I can wait for a nice wedding, but in the mean time I will stick the State with my medical costs? People are so farked up.

Hrm. The State tells gay people they can't marry, then turns around and tells strate people they must marry. This would seem to be a very slippery slope.

TheDumbBlonde: I can wait for a nice wedding, but in the mean time I will stick the State with my medical costs? People are so farked up.

Exactly right! :)

"Losing just $10 hurts us," said Johnson, who makes $8 an hour at a Grand Blanc-area nursery. "We don't have a car, we don't even have an oven."

But you thought now would be a great time to have a kid, eh? Because kids don't entail any costs at all.

Stupid fark.

RodneyToady: "Losing just $10 hurts us," said Johnson, who makes $8 an hour at a Grand Blanc-area nursery. "We don't have a car, we don't even have an oven."

But you thought now would be a great time to have a kid, eh? Because kids don't entail any costs at all.

Stupid fark.

What makes you think it was planned?

cameroncrazy1984: What makes you think it was planned?

They had unprotected sex. That makes it planned.

I don't understand the marriage angle to the law. Shotgun weddings preserve the sanctity of marriage?

But yes, someone's got to pay the bills.

"I would like to have a nice wedding, and I can wait for it."
Famous last words.
IMHO: What this man needs first is an education.

dj_bigbird: cameroncrazy1984: What makes you think it was planned?

They had unprotected sex. That makes it planned.

This.

Prior to my vasectomy, and prior to getting married, the idea of accidental pregnancy scared the crap out of me. We used so many forms of contraception, we may as well have been having phone sex. And my wife-to-be and I were in a much better financial situation than this couple.

Abortion was an option. Adoption was an option. These aren't 12 year olds here... they know where babies come from.

Well, Michigan does have some weird marriage laws. This one is a new one on me.

Pretty sure these are on the books still.
1) Unmarried man and woman cannot live together
2) Married man and woman cannot live apart
3) A married woman needs her husbands permission to cut her hair

I always liked that last one. My wife and I liked to play jokes with the hair dresser that she had my permission to get her hair cut when we lived there.

Nothing quite like a taste of 16th century morality being laid on you big brother...

"I don't think anybody should tell me when to get married," said Witt. "I would like to have a nice wedding, and I can wait for it."

Who do these people think they are putting their own desires before the sanctity of marriage?

"1) Unmarried man and woman cannot live together"

Well, good thing nobody ever told the City of Lansing... or Kalamazoo...

FTFA:"Losing just $10 hurts us," said Johnson, who makes $8 an hour at a Grand Blanc-area nursery. "We don't have a car, we don't even have an oven."

Pretty sure you found the oven afterall, eh smart guy?

/What do people that can least afford a child usually get? A child

I think the kid should pay.

You know, I might expect something like this from Florida, but Michigan? For shame!

dj_bigbird: cameroncrazy1984: What makes you think it was planned?

They had unprotected sex. That makes it planned.

I usually don't, but:

THIS

I'm still a little fuzzy on the whole "where babies come from" thing.

How 'bout you just charge me for with retroactive abortion?

Benevolent Misanthrope: Hrm. The State tells gay people they can't marry, then turns around and tells strate people they must marry. This would seem to be a very slippery slope.

No, that's pretty much the way people want it to be.

detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: /What do people that can least afford a child usually get? A child

I was going to go with a punch in the gut, but that would have solved their problems.

dj_bigbird: cameroncrazy1984: What makes you think it was planned?

They had unprotected sex. That makes it planned.

That doesn't make it planned any more than playing Russian roulette means you plan to shoot yourself. It does, however, make them idiots.

AlwaysRightBoy: "I would like to have a nice wedding, and I can wait for it."
Famous last words.
IMHO: What this man needs first is an education.

IMHO: What this man needsthe POLITICIANS need first is an education.


FTFM, tyvm!

RodneyToady: dj_bigbird: cameroncrazy1984: What makes you think it was planned?

They had unprotected sex. That makes it planned.

This.

Prior to my vasectomy, and prior to getting married, the idea of accidental pregnancy scared the crap out of me. We used so many forms of contraception, we may as well have been having phone sex. And my wife-to-be and I were in a much better financial situation than this couple.

