Michigan State Government, ban on same-sex marriage helps 'regulate sexual relationships'...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
In yet another display of lunacy the state of Michigan under Governor Rick Snyder is set to argue the state's constitutional amendment that defines marriage (between one man and one women) and it's ban on same sex joint adaptions are necessary. Apparently to preserve the state's interest to "regulate sexual relationships" and ensure population growth.
The brief filed by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette's office states that Michigan and other states that define marriage as the union of a man and a women have determined it appropriate for the state "to regulate sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits rather than harms society."
The brief goes on to say that before Massachusetts 2004 State Supreme Court decision which enforced the right to same sex marriage in the Commonwealth "it was commonly understood that the institution of marriage owed its very existence to society’s vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing."
I guess the idea of same sex marriage and same sex couples raising children continue to be an abomination to many who feel these relationships pose a threat to the very fabric of society. What is ironic to me is the ones decrying the intrusion of government into lives of individuals the loudest seem all too ready and willing to use the government to enforce intrusion into the private lives and affairs of others.
Did I mention these government officials and most who support them are, Republicans/Conservatives.
The story from Michigan Live.com
More commentary HERE.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
In yet another display of lunacy the state of Michigan under Governor Rick Snyder is set to argue the state's constitutional amendment that defines marriage (between one man and one women) and it's ban on same sex joint adaptions are necessary. Apparently to preserve the state's interest to "regulate sexual relationships" and ensure population growth.
The brief filed by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette's office states that Michigan and other states that define marriage as the union of a man and a women have determined it appropriate for the state "to regulate sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits rather than harms society."
The brief goes on to say that before Massachusetts 2004 State Supreme Court decision which enforced the right to same sex marriage in the Commonwealth "it was commonly understood that the institution of marriage owed its very existence to society’s vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing."
I guess the idea of same sex marriage and same sex couples raising children continue to be an abomination to many who feel these relationships pose a threat to the very fabric of society. What is ironic to me is the ones decrying the intrusion of government into lives of individuals the loudest seem all too ready and willing to use the government to enforce intrusion into the private lives and affairs of others.
Did I mention these government officials and most who support them are, Republicans/Conservatives.
The story from Michigan Live.com
LANSING -- Attorneys representing Gov. Rick Snyder and the state of Michigan in a case alleging the state's ban on same-sex joint adoptions violates the U.S. Constitution have argued the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage is necessary to "regulate sexual relationships" to encourage population growth.
The statement was made as part of a brief opposing a motion by April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse asking a federal judge to grant a judgment in their favor.
DeBoer and Rowse, a Hazel Park couple who challenged the state's same-sex marriage ban as part of their challenge to state adoption laws, contend that the ban violates the federal guarantee of due process in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In the brief, attorneys from Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette's office say that Michigan and other states which define marriage as being "one man, one woman" have done so "to regulate sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits rather than harms society."
The brief also says that prior to a 2004 Massachusetts court decision enforcing a right to same-sex marriage in that state, "it was commonly understood that the institution of marriage owed its very existence to society’s vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing."
The state also argues in the brief that the couple should be seeking to overturn the ban through a ballot initiative rather than through the courts. "If Michigan’s definition of marriage is to be changed, and if joint unmarried adoptions are to be authorized, both should be done by the people of the State of Michigan," the brief states.
A hearing is set for October 16 in U.S. District Court in Detroit to rule on the couple's motion as well as a motion filed by the state seeking judgment in its favor.
More commentary HERE.
Via: Memeorandum
Not sure how I missed this latest one. I withdraw any claims that Snyder is not a "socon" !!! All this is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
ReplyDeleteLes, you and I are on the same page on this one. Come to think of it, I don't know any sane person who isn't. :) Good post.
ReplyDeleteYeah, amazing. Some don't have a template to fit into nor do they march to a partisan beat.
DeleteI am strongly opposed to any efforts "to "regulate sexual relationships" to encourage population growth.", just as I am opposed to government regulations to foster, control, and shape a country's culture.
ReplyDeleteI think Snyder deserves a lot of credit for his successful efforts to stop workers from being bullied into unions against the workers' will. He has done some other good things too. Mostly non- "socon". But this is way of line.
I just don't see how banning gays from doing anything has anything to do with procreation. Where's the logic?
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Was the post about banning gays? Must have missed something.
DeleteTesting... 2 comments submitted but not published... Either RN didn't like them, I'm banned, or they are "in the spam folder". Not going to bother composing a serious comment if it isn't going to be published.
ReplyDeleteSorry Mr. Sanders, upon thorough review of you submitted comments it was determined they deserved to be sent the way of spam.
DeleteClearly they were meant only to continue the incessant merry go round you love to create with all those whose positions or thought process differs from your own.
In sort Mr. Sanders you simply do not know "when enough is enough."
You are not banned. Submitting a comment and responding to comments thoughtfully, rebutting the same issue once or twice with additional info or thoughts and or ideas will be accepted. However, your recent comments were nothing more than a rehash of old ones, nothing new, and meant only to stir the pot.
Good day Mr. Sanders .................................................
"Not going to bother composing a serious comment if it isn't going to be published." Except I gather for the hundreds and hundreds that you've been sending me knowing fully well that THEY will never be published.......Oh, wait a minute, you did say, SERIOUS comment, now didn't you?
DeleteRN: However, your recent comments were nothing more than a rehash of old ones, nothing new, and meant only to stir the pot.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't stop you from publishing Will or Dennis (especially Dennis). You LOVE it when they "stir the pot".
As for Will's comment... Will, your blog is the only one where I submit serious comments even though they aren't published. I'm not looking to add a second blog where that is the case. Also, RN has admitted on multiple occasions on my blog that he submits dumb comments on purpose (to infuriate me). And the hypocrite has spoke previously about treating me with respect. Riiiight.