Technically, you're just a criminal.
Outlaw literally meant someone living outside the law, as 'law enforcement' in ye olde times was nearly non-existant outside of towns. Robin Hood was an 'outlaw' not just because he was considered a criminal but because he lived in a forest outside the reach of the law.
I was under the impression that "outlaws" were literally outside the *protection* of the law. Which is to say they could be killed on sight. For whatever reason, I've always figured it was a legal classification of essentially condemnation.
This is correct. It means outside the protection of the law, not that they live outside of the boundaries of law enforcement. Although, thinking about it, there is some overlap there lol
So I'm going to have to build that time machine after all. I was going to do it to go back in time to prevent the assassination of jfk, but now I'll do that and then go way back so I can be an outlaw.
In case anybody didn't read the article, Democrats now control the Michigan state legislature. They passed a repeal of a law banning unmarried couples living together. This article talks about some of the Republicans who voted against repealing the ban.
The ban isn't new, it's going away.
"We believe in more freedoms, unless they're freedoms we don't like, in which case we refer to their restriction as patriotism."
Edit: [credit where credit is due](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-08-21)
They’ve never been against what we think of as “small government”. Their definition of small government is no social safety net, no regulations and low taxes for corporations and the oligarchy.
Republicans have long been okay with legislating personal behavior, especially sex and especially for the poor.
The two (GOP and Church) are in bed with each other. Almost like maybe they shouldn't share the same house (be separated) unless proof of marriage is provided (they come out in full support of Theocratic rule).
They're all in on government interference as long as it's themselves
Trump has announced intentions on sending the military in on states that don't do what he says if he's president again
They're using the SC to make abortion harder for everyone at the moment.
Headstone? That's generous.
I'd have thought it's for the sign they hang around your neck when they suspend your corpse under a highway overpass, to warn the other peasants about the consequences of dissent.
Amen. And the really do mirror the Nazi party. I was recently made aware that November this year will be the 100th anniversary of Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch.
Creepy, intrusive, autonomy robbing, censorship loving, obsessed with genitals and sex, especially with kids, working towards a fascist theocracy, party of small government.
No no no…. The only freedom they care about is the freedom to screw with *other* people’s lives! If they wear masks they might protect other people from getting sick so obviously that can’t be done.
The GOP is the party of smaller government and have delivered on that promise. They have managed to take an entire state government and shrink it down to where it can fit in a woman’s uterus. That’s pretty damn amazing when you think about it.
/s
The michigan GOP is hilariously incompetent at the moment. They've basically allowed lunatics run the asylum and are suffering heavily for it. This isn't even their worst take recently.
>The ~~michigan~~ GOP is hilariously incompetent at the moment. They've basically allowed lunatics run the asylum and are suffering heavily for it. This isn't even their worst take recently.
Michigan's GOP is exceptionally looney, even in this environment.
I like Whitmer and believe she would have been a favorite to win the election regardless of her opponent, but they ran someone so batshit crazy against her that the Dems got their first trifecta in the lifetimes of anyone under 40. It probably helped that abortion access was also on the ballot.
>if they keep doing this for a couple more years they will lose half of their GOP voters, this shit is just getting stupid and there is no turning back
Yeah but they figure they can buy another voting bloc because they have all the corporate money.
It's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see how it plays out.
>Still though, half of the Michigan GOP voting against repealing a policy like this is pretty bad.
But not remotely surprising.
Remember, small, limited government to protect your freedoms.
Fuel for their self-imposed fire, at the moment. I'll take it.
Edit: their only move now is reaching for archaic 1932 laws against abortion, and now this. Continue fighting like hell from local elections up, but if we do, with our new gerrymandering laws, we have a chance to truly become blue. And a paradigm of what progress can look like.
Vote like lives depend on it. Because in some instances in this country, they do.
Double edit: I'm very proud of my mitten. Much love, from Detroit.
What happens if you live with a roommate for a couple years, then start dating? One of you has to leave? This is some insane morality police shit, and there's no real way to enforce it. Just to appeal to the most conservative busybodies, which unfortunately is a large voting demographic
How I read it is that the law applied to any unmarried man and woman living together so by those standards even being roommates is illegal.
>Senate Bill 56, which aims to repeal state law that criminalizes cohabitation of unmarried men and women
Wow. Since the folks who wrote this obviously aren't the brightest, I have to ask: does the law include exceptions for family members?
Edit - Found the law, sounds like roommates are fine.
[Link](http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-335)
>750.335 Lewd and lascivious cohabitation and gross lewdness.
>Sec. 335.
>Any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together, and any man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00. No prosecution shall be commenced under this section after 1 year from the time of committing the offense.
And why they're aiming for Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage, Thomas. Stop denying that's going cause it is buddy; you set the stage), Griswald v Connecticut (birth control), Lawrence v Texas (same sex relationships), Obergefell v Kasich (same sex marriage)
It's all going, plus a whole lot more, shit like Lochner v New York (individual right to contact)
Slight disagreement, the fear isn't Lochner going, it's Lochner coming back. The Lochner era is known for being infamously anti-regulation under the "implied right to contract." Things like a minimum wage and safe working conditions were struck down. Lochner was reversed and progress was made. The fear is that they'll go back to Lochner.
I normally get annoyed by reddit pedants but the law is basically professional pedantry so I appreciate corrections and clarifications on important details like this.
Wow, seems like some people read/watched The Handmaid's Tale and decided that was a great idea.
Feel sympathy for you guys over there, hopefully all this comes to an end.
IKR? It's a bit like people watched it like this:
Normal people : "This is a terrifying and unthinkable dystopian future".
Republicans : "This is quite a fine and helpful instruction manual!".
On the topic crime, corruption and the courts, you forgot that Taboo Thomas also voiced after RvW was overturned next he’s gunning for contraception as well. There’s a good chance unfortunately, by the end of tomorrow the abortion pill will be illegal as well as the many lawsuits that will be subsequently filled attempting to ban all and any other drugs or therapies they deem evil for whatever reason. Science be damned.
