuette fears. The notion that people who cannot, or choose not to, have children are not worthy of committing their life to another person is preposterous.

If it were not so harmful, it would be amusingly ironic that an attorney general whose party supports deregulation, smaller government is demanding this larger regulatory role for government in our daily lives. This brief also flies in the face of any family values platform. In the United States the share of unmarried couples has increased by 25% over the last decade and in 2012 there were 56,315 marriages and 39,892 divorces in Michigan – both statistics largely representing opposite-sex couples. If Attorney General Schuette wishes to preserve the institution of marriage, he should be allowing and encouraging both same and opposite-sex couples to opt in. The attorney general is fooling nobody on this most recent attempt to stop progress for LGBT families. In truth, as long as the law is tied to marriage the lack of marriage equality creates instability on every level and that is no good for anybody.

I of course remain tired of the party that claims to be for smaller government, but just isn't happy unless they are way-the-hell and gone up in people's private business.

 

[J.E.D]

That guy is an idiot

 

[BDBoop]

Well, shit!

/end thread

 

[TheOldSchool]

That's what his wife tells him to get out of sex

 

[Vox]

technically he is right.

especially from the standpoint of economical benefit of the society.

that's the reason childless couples were often ostracized in the communities as a ballast to be fed and without a benefit.
same could be applied to the homosexual tendencies - it is all the Darwinian concept of the survival of the fittest

No ideology, pure economics.

in a nowadays world some countries impose a special tax on the childless couples or individuals ( depends on the demographics of the specific country)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mind documenting "childless couples were often ostracized in the communities as a ballast to be fed and without a benefit"? In American communities? In cities or in the rural areas? Where? When?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Everyone know the only legitimate reason for marriage is gays getting government tax benefits.

 

[hortysir]

****I of course remain tired of the party that claims to be for smaller government, but just isn't happy unless they are way-the-hell and gone up in people's private business.****

While the party that wants rules, regulations and bureaucracies for everything strangely has zero boundaries when it come to deviance

 

[NYcarbineer]

The marriage-is-all-about-children thing was invented by the Right because same sex couples can't reproduce.

That's really all there is to it.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Certifiable idiot.

 

[Noomi]

The guy is a loser who probably hasn't been laid in a decade.

 

[BDBoop]

****I of course remain tired of the party that claims to be for smaller government, but just isn't happy unless they are way-the-hell and gone up in people's private business.****

While the party that wants rules, regulations and bureaucracies for everything strangely has zero boundaries when it come to deviance

Yes, we ARE the party that believes in 'live and let live.'

How loose of us, and in this, the Year of Our Lord 1842!

 

[hortysir]

****I of course remain tired of the party that claims to be for smaller government, but just isn't happy unless they are way-the-hell and gone up in people's private business.****

While the party that wants rules, regulations and bureaucracies for everything strangely has zero boundaries when it come to deviance

Yes, we ARE the party that believes in 'live and let live.'

How loose of us, and in this, the Year of Our Lord 1842!

Meanwhile mandating:
I wear a seat-belt
I wear a helmet
I purchase health insurance
etc....

 

[BDBoop]

****I of course remain tired of the party that claims to be for smaller government, but just isn't happy unless they are way-the-hell and gone up in people's private business.****

While the party that wants rules, regulations and bureaucracies for everything strangely has zero boundaries when it come to deviance

Yes, we ARE the party that believes in 'live and let live.'

How loose of us, and in this, the Year of Our Lord 1842!

Meanwhile mandating:
I wear a seat-belt
I wear a helmet
I purchase health insurance
etc....

Really. But you're fine with that, right? Because you are fine with others 'losing their rights,' based on who they love. Goose, gander and all that.

 

[hortysir]

Yes, we ARE the party that believes in 'live and let live.'

How loose of us, and in this, the Year of Our Lord 1842!

Meanwhile mandating:
I wear a seat-belt
I wear a helmet
I purchase health insurance
etc....

Really. But you're fine with that, right? Because you are fine with others 'losing their rights,' based on who they love. Goose, gander and all that.

What rights am I fine with others losing?
They have just as much a right to marry someone of the opposite sex as I do

 

[Noomi]

Meanwhile mandating:
I wear a seat-belt
I wear a helmet
I purchase health insurance
etc....

Really. But you're fine with that, right? Because you are fine with others 'losing their rights,' based on who they love. Goose, gander and all that.

What rights am I fine with others losing?
They have just as much a right to marry someone of the opposite sex as I do

Yep, a gay man can marry a woman he doesn't love and make a mockery of marriage. I am sure that will be fine and dandy to the Christians.

 

[hortysir]

Really. But you're fine with that, right? Because you are fine with others 'losing their rights,' based on who they love. Goose, gander and all that.

What rights am I fine with others losing?
They have just as much a right to marry someone of the opposite sex as I do

Yep, a gay man can marry a woman he doesn't love and make a mockery of marriage. I am sure that will be fine and dandy to the Christians.

If you choose to lick someone of the same gender, have at it.
Don't get married if that's how you want to live.
Don't expect a tax credit for that behavior.

Simple really

 

[BDBoop]

What rights am I fine with others losing?
They have just as much a right to marry someone of the opposite sex as I do

Yep, a gay man can marry a woman he doesn't love and make a mockery of marriage. I am sure that will be fine and dandy to the Christians.

If you choose to lick someone of the same gender, have at it.
Don't get married if that's how you want to live.
Don't expect a tax credit for that behavior.

Simple really

According to the Supreme Court, you are most assuredly mistaken.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dear Honorable Schuette:

No shit Sherlock.

 

[hortysir]

Yep, a gay man can marry a woman he doesn't love and make a mockery of marriage. I am sure that will be fine and dandy to the Christians.

If you choose to lick someone of the same gender, have at it.
Don't get married if that's how you want to live.
Don't expect a tax credit for that behavior.

Simple really

According to the Supreme Court, you are most assuredly mistaken.

According to the SCOTUS corporations are people
I'll get over mine when ya'll get over over yours