Michigan Theocracy

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Recently the GOP dominated Michigan legislature and the "moderate" and "pragmatic" GOP governor decided that gay and lesbian taxpayers should fund adoption agencies that consider those taxpayers too despicable to be able to adopt children. Since its "all about the children", reducing the pool of available, loving homes is of course in the children's best interest. But of course those agencies will gleefully take the LGBT tax dollars.....as will the state itself.

Now members of the pro-theocracy wing of the GOP have decided that it would be a good idea to totally eliminate civil marriage completely. Because, of course, if you do not have a "clergy person" willing to marry you, you should not be able to get married.

Sad, sad state of affairs in Michigan. And yet another example of why many of us will never permanently return. Do any of these clowns realize how this makes the state appear to business sectors such as the much-coveted tech sector?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06...zed-by-clergy/

[ferndalien]

There is so much wrong with these ideas it's hard to know where to start. They even fly in the face of the arguments the AG has against recognition of gay marriage - that the state has an interest in hetero marriage via procreation. Now the state should have no interest in marriage at all? Ugh.

Even Nolan Finley is calling out these mouthbreathers on this stuff. Most of the latest relgio-focused marriage bills are coming out of tea-partiers Courser and Gamrat, and they've already been abandoned by the state GOP power-that-be as nuts. So hopefully these bills will never see the light of day on the floor.

[bailey]

Recently the GOP dominated Michigan legislature and the "moderate" and "pragmatic" GOP governor decided that gay and lesbian taxpayers should fund adoption agencies that consider those taxpayers too despicable to be able to adopt children. Since its "all about the children", reducing the pool of available, loving homes is of course in the children's best interest. But of course those agencies will gleefully take the LGBT tax dollars.....as will the state itself.

Now members of the pro-theocracy wing of the GOP have decided that it would be a good idea to totally eliminate civil marriage completely. Because, of course, if you do not have a "clergy person" willing to marry you, you should not be able to get married.

Sad, sad state of affairs in Michigan. And yet another example of why many of us will never permanently return. Do any of these clowns realize how this makes the state appear to business sectors such as the much-coveted tech sector?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06...zed-by-clergy/

While I understand the sentiment, and I once held the same opinion... If those of us who hold counter opinions just up and leave...or refuse to return, nothing will change. Today's michigan is what you get after 20-30 years of brain drain.

[Pam]

ACLU to challenge the adoption law:

We’re deeply disappointed that Governor Snyder signed this dangerous legislation. We are developing a lawsuit with our Muslim, Jewish, Christian and LGBTQ partners. We encourage any family looking to adopt or foster children who believe they will be adversely affected by this law to contact us immediately. The agencies that are subject to HB 4188-4190 are receiving state money to perform a public function and are therefore state actors. Agencies have a legal obligation to ensure the best interests of the child are considered during placement. There is nothing about this shameful legislation that helps vulnerable kids find homes.

http://www.eclectablog.com/2015/06/b...-into-law.html

[Hypestyles]

another incentive to leave for the progressive minded.

[ct_alum]

There is so much wrong with these ideas it's hard to know where to start. They even fly in the face of the arguments the AG has against recognition of gay marriage - that the state has an interest in hetero marriage via procreation. Now the state should have no interest in marriage at all? Ugh.

Even Nolan Finley is calling out these mouthbreathers on this stuff. Most of the latest relgio-focused marriage bills are coming out of tea-partiers Courser and Gamrat, and they've already been abandoned by the state GOP power-that-be as nuts. So hopefully these bills will never see the light of day on the floor.

Yes, I almost fell of my chair when I read Finley's column. He even managed not to work in some sort of Union bashing angle. I am sure that the Repugnantcans stay awake nights trying to link the LGBT community to Unions - What a twofer that would be for them!

[Wesley Mouch]

You're gonna leave/not return to Michigan because there are some right-wing wackos?

Wackoism is non-partisan. There are fools on the left. There are fools on the right.
You paint the GOP as if it is a monolithic, monotheistic party. That's called prejudice. There are reasonable members of GOP. And there are too many right-wing, religious wackos too.

Your hate for the GOP because it has a problem with a too-powerful religious wing is music to the ears of the radical left. But if you really want to get things done, ignore the radicals and look at what reasonable people can get done together.

BTW, if you think Michigan has a unique monopoly on right wing extremism, you might be wrong.