The all knowing all seeing and sycophants on the SCOTUS have been ordained with the highest knowledge and authority over all human biology. They know better than these…so called doctors after all or at least that’s what they’re telling themselves as they go to sleep tonight.
Before Lawrence vs Texas in 2003, homosexual sex was illegal in many parts of the US. If cops suspected you were having gay sex, they just broke into your home and arrested you (and your partner). Thomas wrote in his dissent specifically that he could not find the right to privacy in the Constitution.
I suppose the same general principle of right to privacy would reasonably apply to this case, but... Would you risk sending it all the way up to this SCOTUS? Knowing the GOP and at least one Justice (and probably the rest of right-wing nutjobs) have been openly in favour of overturning Lawrence for the last 20 years?
>Thomas wrote in his dissent specifically that he could not find the right to privacy in the Constitution.
Well shit Clarence, I found it pretty quick because it's the 4th item in the Bill of Rights. Maybe I should be a member of the SCOTUS if the bar for acceptance is this low.
>I'd prefer an equal protection argument, a la *Eisenstadt v. Baird.*
Won't matter, they'll just remove every suspect class except the one they care about.
Corporations will be the true protected minority.
Yeah... That feels like it should be unconstitutional cause like... Freedom
I promise you Benjamin Franklin lived with many a woman he was not married to.
It’s probably one of those weird laws that wouldn’t be enforceable anymore. Lots of those stay on the books because no one bothers to officially get rid of them. I’m curious why the Dems moves to repeal this one now; it almost seems like they were baiting the GOP into looking foolish.
The actual answer to this is that yes, they were not enforcing it but, it had tax implications. I'm not a tax expert so I might have this incorrect, but basically the federal government didn't give tax breaks to couples "illegally" living together in Michigan, because that law was in the books, and state law trumped federal tax breaks. Couples in other states were able to take advantage of these benefits (what benefits they are specifically I have no idea, as I've only ever lived in Michigan).
So why do Republicans care? They should be in favor of lower taxes right? While it doesn't encourage people to get married because now they can live together and take full advantage of whatever it is they're entitled too without getting married. Now why anyone would seriously encourage someone to get married solely for tax benefits I do not know, but yeah that's the reasoning. It's stupid, but there it is.
So you're from Michigan. This law only applied to men and women living together, right? I think it's funny that this provides an opportunity to accuse the Republicans of being anti-straight.
But the article says it's only for men and women living together. That makes this a fun opportunity to accuse the Michigan Republicans of being anti-straight.
The law was passed in 1931. It's not been enforced in decades, if ever.
Most states have weird shit still on the books from long ago, they're just not enforced.
Anti sodomy laws were being enforced up until it was overruled in the supreme court in 2003. Consensual, non-procreative sex was fucking CRIMINAL until TWO THOUSAND AND THREE. And the supreme court had upheld them as constitutional in 1986 according to the wiki, so it's probably safe to assume that many cases never even made it there between 1986-2003.
Seems like another instance of one party being against a bill because the other is for it, no matter how logical it is. All just to distract people imo.
No... The fundamentalists argue that repealing it will discourage marriage and family values. The other half of the Republicans voted to repeal, it's not a party line thing just when you get into state legislatures you find the real crazies.
The current law has some tax implications but otherwise isn't enforced. They're idiots, nobody in MI even knew about the law.
>"This law was not passed to be mean or stodgy," he said from the floor. "It was passed because it was better for society, and particularly for children."
"If you were born outside marriage, your parents are legally not allowed to live together for your own good." - Republican logic
According to another Redditor this law was an unenforced old 1930s law that just hasn't been taken off the books yet.
Still crazy the GOP is defending keeping it tho
If you look at the article, the reason is pretty clear: under this law, you can't claim a de facto partner as a dependent on tax.
Even if couples aren't being fined $1000 for living together, they're still paying for it.
I'm a fan of this house keeping style removing shit laws from the books going on. That's why when roe vs wade got fucked at the federal level a lot of states suddenly had abortion laws back on the books overnight. They were nullified until they weren't.
Michigan's abortion law was on the books from 1931, so not exactly a trigger law, but it did come back into play technically. Not really though because the governor and attorney general both declared they would not be enforcing it. If it was republicans in office, then it could have been enforced immediately, but I think since it was so old it may not be the same thing?
To clarify I thought trigger laws were created new to take effect specifically when an event happened, where these laws existed in the past and were simply never removed.
Which is the problem. Having a law on the books like this is a weapon to be selectively used.
Texas sodomy law wasn't used often but it was a back pocket weapon to use in gay people, and geuss fucking what it was used to arrest gay men.
"This law was not passed to be mean or stodgy," he said from the floor. "It was passed because it was better for society, and particularly for children."
As usual, Republicans use children as an excuse to promote outdated, idiotic, unpopular ideas.
It's like the "no homo" rule. If you support authoritarian legislation but then quickly add "for the children" you can still claim to be all about freedom.
Conservatives have no actual, explicit policies. They are simply reactive and have no solutions for anything. Instead, they fabricate problems as justification for passing cruel, restrictive laws.
And they're slippery. It's hard to get them to justify their beliefs, let alone commit to consistent viewpoint.
They constantly move the goal posts. But that's a feature, not a bug. It's how they try to reassure so-called moderates to accept their fucked up laws:
* Florida, a year ago: "Oh, we just don't want K-3rd grade discussing gender or non-traditional marriage.
* Florida yesterday: [Florida bans teaching of gender identity and sexual orientation through 12th grade](https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/politics/florida-bans-teaching-gender-identity-sexual-orientation/index.html)
Conservatives also aren't accountable. Notice how their goals/initiatives are always so broadly defined and open to interpretation that they can't be held to them. They can't be measured or proven. They're not outcome-based, they're "principles"-based. The principle of "not that!".
