Bill Schutte: Purpose of Marriage is to regulate sexual relationships for procreation

By: David Palmer

In the history of ridiculous things said by politicians, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette’s statement filed in the case of April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, and published in the Huffington Post take the cake made of asinine by far.

“Responsible procreation and childrearing are well-recognized as legitimate State interests served by marriage. 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,” Mr. Schuette said.

Really, Mr. Schutte? Really?

According to Mr. Schuette’s bio, he is married and has two kids. Congratulations, Mr. Schuette, you have successfully fulfilled your self-described purpose of marriage, to procreate. But why is it that you only have two kids? Is it because you’ve only had sex twice? If that’s not the case, then you would have to be using some sort of birth contol, and therefore would be engaged in a marriage in which procreation was not the primary purpose. Therefore, you would be subject to your own “regulation.” D’oh!

However, couples that use birth control to engage in responsible family planning are not the only couples that would be affected by Mr. Schuette’s “regulation.” Couples that are infertile, and couples that choose not to have children would also fall into the category of relationships in which the procreative capacity “harms society.”

But, why stop there? What about couples that give their child/children up for adoption? Obviously they were not prepared to care for that life. Isn’t their procreative capacity harmful to society in that someone else must now be found to care for their children? The same could be said of couples who have their children removed from their home via Child Protective Services. They failed in their parental duties, causing the taxpayers of the State of Michigan to pay for foster care until another person or couple is found to take them on permanemtly. If the latter couple’s procreative capacity isn’t a harm to society, I don’t know what is.

The list of cases in which one might be able to prove that a couple’s procreative capacity is a harm to society are myriad. This goes to show that Mr. Schuette does not believe in equal protection under the law as part of his sworn duty. He, like many other Republicans of late, only cares to apply his interpretation of the law when it suits his issue or his beleifs.

That is to say, he only believes that homozexual couples need to have their sexual relationships regulated. Heterosexual couples who have kids they can’t provide for, don’t care about, choose not to have kids, are infertile, or are engaging in any other procreative capacity that could harm society are a-ok in his book.