[Onthe405]

Although I'm scarcely an expert on the the current climate of MI politics, it seems to me this neocon revival surrounding social issues is not solely attributable to "brain drain", but is also tied directly to the decline of union membership in the state.


Even during its peak economic & population era, MI was never an extraordinarily liberal state on social issues--particularly when compared to the NE & West Coast. However, back then, labor unions [[the UAW & AFL-CIO in particular) were much more economically & socially influential.


Their members were encouraged to vote for pro-labor candidates & legislation, and dutifully did so. Along with those pro-labor policies came the liberal social agenda as part of the platform package. Many folks in MI gritted their teeth and pulled the lever in advocacy for the former [[since it advanced their personal economic well-being), with a less-than-enthusiatic endorsement of the latter.


As union influence & membership evaporated in the 21st century [[culminating in the "right-to-work" final blow), the economic & social agendas became separated and reversed. Without unions lobbying and "speaking for them" in government, many individuals could be more easily influenced by socially conservative fear tactics, and by "going with the their gut", proceeded to pull the lever for an agenda that includes economically conservative policy along with the package.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

You're gonna leave/not return to Michigan because there are some right-wing wackos?

Wackoism is non-partisan. There are fools on the left. There are fools on the right.
You paint the GOP as if it is a monolithic, monotheistic party. That's called prejudice. There are reasonable members of GOP. And there are too many right-wing, religious wackos too.

Your hate for the GOP because it has a problem with a too-powerful religious wing is music to the ears of the radical left. But if you really want to get things done, ignore the radicals and look at what reasonable people can get done together.

BTW, if you think Michigan has a unique monopoly on right wing extremism, you might be wrong.

FYI, I used to be a Republican so I am well aware that the party is virtually totally controlled by the wackos. The party of Milliken, George Romney and Jerry Ford is long dead. And Michigan's desire to emulate Oklahoma and Mississippi is sad.

From a personal perspective, I am not aware of ANY "radical left" [[as if there really is such a thing in the U.S.) politician who is obsessed with denying me my rights. That is the realm of the GOP, including every single GOP candidate for president.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Although I'm scarcely an expert on the the current climate of MI politics, it seems to me this neocon revival surrounding social issues is not solely attributable to "brain drain", but is also tied directly to the decline of union membership in the state.


Even during its peak economic & population era, MI was never an extraordinarily liberal state on social issues--particularly when compared to the NE & West Coast. However, back then, labor unions [[the UAW & AFL-CIO in particular) were much more economically & socially influential.


Their members were encouraged to vote for pro-labor candidates & legislation, and dutifully did so. Along with those pro-labor policies came the liberal social agenda as part of the platform package. Many folks in MI gritted their teeth and pulled the lever in advocacy for the former [[since it advanced their personal economic well-being), with a less-than-enthusiatic endorsement of the latter.


As union influence & membership evaporated in the 21st century [[culminating in the "right-to-work" final blow), the economic & social agendas became separated and reversed. Without unions lobbying and "speaking for them" in government, many individuals could be more easily influenced by socially conservative fear tactics, and by "going with the their gut", proceeded to pull the lever for an agenda that includes economically conservative policy along with the package.

I am unaware of any state where union membership has either increased or even kept flat over the past 20 years or so. Michigan is only one of many.

[Onthe405]

I am unaware of any state where union membership has either increased or even kept flat over the past 20 years or so. Michigan is only one of many.

I'm well aware of the statistics regarding union participation nationwide. The point of my original post is that any ties Michigan had in the past to social liberalism, unlike many other states, was tenuous & fragile from the beginning. Thus, the breakup of the union coalition/agenda had a more significant & pronounced effect than in other places.

[DetroitBoy]

The original post in this thread has nothing to do with unions and the social liberalism associated with that era, which relative to other States, was and continues to be virtually nonexistent in the state of Michigan. What is even worse is those who have some level of social insight on this board appear to have no sensitivity to the biggest civil rights issue facing the country today.

The more the world changes the more the way of life in the State remains the same. That's Pure Michigan.

[erikd]

FYI, I used to be a Republican so I am well aware that the party is virtually totally controlled by the wackos. The party of Milliken, George Romney and Jerry Ford is long dead. And Michigan's desire to emulate Oklahoma and Mississippi is sad.

From a personal perspective, I am not aware of ANY "radical left" [[as if there really is such a thing in the U.S.) politician who is obsessed with denying me my rights. That is the realm of the GOP, including every single GOP candidate for president.