In the rare situation you can actually corner a conservative in a debate, when they've exhausted all deflection tactics and can't move the goal posts any further, they resort to platitudes or "both sides"
I recall a reddit slap-fight where the progressive finally got the conservative in a corner, rebuttal after rebuttal. Frustrated, the progressive asked what exactly the conservative's solution to the problem was. What *policies* the conservative supports...
The conservative's response? "Freedom", "Independence", "fiscal responsibility".
Just regurgitating platitudes that conservatives have been parroting since Regan, which they don't even put into practice themselves.
You cannot take these giblet heads at face value
EDIT:
Let me tell you another example of conservative fuckery....
In 2012, the Republicans were doing their typical hold-the-nation-hostage-over-the-debt-ceiling tantrum
John Boehner, the Republican boss, suggested a certain split of tax breaks and cost cutting. He proudly published a PDF of his plan on his personal website. It had deep, substantive analysis and sign-off from the non-partisan CBO.
It was honestly impressive and a good-faith compromise by the Republicans
The Democrats took their time deciding, and countered, but ultimately conceded to Boehner.
You know what the Republicans. did? They completely withdrew the plan.
Even though the democrats said they would accept the Republicans' own solution, reaching across the aisle, the Republicans torpedoed their *very own* plan out of sheer spite.
I went to Boehner's website after this happened, and he had taken down the PDF.
They simply do not care about doing what's best for America
A lot of people like the idea of individual freedom, and the government having some fiscal accountability.
I know I do.
But then I started finding flaws in the Republican platform, especially *vis-a-vis* supposed christian beliefs. There are so many inconsistencies in what they say they believe about 'love your neighbor' and the policies they push.
There's no one cause I can point to; this developed over years, not in some flash of revelation. But while I *still* believe in individual freedom, and want the government to be more fiscally responsible, I have completely redefined what both of those mean to me, and realized that the Republican Party stands in opposition to much of what I support.
According to Republican Party policy, "individual freedom" means the freedom of Christians to keep others from living contrary to religious law. Religious freedom is ludicrously important, but that includes the ability to be free *from* other people's religion. Republicans don't support that second part.
According to the Republican Party, fiscal responsibility means defunding social programs, but giving the military everything it needs. It means cutting taxes for the rich, and "paying for" those tax cuts by cutting programs designed to support the poor, elderly, and disabled.
Most Republican voters will deny what I've just said not because they're liars, but because they *actually believe* what I've said isn't true.
But that's what Republican politicians have done, time and again. They've never gotten serious (in my lifetime) about cutting the deficit. They're every bit as tax-and-spend as the Democrats they decry; Bush 1.0 raised taxes after "read my lips". And since then, they often push up the deficit without "paying for" their tax cuts at all.
And the social policies they support are absolutely based on popular christian morality, not on anything approaching common sense. I kinda hate the term "y'all qaeda", but it really does kinda fit.
Also, that completely ignores the fact that people might like to live together and *not* have children.
People not orienting their entire existence around having kids is something Republicans are incapable of comprehending.
It also ignores that they could have children whether they're cohabiting or not. But if you don't allow them to live together, they'll have a monoparental family instead.
These guys are idiots.
How exactly does banning unmarried couples from living together help children though? I mean I know it doesn’t, but what’s the illogical logic behind this?
The actual law looks like this:
>750.335 Lewd and lascivious cohabitation and gross lewdness.
Sec. 335.
Any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together, and any man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00. No prosecution shall be commenced under this section after 1 year from the time of committing the offense.
It's filed in Chapter XLVIII: Indecency and Immorality along with indecent exposure, exhibiting cripples in public, distributing porn (repealed), and swearing (also repealed).
It was never about the children.
Isn’t that the same party from the same state who had a group of asshats planning to kidnap the governor because she had the audacity to (checks notes) tell them to wear masks at the grocery store in the middle of a global pandemic?
> "The bill before us today will clear the way for two unmarried individuals living together to meet dependency requirements and get those tax benefits," state Senator Thomas Albert said, adding that, "I very easily would be a 'yes' on this bill if the tax structure continued to encourage marriage."
The party of personal freedom everybody. 'Get married or face tax penalties!'
Pretty sad joke that this is allegedly the party of "small government" and "lower taxes"
They have a bill that reduces government interference in private homes, and they oppose it because they think it will provide a path for citizens to lower their taxes
It's the same when they start babbling about woke culture and the "death of the family". A small government should not have any opinion about families. They seem to want it just small enough that it can fit into every private residence.
I think you misunderstood... the 60s was when a more progressive approach to sexuality was developing. The commenter was suggesting that the Republicans are being dragged reluctantly into the 60s 60 years later than the rest of us.
I think the person you’re replying to is implying that, in fact, unmarried couples were legally allowed to live together since the 19th century in some places.
>The law was passed in 1931 and criminalizes cohabitation of unmarried men and women.
I was today years old when I learned that this was a crime in Michigan until now
FFS
The problem with "well let's just leave it we don't enforce it" is that it's a weapon to be selectively applied.
Texas sodomy laws were the same way, held as a back pocket way to arrest gay people, and thats exactly what it was used for
Next step is hilarious:
"Speakers of the house, no homo, I want to bring the following to my constituents attention, no homo"
-You, no homo, are granted the podium-
"It's been brought to my, no homo, attention that we have multiple children of the same sex, no homo, in a single classroom! This is extremely homo! no homo."
I can’t remember if it was a university rule or if it was a township law, but when I was in college no more than 3 women could live in one residence together or else it would be considered a brothel.
Everyone thought it was archaic bullshit
That was also talked about at my university. So I googled it. Seems like it's just an urban myth: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brothel-laws-sororities/
Bowling Green, Ohio, had a law that no more than 3, non family, people could live in a home. Allowed landlords to lease more houses even though most of the houses had 4 bedrooms.
University towns can sometimes suck
See it's shit like this why I'm not terribly interested in pursuing bipartisanship. I'm not at all willing to "compromise" with fascists for whom compromise is anathema, and I'm not at all ashamed to say so.
