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

[BDBoop]

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

Get over whatever you want to get over. Marriage is not all about who is doing what to whom. People do what now? That's right. They fall in love, and they want to take the next step.

I just told a man I'd be happy to talk to his wife, since he was so loopy from the meds. He said "husband," and passed the phone over. Apparently, 'those' husbands do just like the regular husbands, and show up in a panic when their dearly beloved does a flying Wallenda without benefit of a net, and breaks a wrist.

My sister is a lesbian. Her relationship is over twenty years old. That relationship outlasted my marriage - but I'm the only one who had the 'right' to get married. Of course, I'm in Minnesota, so now she can too.

And save me the "tax break" logic. Unless you think that's why all these straights keep getting married.

 

[hortysir]

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

Get over whatever you want to get over. Marriage is not all about who is doing what to whom. People do what now? That's right. They fall in love, and they want to take the next step.

I just told a man I'd be happy to talk to his wife, since he was so loopy from the meds. He said "husband," and passed the phone over. Apparently, 'those' husbands do just like the regular husbands, and show up in a panic when their dearly beloved does a flying Wallenda without benefit of a net, and breaks a wrist.

My sister is a lesbian. Her relationship is over twenty years old. That relationship outlasted my marriage - but I'm the only one who had the 'right' to get married. Of course, I'm in Minnesota, so now she can too.

And save me the "tax break" logic. Unless you think that's why all these straights keep getting married.

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.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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

Get over whatever you want to get over. Marriage is not all about who is doing what to whom. People do what now? That's right. They fall in love, and they want to take the next step.

I just told a man I'd be happy to talk to his wife, since he was so loopy from the meds. He said "husband," and passed the phone over. Apparently, 'those' husbands do just like the regular husbands, and show up in a panic when their dearly beloved does a flying Wallenda without benefit of a net, and breaks a wrist.

My sister is a lesbian. Her relationship is over twenty years old. That relationship outlasted my marriage - but I'm the only one who had the 'right' to get married. Of course, I'm in Minnesota, so now she can too.

And save me the "tax break" logic. Unless you think that's why all these straights keep getting married.

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.

Well, to you maybe.

Who knows what they say behind closed doors. Maybe they're just sick of hearing your opinions about it.

The whole idea that gays just want to get married for tax breaks is myopic at best.

Is tax breaks the only reason why heteros get married? Nothing else?

Of course gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex. The question is: why the hell would they want to??

 

[BDBoop]

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

Get over whatever you want to get over. Marriage is not all about who is doing what to whom. People do what now? That's right. They fall in love, and they want to take the next step.

I just told a man I'd be happy to talk to his wife, since he was so loopy from the meds. He said "husband," and passed the phone over. Apparently, 'those' husbands do just like the regular husbands, and show up in a panic when their dearly beloved does a flying Wallenda without benefit of a net, and breaks a wrist.

My sister is a lesbian. Her relationship is over twenty years old. That relationship outlasted my marriage - but I'm the only one who had the 'right' to get married. Of course, I'm in Minnesota, so now she can too.

And save me the "tax break" logic. Unless you think that's why all these straights keep getting married.

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.

That's ... no.

You've been talking like a complete idiot for far too long. I'm ending this exchange.

You can't stick a brain in a human and call them intelligent either, apparently.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

Marriage ............ a complex situation, I'll try to explain, hopefully you will understand.
From strong families comes even stronger offspring.
Amongst the Elite it is almost impossible to keep a marriage together due to the money & power the Elite have access to, thus marriage ends in failure, children of the Elite become weaker & weaker with every generation.
The same MUST be done with the lower classes or they will rise from the ashes, then the once Elite bloodlines will join the ranks of the sheeple .................. this would be bad.
Law & measures must be put in place to break up marriages amongst the lower classes to keep them IN LINE, as good education will be cost prohibitive coming from a broken family, also the lower classes don't have the status to enjoy a good & happy home life when the Elite don't have this luxury for themselves.
It really pisses me off when one of my employees goes home to his happy home with wife & children ................. sorry ............. but I am going to have to FUCK THAT up.
If I can't have a happy household, then I'll be dambed if some bottom feeder has one.

 

[Noomi]

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

Next you will want to make masturbation a crime.

 

[Noomi]

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

Get over whatever you want to get over. Marriage is not all about who is doing what to whom. People do what now? That's right. They fall in love, and they want to take the next step.

I just told a man I'd be happy to talk to his wife, since he was so loopy from the meds. He said "husband," and passed the phone over. Apparently, 'those' husbands do just like the regular husbands, and show up in a panic when their dearly beloved does a flying Wallenda without benefit of a net, and breaks a wrist.

My sister is a lesbian. Her relationship is over twenty years old. That relationship outlasted my marriage - but I'm the only one who had the 'right' to get married. Of course, I'm in Minnesota, so now she can too.

And save me the "tax break" logic. Unless you think that's why all these straights keep getting married.

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.

