Marriage equality or Right to Work

**renf** · December-11-12, 08:43 AM

If the state legislature wishes to promote job growth in Michigan, would It not be more effective to pass a marriage equality law rather than a right to work law? Does the lack of marriage equality here discourage the in-migration of more than a few highly skilled entrepreneurial people? Does Michigan want to be among the final states to provide equal opportunities for marriage? Civil rights issues may be important for attracting highly skilled individuals.

**gnome** · December-11-12, 09:24 AM

You raise an interesting point. The Governor has painted his position on RTW as offering workers a choice in how they conduct their personal affairs; by extension, the Governor should equally offer people the choice to love whomever they choose.

choice is about freedom and freedom should not be restricted by governments or Governors.

**Bham1982** · December-11-12, 09:42 AM

They don't care about "choice"; they just want to break the unions.

And I'm not even really pro-union.

**Goose** · December-11-12, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

They don't care about "choice"; they just want to break the unions.

And I'm not even really pro-union.

thats ironic

as the Democrats only care about "choice" when it comes to abortions and homosexuality...

other than that, you are too stupid to decide for yourself......

JVB · December-11-12, 09:54 AM

Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

From a legal standpoint, any consenting adults should be able to enter into a partnership just like they would in a business, and if they want a "divorce" then they can dissolve that partnership. This could include a partnership of one man and one woman, or any other combination of people that wish to join into a communal arrangement recognized by the government. It should include all of the legal provisions that a marriage does.

A marriage should be left alone to be performed as a non-legally binding ceremonial joining of people according to their specific traditions. That way the religious people don't feel like their traditions are being trampled on, and consenting adults that are gay, straight or other can enjoy all of the same rights as any other person does.

Problem solved.

**Honky Tonk** · December-11-12, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

They don't care about "choice"; they just want to break the unions.

Then someone should inform them marriage is a union. That ought to do it.

**TexasT** · December-11-12, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by JVB

Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

From a legal standpoint, any consenting adults should be able to enter into a partnership just like they would in a business, and if they want a "divorce" then they can dissolve that partnership. This could include a partnership of one man and one woman, or any other combination of people that wish to join into a communal arrangement recognized by the government. It should include all of the legal provisions that a marriage does.

A marriage should be left alone to be performed as a non-legally binding ceremonial joining of a man and a woman. That way the religious people don't feel like their traditions are being trampled on, and consenting adults that are gay, straight or other can enjoy all of the same rights as any other person does.

Problem solved.

It's impossible to take government out of it when so many of the marriage benefits are governmental benefits. Intestate procedures, favorable tax treatment, immigration rights.

You can get married without registering your relationship with the state. Socially, nobody knows the difference and your spouse is recognized as your spouse. We did that for a bit before legally tying the knot and nobody knew the difference.

**Bham1982** · December-11-12, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Goose

thats ironic

as the Democrats only care about "choice" when it comes to abortions and homosexuality...

other than that, you are too stupid to decide for yourself......

You already have choice when you decide where to work. I don't understand why you need the "option" of starving the union representing you. It obviously creates the free-rider problem, and will harm middle class wages and collective bargaining.

No state ever union-busted its way to prosperity. Rich states, like California and New York, are pretty much all union states. Poor states, like Alabama and Mississippi, are pretty much all right-to-work.

Instead of just groveling for WalMart jobs, we should be building up our high value knowledge industries.

Granted, unions can be a pain sometimes, and I'm not fully supportive of their agenda. But I don't think this is the answer.

JVB · December-11-12, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by TexasT

It's impossible to take government out of it when so many of the marriage benefits are governmental benefits. Intestate procedures, favorable tax treatment, immigration rights.

That's the point of registering your union as a partnership with the state, to gain those exact benefits. We already have legally recognized partnerships which will split assets upon dissolution. The framework is already in place. Let marriage just be a ceremony that people can either partake in or not, but one with no legal binding. If you want the legal binding for your "marriage", form a partnership with the state.

**Eber Brock Ward** · December-11-12, 10:29 AM

We already have legally recognized partnerships which will split assets upon dissolution.

Adam and Steve LLC

**CassTechGrad** · December-11-12, 11:37 AM

The purpose of marriage is to support the human right and the civil right of every child to live a normal life with a mother and a father.

**jt1** · December-11-12, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by CassTechGrad

The purpose of marriage is to support the human right and the civil right of every child to live a normal life with a mother and a father.