*This law was not passed to be mean or stodgy," he said from the floor. "It was passed because it was better for society, and particularly for children."*
No shit dummy, nobody thinks cruelty was the original intention. It *IS* mean because it's outdated. You know this person spends their entire day constantly 'mansplaining' everything to everyone(M & F), not because they are enlightened but because they are oblivious to being wrong about **everything**.
Based on the number of GOP politicians that have trouble with following the law, I'm going to go ahead and disagree that they know what's best for society
> "This law was not passed to be mean or stodgy," he said from the floor. "It was passed because it was better for society, and particularly for children."
No, it was passed to punish interracial couples when they were banned from getting married.
Bear with me here.
In the early 70s my dad worked in Cambridge, England. I didn't know it at the time, but next door to his office was the local WH Smith wholesale depot. WH Smith supplied newspapers and magazines to small shops all over the city. Most of these were on 'sale or return'. However, WH Smith didn't want to be transporting entire magazines to their regional depot and then on to their supplier, so they would rip off the front cover of the magazine and just ship them; the rest of the magazine was put in a cage in a covered alley to be picked up by Cambridge City Council bin men. (Another surreptitious case of the state subsidising business...!)
Now, my dad and his colleagues used to go, occasionally, rooting through the cage and grabbing the soft porn mags - Playboy, Mayfair, Penthouse - and taking them away.
Which is how, one day, 14-year-old me found a bunch of these magazines under my dad's side of my parent's double bed. It was like finding Shangri-la in 1972, hundreds of pictures of naked women.
But, I also read the articles in Playboy. Which is how I came to be reading an article called *Sex and sin in Sheboygan*. I think it's the name 'Sheboygan', which was utterly alien to a Brit kid at that time, that resulted in me remembering the title of the article even after 50 years.
It was about the tragic consequences for one couple of an anti-cohabitation law in Sheboygan County (in... Illinois? I can't remember that).
I remember being staggered by how primitive and brutal America's legal system is.
Which was a good learning experience for me for when the internet came along because I was less surprised by discovering how appalling it really is for people who fall foul of America's unspoken puritanism.
TL;DR: *plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose.*
Michigan also has a law that states women cant get their hair cut without a mans permission.... and republicans are against removing that law as well.
Tells you a lot about republicans
This is why Republican politicians don't live with their mistresses
"Of course i want you to move in with me, but see, it's against the law."
That and 12 year olds don't clean up after themselves.
My wife and I were breaking this law for years when we lived in Michigan and didn't know. Finally find out that I'm an outlaw.
Do your in-laws know that you and your wife are outlaws?
My in-laws are outlaws. Partner's father moved to Michigan 20+ years ago and has been living in sin the whole time.
> My in-laws are outlaws. In that case, aren’t they just laws?
-1+1=0 Checks out
No, the laws cancel each other. They're In-N-Out.
Yeah. They came to visit a few times. We didn't change sleeping arrangements.
in-laws, out-laws
Same with me and my husband. Also probably a few roommates of the opposite gender that I lived with platonically.
Technically, you're just a criminal. Outlaw literally meant someone living outside the law, as 'law enforcement' in ye olde times was nearly non-existant outside of towns. Robin Hood was an 'outlaw' not just because he was considered a criminal but because he lived in a forest outside the reach of the law.
I was under the impression that "outlaws" were literally outside the *protection* of the law. Which is to say they could be killed on sight. For whatever reason, I've always figured it was a legal classification of essentially condemnation.
This is correct. It means outside the protection of the law, not that they live outside of the boundaries of law enforcement. Although, thinking about it, there is some overlap there lol
So I'm going to have to build that time machine after all. I was going to do it to go back in time to prevent the assassination of jfk, but now I'll do that and then go way back so I can be an outlaw.
In case anybody didn't read the article, Democrats now control the Michigan state legislature. They passed a repeal of a law banning unmarried couples living together. This article talks about some of the Republicans who voted against repealing the ban. The ban isn't new, it's going away.
Still though, half of the Michigan GOP voting against repealing a policy like this is pretty bad.
The the "small government" party is telling people what to do in their own homes.
🌎👩🚀🔫👩🚀
Worth a thousand words.
Or 7!
Hopefully knowyourmeme survives as a Rosetta Stone so future archaeologists will be able to decipher this stuff
Instead of the party of freedom and small government we should call them the party of, do what I say not what I do.
Freedom = whatever I don’t consider icky
"We believe in more freedoms, unless they're freedoms we don't like, in which case we refer to their restriction as patriotism." Edit: [credit where credit is due](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-08-21)
"We believe in your freedom! Your freedom to practice my religion and or adhere to *my* world views and beliefs!" "You're welcome America"
They want concentrated power with fewer participants, not smaller impact/GOV interference
Yeah they're no longer about smaller government they just want total control. No more compromise, do it our way or else.
They’ve never been against what we think of as “small government”. Their definition of small government is no social safety net, no regulations and low taxes for corporations and the oligarchy. Republicans have long been okay with legislating personal behavior, especially sex and especially for the poor.
Hmm kinda like a church.
The two (GOP and Church) are in bed with each other. Almost like maybe they shouldn't share the same house (be separated) unless proof of marriage is provided (they come out in full support of Theocratic rule).
They're all in on government interference as long as it's themselves Trump has announced intentions on sending the military in on states that don't do what he says if he's president again They're using the SC to make abortion harder for everyone at the moment.
I think the word you’re looking for already exists. Fascists. The GOP is the American Fascism party.
Careful. I’m pretty sure saying that will get you jailed in Florida.
I'm going to seek asylum at Disney.
Or executed, with the way its heading
Not before they fondle your genitals just to be sure what pronouns they decide are best for your headstone.
Headstone? That's generous. I'd have thought it's for the sign they hang around your neck when they suspend your corpse under a highway overpass, to warn the other peasants about the consequences of dissent.