Abortion was an option. Adoption was an option. These aren't 127 year olds here... they know where babies come from.

Every 12 year old knows where babies come from. How the baby got in there is another story.

The issue is not whether they can afford the child. The issue is whether the state can punish you for not maintaining a family unit they find acceptable. The breeder/bachelor is a few pages down.

Mentat: The issue is not whether they can afford the child. The issue is whether the state can punish you for not maintaining a family unit they find acceptable. The breeder/bachelor is a few pages down.

Of course the state can. They just did.

Whether they should have or should be allowed to are other questions entirely.

the_chief: I'm still a little fuzzy on the whole "where babies come from" thing.

Can you phrase that in the form of a question please?

Yes, this couple should pay, whether or not they get married. No one can explain to me how it is my responsibility, as a taxpayer, to help pay for this when I never got to have any fun with Ms. Witt. (is she Alicia's sister?)

Something this couple seems to not understand is that once they decided to have and keep this baby, what they want is irrelevant. It's all about the child now. When people decide to have a baby, they're on the hook for the next 18 years. It is their primary responsibility in life to see to the welfare and upbringing of that child. If Witt wants a nice wedding, too bad, she blew it. Should have thought of that before she got knocked up. Johnson doesn't like to pay? Should have thought of that before he dipped his johnson. Or maybe gotten enough education and experience to have a decent job that had insurance.

As it is, both of them better suck it up and act like adults. As far as this being a draconian law - it was signed by Granholm. Not like this is some ancient holdover.

soundguy: the_chief: I'm still a little fuzzy on the whole "where babies come from" thing.

Can you phrase that in the form of a question please?

NEVER!!!

RodneyToady: These aren't 12 year olds here... they know where babies come from.

But they are from the Flint area so it's kinda the same thing

I propose mandatory abortions for residents of Flint, Michigan.

Y'know...

I'd be less sympathetic towards these two if it wasn't for the fact that they are planning to get married, they're trying to take care of the kid, and if the state wasn't FORCING them to get married at economic gunpoint.

That's the last bit that gets me. Sanctity of marriage is protected HOW in this case? The two were farking while unmarried, they were living together while unmarried, and a whole bunch of other things together unmarried.

We complain about the Nanny State out here in California. Perhaps Michiganites should start complaining about 'Father with
a Shotgun' governments?

/No on 8
//It makes no sense to me
///Totally 100% not gay, I swear, I just like guys.
////Overuse of slashies.

I think part of the state's position is in regards to the father's income and insurance status. Since this information is not always forthcoming, the state probably has the following attitude:

1. If the father has health insurance that WOULD cover the baby if they were married
OR
2. If the father's income is high enough that the couple would not qualify for Medicaid
THEN
Then the father should be responsible for medical bills.

Therefore, if you are married and you still qualify for Medicaid then you're welcome to it. Otherwise, the father needs to pay the bills. One of the real solutions to the problem would require paternity testing. Once you've confirmed paternity, then the father could submit that he doesn't have the income or insurance and therefore waive the medical bills.

Waive birthing costs for the dad? Why is the dad on the hook for the bill while the mother isn't? Who cares if they're married, it's biased against men. Seems too common that dads get the short end of the deal when it comes to kids. More than a few are better parents than the mom.

Mr. Right: Yes, this couple should pay, whether or not they get married. No one can explain to me how it is my responsibility, as a taxpayer, to help pay for this when I never got to have any fun with Ms. Witt. (is she Alicia's sister?)

Something this couple seems to not understand is that once they decided to have and keep this baby, what they want is irrelevant. It's all about the child now. When people decide to have a baby, they're on the hook for the next 18 years. It is their primary responsibility in life to see to the welfare and upbringing of that child. If Witt wants a nice wedding, too bad, she blew it. Should have thought of that before she got knocked up. Johnson doesn't like to pay? Should have thought of that before he dipped his johnson. Or maybe gotten enough education and experience to have a decent job that had insurance.

As it is, both of them better suck it up and act like adults. As far as this being a draconian law - it was signed by Granholm. Not like this is some ancient holdover.

They intend on taking care of the baby. They intend on getting married. What they want is a nice wedding, which costs a metric shiatton of money. So they are saving up for the wedding and holding off getting married until that point.