This pretty much echoes my assessment of the situation. I also used to be a Republican, and I am still a very much a fiscal conservative, but it is disturbing how much influence the wackos have in today's GOP.

[Wesley Mouch]

... I am not aware of ANY "radical left" [[as if there really is such a thing in the U.S.) politician who is obsessed with denying me my rights. ...

Occupy. By Any Means Necessary. ACLU. Bernie Sanders. Bill DiBlasio.

I abhor both the far right and far left. Both exist in the US.

[Junjie]

Occupy. By Any Means Necessary. ACLU. Bernie Sanders. Bill DiBlasio.

I abhor both the far right and far left. Both exist in the US.

This is silly, though. You're comparing the Republican Party, which controls 68/98 state legislative bodies, 30/50 governorships, and the US House and US Senate, to:

- A "movement" that barely even exists anymore and has no policy influence whatsoever.
- An overgrown student group that operates in two states and has no policy influence whatsoever.
- A group that defends your civil rights against both parties via lawsuits [[what rights do they want to deny you, exactly?)
- A presidential candidate with a 0% chance of winning the nomination, much less the presidency.
- The mayor of New York.

The reality is that currently one side is a major problem and the other is not. "Extreme" leftists barely even register in state or national political processes, while extreme rightists call the shots in the current Republican Party.

Call me when we have numerous state legislatures passing 80% top bracket income taxes and legislating against microaggressions. Until then, this American Taliban religious BS targeting gays, the poor, minorities etc. is the thing to worry about. And yes, it has a real impact on driving people out of the state of Michigan. Having legislators actively target you to prevent you from getting married or adopting will do that. Reading that some knuckleheads from BAMN got loud at a city council meeting typically will not.

[EastsideAl]

Occupy. By Any Means Necessary. ACLU. Bernie Sanders. Bill DiBlasio.

I abhor both the far right and far left. Both exist in the US.

Sanders and DiBlasio are hardly radical leftists. Bernie is a "Socialist" in name only [[mostly so he could run against other Democrats in Vermont's election system), and most real socialists find him bit laughable. And, hell, DiBlasio has taken lots of money from real estate interests to push much of their agenda and brought back a police commissioner whose "broken windows" theories throw thousands of people in jail for very minor offenses.

The GOP far rightists, however, in the Michigan legislature, the legislatures of many other states, and the U.S. Congress are radicals indeed. And have aimed to completely remake our economic and social relationships to conform to their beliefs, including a sort of state-sanctioned fundamentalist nutball Christianity that comes pretty damn close to a theocracy. Fortunately, the tide seems to be finally moving against some of their more outrageously intolerant notions.

[BankruptcyGuy]

I'm well aware of the statistics regarding union participation nationwide. The point of my original post is that any ties Michigan had in the past to social liberalism, unlike many other states, was tenuous & fragile from the beginning. Thus, the breakup of the union coalition/agenda had a more significant & pronounced effect than in other places.

I did not pick that up. Thank you for the clarification, and I agree. I dislike the terms "blue state" and "red state," because they hide the very real different policy prescriptions between, say, a NY and CA.

[Wesley Mouch]

Sanders and DiBlasio are hardly radical leftists. Bernie is a "Socialist" in name only [[mostly so he could run against other Democrats in Vermont's election system), and most real socialists find him bit laughable. And, hell, DiBlasio has taken lots of money from real estate interests to push much of their agenda and brought back a police commissioner whose "broken windows" theories throw thousands of people in jail for very minor offenses.

The GOP far rightists, however, in the Michigan legislature, the legislatures of many other states, and the U.S. Congress are radicals indeed. And have aimed to completely remake our economic and social relationships to conform to their beliefs, including a sort of state-sanctioned fundamentalist nutball Christianity that comes pretty damn close to a theocracy. Fortunately, the tide seems to be finally moving against some of their more outrageously intolerant notions.

Thus, the title of this thread might be Michigan Theocracy Losing its Grip on State.

Me, I still see radicalism. I'm beginning to think radicalism is best defined as an opposing view that opponents can't understand and don't respect.

[gazhekwe]

I was amused and chagrined about the proposed bill that would make invalid any marriage not endorsed by clergy. As we married before a judge, it made me wonder if we would be expected to find a clergyperson to endorse our marriage license, or would we be suddenly thrown into the ranks of the "living in sin" couples. Too funny to pass that up.