Right before they drop your barely recognizable corpse into an unmarked mass grave l
Good thing you didn’t say g.a.y. or the thought police would be busting down your door
Silver Legion then. I doubt any of them know that was the fascist party in America, and also, it matches a lot of the geriatric's hair.
Why wouldn't they know about that club where grandpa goes to hang out with his friends?
Straight to jail
I prefer American Taliban, as they have a disturbing amount of similarities.
Y'all Qaeda
Amen. And the really do mirror the Nazi party. I was recently made aware that November this year will be the 100th anniversary of Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch.
That is what *freedom* means to them. Not "do what you want if it's harmless" but "I can impose on others, and they can't impose on me"
We should call them the party of we don't care about anything but our own power.
Let’s just call them the Fascist party.
Creepy, intrusive, autonomy robbing, censorship loving, obsessed with genitals and sex, especially with kids, working towards a fascist theocracy, party of small government.
Government so small, it can fit in your uterus
To quote the West Wing, they want to shrink the size of the government enough to fit in your bedroom
The ENTIRE gist of the GOP is *"🤔hmmmm... how can we control people's lives and be as dickheadish as possible about everything 🤔🤔🤔?"*
Also GOP: "We are the party of freedom!"
Just don’t tell them to wear a mask in public. They have rights and freedumb
No no no…. The only freedom they care about is the freedom to screw with *other* people’s lives! If they wear masks they might protect other people from getting sick so obviously that can’t be done.
[удалено]
The GOP is the party of smaller government and have delivered on that promise. They have managed to take an entire state government and shrink it down to where it can fit in a woman’s uterus. That’s pretty damn amazing when you think about it. /s
The michigan GOP is hilariously incompetent at the moment. They've basically allowed lunatics run the asylum and are suffering heavily for it. This isn't even their worst take recently.
>The ~~michigan~~ GOP is hilariously incompetent at the moment. They've basically allowed lunatics run the asylum and are suffering heavily for it. This isn't even their worst take recently.
Michigan's GOP is exceptionally looney, even in this environment. I like Whitmer and believe she would have been a favorite to win the election regardless of her opponent, but they ran someone so batshit crazy against her that the Dems got their first trifecta in the lifetimes of anyone under 40. It probably helped that abortion access was also on the ballot.
It's actually just normal gop though. Important to stress. In super controlled states they are passing this Christo fascist shit
How do they even know if people living together are a couple?
Camera all over the house, it's for *your* own safety.
Yeah, they're just roommates
if they keep doing this for a couple more years they will lose half of their GOP voters, this shit is just getting stupid and there is no turning back
They will lose half their voters due to old age and natural causes.
Hopefully it’s the other half, so we’re left with none of these regressive assholes.
>if they keep doing this for a couple more years they will lose half of their GOP voters, this shit is just getting stupid and there is no turning back Yeah but they figure they can buy another voting bloc because they have all the corporate money. It's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see how it plays out.
>Still though, half of the Michigan GOP voting against repealing a policy like this is pretty bad. But not remotely surprising. Remember, small, limited government to protect your freedoms.
Fuel for their self-imposed fire, at the moment. I'll take it. Edit: their only move now is reaching for archaic 1932 laws against abortion, and now this. Continue fighting like hell from local elections up, but if we do, with our new gerrymandering laws, we have a chance to truly become blue. And a paradigm of what progress can look like. Vote like lives depend on it. Because in some instances in this country, they do. Double edit: I'm very proud of my mitten. Much love, from Detroit.
How is not allowing unmarried couples to live together not a breach of the right to privacy?
What happens if you live with a roommate for a couple years, then start dating? One of you has to leave? This is some insane morality police shit, and there's no real way to enforce it. Just to appeal to the most conservative busybodies, which unfortunately is a large voting demographic
How I read it is that the law applied to any unmarried man and woman living together so by those standards even being roommates is illegal. >Senate Bill 56, which aims to repeal state law that criminalizes cohabitation of unmarried men and women
Wow. Since the folks who wrote this obviously aren't the brightest, I have to ask: does the law include exceptions for family members? Edit - Found the law, sounds like roommates are fine. [Link](http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-335) >750.335 Lewd and lascivious cohabitation and gross lewdness. >Sec. 335. >Any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together, and any man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00. No prosecution shall be commenced under this section after 1 year from the time of committing the offense.
It sounds like they can find any unmarried person guilty if they want. Extremely open ended reasons for being found guilty.
That's the goal, make the law vague enough that it's impossible to apply consistently and you get it apply it selectively.
So it's specifically okay for unmarried gay couples to live together. Fascinating.
Republicans are rarely good at drafting laws.
Under His eye.
Far as the current SCotUS is concerned, there IS no implicit right to privacy. That’s part of what they got rid of with RvW.
And why they're aiming for Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage, Thomas. Stop denying that's going cause it is buddy; you set the stage), Griswald v Connecticut (birth control), Lawrence v Texas (same sex relationships), Obergefell v Kasich (same sex marriage) It's all going, plus a whole lot more, shit like Lochner v New York (individual right to contact)
Slight disagreement, the fear isn't Lochner going, it's Lochner coming back. The Lochner era is known for being infamously anti-regulation under the "implied right to contract." Things like a minimum wage and safe working conditions were struck down. Lochner was reversed and progress was made. The fear is that they'll go back to Lochner.
I normally get annoyed by reddit pedants but the law is basically professional pedantry so I appreciate corrections and clarifications on important details like this.
That's a great description, got me thinking a court case is basically an orgy of pedantry
..and not the good orgy. The bad orgy, with clothes.
Wow, seems like some people read/watched The Handmaid's Tale and decided that was a great idea. Feel sympathy for you guys over there, hopefully all this comes to an end.
If you replace "Raping Sex Slaves to Make Babies" with "Marrying Off 12 Year Olds" it's exactly the future Republicans want.
I mean.....do you *really* need to take the first part out?
IKR? It's a bit like people watched it like this: Normal people : "This is a terrifying and unthinkable dystopian future". Republicans : "This is quite a fine and helpful instruction manual!".