Well then the heteros have really screwed that up.

**Bham1982** · December-11-12, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by CassTechGrad

The purpose of marriage is to support the human right and the civil right of every child to live a normal life with a mother and a father.

So straight marriage should be invalidated if it doesn't involve producing children?

Marriage is a contract. It should be allowed for any consenting adults. Religious marriage needs to be fully separated from civil recognition of marriage.

**TexasT** · December-11-12, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by CassTechGrad

The purpose of marriage is to support the human right and the civil right of every child to live a normal life with a mother and a father.

The government has several interests in promoting the institution of marriage, one of which is a stable home for rearing children. Part of that stability comes from financial stability, which is way more prevalent in a two-parent home, and which is also another government interest. Marriage makes it less likely that you'll need to be on the government dole, either as an adult or a child, which is the primary reason the government has any role in this.

**Bham1982** · December-11-12, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by TexasT

The government has several interests in promoting the institution of marriage, one of which is a stable home for rearing children. Part of that stability comes from financial stability, which is way more prevalent in a two-parent home, and which is also another government interest. Marriage makes it less likely that you'll need to be on the government dole, either as an adult or a child, which is the primary reason the government has any role in this.

I'm pretty sure that civil recognition of marriage isn't presently based on any of these things.

I mean, it's to prevent the "government dole"? The biggest federal subsidy for most families is the mortgage deduction. The biggest local and state expenditure is schools. Both schools and mortgage deductions disproportionately benefit "traditional" family units.

Great Society-style redistributive programs are a tiny proportion of the overall budget, at any governmental level, and aren't really intertwined with marriage recognition.

If we really wanted to have the least "goverment dole", we should probably encourage gay marriage, since you're usually talking about two earner couples without the public costs of educating offspring.

**TexasT** · December-11-12, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I'm pretty sure that civil recognition of marriage isn't presently based on any of these things.

I mean, it's to prevent the "government dole"? The biggest federal subsidy for most families is the mortgage deduction. The biggest local and state expenditure is schools. Both schools and mortgage deductions disproportionately benefit "traditional" family units.

Great Society-style redistributive programs are a tiny proportion of the overall budget, at any governmental level, and aren't really intertwined with marriage recognition.

If we really wanted to have the least "goverment dole", we should probably encourage gay marriage, since you're usually talking about two earner couples without the public costs of educating offspring.

I'm talking about why the government cares in the first place - why do they recognize marriage at all? What does the government get out of people getting married - stability, safety, intact families. Why does the government care about those things [[on a high level, theoretical basis)? The mortgage deduction is different - that's to promote home ownership, which really, is for a lot of the same reason. Safer, more intact neighborhoods, savings mechanism, etc.

And I agree - gay marriage plays the same overall role, so I don't have any problem with it.

**JBMcB** · December-11-12, 11:55 AM

Marriage equality AND right to work. Next question?

**jiminnm** · December-11-12, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by TexasT

The government has several interests in promoting the institution of marriage, one of which is a stable home for rearing children. Part of that stability comes from financial stability, which is way more prevalent in a two-parent home, and which is also another government interest. Marriage makes it less likely that you'll need to be on the government dole, either as an adult or a child, which is the primary reason the government has any role in this.

That's been the argument for government sanctioned marriage for a long time. It's hasn't exactly worked out that way.

"About 80% of first children born to black women were outside of marriage; 18% of these women were cohabiting. Among Hispanics, 53% of first children were born outside of marriage, and 30% of the women were cohabiting. Among white women, 34% of first children were born outside of marriage, 20% to cohabiters. Among Asians, 13% of first children were born outside of marriage; 7% of women were cohabiting."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/NEWS/...ds---_ST_U.htm

http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles...-unmarried.htm

JVB · December-11-12, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by jiminnm

"About 80% of first children born to black women were outside of marriage; 18% of these women were cohabiting. Among Hispanics, 53% of first children were born outside of marriage, and 30% of the women were cohabiting. Among white women, 34% of first children were born outside of marriage, 20% to cohabiters. Among Asians, 13% of first children were born outside of marriage; 7% of women were cohabiting."

You can trace the vast majority of societal ills back to this problem right here.

**Det_ard** · December-11-12, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by jiminnm

That's been the argument for government sanctioned marriage for a long time. It's hasn't exactly worked out that way.

