Republican Party

GOP Michigan State Rep Bolts Party Over Gay Rights; Joins Libertarians


MLive reports that former Michigan state Rep. Lorence Wenke has dropped the Republican Party and taken up with the Libertarian Party. He will run for U.S. Senate as a Libertarian in the fall.

In a statement dated April 25, the long-time Southwest Michigan Republican cited the party's "discrimination" against gay citizens and what he characterized as "taxpayer abuse," which he said has created "an elite class" of government employees, as the reasons behind his decision.

"I support the constitutional right of our gay family members to enjoy the same rights as our heterosexual family members," Wenke wrote, citing his record as one of just two Republican legislators to vote against the Marriage Protection Amendment to the Michigan Constitution in 2004. …

Saying that Republicans encouraged churches to support political efforts to discriminate against gays by condemning them for "what they perceive as a sinful lifestyle choice," Wenke added, "These same people often ignore the clear teachings of Jesus and Paul stating that remarriage after divorce is committing adultery."…

Wenke is upset at spending patterns too:

With regards to out-of-control government spending, Wenke cited as examples Kalamazoo's Early Retirement Initiative, which resulted in lifetime pensions of $110,000 and $87,000 a year for the former city manager and assistant city manager.

"Our spending of taxpayer dollars has been immoral and is leading our country to bankruptcy," he wrote.

More here.

NEXT: This Is What a Government Going Broke Looks Like

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You forgot the “Former” in the headline, Nick.

    -1 Truth in Advertising.

    For shame.

  2. “These same people often ignore the clear teachings of Jesus and Paul stating that remarriage after divorce is committing adultery.”

    Now that you mention it, the divorce laws could use a bit of reforming. If abolishing divorce is too radical, what about getting rid of no-fault and letting the innocent spouse keep his or her marital and parental rights, while absolving them from their duties to the guilty spouse?

    1. We get the message Eddie. Catholic theocracy ftw!

      1. Seriouosly? The fault-based divorce laws in the U.S. were passed by impeccably-Protestant legislatures. Are you calling those legislators filthy Papists?

        1. How about just cancelling state-sponsored marriage altogether? The divorce rates will decline sharply.

          1. Many couples are way ahead of you. They never got that square piece of paper, man. Measure the break-up rates and see what you find!

            1. Anyway, the question of who gets custody of the children, and who is entitled to support from the other party, will still remain. Should such decisions be based on the misbehavior of the guilty spouse, or on a moral equivalence between the guilty and the innocent?

              1. Guilty in which way? The one who broke the agreement first? The one who broke the agreement most? What does that have to do with the spouse who would best raise the children?

                1. Well, I see it this way: Why should Jane, who did her duty toward her spouse and children, because Bob, whom she’s divorcing based on cheating, abuse, drunkenness, felony conviction, etc. has some social worker’s testimony that Bob is not only a better parent than he is a husband, but would be a better parent than Jane? It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future, and anyway, if Bob was so committed to his children, he should have treated their mother better.

                  1. *lose custody of her children* because Bob etc.

                  2. Who says she should?

        2. I said that because I know you’re Catholic and you spend most of your time here pushing your Catholic-influenced beliefs. In this case, that the government should issue marriage licenses, restrict them to heterosexual couples, and have restrictive laws on divorce. I assume it’s a total coincidence that you hold these positions, and that your religion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

          1. You really can’t change the fact that the fault-based divorce laws were passed by non-Catholic legislatures.

            1. That has nothing to do with the point I was making. I don’t care who passed such laws in the US historically, in a Catholic theocracy, they would exist.

              1. A Catholic theocracy would not allow divorce.

                1. True, a hardcore one would not. But your enlightened, softer version is still not ok.

          2. “that your religion has absolutely nothing to do with it”

            Thomas Jefferson wasn’t Catholic, but he allowed himself to be influenced by *his* religious views (“endowed by their Creator,” etc.)

            1. Yep, that’s right, you’re the next TJ.

              1. No, I was showing you how much your logic…falls short.

                1. Forcing your beliefs on others is not the same as your beliefs causing you to belief that all men have equal rights.

                  1. Jefferson supported no-fault divorce?

          3. Let me add that marriage licenses are not part of Catholic belief.

    2. Some marriages just need to end and no party is the wrong one.

      If govnernment is going to be involved in marriage, I think it should be limited to simple acknowledging marriages that exist, not trying to determine how they should begin or end. It sucks for the children involved in some cases, but things just suck sometimes. I certainly agree that some reform in that area is called for.

      If my employer and I both want to dissolve the contract we have, there is no problem. Marriage (as a legal contract, not as a religious sacrament necessarily) shouldn’t be any different.

      1. Sure, mutual agreed divorce is going to happen anyway, may as well make legal provision for it.

        But unilateral divorce by one party over the objection of the other, who has observed his/her marital obligations, is IMHO a problem.

        “simple acknowledging marriages that exist”

        I agree, the only minor matter to resolve is how do we know which marriages exist?

        1. “I agree, the only minor matter to resolve is how do we know which marriages exist?”

          By letting people make their own agreements, instead of one-size-fits all predetermined government licenses?

          1. Are you really prepared to go there and allow people to make contracts (call them “marriages,” to pull a term at random) that says that the contract creates a community of life that is binding for life (with certain narrow exceptions, such as adultery) and that if either party breaches that contract (say, by cheating, or by walking out), that parties has to pay damages to the non-breaching party. You know, as is the case with every kind of contract *other* than marriage (the one contract that you can breach if you think you’ll be better off, leave the non-breaching party worse off, and nonetheless not have to make the non-breaching party whole).

            1. Um, yeah, sure. But there’s no reason to think everyone would craft the same contract that would include such provisions.

    3. Now that you mention it, the divorce laws could use a bit of reforming. If abolishing divorce is too radical, …

      Begging the question

  3. This guy sounds pretty sharp…

    ..which means he’s unelectable.

    1. Well, it is Michigan.

      1. …the state that gave us Sens. Stabenow and Levin, as well as 8, solid years of Governor Granholm (“Worst. Governor. EVER.?”)

        Naw, he doesn’t stand a chance.

        Although W. MI might as well be a different state – it’s generally as TEAM RED and SE MI is TEAM BLUE. Plus-Dutch Reformed.

        1. Have you ever been a member of the communist party CCR?

          1. No, but I covered a couple of songs once.

          2. Credence Clearwater Revival?

            1. Oh shit, I was talking about Cross Canadian Ragweed

              1. And here I was thinking you had beaten me to the punch.

  4. This is exactly what I was talking about in the Kibbe thread about opportunists colonizing a political party. I wish this guy all the best, but he’s really just queue-jumping a crowded field by doing this. The Republican primary is crowded and tilted against his record. He seems to have a record that could be respectable to the LP, and it would be nice to have an LP senator, although I remain skeptical that electing enough officials can turn back the tide at this point.

    1. I wish he’d try to run for same seat he already has as an LP incumbent.

      Seems like by trying for Senate Seat he is basically conceding that is just a protest candidate instead of just maybe a longshot or even a very very very longshot candidate.

      1. never mind. I just noticed the keyword “former”

  5. So the GOP establishment had someone else in mind for the senate seat in question.

  6. I thought the libert’ns were supposed to join the GOP…

    1. Yeah, according to Kibbe.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.