State of Michigan claims the right to regulate sexual relationships.

A man is challenging the gay marriage ban in the state of Michigan.  So the state has responded…with this:

“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.”

What the…I…how…I just…

In what universe does that even begin to make sense?

The purpose of marriage is to regulate sexual relationships?  It does a shit job of it.  Tons of men in your state are making sweet, sweet love to one another (and casually bumping hips as well).  Tons of women are doing the same.  Regulations and controls generally don’t work when they’re organized as an opt-in.  Think about it.  The purpose of the police is to regulate and control criminal behavior.  Imagine if the only people who could be arrested for, say, theft had gone through the proper ritual and filled out the paper work.  If stopping crime is really that important to you, then this makes no sense.  So while marriage is a shit system for regulating sex, it’s a great system for doling out tax breaks and spousal rights.  Those are the type of things people would actually want to opt into, but can’t because some people (almost all of whom proudly wear crosses around their necks) feel like it’s their right to tell people who they can love.

So if gay people having sex somehow stopped straight people from popping out a kid, why say that gay people can’t get married?  Do they think that will stop gay people from engaging in sex?  If you’re wanting to regulate sexual behavior, you’re approaching it with a Mr. Magoo level of tactics.  If you were really trying to regulate sexual relationships (an authority the state simply does not have), then why are you only regulating the sexual relationships that occur within marriage?

And seriously, where does Rick Snyder get off thinking the state of Michigan has the right to regulate consensual sex?  Those darn annoying concepts self-evident rights like life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness…they can be so damn annoying when you’re trying to discriminate.

And how does gay marriage harm society, as it is implied in the wording “so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits rather than harms society”?  What mechanisms are at place there?  The states and countries that have allowed grown-ups to marry the grown-up of their choice (instead of telling them what they must find attractive in another human) are doing just fine and dandy.  Or is this like the threat of hell: it’s coming, just wait…you don’t see it now, but oh….it’s coming.

And finally, we know straight people are the ones having kids.  But their straightness by no means guarantees that they are ready to be parents or that they will be good parents.  That’s why child protective services exist.  Some gay people will make damn good parents and are eager to rescue the children taken away from their abusive or otherwise unfit parents from a life of foster care.  But Michigan doesn’t want that, because it’s all about giving special rights to the people who can produce the children, not about taking care of the fucking kids once they’re born.  This is discrimination dressed up as care.  It’s insulting to the people to whom they’re trying to pass off the lie – namely those who have had their moral sense corrupted by faith, as they will be the first to cheer the suppression of rights for the out group.

Once again, prejudice is enshrined and given power by the masses of the faithful, propped up by lies and misdirection, all while they drone on about how they know the TRUTH and about how much they love the sinner.  Hallelujah!

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • Bear Millotts

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

    Yeah, state folks, human procreation is so unique and special. No other mammal has a penis+vagina interaction like humans do.

    Sheesh. What ID-ten-T’s.

    • iknklast

      And non-mammals have other ways of procreating – like the amoeba splitting in two. If we could do that, how cool would it be?

      • Silent Service

        What? You can’t reproduce by fission?

      • baal

        I would stay home with myself all day and never get anything done. OTOH, a similar mechanism would weed out narcissism.

  • Brudder

    So there is no pre-maritial sex allowed in Michigan? That has to hurt the tourist industry.

    “to regulate sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships”

    I guess this means you can only procreate successfully if you have been married. And here I was using condoms like a sucker all those years.

    • baal

      And woman who hits menopause will have to get a divorce, since they are done and all. Men, however, will get to stay married a bit longer (and longer still if they have viagra).

  • KenBrowning

    A small nitpick: The phrase “…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….” is from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

    • JTEberhard

      Derp! Fixed.

  • sparkyb

    Not only does gay sex/marriage not harm society but in exactly what way is straight married people having procreative sex a benefit to society? Sure if everyone stops having sex we’ll eventually die out without a new generation to replace us, but does anyone think that is in danger of happening? I don’t think straight people would stop having sex and babies even without the state protection of marriage. And we’re not even talking about that happening. Gay people getting marriage too doesn’t deprive straight people from getting married. Honestly, I think we could do with a few less people having kids and a few more taking care of the kids we’ve already got.

    • iknklast

      It’s sort of like my mom. She swore for years that if feminists won the right to work where they wanted to, in the job of their choice, it was a threat to her marriage. She never elaborated on this, and she died having been married 48 years to the same man (my father). I never could get her to explain how some other woman having the right to choose where she wanted to work would suddenly invalidate my mother’s marriage. Before that, it was interracial marriage. If we allowed the races to intermarry, suddenly marriage would be destroyed. Never mind that none of these things happened, and gay marriage isn’t going to destroy marriage, either.

      In fact, I think it would be safe to say that the greatest threat to marriage is…straight, heteronormative marriage, which is a great deal for some people but not so great for others. And now that we have choices, many more people are opting out.

  • Loqi

    The state of Loqi claims the right to punch Michigan in the peninsula.

    What? It’s just as valid, makes as much sense, and is as immoral as Michigan’s claim.

  • aoscott

    Yeah, Bill Schute (our AG) is a real piece of shit. Most Michiganders disagree with this asshole and know he’ll find himself on the wrong side of history. Snyder isn’t the greatest, but I think this is more of Schute.

  • Keljopy

    Hmm. Marriage somehow hasn’t forced my husband and I to make any babies yet (and probably never will). And marriage sure didn’t stop my sister from getting knocked up by someone other than her husband. And refusing my lesbian friends the right to legally marry the people they consider their wives hasn’t convinced them to marry and make babies with men. So, how’s that working out again?

  • Spuddie

    In other words Rick Snyder has to rely on arguments which were deemed silly 50 years ago by the supreme court when the subject was bans on contraceptives by married couples. (see Griswold v. Ct)

    Either he is a loathsome ignorant p.o.s or deliberately trying to throw the case.