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

[Crackerjaxon]

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

Which is indeed a perfectly legitimate and Constitutionally appropriate reason.

And just as important, allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law conforms with the Constitution.

The Constitution says nothing about marriage, therefore leaving it to states. States do not, and never have had, uniformity in marriage laws.

There is no constitutional right to marriage for anyone.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Which is indeed a perfectly legitimate and Constitutionally appropriate reason.

And just as important, allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law conforms with the Constitution.

The Constitution says nothing about marriage, therefore leaving it to states. States do not, and never have had, uniformity in marriage laws.

There is no constitutional right to marriage for anyone.

Incorrect.

The Constitution indeed acknowledges the right to marry:

More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Thomas E. ZABLOCKI, Milwaukee County Clerk, etc., Appellant, v. Roger C. REDHAIL, etc. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

And the issue concerning same-sex couples addresses not only the right to marry, but also the right of all residents of a given state to access all of that state’s laws, including marriage law, in accordance with the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. However the states might configure their marriage law, the Constitution requires each state to allow same-sex couples access to those laws.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why do you think the government got involved in marraige in the first place? Were they worried about making sure everyone got a fair shake, or trying to limit who could get married?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Which is indeed a perfectly legitimate and Constitutionally appropriate reason.

And just as important, allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law conforms with the Constitution.

The Constitution says nothing about marriage, therefore leaving it to states. States do not, and never have had, uniformity in marriage laws.

There is no constitutional right to marriage for anyone.

Incorrect.

The Constitution indeed acknowledges the right to marry:

More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Thomas E. ZABLOCKI, Milwaukee County Clerk, etc., Appellant, v. Roger C. REDHAIL, etc. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

And the issue concerning same-sex couples addresses not only the right to marry, but also the right of all residents of a given state to access all of that state’s laws, including marriage law, in accordance with the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. However the states might configure their marriage law, the Constitution requires each state to allow same-sex couples access to those laws.

Show me the text in the constitution that gives gays, or anyone else, for all that matter, the right to marry?

By the way, equal protection under the law most assuredly does not give gays, or anyone else, the right to marry. It simply means that laws should be applied equally to everyone. Extending marriage laws to appease special interest groups does not fall under equal protection.

Isn't it odd that no one noticed a constitutional right for gays to marry for over 200 years?

I wonder how that was overlooked.

 

[hortysir]

I, too, have gay family members. Never have they expressed any desire to "marry".
They understand that you can't stick an eraser on the end of a Sharpie and call it a Pencil.

They probably avoid having that conversation with you because they don't want to hear you going off on some anti-gay rant about tax breaks or whatever other lame excuse you come up with to discriminate against them.

You're a bigot and nothing more.

Discriminate?


ok. whatever

Funny how the other kids always accuse me of them being my 'favorites'!!

You can't convince me it's normal any more than I can convince you that Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Light

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Why do you think the government got involved in marraige in the first place? Were they worried about making sure everyone got a fair shake, or trying to limit who could get married?

The first registries were to prohibit close familial ties in communities. The first court cases had to do with women owning property.

 

[Seawytch]

The Constitution says nothing about marriage, therefore leaving it to states. States do not, and never have had, uniformity in marriage laws.

There is no constitutional right to marriage for anyone.

Incorrect.

The Constitution indeed acknowledges the right to marry:

More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Thomas E. ZABLOCKI, Milwaukee County Clerk, etc., Appellant, v. Roger C. REDHAIL, etc. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

And the issue concerning same-sex couples addresses not only the right to marry, but also the right of all residents of a given state to access all of that state’s laws, including marriage law, in accordance with the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. However the states might configure their marriage law, the Constitution requires each state to allow same-sex couples access to those laws.

Show me the text in the constitution that gives gays, or anyone else, for all that matter, the right to marry?

By the way, equal protection under the law most assuredly does not give gays, or anyone else, the right to marry. It simply means that laws should be applied equally to everyone. Extending marriage laws to appease special interest groups does not fall under equal protection.

