Who’s rights are next on the chopping block?

The State of Michigan is having a North Carolina styled fit on the rights of its citizens.  I don’t know what’s in the water there, but whatever it is, I sure hope they don’t allow it to flow downstream to Georgia.

The first story that caught my eyes coming from Michigan was in regards to a court case that is challenging Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriages.  In this case, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse originally filed a lawsuit to challenge Michigan’s adoption laws but the case mutated into a challenge to the ban on same-sex marriages.

In a brief filed by lawyers of the state, there are two sentences that stick out in what appears to be government over reach into the bedroom of its citizens.  In that brief, you find these two passages:

  • “Post Windsor, it is clear that Michigan has exclusive authority to govern domestic relations, and that authority should not be disrupted short of constitutional violations.”
  • 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.

Pardon me, but since when has it been the government’s purpose to regulate what we do in the privacy of our own homes?  I don’t ever recall learning that lesson in high school civics class.  What we do in the privacy of our own homes as consenting adults is of no business to the government as long as we are not breaking any laws.

What’s next, will they require us to install coitus meters to ensure we’re doing enough screwing each week to meet some arbitrary quota?  I can’t believe this argument is coming from lawyers for the same party that had Grand Mal fits at the notion of women being provided birth control pills as part of their health insurance coverage.

So, let me get this straight…  The government should not allow women and their doctors to make the choice to end a pregnancy on their own.  The government doesn’t think that health insurance should include birth control pills for women but does not argue about Viagra being covered for men.  And now the government has the exclusive authority to govern domestic relations to ensure that men knock women up.

I guess that, when you put it all together, it make sense.  There is no “War on Women”, this is all about “taking our country back”, if that means taking it back to the time when women were barefoot, pregnant, and knew their roles in the house.

The other story out of Michigan has to do with the conservative’s latest game of squash the 4th Amendment.  The text of the 4th Amendment reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This doesn’t appear to apply to those who apply for public assistance though.  Time and time again, we’ve seen states pass these laws that require people to submit to drug tests when applying for public assistance.  I guess the people passing these laws have no concept of what constitutes a reasonable and/or unreasonable search.  There’s also that wording “that no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause” which contradicts these laws.  It’s a sad day when the elected officials themselves have no concept of Constitutional Rights.  I guess we can blame Obama, since he’s the one who is always being accused of shredding the Constitution.  Maybe he secretly wrote these laws in all the states were they have been passed and signed into law.

Where is the probable cause that leads to a search for drugs in these cases?  Where is the articulable facts that prove the search to be reasonable?  Can we even round up enough reasonable suspicion to make this ok with the 4th?

I understand the idea behind the law, but this is not the way to do it.  If you want to reduce the number of people on public assistance, then you need to ensure the public and private sector are working together to create the necessary employment for people to be able to subsist without having to need assistance in the first place.  You’re not going to have that kind of atmosphere when the government is intent on cutting its spending while the private sector refuses to spend.  We live in a consumption based economy which means our economy does well when we spend.  Right now, our economy sucks because the private sector is hoarding cash using the lame assed excuse of “uncertainty”.  There is no such thing as certainty in business.  If there was, then everybody who started a business would be wildly successful instead of most start-ups failing within the first few years.

Michigan, drop the piss cups and get out of the bedroom of your citizens.  Work on providing jobs and economic opportunity, and your citizens will do the rest.  America hasn’t survived more than 200 years because of an overbearing government that wants to control every single aspect of our life.  That’s not America nor is it what being an American is all about.




3 thoughts on “Who’s rights are next on the chopping block?

  1. Brosephus, does Michigan have a large catholic population? I remember being taught in catholic school that the sole purpose of marital sex (tho that word was never used) was procreation. Yes, we are talking a few years ago; I graduated from (catholic) highschool in 1959. Maybe the new pope can do some good, but am not holding my breath. Must say, I am really worried about the direction too many of our citizens seem to be going, despite many gains for those of us who believe in & embrace what we see as change for the better.


    • Looking at Wiki, the breakdown for religion in Michigan puts Catholics at 23% of the total population based on a survey done in 2007. I’ve heard others mention that as well, but I think things change as our society progresses.

      One thing I look at is how these decisions affect our freedoms. Both parties are guilty of pulling stunts that impede on our freedoms, but I take it as being hypocritical when a party does it while claiming to be all about upholding the Constitution.

      I worry about how the decisions made now will affect my children. I’m not as worried about me because I’ve always been a fighter. I simply don’t want them to start off with two strikes against them before they even get a chance to step to the plate. These things kinda strike me a bit more because of the fact that I am raising girls and not boys.


      • Yes, it’s harder with girls. Unless you raise ’em to be ninjas, they are more vulnerable. As the mom of 2 daughters & 1 son and the grandmom of 4 girls & 3 boys, I think you do the best you can to protect them & PRAY a lot!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s