 

[Vox]

Ignorant fakeys demonstrating their ignorance of the world history but extreme fervor in bootlicking the master's boots

 

[Seawytch]

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

And blacks had as much right to marry blacks and whites had as much right to marry whites...

Your argument was used for over 75 years to keep blacks from marrying whites.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Even with discrimination, there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Get over whatever you want to get over. Marriage is not all about who is doing what to whom. People do what now? That's right. They fall in love, and they want to take the next step.

I just told a man I'd be happy to talk to his wife, since he was so loopy from the meds. He said "husband," and passed the phone over. Apparently, 'those' husbands do just like the regular husbands, and show up in a panic when their dearly beloved does a flying Wallenda without benefit of a net, and breaks a wrist.

My sister is a lesbian. Her relationship is over twenty years old. That relationship outlasted my marriage - but I'm the only one who had the 'right' to get married. Of course, I'm in Minnesota, so now she can too.

And save me the "tax break" logic. Unless you think that's why all these straights keep getting married.

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.

You could too. I have no problem with civil unions...as long it is what is granted to all consenting adult couples. This "marriage for us, civil unions for you" shit is unconstitutional.

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.

Bovine feces.

 

[hortysir]

Get over whatever you want to get over. Marriage is not all about who is doing what to whom. People do what now? That's right. They fall in love, and they want to take the next step.

I just told a man I'd be happy to talk to his wife, since he was so loopy from the meds. He said "husband," and passed the phone over. Apparently, 'those' husbands do just like the regular husbands, and show up in a panic when their dearly beloved does a flying Wallenda without benefit of a net, and breaks a wrist.

My sister is a lesbian. Her relationship is over twenty years old. That relationship outlasted my marriage - but I'm the only one who had the 'right' to get married. Of course, I'm in Minnesota, so now she can too.

And save me the "tax break" logic. Unless you think that's why all these straights keep getting married.

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

 

[hortysir]

Get over whatever you want to get over. Marriage is not all about who is doing what to whom. People do what now? That's right. They fall in love, and they want to take the next step.

I just told a man I'd be happy to talk to his wife, since he was so loopy from the meds. He said "husband," and passed the phone over. Apparently, 'those' husbands do just like the regular husbands, and show up in a panic when their dearly beloved does a flying Wallenda without benefit of a net, and breaks a wrist.

My sister is a lesbian. Her relationship is over twenty years old. That relationship outlasted my marriage - but I'm the only one who had the 'right' to get married. Of course, I'm in Minnesota, so now she can too.

And save me the "tax break" logic. Unless you think that's why all these straights keep getting married.

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.

You could too. I have no problem with civil unions...as long it is what is granted to all consenting adult couples. This "marriage for us, civil unions for you" shit is unconstitutional.

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.

Bovine feces.

That's fine if a hetero couple don't like the name marriage, as it may sound too 'religious' for them....let 'em have a civil union, or whatever

Guess a niece or grand-daughter don't qualify as family members

Also guess there will be fewer and fewer grandchildren since spit-babies haven't happened yet

 

[deltex1]

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.

I agree,,,but only after 7 good years of screwing your brains out.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

You could too. I have no problem with civil unions...as long it is what is granted to all consenting adult couples. This "marriage for us, civil unions for you" shit is unconstitutional.

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.

Bovine feces.

That's fine if a hetero couple don't like the name marriage, as it may sound too 'religious' for them....let 'em have a civil union, or whatever

Guess a niece or grand-daughter don't qualify as family members

Also guess there will be fewer and fewer grandchildren since spit-babies haven't happened yet

No. As long as it is a 'marriage' license the government is giving out, we get that too. Separate but equal is unconstitutional. The church can do whatever it wants.

 

[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.

 

[BDBoop]

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

And blacks had as much right to marry blacks and whites had as much right to marry whites...

Your argument was used for over 75 years to keep blacks from marrying whites.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Even with discrimination, there is nothing new under the sun.

Hey! You stop trying to erase the sharpener with a pencil dick, or something!

 

[BDBoop]

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?

 

[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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

But not someone of the same-sex.

And since marriage law can accommodate same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples without changing marriage law, there is no legitimate reason to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

This is why the courts have determine measures such as Proposition 8 in violation if the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Get over whatever you want to get over. Marriage is not all about who is doing what to whom. People do what now? That's right. They fall in love, and they want to take the next step.

I just told a man I'd be happy to talk to his wife, since he was so loopy from the meds. He said "husband," and passed the phone over. Apparently, 'those' husbands do just like the regular husbands, and show up in a panic when their dearly beloved does a flying Wallenda without benefit of a net, and breaks a wrist.

My sister is a lesbian. Her relationship is over twenty years old. That relationship outlasted my marriage - but I'm the only one who had the 'right' to get married. Of course, I'm in Minnesota, so now she can too.

And save me the "tax break" logic. Unless you think that's why all these straights keep getting married.

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.

It’s not a matter of being ‘enough,’ it’s a matter of it being un-Constitutional.

‘Separate but equal’ is just as repugnant to the Constitution with regard to sexual orientation as it is race.