Michigan Fighting To Keep Ban On The Gay Marriage 'To Regulate Sexual Relationships' Like That's A Good Thing
Oh sigh. We are so tired of these dead-enders who can't accept that the gay agenda is totes coming to your town, thanks to that raging gay homosexual judicial activist (but only when he rules against the right; otherwise he's just doing what Thomas Jesus Jefferson would have wanted) Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was all, like, "Huh, why do we have some dumb law that makes gays unequal when we are 'Merica and are supposed to be super hot for equality?" (We are paraphrasing a little. But just a little.)
Take Michigan (no, please take it, ha!), which is cage-match, to-the-death fighting to keep its ban on the gay homosexual marriage, but for a REALLY good reason: because your sexytime is SO the state's bidness. For the kids!
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. The understanding of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the rearing of children born of their union, is age-old, universal, and enduring.
Oh yeah. That again. Marriage has always been about one dude and one chick raising 2.3 kids in a split-level tract house, except for how nuh-uh. Also, we are fairly sure no one, not even the straights, really wants the state to get all up in their sexytime relationships. Like, how does that work? Does Michigan want to create a whole new Department of Regulating Your Sexytime, sending investigators into your bedroom to let you know if you're doing it wrong? No, no, your leg goes HERE, her hand goes THERE. Maybe the new department will audit every married household to make sure you are popping out them babies like some kind of Duggar because that is what marriage is for. Maybe Michigan could start rounding up the marrieds who are not mass producing because what, then, is even the point of their "sexual relationships" if they are not fulfilling their "procreative capacity"?
Or here's a so-wacky-it-just-might-work idea: Maybe Michigan could just leave the gays alone, fer Chrissake, and stop pretending people's sexual relationships are any of the state's concern and let the gays get married and fight about whose turn it is to unload the dishwasher if that's what they want, and Michigan could pay a little bit more attention to some of its other interests, like shoring up its "Skunk Works" shadow government and sending more brave souls to Congress who will work hard to find a way to impeach the president. You know, important stuff like that.