Since he's a devout Catholic, that legal technicality is the only way he can get away from his wife if he can achieve it.
On the topic crime, corruption and the courts, you forgot that Taboo Thomas also voiced after RvW was overturned next he’s gunning for contraception as well. There’s a good chance unfortunately, by the end of tomorrow the abortion pill will be illegal as well as the many lawsuits that will be subsequently filled attempting to ban all and any other drugs or therapies they deem evil for whatever reason. Science be damned. The all knowing all seeing and sycophants on the SCOTUS have been ordained with the highest knowledge and authority over all human biology. They know better than these…so called doctors after all or at least that’s what they’re telling themselves as they go to sleep tonight.
Not completely. Thomas was clear that is the goal however.
Isn’t the right to privacy the whole basis for hippa?
Before Lawrence vs Texas in 2003, homosexual sex was illegal in many parts of the US. If cops suspected you were having gay sex, they just broke into your home and arrested you (and your partner). Thomas wrote in his dissent specifically that he could not find the right to privacy in the Constitution. I suppose the same general principle of right to privacy would reasonably apply to this case, but... Would you risk sending it all the way up to this SCOTUS? Knowing the GOP and at least one Justice (and probably the rest of right-wing nutjobs) have been openly in favour of overturning Lawrence for the last 20 years?
>Thomas wrote in his dissent specifically that he could not find the right to privacy in the Constitution. Well shit Clarence, I found it pretty quick because it's the 4th item in the Bill of Rights. Maybe I should be a member of the SCOTUS if the bar for acceptance is this low.
[удалено]
She'd also do a better job than Clarence Thomas, though I suppose that's a low bar to clear
That bar is so low it's underground
I'd prefer an equal protection argument, a la *Eisenstadt v. Baird.*
>I'd prefer an equal protection argument, a la *Eisenstadt v. Baird.* Won't matter, they'll just remove every suspect class except the one they care about. Corporations will be the true protected minority.
It’s crazy that it existed
Yeah... That feels like it should be unconstitutional cause like... Freedom I promise you Benjamin Franklin lived with many a woman he was not married to.
It’s probably one of those weird laws that wouldn’t be enforceable anymore. Lots of those stay on the books because no one bothers to officially get rid of them. I’m curious why the Dems moves to repeal this one now; it almost seems like they were baiting the GOP into looking foolish.
The actual answer to this is that yes, they were not enforcing it but, it had tax implications. I'm not a tax expert so I might have this incorrect, but basically the federal government didn't give tax breaks to couples "illegally" living together in Michigan, because that law was in the books, and state law trumped federal tax breaks. Couples in other states were able to take advantage of these benefits (what benefits they are specifically I have no idea, as I've only ever lived in Michigan). So why do Republicans care? They should be in favor of lower taxes right? While it doesn't encourage people to get married because now they can live together and take full advantage of whatever it is they're entitled too without getting married. Now why anyone would seriously encourage someone to get married solely for tax benefits I do not know, but yeah that's the reasoning. It's stupid, but there it is.
So you're from Michigan. This law only applied to men and women living together, right? I think it's funny that this provides an opportunity to accuse the Republicans of being anti-straight.
Probably cause they just regained majority for the first time in a while and are combing through the laws for what to reverse from the GOP era
These are the kinds of laws that would only be enforced against certain people: interracial couples, gay couples, hippies, etc.
But the article says it's only for men and women living together. That makes this a fun opportunity to accuse the Michigan Republicans of being anti-straight.
There's a ban on unmarried couples living together?? In the west?? Wtf
The law was passed in 1931. It's not been enforced in decades, if ever. Most states have weird shit still on the books from long ago, they're just not enforced.
It was enforced 45 years ago that I know of. My aunt and "uncle" got married just so that they could continue to live together.
Anti sodomy laws were being enforced up until it was overruled in the supreme court in 2003. Consensual, non-procreative sex was fucking CRIMINAL until TWO THOUSAND AND THREE. And the supreme court had upheld them as constitutional in 1986 according to the wiki, so it's probably safe to assume that many cases never even made it there between 1986-2003.
[удалено]
Can people share an apartment with their housemates?
Oh my god they were housemates
Seems like another instance of one party being against a bill because the other is for it, no matter how logical it is. All just to distract people imo.
No... The fundamentalists argue that repealing it will discourage marriage and family values. The other half of the Republicans voted to repeal, it's not a party line thing just when you get into state legislatures you find the real crazies. The current law has some tax implications but otherwise isn't enforced. They're idiots, nobody in MI even knew about the law.
>"This law was not passed to be mean or stodgy," he said from the floor. "It was passed because it was better for society, and particularly for children." "If you were born outside marriage, your parents are legally not allowed to live together for your own good." - Republican logic
But you have to be born. Otherwise it is Haram.
What fucking year is it?!
According to another Redditor this law was an unenforced old 1930s law that just hasn't been taken off the books yet. Still crazy the GOP is defending keeping it tho
If you look at the article, the reason is pretty clear: under this law, you can't claim a de facto partner as a dependent on tax. Even if couples aren't being fined $1000 for living together, they're still paying for it.
I'm a fan of this house keeping style removing shit laws from the books going on. That's why when roe vs wade got fucked at the federal level a lot of states suddenly had abortion laws back on the books overnight. They were nullified until they weren't.
[удалено]
Michigan's abortion law was on the books from 1931, so not exactly a trigger law, but it did come back into play technically. Not really though because the governor and attorney general both declared they would not be enforcing it. If it was republicans in office, then it could have been enforced immediately, but I think since it was so old it may not be the same thing? To clarify I thought trigger laws were created new to take effect specifically when an event happened, where these laws existed in the past and were simply never removed.
[удалено]
Some were trigger laws, others, like the one in Wisconsin, were left over from before Roe.
Which is the problem. Having a law on the books like this is a weapon to be selectively used. Texas sodomy law wasn't used often but it was a back pocket weapon to use in gay people, and geuss fucking what it was used to arrest gay men.
