Posted on 03/27/2013 8:05:46 AM PDT by DarkSavant
GRAND RAPIDS, MI — U.S. Rep. Justin Amash wants the Supreme Court to throw out the federal definition of marriage altogether, a revelation made the night before justices were set to weigh one of two gay marriage cases this week.
Amash, R-Cascade Township, was pressed for his take on the federal Defense of Marriage Act during an American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan forum Monday in Grand Rapids.
"My view has always been that government should not be in the business of defining or redefining marriage," Amash said. "I see it as a private issue. I personally see it as a religious issue."
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments over the legality of California's ban on same-sex marriage. Thousands of gay marriage supporters and opponents demonstrated outside the court during deliberations.
On Wednesday, justices are set to hear another case, on the legality of DOMA, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and defines marriage as one man, one woman.
The court's decision on those cases, expected this summer, could have vast implications for the gay marriage debate across the country.
Kary Moss, executive director of ACLU of Michigan, broached the topic during Monday's forum with Amash at Wealthy Theatre, 1130 Wealthy St. SE.
The event mainly was to discuss contentious national security tactics opposed by the ACLU and Amash, such as drone strikes to kill terrorist suspects.
During discussion with Amash, Moss said, "Obviously, this is an issue that has been very divisive, it's been very divisive in this state with the passage of the gay marriage ban," in 2004.
Still, she added, "public opinion is shifting very, very rapidly on this issue as well as just on nondiscrimination."
Amash, known for his staunch libertarian beliefs, replied he was unsettled by the federal definition of marriage, and hinted it should be up to states to decide, at least for now.
"I don't want the government deciding who has a legitimate baptism, who has a legitimate communion, who's involved in other personal relationships we have," Amash said. "I want the government out of it."
On DOMA specifically, Amash said he has "always opposed the federal definition of marriage in DOMA. So if it were repealed, I think that would be a step in the right direction, with respect to that portion of DOMA."
Michigan is one of 40 states that bans same-sex marriage. Moss prodded Amash on whether he was concerned about allowing states to define marriage, but not the federal government.
Amash said he does have reservations, but argued "there is a growing segment of Americans who understand that having the federal government define it is a big problem, and would feel much more comfortable with having the states determine the issue."
During a question-and-answer session, Amash was reminded by one attendee that despite his convictions, there are certain benefits and recognitions accorded to heterosexual, married couples by the federal government.
"How can you support the idea that we should not redefine marriage on a legal scale, when marriage does have legal implications" such as taxes and Social Security benefits, the attendee asked.
Amash circled back to his previous point.
"To be clear, I don't support having marriage be part of the law, whether it's for any of the particular benefits you're talking about," he said. "I would try to make the law marriage neutral."
>> I assume that you support their positions on that
I made an explicit statement to the contrary. Nice try.
Don’t bitch about assaults when it is you that initiates the diatribe of generalities. Between the gratuitous bashing of libertarians and Catholics, you have no room to complain.
Yeah, people cared.
If you are against all of that, then you should stop promoting and defending it by fighting conservatism and supporting libertarianism.
Reading this thread as you fight for the libertarian cause, and then only to see you claim to be against their most important issues, doesn’t seem honest or logical.
The most ignorant blind post in months, you are clueless about America, and conservatism and even Christianity.
Nope, homos bedrooms will now become part of all our lives whether or not we like it.
And yes, abortions end lives of little persons waiting to be born.
Libertarians have now taken over the leadership role of the Republican Party.
I’ve been clear on my opposition to the Libertarian Party platform primarily as it concerns abortion and the homosexual agenda. While these two facets may be central to some or most members of the Libertarian Party, the two are not at all written into the definitive meaning of libertarianism.
Libertarianism is the opposite of statism. Nothing more, nothing less. It is liberalism that advances the two social issues in question — proclaimed and promoted in both the Democrat Party and Libertarian Party. The two parties converge on very few other things. To the contrary, the remaining aspects of the Libertarian Party platform are essentially espoused on the Right save immigration in various quarters.
>> Libertarians have now taken over the leadership role of the Republican Party.
Wrong. The RINOs may be pathetic, but they’re certainly not promoting abortion and homosexuality in any meaningful way.
The GOPe fights both TEA and Libertarians on finances and size of govt.
Nonsense, and you lying about it doesn’t change what the libertarian agenda is about.
It doesn’t hide the obvious fact of the liberal/rino libertarians who get on conservative forums to promote the agenda of libertarians to republicans and conservatives.
