Attention Outgoing State Governors

There are state Governors in the US who are rapidly approaching the end of their terms as Governor and will be leaving that office.

We are respectfully imploring you to use your executive powers to pardon any of your residents convicted of crimes due to having consensual (to be redundant) sex with an adult under anti-incest laws, whether they are currently in the justice system or not, even if they have since passed away,

Let's be clear. We're not talking about assault or child molestation. We're talking about sex between consenting adults (or between minors close in age to each other), still criminalized in your states. The laws should be changed, but since they haven't been yet, please have mercy on these people.

This plea is directed at the following Governors:

Matt Mead - Wyoming
Scott Walker - Wisconsin
Bill Haslam - Tennessee
Dennis Daugaard - South Dakota
Jerry Brown - California
John Hickenlooper - Colorado
Dannel Malloy - Connecticut
Rick Scott - Florida
Nathan Deal - Georgia
Butch Otter - Idaho
Bruce Rauner - Illinois
Jeff Colyer - Kansas
Paul LePage - Maine
Rick Snyder - Michigan
Mark Dayton - Minnesota
Brian Sandoval - Nevada
Susana Martinez - New Mexico
John Kasich - Ohio
Mary Fallin - Oklahoma

If we've missed an outgoing Governor, we apologize.


This plea is also directed at Governors of US territories: If you have the power to do so, pardon or at least commute the sentences of those listed as criminals due to consanguineous affections.

If you are the Governor or someone on the Governor's staff, or someone with access to the Governor, please act quickly to get this done. We know time is very limited.

There is no good reason these people should suffer any more for having had a physical relationship.

Let's stop wasting public resources on treating these people like they are a threat to anyone. If they were convicted of additional crimes relating to the investigation, their arrest, prosecution, etc., please consider pardoning them of those, too.

Do the kind, merciful, and just thing as you end your term as Governor. Get on the right side of history!

Please pardon!

Do You Support Freedom of Religion?

If freedom of religion means anything, it must mean that someone can practice their religion (and practice no religion) in their own private life, as long as the aren't harming anyone else. So it seems reasonable that clergy should be free to conduct religious ceremonies that don't hurt anyone. This is not just a mental exercise. This is a real life issue.


Gus Burns reports at mlive.com...

Photo provided by Neil Patrick Carrick

A lesbian Michigan couple's lawsuit helped legalize gay marriage nationwide in June. But another lawsuit filed by Detroit Pastor Neil Patrick Carrick in January naming Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette aimed to loosen state marriage laws even further in the private and religious realm.

Carrick argues private ceremonies solemnizing marriages before God -- even in cases of polygamous marriage -- which are not recognized legally, should not be interfered with by the government.

Of course they shouldn't.

Currently Michigan law defines marriage as a civil contract. Anyone performing a ceremony to "solemnize" a marriage must require the presentation of a marriage certificate before doing so, or they may be fined up to $100.
Additionally under current law, any clergy or magistrate who knowingly performs a marriage not recognized under state law can be fined up to $500.

Do you understand? In Michigan, it is illegal to perform a ceremony without approval of the state. How is that not a violation of the First Amendment on religious freedom and free speech?

Is Michigan Arresting People For Consensual Sex?

This short article at wnem.com doesn't make it clear what is alleged to have happened, and maybe law enforcement isn't being clear either. The headline said a man was arrested after his daughter revealed a "sexual relationship." The article's text uses that same phrase. The man is 39 but his biological daughter's age is not given.

Michigan State Police troopers from the Mt. Pleasant Post are investigating a criminal sexual conduct allegation between a biological father and daughter. 

Criminal sexual conduct? Sexual relationship? If it was assault or molestation, I wouldn't use those words, which imply a mutual consent. I would expect assault or rape charges, too. But it is possible she is of age and this was consensual. For all we know, they just met a year ago and this is Genetic Sexual Attraction. If this was consensual, it is outrageous that he was arrested and is facing charges.

The article says this happened because she told her doctor about the relationship. I don't know if doctors have to report consensual incest. Again, if she complained about being assaulted, that would have been better language to use.

So do we have an assault case where the descriptive language is too light, or do we have an outrageous intrusion into a consensual relationship? If the former, throw the book at him. If the latter, it is atrocious  and dangerous that a woman can't be honest with her doctor about a consensual relationship.

Is Michigan Still Prosecuting Consenting Adults?

