ChelseaBob

Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 12:35 p.m.

Maxwell- You make the mistake that so many people make these days. You are outraged that same sex couples are stereotyped and put down and made third class citizens. Then you turn around and stereotype all conservatives and put them down and attempt to marginalize them. It doesn't work. I'm a true conservative and a Christian, and my question is, "why is the government involved in mariage at all?" There are two components to marriage, one contractual and one spiritual. The contractual arrangement any two (or more) people wish to make is up to them, as long as it doesn't involve illegal activity. Therefore the government should recognize and respect these contracts and not interfere. Let's end the tax breaks and other laws that favor one contract over another. The Spiritual part of marriage should be up to whatever church or temple, if any, you wish be a member of. Some churches won't recognize a same sex union. That's because of their view of God's laws. If that's not your view, then that's not the church or temple for you. The true conservative view calls for a free country with free men and women. If you're not impinging on the rights of others, then you're free to do what you like. If I don't like what you're doing, I'm free to express that opinion. Less government, more freedom. Let's try that out. I think we'll all be happier.

Roger Roth

Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 12:52 a.m.

Now I've heard everything in MI: let G&Ls get married because it will be good for the economy?????!!!!!!!!!!! What a joke. If I were gay I'd laugh myself dead. How about this? Try and stop G&Ls from being married when it's their constitutional right to do so--even if it's BAD for the economy. Good Grief! Why does anyone care who someone else marries? Like Chris Christie says about people butting into his school choice, "it's none of your business."

seasons

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 9:53 p.m.

Mixing religious beliefs with governing doesn't ever bode well for the good of the whole. It is of concern that Michigan presents itself as being so religously conservative that science is distained, equal rights are denied based upon ones sexual orientation and old technology and energy sources are considered good enough. Yes, Michigan's environment isn't the best for attracting and keeping innovative and substantive busness ventures.

Tarc

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 9:38 p.m.

I know at least 20 people that are currently looking or actualling making more advanced moves to leave the state over this. I certainly will be.

Fred Crothers

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 8:56 p.m.

Well it is easy to tell what the writer of this question is looking for!! It is a well written LOADED question? You know already what the answer is!! So why ask??!! As my dad used to say" some is and some isn't, those that want to come here will and those that don't won't" IF there was work here there wouldn't be this kind of debate!

Bluefire

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 8:43 p.m.

To use the words of sign apparently posted in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York, a photograph of which made lightening rounds through Facebook yesterday: If you're against gay marriage, blame straight people. They're the ones having gay babies. (Photograph credited to Anne Thornton.) (I've posted reference to it because I thought it was both incredibly insightful and funny as "heck.")

dogpaddle

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 8:42 p.m.

To FreedomofSpeech: apparently you have ignored the beginning of The First Amendment that has what's called the Establishment Clause preventing Congress from making any laws with respect to religion before it states we all have freedom to worship freely or not. So it really doesn't matter how you interpret your bible; what does matter is how we interpret our sacred Constitution in this great nation. Secondly, why should your religious beliefs trump someone else's since there is allegedly no official state religion? Some religions approve of same gender marriages. Why are their religious beliefs not honored also? I think New York did the right thing. It protected church's from performing marriages it does not believe in (which is part of The First Amendment) while still adhering to the Fourteenth Amendment which grants equal access to all citizens and is what will be used to finally put this ridiculous argument to rest when a person can finally marry whomever they are in love with (or for convenience as many heterosexuals have the choice to do) when it finally becomes the law of the land Federally and will in the not too distant future and that ridiculous law that a slim majority of voters passed here in 2004 will become unconstitutional! The notion that we can vote on whether or not to discriminate and exclude another group from having rights should've been found unconstitutional years ago and will be.

Doug

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 8:19 p.m.

People choosing not to move to Michigan because we have a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a figment of someone's distorted imagination. People move to or leave Michigan for myriad reasons: jobs, natural resources, schools, family, etc. To relate this issue to Michigan's dire economy is absurd.

Floyd Griffey

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 7:08 p.m.

Ha, Ha, Ha So What.

Rork Kuick

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 6:56 p.m.

I agree that, like a tattered rag, the MI constitution can change direction with every change in the wind. The rare good news about that: the wind has changed. If you think the ban on gay marriage is firmly established or overwhelmingly approved, these facts: it got 58.6% of the vote, that's just the people who voted then, and that was 2004. Polls suggest that if we just use a word other than marriage that we can fix this now (there are several polls, search "MI gay marriage poll"). If we demand that word, might take a little longer - perhaps slightly longer than federal action, perhaps not.

JSA

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 5:44 p.m.

Would someone explain to me why putting gay marriage on the ballot violates the conversation guidelines?

FreedomOfSpeech

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 5:14 p.m.

"Gay Marriage" is an oxymoron. I'm not phobic of homosexuals either. It's, as the Bible states, wrong.

John A2

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 5:05 p.m.

