Michigan Says Its Same-Sex Marriage Ban Helps Boost Population Growth

Without the ability to regulate sexual relationships, how can a state survive?

Margaret Miles, right, celebrates with wife Cathy ten Broeke, left, after they were married at the Minneapolis Freedom to Marry Celebration and Weddings, Thursday, Aug. 1, 2013 at the Minneapolis City Hall. The couple were the first women legally married in Minnesota.
National Journal
Matt Berman
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Matt Berman
Sept. 18, 2013, 9:29 a.m.

It’s a slip­pery slope. First, a state al­lows same-sex couples to wed. Next, the state loses the abil­ity to mon­it­or sexu­al con­duct, every­one stops hav­ing ba­bies, and the state be­comes a ver­it­able ghost town.

That may sound a bit crazy, but it’s roughly the de­fense that law­yers rep­res­ent­ing the state of Michigan are mak­ing as part of a case al­leging that a law ban­ning same-sex ad­op­tions is un­con­sti­tu­tion­al. At­tor­neys for Michigan state and Gov. Rick Snyder say the state’s con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment de­fin­ing mar­riage as between a man and a wo­man is vi­tal and that, without it, the state wouldn’t be able to “reg­u­late sexu­al re­la­tion­ships.” Which would, you know, lead to nobody hav­ing sexu­al re­la­tion­ships any­more, and then the pop­u­la­tion de­clines.

In the at­tor­neys’ words, as filed in a re­cent mo­tion:

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. As il­lus­trated by a pleth­ora of re­search, so­cial sci­ent­ists have con­sist­ently re­cog­nized the es­sen­tial con­nec­tion between mar­riage and re­spons­ible pro­cre­ation and chil­drear­ing.

The at­tor­neys con­tin­ue:

In tra­di­tion­al mar­riage, there is then both a moth­er and a fath­er to serve as role mod­els for the chil­dren, and the po­ten­tial for the chil­dren to be the off­spring of the mar­ried couple. Every child has a moth­er and a fath­er.

The thing is though, de­fin­ing mar­riage as between a man and a wo­man hasn’t really led to this kind of tra­di­tion­al life in Michigan. The rate for di­vorce and an­nul­ment in the state in 2011 was 6.9 per­cent, a bit lower than the na­tion­al av­er­age of 8.0 per­cent. In 2012, an es­tim­ated 30,052 chil­dren were in­volved in di­vorces or an­nul­ments in Michigan, for an av­er­age of about one child per di­vorce.

And it’s not just di­vorce rates that skew away from the state’s tra­di­tion­al stand­ard. A 2011 re­port found that the rate of births to single wo­men was on the rise in Michigan, with a 20 per­cent in­crease in such births between 2000 and 2009. Two of every three births to Michigan wo­men ages 20-24 were to single moth­ers.

So, sure, per­haps a same-sex mar­riage ban helps Michigan reg­u­late sexu­al re­la­tion­ships, at least in so far as all sexu­al re­la­tion­ships oc­cur only among mar­ried couples. But the idea that the ban helps pre­serve some kind of idyll­ic, tra­di­tion­al life is flawed. Be­cause that state-ap­proved idyll doesn’t ex­ist.

What We're Following See More »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
45 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DELIBERATE MORE
FCC Pushes Vote on Set-Top Boxes
49 minutes ago
THE LATEST

"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
6 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Bannon Still Collecting Royalties from ‘Seinfeld’
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."

Source:
×