LANSING (WWJ) – In Michigan it has long been against the law for unmarried couples to live together, carrying a penalty of up to a year in prison.
Of course, it has been a long time since the bill has been enforced. "The last time a person was charged under this section of the Code is not known," a summary of the bill says.
The state Senate on Wednesday voted to repeal the law with legislation sponsored by Sen. Stephanie Chang of Detroit.
It passed by a vote of 29-9, with all nine “no” votes coming from Republicans.
The bill would amend the Michigan Penal Code to delete a provision that prohibits a man and woman, who are not married to each other, from "lewdly and lasciviously associating and cohabitating together."
The bill, though, would retain a provision that prohibits any individual, married or unmarried, from "engaging in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior."
Chang says the law will help reduce the taxpayer burden for some people in the state and place taxpayers “on equal footing” with taxpayers in "almost every other state.”
“And it will bring us to our current century and really just update our laws,” she said.
Related
But the vote to repeal the nearly century-old law didn’t come without opposition, with some claiming it will allow people to cheat on their taxes by claiming others as dependents. Others had moral concerns.
Sen. Ed McBroom of the Upper Peninsula was among those to vote against the bill.
“Government exists to provide for the general welfare by protecting people from evil and danger and by promoting the common good,” he said. “The repeal of this law is not a promotion of the common good.”
McBroom said Wednesday cohabitation has been consistently shown to “decrease the resilience and permanence of marriage and to decrease the potential that marriage happens at all.”
“Meanwhile, marriage has been consistently shown to be the gold standard by which a stable society is maintained,” he said.
Sen. Thomas Albert of West Michigan said he agrees the criminal penalty “is an unjustified means to an end and it should be removed," but he's worried about tax implications it may have.
“I cannot, however, close my eyes to the secondary effects of this bill. I very easily would be a ‘yes’ on this bill if the tax structure continued to encourage marriage because there is an overwhelming benefit for the growth and development of our children,” he said.
The bill can be read in its entirety on the state legislature’s website. The bill now goes to the state House for consideration.
Related