I can't tell from this news article, the headline claiming an criminal charge for "incest," whether this is a matter of consensual sex between adults or a predatory assault. Obviously, there is a big difference between those two. Here's what the article by Brad Devereaux reported at mlive.com (emphases are mine)...

The 45-year-old Farwell man who was arrested on Christmas Day and charged with criminal sexual assault third degree involving incest appeared in the 80th District Court in Clare County on Wednesday, Dec. 26.

Merry Christmas!

Michigan State Police arrested Nokes at his home in Farwell after an investigation of a complaint they received several months earlier from Nokes' family member, alleging three instances on incest in Farwell and one instance in Clinton County.

That sounds like a third party complaining, rather than the possible victim.

Thankfully, the article was helpful by linking to this information about the applicable state law. Again, emphases are mine...

Convoluted Legal Restrictions on Consent

Although the age of consent varies from country to country, and in the US, from state to state, this blog is generally not about altering age of consent laws. An exception to this is that I think the laws should be consistent. By that I mean that if, say, a 17-year-old can legally consent to sex with a complete stranger, they should be free to consent to sex with, say, an aunt or uncle. An example of the problem that selective restrictions cause is shown below.

Here's another one of those articles that is missing some important information. Stan Maddux wrote at Indiana's heraldgus.com...

A 45-year-old Westville-area man admitted to having sexual contact with a family member.

The man entered a plea agreement Friday in La Porte Circuit Court. Terms call for a five-year prison sentence for Class C felony incest.

Notice that the charge is "incest" and it is referred to as "sexual contact," no charges or mentions of assault of any kind. From the official state website:

IC 35-46-1-3
Incest
     Sec. 3. (a) A person eighteen (18) years of age or older who engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct with another person, when the person knows that the other person is related to the person biologically as a parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew, commits incest, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony if the other person is less than sixteen (16) years of age.
    (b) It is a defense that the accused person's otherwise incestuous relation with the other person was based on their marriage, if it was valid where entered into.

So if half-siblings legally married in Sweden, and moved to Indiana, they could have sex all they want. But if their neighbors were half-siblings, not only could they not get married, but they could get prosecuted. Wouldn't it just be easier to let anyone of the age of consent have consensual sex with anyone else of the age of consent, and not get law enforcement involved?

Positive Coverage of Poly Families

This TV station's report on polyamory includes video of two families. The story is from Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Today's debate is to legalize gay marriage. However, changing the definition of marriage for one group, could redefine it for others -- at least that's the hope for one family.

It is the hope of many, many families.

Like most couples, for Mike and Claire, it started with "I do." In time their love grew for each other and for another couple.

This married "quad" is redefining commitment. Its called polyamory. Claire says, "Polyamory means many loves, the ability to love more than one person."

Claire and Mike met Emily and Victor by chance online -- both liked each other's blog responses on relationships and the four agreed to meet.

Victor says, "We were just like they're really great people, let's see more of them, we started to, and it just grew from there."

This happens more than most people think.

Mike says, "What happens as far as sleeping arrangements, is Claire and Emily switch beds every other night, but Claire and Emily also sleep together too one night, because they need that bond as well."

As for the men, they are emotional spouses, but don't share beds. Like any other relationship, sex is just one aspect of daily life. The quad pools everything-- finances, chores, and decision making.

Why shouldn't they be able to make it legal, if that is what they want?

There are two children being raise in this family.

Claire says, "It actually bothers me deeply when people say my children are going to be negatively affected by my relationship, I think they really don't have a clue what goes on here."

Claire and Mike had the kids before the quad met. Claire says raising them as group means more homework help, love, and attention. Plus a divorce-free home.

That's a good point. So many children these days are being shuttled between two homes of two "monogamous" couples. I would think this quad is a better situation for children.

A trio is also included in the story.

Michael and Katie live together--but both date Monica. They're coming forward in hopes of making a social change.

Katie says, "As long as you're not infringing on anyone else's rights you should be able to do whatever is right for you."

They're speaking for others who want the government out of people's personal lives.

Katie says, "I don't think the government has any part of a relationships, who you love, regardless of if you're gay or straight, love one person or 100, the government shouldn't be able to put a name on that."

The quad shares the same view--they want marriage redefined--

Emily says, "I'd like to say I'm legally married to all three of them."

They should not be denied that right. That's why this blog is here. An adult should be free to pursue love, sex, and marriage with any consenting adults.