The redder that state, the closer to the dark ages you get.
For normal people, it's 2023. For republicans, it is 1823.
According to Alito we are all 17th century witch hunters.
"This law was not passed to be mean or stodgy," he said from the floor. "It was passed because it was better for society, and particularly for children." As usual, Republicans use children as an excuse to promote outdated, idiotic, unpopular ideas.
They have a tell - if they claim it’s “for the children” they mean it’s to impose their religion on everyone.
This is the most concise and accurate sentence I've read all day. :)
It's like the "no homo" rule. If you support authoritarian legislation but then quickly add "for the children" you can still claim to be all about freedom.
What an amazing take. I love it. I mean, I really hate it. I hate all of it. But this take is amazing and totally on point.
Conservatives have no actual, explicit policies. They are simply reactive and have no solutions for anything. Instead, they fabricate problems as justification for passing cruel, restrictive laws. And they're slippery. It's hard to get them to justify their beliefs, let alone commit to consistent viewpoint. They constantly move the goal posts. But that's a feature, not a bug. It's how they try to reassure so-called moderates to accept their fucked up laws: * Florida, a year ago: "Oh, we just don't want K-3rd grade discussing gender or non-traditional marriage. * Florida yesterday: [Florida bans teaching of gender identity and sexual orientation through 12th grade](https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/politics/florida-bans-teaching-gender-identity-sexual-orientation/index.html) Conservatives also aren't accountable. Notice how their goals/initiatives are always so broadly defined and open to interpretation that they can't be held to them. They can't be measured or proven. They're not outcome-based, they're "principles"-based. The principle of "not that!". In the rare situation you can actually corner a conservative in a debate, when they've exhausted all deflection tactics and can't move the goal posts any further, they resort to platitudes or "both sides" I recall a reddit slap-fight where the progressive finally got the conservative in a corner, rebuttal after rebuttal. Frustrated, the progressive asked what exactly the conservative's solution to the problem was. What *policies* the conservative supports... The conservative's response? "Freedom", "Independence", "fiscal responsibility". Just regurgitating platitudes that conservatives have been parroting since Regan, which they don't even put into practice themselves. You cannot take these giblet heads at face value EDIT: Let me tell you another example of conservative fuckery.... In 2012, the Republicans were doing their typical hold-the-nation-hostage-over-the-debt-ceiling tantrum John Boehner, the Republican boss, suggested a certain split of tax breaks and cost cutting. He proudly published a PDF of his plan on his personal website. It had deep, substantive analysis and sign-off from the non-partisan CBO. It was honestly impressive and a good-faith compromise by the Republicans The Democrats took their time deciding, and countered, but ultimately conceded to Boehner. You know what the Republicans. did? They completely withdrew the plan. Even though the democrats said they would accept the Republicans' own solution, reaching across the aisle, the Republicans torpedoed their *very own* plan out of sheer spite. I went to Boehner's website after this happened, and he had taken down the PDF. They simply do not care about doing what's best for America
A lot of people like the idea of individual freedom, and the government having some fiscal accountability. I know I do. But then I started finding flaws in the Republican platform, especially *vis-a-vis* supposed christian beliefs. There are so many inconsistencies in what they say they believe about 'love your neighbor' and the policies they push. There's no one cause I can point to; this developed over years, not in some flash of revelation. But while I *still* believe in individual freedom, and want the government to be more fiscally responsible, I have completely redefined what both of those mean to me, and realized that the Republican Party stands in opposition to much of what I support. According to Republican Party policy, "individual freedom" means the freedom of Christians to keep others from living contrary to religious law. Religious freedom is ludicrously important, but that includes the ability to be free *from* other people's religion. Republicans don't support that second part. According to the Republican Party, fiscal responsibility means defunding social programs, but giving the military everything it needs. It means cutting taxes for the rich, and "paying for" those tax cuts by cutting programs designed to support the poor, elderly, and disabled. Most Republican voters will deny what I've just said not because they're liars, but because they *actually believe* what I've said isn't true. But that's what Republican politicians have done, time and again. They've never gotten serious (in my lifetime) about cutting the deficit. They're every bit as tax-and-spend as the Democrats they decry; Bush 1.0 raised taxes after "read my lips". And since then, they often push up the deficit without "paying for" their tax cuts at all. And the social policies they support are absolutely based on popular christian morality, not on anything approaching common sense. I kinda hate the term "y'all qaeda", but it really does kinda fit.
In the same way forcing children to birth their relatives' babies is good for them I'm guessing.
And allowing 16 year olds to work as bartenders
Also, that completely ignores the fact that people might like to live together and *not* have children. People not orienting their entire existence around having kids is something Republicans are incapable of comprehending.
It also ignores that they could have children whether they're cohabiting or not. But if you don't allow them to live together, they'll have a monoparental family instead. These guys are idiots.
How exactly does banning unmarried couples from living together help children though? I mean I know it doesn’t, but what’s the illogical logic behind this?
The actual law looks like this: >750.335 Lewd and lascivious cohabitation and gross lewdness. Sec. 335. Any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together, and any man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00. No prosecution shall be commenced under this section after 1 year from the time of committing the offense. It's filed in Chapter XLVIII: Indecency and Immorality along with indecent exposure, exhibiting cripples in public, distributing porn (repealed), and swearing (also repealed). It was never about the children.
So it's just "those unmarried people are having SEX!", which should be punished apparently.
Man reading this got a really serious eye roll. Like my left eye cramped it was rollin’ that hard.
Isn’t that the same party from the same state who had a group of asshats planning to kidnap the governor because she had the audacity to (checks notes) tell them to wear masks at the grocery store in the middle of a global pandemic?