Isn't it odd, that no one noticed a constitutional right for gays to marry for over 200 years?

I wonder how that was overlooked.

Show me in the Constitution where it says you have a right to interstate travel or to procreate. Oh, that's right...those are called Fundamental Rights (look 'em up).

There have been three cases before the SCOTUS in which they ruled that marriage was a fundamental right.

In order to deny a fundamental right to a group of people, you must be able to ascribe a societal harm in allowing that group the fundamental right.

Isn't it odd that scores of years after emancipation, no one noticed a constitutional right for blacks to marry whites?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Why do you think the government got involved in marraige in the first place? Were they worried about making sure everyone got a fair shake, or trying to limit who could get married?

Government didn’t ‘get involved’ in marriage, government created the contract law that is marriage. And that contract law involves not only the couple but the state as a partner.

It also addressed property rights, where indeed the wife was treated as ‘property’ of the husband.

But at least for the last 50 years, if not longer in most states, the doctrine of coverture was abandoned in marriage (contract) law where the two parties enter into the contract agreement as equal partners. This is why same-sex couples are able to access marriage law, where the law needn’t be changed or altered to accommodate same-sex couples.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution says nothing about marriage, therefore leaving it to states. States do not, and never have had, uniformity in marriage laws.

There is no constitutional right to marriage for anyone.

Incorrect.

The Constitution indeed acknowledges the right to marry:

More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Thomas E. ZABLOCKI, Milwaukee County Clerk, etc., Appellant, v. Roger C. REDHAIL, etc. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

And the issue concerning same-sex couples addresses not only the right to marry, but also the right of all residents of a given state to access all of that state’s laws, including marriage law, in accordance with the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. However the states might configure their marriage law, the Constitution requires each state to allow same-sex couples access to those laws.

Show me the text in the constitution that gives gays, or anyone else, for all that matter, the right to marry?

By the way, equal protection under the law most assuredly does not give gays, or anyone else, the right to marry. It simply means that laws should be applied equally to everyone. Extending marriage laws to appease special interest groups does not fall under equal protection.

Isn't it odd, that no one noticed a constitutional right for gays to marry for over 200 years?

I wonder how that was overlooked.

Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

 

[J.E.D]

I, too, have gay family members. Never have they expressed any desire to "marry".
They understand that you can't stick an eraser on the end of a Sharpie and call it a Pencil.

They probably avoid having that conversation with you because they don't want to hear you going off on some anti-gay rant about tax breaks or whatever other lame excuse you come up with to discriminate against them.

You're a bigot and nothing more.

And let's say for the sake of wtf, I just woke up, that I believe him - so what. So the fuck what. Who cares that they themselves don't want to get married. Should no straights be able to marry because of all the people who have chosen to live together?

That too. And for the record, I don't believe his story.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

And seriously, I had NO idea.



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

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.

Why do you think the government got involved in marraige in the first place? Were they worried about making sure everyone got a fair shake, or trying to limit who could get married?

The first registries were to prohibit close familial ties in communities. The first court cases had to do with women owning property.

Then you agree, government regulation of marraige is all about keeping people from getting married, and you want to join the fun.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Incorrect.

The Constitution indeed acknowledges the right to marry:



And the issue concerning same-sex couples addresses not only the right to marry, but also the right of all residents of a given state to access all of that state’s laws, including marriage law, in accordance with the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. However the states might configure their marriage law, the Constitution requires each state to allow same-sex couples access to those laws.

Show me the text in the constitution that gives gays, or anyone else, for all that matter, the right to marry?

By the way, equal protection under the law most assuredly does not give gays, or anyone else, the right to marry. It simply means that laws should be applied equally to everyone. Extending marriage laws to appease special interest groups does not fall under equal protection.

Isn't it odd, that no one noticed a constitutional right for gays to marry for over 200 years?

I wonder how that was overlooked.

Show me in the Constitution where it says you have a right to interstate travel or to procreate. Oh, that's right...those are called Fundamental Rights (look 'em up).