This thread is a testament to your dedicated work in behalf of the libertarians and their agenda of abortion, homosexualizing the military, gay marriage, open borders, gay adoption and all their other sick ideas to a conservative audience, by battling to preserve their credibility in the face of all the evidence of their sick, perverted, radically leftist agenda.
As anyone can see, you are devoted to battling we conservatives in service to your political and cultural identity.
Since the infamous Ninth Circus tossed out Prop. Eight as "unconstitutional" now they're trying to claim the Supreme Court has no standing here, so let the Ninth Circus demand that the voters of CA had no "right" to vote to protect the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman, period!
Well, they’ll fly under the Libertarian banner to the political demise they deserve. There’s no reason for conservative reliance on Libertarianism except to exploit abortion and the homosexual agenda.
Nothing breeds statism like your libertarian agenda of broken homes, broken families, broken people, broken communities, and endless immigration, and abortion, gay marriage and all the other sick stuff that you people are fighting for.
“Ruwart wrote. “When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”
“”Ruwart’s is a classic libertarian take — a defense of free will (even for “child performers”) and an attack on government prohibitions of any kind. It’s also political poison. As libertarian blogger Steve Newton put it, Ruwart and her allies run the risk of turning the party into “the poster child for NAMBLA and the aluminum hat brigade.”
The party’s executive director, Shane Cory, saw the danger as well, and rushed out a press release titled, “Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography.” Cory was attacked by hardliners who saw the release as an endorsement of increased federal prosecuting power. The party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws. Cory resigned in protest, depriving a party in the midst of what may be its most promising election season of one of its most able organizers and fund raisers. But for many libertarian faithful, adherence to the most rigid of principles always trumps practical considerations about how those principles might be more broadly observed.””
You’re spouting recklessly.
No, I have uncovered your agenda, you have spent about 15 hours on this thread using every dishonest trick and evasion possible to promote the libertarian agenda.
From nasty foul mouthed personal attacks at first, when that didn’t work then you went into the lies and deceit of pretending that their agenda isn’t what it is, when I could prove that it is, then you went into a long and sustained period of playing dumb as though you had never known that they believed in such things, then you play the game of how you reject anything in your libertarian agenda that would blow your cover among this conservative audience, and then you slipped back into just chanting the libertarian cliches.
Fifteen hours of you showing a full commitment to their radical political agenda of sick and perverted anti-conservatism, a commitment so deep that you will do or say anything to promote it, in language that got one of your posts removed, slipping and sliding, attacking and lying, evading and maneuvering, you are one very passionate and devoted libertarian.
>> From nasty foul mouthed personal attacks at first,
The extent of any vulgarity was to call “bullpoop” on your initial remarks which was not a personal attack.
I’m a registered Republican. I vote conservative down the line, all the time.
Your insistence that I support the LP platform when I’ve made it clear I don’t is completely overbearing.
It’s not my intention to insult your intelligence, but only point out a distinction that you’re unwilling to consider.
At the end of the day, my hope is to bring potential Pro-Life, traditional marriage libertarians over to the conservative movement. You’re making that a difficult process.
FRegards.
Your dishonesty is pretty deep, that word isn’t what got your personal attack removed, and you now you suddenly claim that you weren’t fighting for the libertarian agenda at all for this entire day.
You spent most of the day claiming that LP platform that you now claim not to support, didn’t even exist, that I was making it up.
Libertarians know very well where they stand with conservatism and why they reject it, and in your case why they fight against it so determinedly on this thread and threads like this one, when someone tells the facts about libertarianism and their leftist agenda.
At the end of the day, I hope to let people know what they are embracing when they reject conservatism and take up the social left agenda of the libertarians.
Yeah, people cared.
Maybe if this country returned to those days we wouldn’t have soch a strong controversy today. But of course we won’t. Not voluntarily, anyway. They’ll just have to run out of OPM, which is right around the corner.
The most ignorant blind post in months, you are clueless about America, and conservatism and even Christianity.
But thank you for your opinion. Opinions vary. Obviously.
;-)
Well your ignorance is kind of startling.
Comparing the end of marriage and family in Western Civilization and in America, as similar to illegal immigration and as solely an issue of tax breaks and government benefits is so beyond ignorance that it is mind boggling. The fact that you think the colonization of America and the replacement of the American people and voters, and the end of America and it’s culture and government and national identity, and it’s future, is just another tax and welfare issue is insane as well.
You continue with that remarkable ignorance, not knowing anything about the government and marriage before 1913.
You also have no idea of the outrage at immigration early in the 20th century which resulted in strict new laws which the left managed to change in 1965, you should look at media stories of the early 1920s to see the intensity of the national immigration outrage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.