[bailey]

Thus, the title of this thread might be Michigan Theocracy Losing its Grip on State.
.

... that would be the exact opposite of reality though. These bills are RIGHT NOW on the table and the authors of them are first term reps. Our "moderate" "business guy" governor just signed legislation that allows agencies funded by the state to directly discriminate against gays, muslims, jews, single people, and atheists...basically anyone that runs afoul of the beliefs of the faith based charity receiving compensation from the state for adoption services.

The governor should have veto'd such clearly unconstitutional legislation and said, hey, if you want to have those rules, then you can't get state money. If you want state money you need to serve ALL the citizens of the state. But he didn't because he knows the far right nutters will have a temper tantrum and they control the legislature. Now it'll be another few million in state money wasted in a futile effort to defend this stupid christianist sharia legislation.

The tide, if it's moving at all, is only doing so because the Courts are being forced to step in.

[Baselinepunk]

... that would be the exact opposite of reality though. These bills are RIGHT NOW on the table and the authors of them are first term reps. Our "moderate" "business guy" governor just signed legislation that allows agencies funded by the state to directly discriminate against gays, muslims, jews, single people, and atheists...basically anyone that runs afoul of the beliefs of the faith based charity receiving compensation from the state for adoption services.

The governor should have veto'd such clearly unconstitutional legislation and said, hey, if you want to have those rules, then you can't get state money. If you want state money you need to serve ALL the citizens of the state. But he didn't because he knows the far right nutters will have a temper tantrum and they control the legislature. Now it'll be another few million in state money wasted in a futile effort to defend this stupid christianist sharia legislation.

The tide, if it's moving at all, is only doing so because the Courts are being forced to step in.

I am a "reformed Republican", as well. Proudly; I've never voted for a Bush or Clinton.

I believe it is very disingenuous to call Snyder a "Moderate". In fact; it's an insult to true Michigan Moderates. Snyder double-talks his way into making people think he's a Moderate; however, those who feel that way have been thoroughly smoked and are not to be trusted.

Snyder's "not on my radar" statements are dubious at best, and if we were to take him for his word, then folks should be calling his ass out for being a flip-flopper.

However, this is what you get when you try and run government, a public corporation, like a business -- a private corporation.

When you get right down to it, even with our nice "flat-tax" BS tax system, this State is a prime Tea Bagger State. I do give a lot of credit to the Tea Baggers; they've been able to swoop in and enact their agenda with ease due to diversion [[Detroit Bankruptcy and multiple EMs) and voter complacency.

And, they've been so successful jamming shit down our throats and it will take decades to unravel all of the BS knowingly unconstitutional legislation.

The Rurals in this State and Grand Rapids have always slobbered over throwing Detroit off the power stool in this State and have done so -- they now have their revenge.

[Wesley Mouch]

... that would be the exact opposite of reality though. These bills are RIGHT NOW on the table and the authors of them are first term reps. Our "moderate" "business guy" governor just signed legislation that allows agencies funded by the state to directly discriminate against gays, muslims, jews, single people, and atheists...basically anyone that runs afoul of the beliefs of the faith based charity receiving compensation from the state for adoption services.

The governor should have veto'd such clearly unconstitutional legislation and said, hey, if you want to have those rules, then you can't get state money. If you want state money you need to serve ALL the citizens of the state. But he didn't because he knows the far right nutters will have a temper tantrum and they control the legislature. Now it'll be another few million in state money wasted in a futile effort to defend this stupid christianist sharia legislation.

The tide, if it's moving at all, is only doing so because the Courts are being forced to step in.

You see discrimination, I see freedom.

If you want more adoptions -- which is what's really needed if you care about kids -- then jamming your version of morality on everyone won't help.

I'm OK with freedom of choice and discrimination in adoptions. Just as long as the adoptions occur.

You want to force people to act against their beliefs -- just because the State puts some cash in.

I say to you -- go out and start doing discrimination-free adoptions. And stop complaining about other people's opinions and stomping on their rights because you happen to be right.

And right you are. Discrimination is bad. And it should face the light of day. The solution is tranparency and shaming. Not mandates from the righteous left.

[BankruptcyGuy]

When you get right down to it, even with our nice "flat-tax" BS tax system, this State is a prime Tea Bagger State. I do give a lot of credit to the Tea Baggers; they've been able to swoop in and enact their agenda with ease due to diversion [[Detroit Bankruptcy and multiple EMs) and voter complacency.