There have been three cases before the SCOTUS in which they ruled that marriage was a fundamental right.

In order to deny a fundamental right to a group of people, you must be able to ascribe a societal harm in allowing that group the fundamental right.

Isn't it odd that scores of years after emancipation, no one noticed a constitutional right for blacks to marry whites?

SCOTUS said it is in there, you want to argue with them about it while simultaneously arguing that the right to privacy is in there?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

And seriously, I had NO idea.



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

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.

Why do you think the government got involved in marraige in the first place? Were they worried about making sure everyone got a fair shake, or trying to limit who could get married?

Government didn’t ‘get involved’ in marriage, government created the contract law that is marriage. And that contract law involves not only the couple but the state as a partner.

It also addressed property rights, where indeed the wife was treated as ‘property’ of the husband.

But at least for the last 50 years, if not longer in most states, the doctrine of coverture was abandoned in marriage (contract) law where the two parties enter into the contract agreement as equal partners. This is why same-sex couples are able to access marriage law, where the law needn’t be changed or altered to accommodate same-sex couples.

Marriage comes from common law, not statutory law. It was not created by the government, it predates the existence of government. Marriage licensing, on the other hand, was created by the government to restrict access to common law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Incorrect.

The Constitution indeed acknowledges the right to marry:



And the issue concerning same-sex couples addresses not only the right to marry, but also the right of all residents of a given state to access all of that state’s laws, including marriage law, in accordance with the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. However the states might configure their marriage law, the Constitution requires each state to allow same-sex couples access to those laws.

Show me the text in the constitution that gives gays, or anyone else, for all that matter, the right to marry?

By the way, equal protection under the law most assuredly does not give gays, or anyone else, the right to marry. It simply means that laws should be applied equally to everyone. Extending marriage laws to appease special interest groups does not fall under equal protection.

Isn't it odd, that no one noticed a constitutional right for gays to marry for over 200 years?

I wonder how that was overlooked.

Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

Your bosses need to slap you upside the head with an aluminum baseball bat until you stop getting that backwards.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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”?

Which goes to the inconsistent idiocy exhibited by most on the right concerning same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, that the examples noted above should also be disallowed to marry, or if currently married compelled to divorce.

 

[Seawytch]

Why do you think the government got involved in marraige in the first place? Were they worried about making sure everyone got a fair shake, or trying to limit who could get married?

The first registries were to prohibit close familial ties in communities. The first court cases had to do with women owning property.

Then you agree, government regulation of marraige is all about keeping people from getting married, and you want to join the fun.

Marriage is about keeping people from getting married? WTF, over...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The first registries were to prohibit close familial ties in communities. The first court cases had to do with women owning property.

Then you agree, government regulation of marraige is all about keeping people from getting married, and you want to join the fun.

Marriage is about keeping people from getting married? WTF, over...

You shouldn't be proud of your inability to read.

 

[Seawytch]

Then you agree, government regulation of marraige is all about keeping people from getting married, and you want to join the fun.

Marriage is about keeping people from getting married? WTF, over...

You shouldn't be proud of your inability to read.

I read just fine. Maybe you should re-read what you post.

 

[whitehall]

How is it contradictory to support smaller government and define a marriage as being the union of a man and a woman?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So is it for the sake of perverting the word marriage, then?

Because they could call it "Civil Unions" or "Domestic Partnerships" and still have the law grant them all the beneficiary rights and everything else that goes along with 'traditional' marriage.
But, for some reason, that's not enough.

I, too, have gay family members. Never have they expressed any desire to "marry".
They understand that you can't stick an eraser on the end of a Sharpie and call it a Pencil.

Gay couples do NOT have all the rights as marriage, and you know it. Stop lying.

Again........what RIGHTS are being denied
Please cite the Article and/or Amendment

The right to equal treatment under the law. A same sex couple is sufficiently similar to an opposite sex couple, from the perspective of marriage,

that it is unconstitutional to deprive same sex couples the right to legally marry in the manner that opposite couples are entitled to do.