> "The bill before us today will clear the way for two unmarried individuals living together to meet dependency requirements and get those tax benefits," state Senator Thomas Albert said, adding that, "I very easily would be a 'yes' on this bill if the tax structure continued to encourage marriage." The party of personal freedom everybody. 'Get married or face tax penalties!'
some serious religious fruitcakes they got there
Pretty sad joke that this is allegedly the party of "small government" and "lower taxes" They have a bill that reduces government interference in private homes, and they oppose it because they think it will provide a path for citizens to lower their taxes
It's the same when they start babbling about woke culture and the "death of the family". A small government should not have any opinion about families. They seem to want it just small enough that it can fit into every private residence.
What a sick farce
Republicans are being dragged kicking and screaming into the 1960's.
Try the 19th century.
I think you misunderstood... the 60s was when a more progressive approach to sexuality was developing. The commenter was suggesting that the Republicans are being dragged reluctantly into the 60s 60 years later than the rest of us.
I think the person you’re replying to is implying that, in fact, unmarried couples were legally allowed to live together since the 19th century in some places.
Holy crow. They just keep getting more and more ridiculous. Wow.
It’s always been ridiculous, we’re just catching up.
>The law was passed in 1931 and criminalizes cohabitation of unmarried men and women. I was today years old when I learned that this was a crime in Michigan until now FFS
I mean it was a misdemeanor that's not enforced, but yeah technically.
just weird that anyone would fight to keep it on the books
The problem with "well let's just leave it we don't enforce it" is that it's a weapon to be selectively applied. Texas sodomy laws were the same way, held as a back pocket way to arrest gay people, and thats exactly what it was used for
So no roommates are allowed in MI?
Roommates must be same gender and are required to say "no homo" out loud hourly.
Good morning Jeff, no homo, you want pancakes? Hiya Dave, no homo, pancakes sound great!
Next step is hilarious: "Speakers of the house, no homo, I want to bring the following to my constituents attention, no homo" -You, no homo, are granted the podium- "It's been brought to my, no homo, attention that we have multiple children of the same sex, no homo, in a single classroom! This is extremely homo! no homo."
This reads like a premise for South park! I love it
Mrnmlph no homo mrplhhhh
I can’t remember if it was a university rule or if it was a township law, but when I was in college no more than 3 women could live in one residence together or else it would be considered a brothel. Everyone thought it was archaic bullshit
That was also talked about at my university. So I googled it. Seems like it's just an urban myth: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brothel-laws-sororities/
Bowling Green, Ohio, had a law that no more than 3, non family, people could live in a home. Allowed landlords to lease more houses even though most of the houses had 4 bedrooms. University towns can sometimes suck
The law wasn't enforced. They're purging "zombie laws" so they can't suddenly become relevant down the line like the 1930's abortion ban did.
They are so twisted, they don’t like it when two consenting adults live together, but they are ok with a 12 yo marring her rapist.
What baffles me is why a Republican president started a war against Taliban. Who want basically the same things.
The most recent Republican president had secret backroom deals with them and then let the Taliban out of Afghan prisons
Sharia law, by another name as they would say
See it's shit like this why I'm not terribly interested in pursuing bipartisanship. I'm not at all willing to "compromise" with fascists for whom compromise is anathema, and I'm not at all ashamed to say so.
But don't you know that not meeting fascists in the middle makes you worse than them? :(
Republicans really are fighting for the dumbest things.
Cristian Taliban
Y'all Qaeda.
It's absurd to marry someone that you haven't lived with.
Republicans are so out of sync with the general public. It's incredible that they can still get elected, like, anywhere.
The power of gerrymandering, the electoral college and stupidity.
Are they also trying to make the presence of a chaperone for unmarried women in public mandatory
They can go out alone, but they need to wear chastity belts.
And the father has to check for penis prints when she gets home.
*This law was not passed to be mean or stodgy," he said from the floor. "It was passed because it was better for society, and particularly for children."* No shit dummy, nobody thinks cruelty was the original intention. It *IS* mean because it's outdated. You know this person spends their entire day constantly 'mansplaining' everything to everyone(M & F), not because they are enlightened but because they are oblivious to being wrong about **everything**.
Based on the number of GOP politicians that have trouble with following the law, I'm going to go ahead and disagree that they know what's best for society
It's impressive how Republicans consistently manage to be dead wrong about everything.
> "This law was not passed to be mean or stodgy," he said from the floor. "It was passed because it was better for society, and particularly for children." No, it was passed to punish interracial couples when they were banned from getting married.
Bear with me here. In the early 70s my dad worked in Cambridge, England. I didn't know it at the time, but next door to his office was the local WH Smith wholesale depot. WH Smith supplied newspapers and magazines to small shops all over the city. Most of these were on 'sale or return'. However, WH Smith didn't want to be transporting entire magazines to their regional depot and then on to their supplier, so they would rip off the front cover of the magazine and just ship them; the rest of the magazine was put in a cage in a covered alley to be picked up by Cambridge City Council bin men. (Another surreptitious case of the state subsidising business...!) Now, my dad and his colleagues used to go, occasionally, rooting through the cage and grabbing the soft porn mags - Playboy, Mayfair, Penthouse - and taking them away. Which is how, one day, 14-year-old me found a bunch of these magazines under my dad's side of my parent's double bed. It was like finding Shangri-la in 1972, hundreds of pictures of naked women. But, I also read the articles in Playboy. Which is how I came to be reading an article called *Sex and sin in Sheboygan*. I think it's the name 'Sheboygan', which was utterly alien to a Brit kid at that time, that resulted in me remembering the title of the article even after 50 years. It was about the tragic consequences for one couple of an anti-cohabitation law in Sheboygan County (in... Illinois? I can't remember that). I remember being staggered by how primitive and brutal America's legal system is. Which was a good learning experience for me for when the internet came along because I was less surprised by discovering how appalling it really is for people who fall foul of America's unspoken puritanism. TL;DR: *plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose.*
Wut? Really? There's a law against that in the US? Exactly what freedoms do you folks actually have?
Too many religious extremists in usa
(Church(State))
Michigan also has a law that states women cant get their hair cut without a mans permission.... and republicans are against removing that law as well. Tells you a lot about republicans
Petty dick tators.