https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billintroduced/House/htm/2015-HIB-4733.htm https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billintroduced/House/pdf/2015-HIB-4731.pdf https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billintroduced/House/pdf/2015-HIB-4732.pdf The apparent aim is to make sure that same-sex couples can't be married in secret (only opposite-sex couples), and to replace government marriage licensing with the issuing of marriage certificates by clergy only, which the state will register. This is almost identical language to the failed Indiana law, including early versions that specified "a minister of the Gospel". Here's a section of added language from one of the bills: (Sorry for the all caps, but that's how it appears in the actual bill.) I'm only surprised that it took them this long to construct these copycat bills. Given that Michigan has a Republican house, senate, governor, and supreme court, these bills may stand a better chance here than they have in other states. Our governor recently signed an adoption bill that allows entities to refuse adoption services on the basis of religious beliefs. Of course, they still get to take state (that is, taxpayer) money. Once again Michigan is leading the way back to the 18th century.
Blatantly unconstitutional (as is the adoption law). It will take lawsuits and cash but if SCOTUS rules that states are required to recognize SSM, these laws will be overturned in due course. It's inevitable. As written even heterosexual atheist and humanist couples couldn't marry. What planet are these people on?
Perhaps it's time for the states to (*)(*)(*)(*) off. If they get their panties in a twist about this maybe they ought to back out of personal affairs of people.
It's a pathetic attempt to subvert the courts impending decision. To bad for them Even if it is passed it will never stand.
Some religions have this as a core value. They are instructed to prosletyze, to send out missionaries, to get converts. Denying them the freedom to force their religion on others, is denying them one of the key articles of their faith. What kind of religious freedom is it, to be forbidden to do what your religion requires? In many of these threads, we've seen that a requirement of tolerance is regarded as a direct attack on a religion that does not tolerate tolerance. Over in the abortion room, we see whole crowds of people who find the idea of accepting each other's opinions unacceptable - it is THEIR way or else! The Michigan legislators see the chance of cost-free grandstanding. They know these bills will never become law, but they also know that such efforts will guarantee re-election by the Great Unwashed populating their district.
The Republican/Tea Party representatives who introduced these bills, Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat, were caught up in a bizarre scandal. Initially, they couldn't get enough votes to expel Courser because Democrats were abstaining; they apparently wanted to broaden the scope of the investigation. Facing the inevitable, Courser chose to resign. After amendments were added to have the police and attorney general investigate the matter, the Democrats got on board and voted to expel Gamrat, who thought she'd made a deal to accept censure instead. http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/10/gamrat-courser-hearings-michigan/71993248/ Whether or not the blackmail claims are true, they're something of a moot point, since the reason for seeking expulsion was their use of state resources to conduct their affair. Karma, anyone?
I'm not sure this is going to be effective. "Clergy" can mean anything. Seeing as the state cannot make any law respecting the organization of religion, you can make up the church of the United peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and issue all sorts of marriage licensure documents.
Well, religious freedom is a two way street. The mcc is a religion, they affirm same sex marriage, as is Episcopal, Presbyterian, and other gay affirming denominations. Nothing stops people from forming the pastafarian church, or an atheist church, it wouldn't even be the first atheist religion.
Clergy means ordained minister. In other words, they are defining marriage as a religious institution and outlawing atheist and secular marriage. It effective makes it illegal to get married, except inreligious ceremonies. No more judges, no more ship captains. Only ordained ministers.
There is no reason there can't be atheist religions there are several already. Religion Can be anything. You can ordain yourself. You can get ordained with the universal life church. All you really have to have is a pulse, and be 18
Thank goodness the U.S. Supreme Court sent a message to Michigan when it legalized Gay Marriage for the entire United States.
