Open Letter to Todd Courser

Representative, Michigan 82nd State House district

In regards to proposed house bills 4732 and 4733

Dear Mr. Courser,

Im writing to you to comment on the house bills 4732 and 4733 that you proposed, and the statements
youve made on your web site explaining your position (It's Time to End the States Involvement in
Marriage, The Truth Regarding The Marriage Bills I Have Just Entered...). I feel that your Bills are
poorly conceived, if adopted into law will most likely be in violation of the 1st Amendment of the
constitution, and that if you do believe in religious freedom, as you profess, you should be the first to
request its withdrawal. I understand, that the chances of these bills passing is negligible, and they likely
were introduced more to popularize your views, than in any actual expectation of their success.
However, I also believe, that a public representative introducing any piece of legislation should at least
try to consider general public good, and not a just promote an agenda of a particular group that happen
to share his attitudes.
While I may agree with the concept of reduced government involvement in certain areas of our lives,
including, potentially, marriage, I would very much object to the means you propose to employ for that
purpose. I would not talk here about LGBT issues, as I am sure there are people enough who will
comment on your proposed legislation from that angle. I would like to point out the consequences of
this proposed legislation for people who do not identify themselves with an established religion a
consequence that you clearly recognized in your subsequent statement, and then dismissed as
irrelevant.
Bill 4733 explains right in the title: "to require a MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE SIGNED BY CLERGY in order to
marry and its registration" This concept for the requirement of clergy to sign off on the marriage is
further clarified in Bill 4732, which states in section 5: Marriages may only be solemnized by either of
the following: a) a minister of the gospel, cleric, or a religious practitioner anywhere in the State, if the
minister of the gospel, cleric, or religious practitioner is ordained or authorized to solemnize marriages
according to the usages of denomination (with point b establishing the same requirement for out of
state practitioners).
In The Truth regarding the Marriage Bill you explain If these bills are successful and become law
then the "officiating of weddings" will then rest in the hands of the clergy and ministers. If the couple
does not want to have a religious wedding then they are free to simply file an affidavit attesting that
they are married. They can do this without ever having to have a ceremony.
Mr. Courser, Im not a lawyer, but the only provisions for filing an affidavit for acknowledgement of
a non-religious marriage appear to refer to common law marriage which notably does not come with
the same benefits under Michigan law. For a fully recognized marriage, it seems that it must be
conducted by a religious leader regardless of peoples faith or lack thereof. Interestingly, later in the
same document you feel the need to further clarify your thoughts by stating, These bills do not in any
way prohibit gay, atheist or any other type of marriage - on the contrary under my proposed legislation, I

assume there will be lots of clergy who will be willing to "marry" gay and atheist couples. (I absolutely
love the quotes in that marry.)
I would also like to point out an apparent contradiction in your reasoning, when you attempt to explain
and justify the bills you have introduced. On the one hand, you claim that no ceremony is needed
(though as I mentioned this is limited to common-law marriage), but on the other hand, you say that
many clergy would be willing to do it for atheists/secularists anyway. So, let me ask you, which
justification are you actually going with? If it is the former, you should ensure that your bills provide for
full and equal legal status of secularly performed marriages. If it is the latter, then you should broaden
the definition from minister of the gospel, cleric, or religious practitioner to any private ceremony
provider - religious or secular. It would be unconstitutional otherwise, would not you agree?
Returning to the published language of the bills, let me ask you, why would or should an atheist,
agnostic or anyone else, who claims no religion 34 million Americans (15.0%) according to the most
recent (2009) American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) report have to be married by a member
of clergy? Should a Christian have to get married by a court clerk instead of their Pastor? I would submit
not, and would never support such a bill. You, however, seem to feel that it is right to place similar
demands on others. Maybe those are not your intended targets, but does it make it any better if the
harm still occurs?
In reality, if voted into the law, the Bills would severely inhibit non-religious Americans ability to get
married in Michigan. Certainly not without either claiming a religious belief that they do not have, or
being forced to seek an accepting religious leader in an organization that they would have no interest
in otherwise. I do not know whether that was your goal or not, but it seems a clear outcome of the
language in the proposed legislation and a clear violation of peoples religious and civil freedom.
I would ask you to consider how this legislation can strengthen the concept of religious freedom and
liberty, when it aims to do so at the expense of curtaining freedom and liberty of other Americans
based on their religious believes or lack thereof. Protecting the consciousness of one group of people
at the expense of another is, in my opinion, a direct opposite of religious freedom that you profess to
strengthen with your bill. Real defense of freedom is when you fight for the rights of those whom you
may not agree with, not when you try to place others under the constraints of your own worldview.
I would ask you to reflect for a moment on what is the right thing to do. Thank you.

Regards,
Michael Tarasev
9146 Dexter Pinckney Rd.
Pinckney, MI 48169
734-883-4024
mtarasev@gmail.com