The issue isn't "WHOOPS WE HAD A BABY" it's "WTF Michigan is forcing us to get married or mister dad has to pay 3 grand?"

By the way - if they get married, they don't have to pay.

/How is babby formed?
//how girl get preagnat?

where is the asinine tag?

its one sad thing when a couple makes the poor decision of getting married too soon for the sake of a child, but its a whole other kind of sad that they are FORCED into it

baby or no baby, people need time to figure out whether this person is the one they want to spend the rest of their life with. If it's not going to work out, its better to be apart from the beginning so the kid doesn't have to go through watching his/her parents' relationship deteriorate and end in divorce.

the_chief: soundguy: the_chief: I'm still a little fuzzy on the whole "where babies come from" thing.

Can you phrase that in the form of a question please?

NEVER!!!

how is babby formed?

/they don't have a car or an oven
// they also don't have a vacuum
/// or a hanger
//// or a flight of stairs

You all said everything I would have said.

RodneyToady: We used so many forms of contraception, we may as well have been having phone sex

Heh. This made me laugh.

meat0918: Well, Michigan does have some weird marriage laws.

I don't know; don't most states have retarded laws on the books that nobody has paid attention to for years? I'm curious if any other states are still enforcing laws like this. Weird.

I don't really care if they have to pay for the child or the specifics of how to get out of said costs or if these people are indeed ready for parenthood. That shiat is boring. The thing that really seems stupid here is an official explaining that a law maintains the sanctity of marriage by forcing people to marry so that they can save money.

Mr. Right: Yes, this couple should pay, whether or not they get married. No one can explain to me how it is my responsibility, as a taxpayer, to help pay for this when I never got to have any fun with Ms. Witt. (is she Alicia's sister?)

Something this couple seems to not understand is that once they decided to have and keep this baby, what they want is irrelevant. It's all about the child now. When people decide to have a baby, they're on the hook for the next 18 years. It is their primary responsibility in life to see to the welfare and upbringing of that child. If Witt wants a nice wedding, too bad, she blew it. Should have thought of that before she got knocked up. Johnson doesn't like to pay? Should have thought of that before he dipped his johnson. Or maybe gotten enough education and experience to have a decent job that had insurance.

As it is, both of them better suck it up and act like adults. As far as this being a draconian law - it was signed by Granholm. Not like this is some ancient holdover.

Seriously? This situation isn't about responsibility. If you hadn't noted from the article, I'll repeat it. They would not be charged if they were married. Their financial situation is irrelevant. Your backwards country is penalizing a couple financially for not comforming to it's view of what is an acceptable relationship. I could not imagine supporting a government that purported to tell me who I can marry and when.

Only one response to that "fark you".
And move.

drinki bird: where is the asinine tag?

its one sad thing when a couple makes the poor decision of getting married too soon for the sake of a child, but its a whole other kind of sad that they are FORCED into it

baby or no baby, people need time to figure out whether this person is the one they want to spend the rest of their life with. If it's not going to work out, its better to be apart from the beginning so the kid doesn't have to go through watching his/her parents' relationship deteriorate and end in divorce.

Bullshiat. If you're old enough to have decided to fark, you're old enough to live with the consequences. Personally, I don't think this law goes far enough--I would REQUIRE all couples who have produced a child to be married. Society needs to look out for the rights of the child, and one of those rights include having a mother and father legally obligated to look after them.

Summercat: I'd be less sympathetic towards these two if it wasn't for the fact that they are planning to get married, they're trying to take care of the kid, and if the state wasn't FORCING them to get married at economic gunpoint.

That's the last bit that gets me. Sanctity of marriage is protected HOW

My thing about this is that more than likely the two of them were never going to get married in the first place. Living together & making eventual promises does not a marraige make. If I had a dollar for every friend, family member, & aquaintance who was in a situation like this (minus the gov't interference & sometimes minus the baby) that never got married I'd be rich several times over.

Shoot, even if they *were* going to get married this isn't the way to do it. There's a chance it could end well, but I'm predicting a marraige full of bitter animosity, jealousy, & begrudgement. She's going to think "if not for that baby I could've had a perfect wedding & marraige". He's going to think "that b**ch trapped me into marraige & I can't get out". Both of them are going to stay together "for the baby" & subject it to 18+ years of a twisted marraige.