And, they've been so successful jamming shit down our throats and it will take decades to unravel all of the BS knowingly unconstitutional legislation.

Which tea bagger was responsible for the Detroit EMs and subsequent bankruptcy, Dave Bing or Kevyn Orr?

Which piece of legislation was "knowingly unconstitutional"? I don't recall a court ever coming to that conclusion.

[G-DDT]

Anything can be far-flung into a fundamentalist extreme, be it right or left. Also, I have seen poor representations of the political parties-be they conservative or liberal or moderate. The bias is usually towards the conservative extreme. No, Synder is not a moderate. Much of our "liberals" [[including Obama, but conservatives attacks him for all the wrong things) are more like the conservatives of thirty years ago. Everything got shifted over while we were asleep.

Also, we assume too much of what is a political stance that typifies a party. As if there aren't gay republicans? I saw far too many examples of gay culture with prominence and affluence in many college towns and southern regions [[especially where they would sooner respect a dandy coming from "old money" than they would a tired, humble black minister-real Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil type stuff) covertly courting and bedding conservative parties as tax-break favoring constituents. They are the owners of restaurants, galleries, boutiques, and many other businesses who live in the nicest areas of towns with lush gardens maintained by contractors; they put on a show of "Boo Bush!", "Pat Robertson can piss up a flagpole!" and "Isn't this war just dreadful?" to all the young, idealistic flesh out there, but come voting time....Just look at gated and secure communities like Sundance and the holdings they have in many major corporations [[including oil). A far cry from being genuinely liberal. This was a huge gripe for a lot of wise, old timer liberals living in Madison, WI and Cambridge, MA-not some baseless presumptions on my part here.

The most endangered aspects of liberalism are not anti-censorship [[think of all the rich folks who like their vintage porn), hedonism [[all those date-raping college frat kids on spring break who nepotistically get their careers; let's not forget the the Bohemian Club), abortion [[which used to be supported eugenically by many Repubs prior to the '70s), fighting a disease [[oh yeah, Bush and all his Skull and Bones types who believe in "research and inquiry even at the expense of others" were really against stem-cell research, right?!), or even environmentalism [[actually, many Massachusetts folks quietly praise the Bush family for making many environmental restorations to the New England coast-in a most begrudging sort of muttering way; many post-millennial conservative religious groups, like the Lutherans, are pro-environmental). This notion that perversely rich Republicans are stuffy, dry-mouthed fuddy-duddies is a huge misnomer. Many of our biggest Bacchanalian festivals [[like Mardi Gras) were started by wealthy, racist secret societies. No, I see civil rights regarding race and immigration, an end to capitol punishment, poverty alleviation [[something most politicians don't want to cut their throats on), how war is treated, labor [[including overseas abuses with child labor exploitation),and globalization as being true and endangered aspect of liberalism. Those aspects are no longer being represented by the prominent "liberal" politicians today.

[G-DDT]

Regarding the far-flung exaggerated notion about this being a theocracy. Yes, it does bother me that those who got married through civil channels [[Justice of Peace or otherwise) might be threatened with invalidation. I may be Christian, but I am quite outspoken against the Religious Right. Christianity may have it's right to be represented in politics [[as all various groups should fairly and equally be represented), but it has no place in dominating government. The Catholic Church made that mistake when it was going through it's "terrible twos" [[all movements age slower than individual humans) and was just a front for the real "powers that be" that eventually dissolved partnership after the 1300's.

What will happen when society burns itself out on it's hedonism [[internet porn has is already ruining folks-just ask Japan), and excesses [[just like folks did in the '70s and were sluiced into voting Reagan), or becomes financially strapped and desperate like post-WW1 Germany? What things will society [[after being therapeutically re-processed-of course) lean on for structure and spiritual support to fill certain unattainable voids? Anything that appears to be or feels like Christianity [[or some other "quasi-spiritual movement"-since Hitler thought God was on his side-so did all supporters of the Third Reich) and can dictate to them on everything from relationships to politics and eventually motivate them nationalistically [[like Nazi Germany). How will such a politico-religious movement [[run by the Religious Right?) carry itself during it's "terrible two's"-with firebrands and racks or with sonic weaponry, pharmaceuticals, drones, laser satellites, nano-technology, or worse...Now, there is where the scenario of theocracy becomes formidable and disturbing.