Observations on Michigan Marriage Ruling

With the overturning of Michigan’s “ban on same-sex marriage” I feel obliged to point out a few matters that ought to be addressed in it’s wake.

First to the women who filed the lawsuit, allow me to say that you garnered some measure of respect from me in the fact that between the two of you, you have adopted three special-needs children and that your desire for their care was said to be the reason for filing said suit. If that was the case, truly the case, why not just make out wills that clearly identified your sexual partner as the person you wanted to have legal custody of your child/children. I mean, just from a pragmatic point of view, that would seems to be the least problematic, most direct means of securing that goal. Smart people do that all the time. So, why not do that?

Secondly, to the state attorney general: don’t give up, you are fighting for the majority of Michigan’s voters who overwhelmingly approved that law. Join with those states who are taking this fight all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

So, if you are still with me, let me point out just a few things that stand out in this case on the back-end:

1. This was never about the children. It is a shameless tactic of liberals to bring children into a fight and use them as human sheilds in the face of common sense. As I said, if it was simply “about the children” there were several legal routes open to these women to address the care of these children that never involved going to court. Besides that, if these women truly loved these children, they would have ended their liáson and entered into a normal, natural relationship, because, both of them being nurses, would know the risks associated with their lifestyle and would seek to create an environment where these children could be loved and cared forwhere they could experience the love of a mother and a father.

2. This case proved that scientific data is ignored in political matters. This was the first time that a state employed the tactic of using established and, so far, incontrovertible socio-scientific data in its defense of its marriage laws. When it came down to it, one judge decided not to be bothered by the facts and endorse a detrimental choice. What else is new?

3. This case proved that an equally applied law means nothing against a political agenda. In every state where same-sex marriage isn’t recognized, it is because the state, and by that we mean its citizens, have decided to reduce administrative clutter and only give legal prefference to one particular union, a union that promotes societal stability, a union that produces and raises the next generation of future citizens. “But what about gays?” someone will ask. What are “gays”? They are black, asian, caucasion, yellow, red, men, and women that practice homosexuality. Guess what, when the law is applied, it is applied to people who practice heterosexuality equally as well.So, is the political agenda to promote homosexuality? No, I don’t think so. I think the agenda is to spread fear, distrust, anarchy, to cause people to desire a dictatorial totalitarian regime that will set everything right, and establish order so people can just get back to living their little lives.

You see, being both a God-fearing man and a freedom-loving human being, I realize that the truest freedom is brought about through autonomy, through self-law. But I realize that when you look for a law to rule your members, you really need a king in your heart. If I were to unseat this ruler in my heart, this king who has given me two laws, just two, “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself”, the havoc I would unleash, havoc that is slowly being unleashed by black-robed oligarchs and elitist liberal politicians, and I have to weep.



  1. Mmm. Those laws. Then, why are you not loving your neighbour.
    You ascribe bad motives, and lying about them, to your neighbour. You have no grounds for this.
    You do not understand that your neighbour is different from you, or that your neighbour has different legitimate desires. You say your desires are acceptable, but your neighbour’s are not. This is not loving your neighbour.
    Thank God, equal marriage is more and more prevalent.

    • You have a right to your opinion, but that does not make it correct. But let’s clarify a few things.
      I’d like to know what bad motives I ascribed and what lies I told and about whom. I did make, what could be called perhaps over, generalizations but I made those as observations of greater scope. does that make them right or wrong? Only time will tell.
      Let’s be clear here, anyone’s “neighbor” is only as different from them as their personality goes. If we go to the portion of scripture in which the prophet Moses is articulating exactly what that command entails, we get a stark picture of what exactly “loving one’s neighbor” exactly is (Leviticus 19:1-18), from the perspective of the God who gave the command. (All of which come on the heels of God’s indictment of the Canaanites in chapter 18 of that same book, which this nation is treading mighty close to in its pattern of behavior.)
      Further than that, it is fitting to identify what legitimate desires truly are and are not. Desires can be good and bad, healthy and unhealthy, natural and unnatural, but these desires are not legitimized by men in government, but by nature, more than that, by the God who established nature, who has the only true right to say what is right and wrong in accordance with his goodness. And let’s be abundantly clear, I never, never, ever intended to even assert that those who engage in what we call heterosexuality are any different or any better than those who engage in homosexuality, a word that was invented by a Christian to describe the state of the society in Corinth, which was reflective of the Greco-Roman culture in general.
      Nature is pretty clear about certain things, among them is what exactly is “marriage”, which is simply a term used to describe the state in which a strong familial bond begins and explodes out into society. That description is from past and is abundantly clear: one man, one woman, joined for life, producing and raising the next generation. As a society, generally speaking, we have held that description inviolable, until recently, bestowing on them certain privledges that would enable them to do just that task. Now the favored argument is to insert those relationships that do not produce children, which is irrelavent to the argument because that is either because of choice or circumstance and that fact doesn’t violate or render obsolete the assembly of the component parts. An engine that is never installed in a fixture in which it can work is STILL an engine, it still has potential until it is obliterated. To equate relationships that are inherently unequal is like comparing a Ferrari with a 20-inch pushmower, the comparison stops when you actually look at them and you realize just how unequal they truly are.
      I will have to apologize if my mechanical metaphors seem out of reach, my primary field is mechanical and electrical engineering with empasis on application, with minors in psychology, sociology, philosophy and religion.

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