Good job Michigan! Another child grows up in a dysfunctional home!

Jack Battles, the Genesee County Friend of the Court, said the law is an incentive to maintain the sanctity of marriage.

If marriage is so farking spectacular, why do we need to keep passing laws pointing it out to people and pushing them into it? You don't see us passing laws to get people to buy beer. We already know it's great and we go out and just buy it.

Battlestar Girlactica: Summercat: I'd be less sympathetic towards these two if it wasn't for the fact that they are planning to get married, they're trying to take care of the kid, and if the state wasn't FORCING them to get married at economic gunpoint.

That's the last bit that gets me. Sanctity of marriage is protected HOW

My thing about this is that more than likely the two of them were never going to get married in the first place. Living together & making eventual promises does not a marraige make. If I had a dollar for every friend, family member, & aquaintance who was in a situation like this (minus the gov't interference & sometimes minus the baby) that never got married I'd be rich several times over.

Shoot, even if they *were* going to get married this isn't the way to do it. There's a chance it could end well, but I'm predicting a marraige full of bitter animosity, jealousy, & begrudgement. She's going to think "if not for that baby I could've had a perfect wedding & marraige". He's going to think "that b**ch trapped me into marraige & I can't get out". Both of them are going to stay together "for the baby" & subject it to 18+ years of a twisted marraige.

Good job Michigan! Another child grows up in a dysfunctional home!

I'd be less agreeing with you if it weren't for what my friend has been going through. Because of his immediate family's hate for his girlfriend (who they hated because she wasn't white, wouldn't have minded if they weren't dating), they're now getting married.

...at least they actually do like each other and have been going out for a coupla years. But I'm not 100% certain it would have stuck if my friend's parents weren't...

...dare I say it?

Italian.

/Girlfriend is American of Philipeno descent
//I'm American of Hebrew/Native American/German maybe descent
///Maybe I could be the Dollar Bill instead of TheSlasher?

Ha! This kind of stuff doesn't surprise me. Most people don't realize that the west side of the state is ultra-conservative. The Grand Rapids area used to be really bad. One of the reasons why I got the hell out of there.

Kevin5280: Jack Battles, the Genesee County Friend of the Court, said the law is an incentive to maintain the sanctity of marriage.

If marriage is so farking spectacular, why do we need to keep passing laws pointing it out to people and pushing them into it? You don't see us passing laws to get people to buy beer. We already know it's great and we go out and just buy it.

LIES

I've never met a beer I liked.

Ale, my friend. Ale.

/Or a lager.

Mouser: drinki bird: where is the asinine tag?

its one sad thing when a couple makes the poor decision of getting married too soon for the sake of a child, but its a whole other kind of sad that they are FORCED into it

baby or no baby, people need time to figure out whether this person is the one they want to spend the rest of their life with. If it's not going to work out, its better to be apart from the beginning so the kid doesn't have to go through watching his/her parents' relationship deteriorate and end in divorce.

Bullshiat. If you're old enough to have decided to fark, you're old enough to live with the consequences. Personally, I don't think this law goes far enough--I would REQUIRE all couples who have produced a child to be married. Society needs to look out for the rights of the child, and one of those rights include having a mother and father legally obligated to look after them.

I am not saying they should not be held responsible for raising the child, but forcing them to get married regardless of the quality of their relationship to eachother is just unfair to the child.

It doesn't benefit the kid at all if his parents are married to each other, but fail to work well together. Over time constant irritability and tension of a mismatched couple can lead to verbal and sometimes physical abuse, and Jr. should not have to endure this and watch them fall apart.

Having separated parents isn't traumatic, but watching them separate is.

It's good that this came up because neither my girlfriend or I have any intentions of getting married but we're looking at having a herd of rugrats in a couple years. Now I know more questions to ask.

Yeah yeah, the whole marriage thing... I did that once and now I have a sociopath ex-wife that's stated clearly that she wants to kill me. Not that I really care, it's not like she'll actually succeed. The only thing she could ever do is stuff food in her face and spread her legs for every swinging dick that came her way.