"About 80% of first children born to black women were outside of marriage; 18% of these women were cohabiting. Among Hispanics, 53% of first children were born outside of marriage, and 30% of the women were cohabiting. Among white women, 34% of first children were born outside of marriage, 20% to cohabiters. Among Asians, 13% of first children were born outside of marriage; 7% of women were cohabiting."

And the Asian SAT scores are off the charts. That settles it, I'm becoming Asian.

**detroitsgwenivere** · December-11-12, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Det_ard

And the Asian SAT scores are off the charts. That settles it, I'm becoming Asian.

Hahahahaha me too

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · December-11-12, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by renf

If the state legislature wishes to promote job growth in Michigan, would It not be more effective to pass a marriage equality law rather than a right to work law? Does the lack of marriage equality here discourage the in-migration of more than a few highly skilled entrepreneurial people? Does Michigan want to be among the final states to provide equal opportunities for marriage? Civil rights issues may be important for attracting highly skilled individuals.

This is a false choice. Michigan would benefit from both legal gay marriage and being a right-to-work state. Both enhance individual freedom; freedom attracts people.

**Knightmessenger** · December-14-12, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by JVB

Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

From a legal standpoint, any consenting adults should be able to enter into a partnership just like they would in a business, and if they want a "divorce" then they can dissolve that partnership. This could include a partnership of one man and one woman, or any other combination of people that wish to join into a communal arrangement recognized by the government. It should include all of the legal provisions that a marriage does.

A marriage should be left alone to be performed as a non-legally binding ceremonial joining of people according to their specific traditions. That way the religious people don't feel like their traditions are being trampled on, and consenting adults that are gay, straight or other can enjoy all of the same rights as any other person does.

Problem solved.

completely agree. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have Right to Work and same sex marriage. If you like being in a union, you still have the same opportunity to be in one. And if you like someone of the opposite sex, you still have every opportunity to marry them.
In both cases, they provide freedom to those who are in the minority.

**Detroitnerd** · December-14-12, 06:29 PM

I do think that the outstate Republican yahoos don't understand that when they try to usher the bad old days of the early 20th century back in they alienate a lot of the top-tier corporations and job providers. Smart companies want smart employees, regardless of gender, race, orientation, religion or party. They take great pains to show that they are equal opportunity employers who won't brook old-fashioned chauvinism in the workplace. They are more than happy to offer same-sex benefits, for instance. And the employees who seek out those kinds of employers tend to value personal liberty and be progressive on social issues. These are the kinds of companies we want here.

But when you have rabid dogs like Tom McMillin and Gary Glenn out to bash gays back into the closet, anti-union wingnuts like Dick Devos calling in orders on Right to Work, a xenophobic Secretary of State who puts citizenship questions on ballots in defiance of the governor, regressive outstate woman-haters trying to control our reproductive rights, terror-crazy upstate reps who want drones in our skies -- and every one of them would say they have a pro-business agenda -- something is seriously wrong here.

I don't usually subscribe to party orders, but I read something the other day that interested me: Conservatives want and need everyone to be like them and liberals are not displeased when some people are different from them.

I think that's the crux here. Successful businesses involve lots of people meeting together and challenging one another's perspectives on many things. Successful businesses want people from different backgrounds to bring their observations to bear so everybody is more fully informed. Successful businesses embrace different kinds of people to form a greater whole.

Our outstate Michiganders largely don't understand that. I see a bunch of scared people who, in the article's words, "see difference as a discomfort and social inconvenience to be avoided as much as reasonably possible and those who see difference as a danger and a crime for special condemnation." These people simply don't understand that the world is not Podunk, Mich., and that worldly people enjoy having their assumptions challenged.

So I say that, if they really are pro-business, these reactionaries are shooting us all in the foot with this effort to reset the clock around 1912. And I suspect that many of them aren't really even pro-business at all -- they confuse an interest in and understanding of business with a simple and boring love of money.

**Gistok** · December-14-12, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by JVB

Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

From a legal standpoint, any consenting adults should be able to enter into a partnership just like they would in a business, and if they want a "divorce" then they can dissolve that partnership. This could include a partnership of one man and one woman, or any other combination of people that wish to join into a communal arrangement recognized by the government. It should include all of the legal provisions that a marriage does.

Sounds fair... but lets keep the limit to "2" in any communal arrangement... otherwise you'll make a small percentage of Mormon's very happy!