State of Michigan Incredibly Claims It Has The Right To ‘Regulate Sexual Relationships’

[bearssoapbox]

Are the republicans having a contest to see who can 'out-crazy' who?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09/18/michigan-claims-right-regulate-sexual-relationships/

“One of the paramount purposes of marriage in Michigan — and at least 37 other states that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman — is, and has always been, to regulate sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits rather than harms society.”

[blkmusclmachine]

1. Fascists. And no organized Opposition Party to fight the crazies.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. .

.

[Make7]

3. Shouldn't they allow a deregulated free-market decide?

Isn't it time that government got out of the way of the pro-creators?

[bulloney]

5. Agreed. Government should get out of the way of the (blow) job creators.

These teabaggers get more into your personal lives than any ultra-liberal government ever has.

[DFW]

4. What wording! Take it at face value and think about the quote

"One of the paramount purposes of marriage in Michigan........is, and has always been, to regulate sexual relationships....."

A paramount purpose of marriage in Michigan is TO REGULATE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS??????????? It has ALWAYS BEEN that way?


Wow, I'm glad I got married in Virginia, where the paramount purpose of getting married was to express a lifelong commitment between me and my wife. If the Commonwealth of Virginia had told me that the paramount purpose of marriage was to regulate my sex life, I think we would have gotten married in Germany instead.

Come to think of it, my married friends in Michigan might find this to be somewhat of a surprise, too. I'm sure they were not told about this "paramount purpose" when they got married, either.

[theHandpuppet]

17. You might want to reconsider what you just posted

Considering there are millions of your fellow citizens -- like me and my partner, together nearly 25 years -- who cannot marry in Virginia because they are gay.

[DFW]

25. I did

I was referring to my own situation only. Virginia was a compromise location for the wedding anyway, as my legal residence at the time was Massachusetts, and it was a double wedding with my brother (who was a Virginia resident) and our respective wives, who are from Germany and Japan. We might as well have celebrated it in Iceland or the Azores. It was the first time my German mother in law had ever set foot inside an airplane.

I wasn't saying Virginia was a paradise, or even fair with its (so far) discriminatory marriage laws for gays. Please consider also that when we got married (1982), gay marriage anywhere in the Western Hemisphere wasn't even on the radar.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. They also thereby disrespect seniors and infertile couples.

Taken literally, they would ban the marriage of any couple who cannot or will not produce children.

[michigandem58]

7. "so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits rather than harms society.”

Read it three times and still doesn't make sense, even from their backward view.

[Volaris]

12. Right...because there is NO ADDITIONAL "procreative capicty" associated with marraige...

then there is with other types of relationships.Iit's the exact same "procreative capicty" associated with 2 opposite-sex heterosexual people who got drunk at a bar and went home together. UNLESS they think that any child produced under such circumstances would be a net HARM to Michigan society (which, when it comes down to Brass Tacks, they probably DO). Fuckers. It's nice to know that neither myself, my DAUGHTER or her mother can never contribute to that State's economy, even if any of us were to move or visit there.

Maybe that means that children born out of wedlock in the State will not have to pay Taxes when they grow up.

[DFW]

26. And then they want to penalize "welfare queens" for their procreative capacity

As usual, the radical right is out for headlines and money, not justice or consistency in their arguments.

[AngryOldDem]

8. Sounds extremely unconstitutional to me.

But then, who gives a damn about the Constitution anymore?

And what about Griswold v. Connecticut? I thought this question had been decided.

[Laelth]

9. States DO, in fact, have the inherent right to regulate marriage.

Our Federal Government is limited, and marriage was never intended to be within its scope. DOMA was unconstitutional on its face, but there has never (as far as I know) been a question about whether the states have the right to regulate marriage (which requires a state license to create a marriage and the state's permission to abolish one).

That said, any specific regulation imposed by any given state is subject to review for its specific constitutionality, but states still have the basic right to regulate marriage even if one or more of the state's specific regulations is deemed unconstitutional.

-Laelth

[Volaris]

13. Of course State's have the right to regulate it,

same as they have the right to regulate any other part of their monetary economy=)

[Bluenorthwest]

15. So tell me when 'sexual relationships' and 'marriage' became synonyms.

Because the OP says 'regulate sexual relationships' not 'regulate marriage'. Do you agree that the State has the 'inherent right' to regulate all sexual relationships?

[Laelth]

16. You make an important distinction.

To the extent sexual relationships are likely to lead to the production of children (possible wards of the state and a drain on the state's resources in many cases), then yes, I think the state should have a right to regulate that activity because it impacts all of us. Under the law, there's no question that the state does have that power, but I assume your post is addressing the question of whether the state should have that power. On that score, I say yes, the state should have that power, and said power is and always has been about regulating sexual activity. Pretending otherwise requires ignoring the history of the institution of marriage, an institution that pre-dates human history. It's well over 6,000 years old and is practiced (in one form or another) by every civilization and culture of which I am aware.

To the extent that sexual relationships are not likely to lead to the production of children, then no, I see no vital state interest that is threatened and that warrants state intrusion.