There was never a word for homo's until the Christians crusaded across the European Continent. Even then it was not a word it took some 2-3 hundred years before a pope denied gays and made it bad. I don't understand why the Christians chose to do so, because the Roman and Greek Empires used this bond between two men to make their armies stronger and a true force that had male lovers protecting each other while in battle. A man was known to be 10 times stronger while protecting their lover. This one tactic was the best weapon that made long lasting and powerful civilizations. Christians were a very small group of people who were frowned upon and many were also put to death by regimes of soldiers. I studied history enough to find that the Christians burned and confiscated all the literature of the times and what was not burned was taken to the churches and kept in a volt to be sent on to the pope. What I found was there was absolutely no regard to Christ or Christians predating 4 -5 hundred AD. In fact I could not find proof that Jesus ever existed. The Dime God of the Christian faith was not heard of nor was there anything whiten about him from the time he was supposedly living on earth. The best guess I can provide is he is a fictional character of a best selling novel.

Another Michael

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 4:48 p.m.

Frankly, I don't find this line of argument very persuasive. Surely some gay persons and same-sex families consider state-level marriage discrimination an important factor in deciding where to live and work. However, I haven't seen any data that establishes a large impact on the economy as a whole (the CFM article doesn't even try to show that the cited employment numbers are causally related to marriage laws). Somehow I suspect that even if a massive talent drain were shown, most of the remaining opponents of gay marriage would consider this a fair cost for keeping their morals codified. Michigan would be a richer state if it legalized same-sex marriage. I just wouldn't look for the results in these types of metrics.

JSA

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 4:19 p.m.

Put it on the ballot then and let the voters decide.

amlive

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 3:53 p.m.

I am still shaking my head in disbelief that we passed such an archaic, fundamentalist, knee-jerk, discriminatory law in to our constitution so recently. I am just as much flabbergasted that all it takes to pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT in Michigan is a simple majority vote at the public poles. First off, our constitution should be no place to limit rights of any particular group, but I feel should be held as a somewhat more sacred protector of rights. Second, if all it takes is a 50.1% vote, then I seriously think it's time we rethink our constitutional amendment process. A constitution should be reserved to protect rights, and is not a place to limit them, potentially left up to the bigotry or ignorance of a simple majority. Leave the process of what to make illegal up to the legislature. This type of thing does not belong in any constitution. Or if we are to leave anything and everything eligible to be added to our constitution, the amendment process should be take much more seriously, perhaps requiring at least a 2/3 majority vote.

eJohn

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 3:46 p.m.

I've known quite a few graduating seniors from both UofM and Eastern that didn't consider staying in Michigan at least in part because of our marriage equality ban. And they're not all gay folks, either. Many in the HR world will tell you that more and more straight, married people applying for jobs will ask about a company's domestic partner benefits, not because they even qualify to take them, but because it says a great deal about the company if they value their GLBT employees enough to offer such benefits. It's the same with moving here. If you were a gay person or someone with close friends or family that are gay, and you could choose to job search anywhere in the country, would your first choice be places where your friends and family are more likely to be treated respectfully and equally and would be more comfortable visiting, or somewhere else?

Kafkaland

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 3:45 p.m.

I have frequently been involved in hiring of top-notch professionals from out of state for the university, and I can tell you first hand that this perceived or, one might argue, actual unfriendly climate towards LGBT people in the state, plus the uncertainty over whether domestic partner benefits will continue to be provided by the university, do have a negative impact on hiring, and also on retention. In situations where this matters we do emphasize the unvavering commitment of the university to equality for all, but everyone knows that the state as a whole has very different "values" - that is, does not value its LGBT citizens as equal. Just from cases I personally know of failed recruitments or retentions where LGBT issues played a major role, I can easily put the monetary damage done to UM in the high seven figure range, perhaps even higher.

Steve in MI

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.

CBG, it's hyperbole to say that "nobody" is moving to Michigan. There *are* jobs here (although fewer here than in other states). There are people who stay, but there have been fewer over the years. There are people who move here, although there are fewer that we would need to sustain economic growth. A simple non-discrimination law, combine with *some* degree of marriage equality, would be a good step toward growth/retention. Not a cure-all, but a good step. The religious right has ensured that Michigan is unwelcoming to LGBT Americans and their families. People will choose where to live, when to leave, and where to set up shop accordingly.

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 3:19 p.m.

Red herring. The fact is, nobody is moving to Michigan, and this has nothing to do with it. It's because there are no jobs. Go ahead and legalize marriage. There will still be no jobs here. Economic effect shouldn't determine whether there should be gay marriage. People will vote on what they think is right or wrong. My prediction is that a Domestic Partner law, with all the same privileges as marriage, would likely pass in Michigan, but attempts to use the term "marriage" will probably continue to fail. Good Night and Good Grief

Maxwell

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 2:58 p.m.

"Michigan has about 3.54 same-sex couples per 1,000 households, about 30.7 percent less than the national average of 5.11 couples per 1,000 nationally" This is exactly what the homophobes hoped for when they pushed for the ban. If you were black would you move to a region that supports apartheid? I doubt it. Conservatives are all about their freedoms and all about restricting others' if they don't like them.