.... and one of two states too.... shit been law since 1931, and the with the Dems in power they're trying to get rid of it.... 9 Republicans are in opposition
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
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.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.335 ;-- Am. 1952, Act 73, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 672, Eff. Mar. 31, 2003
Former Law: See sections 6 and 7 of Ch. 158 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, §§ 5861 and 5862; CL 1871, §§ 7696 and 7697; How., §§ 9282 and 9283; CL 1897, §§ 11693 and 11694; CL 1915, §§ 15467 and 15468; and CL 1929, §§ 16822 and 16823.
Lansing — The state Senate on Wednesday approved a bill with nine Republicans in opposition that would remove from Michigan law an unenforced provision that makes it a misdemeanor for an unmarried man and woman to live together.
Two GOP lawmakers who voted against the proposed repeal argued that keeping the law on the books would encourage marriage and strengthen families. Sen. Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan, said the reasons for the longstanding policy "are clearly not obsolete."
But Democrats countered that the Republicans' remarks were out of step with modern times.
"What year are they living in?” Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, asked reporters of the Republicans after Wednesday's session.
A 2016 analysis by the nonpartisan Senate Fiscal Agency said only Michigan and Mississippi still had policies that prohibited cohabitation by unmarried couples and described the standard in Michigan as "essentially unenforced."
However, the state law, which dates back to at least 1931, has tax implications, according to those supporting its repeal. Federal law prevents an individual filing taxes from claiming someone as a dependent if the relationship violates state requirements, according to the Senate Fiscal Agency.
"This law will help some individuals in our state by reducing their tax burden," said Sen. Stephanie Chang, D-Detroit, the bill's sponsor. "It will place unmarried Michigan taxpayers on equal footing with taxpayers in almost every other state."
Chang added that it will also "bring us into our current century."
The bill to remove the penalty for cohabitation by unmarried men and women passed 29-9 with a majority of Democrats and half of the GOP caucus in support. It would also remove a penalty for unmarried couples "lewdly and lasciviously" associating.
Sen. Thomas Albert, R-Lowell, said the criminal penalty for cohabitation wasn't good policy. But Albert said he didn't agree with the resulting tax effects from repealing the provision.
"I very easily would be a 'yes' on this bill if the tax structure continued to encourage marriage," Albert said at one point.
Having two parents who live together but aren't married isn't "the optimal environment for raising children," he added.
Likewise, McBroom spoke against the removal of the cohabitation penalty, saying he favors laws that promote "good morals."
In addition to Albert and McBroom, those voting against the repeal bill were Sens. Kevin Daley of Lum, John Damoose of Harbor Springs, Dan Lauwers of Brockway Township, Jonathan Lindsey of Allen, Jim Runestad of White Lake, Lana Theis of Brighton and Roger Victory of Hudsonville.
“This bill is very representative of where we are as a nation and as a culture," McBroom said.
The proposal now goes to the state House for consideration.
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
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.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.335 ;-- Am. 1952, Act 73, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 672, Eff. Mar. 31, 2003
Former Law: See sections 6 and 7 of Ch. 158 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, §§ 5861 and 5862; CL 1871, §§ 7696 and 7697; How., §§ 9282 and 9283; CL 1897, §§ 11693 and 11694; CL 1915, §§ 15467 and 15468; and CL 1929, §§ 16822 and 16823.
Michigan senators spar over unenforced penalty for unmarried couples living together
Lansing — The state Senate on Wednesday approved a bill with nine Republicans in opposition that would remove from Michigan law an unenforced provision that makes it a misdemeanor for an unmarried man and woman to live together.
Two GOP lawmakers who voted against the proposed repeal argued that keeping the law on the books would encourage marriage and strengthen families. Sen. Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan, said the reasons for the longstanding policy "are clearly not obsolete."
But Democrats countered that the Republicans' remarks were out of step with modern times.
"What year are they living in?” Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, asked reporters of the Republicans after Wednesday's session.
A 2016 analysis by the nonpartisan Senate Fiscal Agency said only Michigan and Mississippi still had policies that prohibited cohabitation by unmarried couples and described the standard in Michigan as "essentially unenforced."
However, the state law, which dates back to at least 1931, has tax implications, according to those supporting its repeal. Federal law prevents an individual filing taxes from claiming someone as a dependent if the relationship violates state requirements, according to the Senate Fiscal Agency.
"This law will help some individuals in our state by reducing their tax burden," said Sen. Stephanie Chang, D-Detroit, the bill's sponsor. "It will place unmarried Michigan taxpayers on equal footing with taxpayers in almost every other state."
Chang added that it will also "bring us into our current century."
The bill to remove the penalty for cohabitation by unmarried men and women passed 29-9 with a majority of Democrats and half of the GOP caucus in support. It would also remove a penalty for unmarried couples "lewdly and lasciviously" associating.
Sen. Thomas Albert, R-Lowell, said the criminal penalty for cohabitation wasn't good policy. But Albert said he didn't agree with the resulting tax effects from repealing the provision.
"I very easily would be a 'yes' on this bill if the tax structure continued to encourage marriage," Albert said at one point.
Having two parents who live together but aren't married isn't "the optimal environment for raising children," he added.
Likewise, McBroom spoke against the removal of the cohabitation penalty, saying he favors laws that promote "good morals."
In addition to Albert and McBroom, those voting against the repeal bill were Sens. Kevin Daley of Lum, John Damoose of Harbor Springs, Dan Lauwers of Brockway Township, Jonathan Lindsey of Allen, Jim Runestad of White Lake, Lana Theis of Brighton and Roger Victory of Hudsonville.
“This bill is very representative of where we are as a nation and as a culture," McBroom said.
The proposal now goes to the state House for consideration.
Michigan senators spar over unenforced penalty for unmarried couples living together
A bill would remove from Michigan law an antiquated provision making it a misdemeanor for an unmarried man and woman to live together.
www.detroitnews.com