Not sure if that answers your question, but I hope it provides sufficient fuel for us to continue this interesting and important discussion.

-Laelth

[Bluenorthwest]

24. You simply substitued the word 'marriage' into a comment about sexual relationships

That struck me as odd. What you are now saying suggests you would support State control over birth control, mandated or denied according to the needs of the State, is that the case?
In terms of the 'history of marriage' it is of course a history of child brides, humans for sale, polygamy and women as property. That's the 'institution'. The better word might be practice, and that practice comes in so many varieties that to claim it is a singular 'institution' spanning time and space is just ludicrous. And not to be too detail oriented, but for most times and places the State had nothing to do with marriage which was under the control of religions. Henry 8 found that out the long and hard way.

[quaker bill]

10. The authority to regulate something is implicit

in the act of creating regulations. In that they regulate something, anything at all, they have claimed the right to do so in regard to that subject. Legislation always has a premise to indicate why whatever follows is in the public interest.

What could follow are simply laws about protecting children from predators. With republicans, the laws will go much farther.

[uriel1972]

20. I had to reread the OP after reading your comment...

It is about confining marriage to hetrosexual couples and even further it seems to be confing sex to maried hetrosexual couples. WTF does that have to do with protecting children?

Laws about age of consent are there to protect children, not laws about marriage. I'm confused as to how you could possibly confuse the two.

[quaker bill]

31. I am confused about your confusion

The "right to regulate" is expressed in the adoption of regulations. Adoption of the first regulation is the assertion of the state's "right to regulate" legally. The notion that it is shocking and amazing that a state expresses that it has the "right to regulate" something, anything that it in fact already regulates is absurd.

I am rarely confused. The point you have missed is that the "right to regulate" is expressed the moment any regulation is adopted. I think there is broad agreement, even here, that the age of consent is a reasonable expression of the state's "right to regulate" sexual relationships (though there is always debate about the proper age here, the concept that there is a limit is generally agreed). So this falls within the state's "right to regulate".

The question is about where the limits of the "right to regulate" are and should be. If they stopped regulating with the issue of age of consent, most here would be ok.

Consent is about as far as the state needs to go in my opinion, and that to my mind applies to persons of any age. How consenting adults arrange their lives in this regard, to my mind is not state's business.

Government issued marriage licenses were invented to collect tithes for the state established churches and taxes for the crown. They should just go away, for everyone.

[uriel1972]

32. If it had stopped at the "Right to regulate"...

I would agree with you and not have a problem. It didn't, it went on to talk about marriage. From that point it became difficult to see how it could simply be a regulation about protecting children.

[quaker bill]

38. It isn't.

They could have stopped there, but they didn't.

I would hazard a guess that you have not spent much time reading statutes or involved in litigation when they are challenged.

Statutes have preambles that explicitly set forth how the language which follows is an appropriate use of the state's "right to regulate". If it doesn't, the first judge will toss it out. The state's "right to regulate" something must be established before the first (or any) rule on the subject is written.

The language of these clauses is always broad. That is the point.

Do we argue with the "right to regulate"? (which means no rules can ever be written) Or do we argue that they have taken the "right to regulate" too far?

I would argue that they have gone too far.

[DiverDave]

11. I thought about moving to MI.

But, seeing crap like this.

Dear States,
Stay the FUCK out of my bedroom.
A TAXPAYER

[On the Road]

14. Not to Say That They Should Do It,

but has any state ever taken the position that regulating sexual relationships is beyond their jurisdiction?

[gollygee]

18. There are a lot of idiots in charge of our state now.

I am hoping for serious backlash during the next election.

[knitter4democracy]

37. Amen to that! We need to clean house in Lansing.

Don't even get me started.

[uriel1972]

19. Get government regulation out of the bedroom...

And into the boardroom where it belongs.

[Eleanors38]

21. Sorta like large animal Vets?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

23. Snort!

Good thing I wasn't drinking coffee...

[Motown_Johnny]

22. If they want to benefit society they should tax the rich and fund social programs

[gollygee]

30. Ha!

+1

But sadly we've got the wrong group in charge for that.

[Gothmog]

27. SCOTUS has ruled that there is a right to privacy

The position of the State of Michigan ignores the law that is well established as to the right to privacy

[Blue Owl]

28. Self-Regulation -- as in Go-Fuck-Yourself-Regulation

n/t

[Scurrilous]

29. Boink.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Some sexual acts, even by a consenting adult on themselves in private, SHOULD be regulated

For instance, the tendency of Right-Wing Republicans to engage in acts of Cranio-Rectal Insertion.

[bearssoapbox]

34. At least as long as they are doing that

we can't hear what they are saying.

[justiceischeap]

35. So, when will the fertility tests begin?

I mean, if the sole purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is procreation, then the next logical step is to deny women past menopause, impotent men and infertile people the ability to marry. Otherwise, they are being hypocrites.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. In that case, shouldn't the attorney general be forcibly marrying men and women who are having sex?

Forbidding divorce by couples still able to procreate? If he thinks that children have to be born into a marriage. Rather than worrying about couples who are not going to produce any children with sex?