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 So if it were repealed, I think that would be a step in the right direction, with respect to that portion of DOMA."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."
Obamanation Counterculture File.
The federal definition of marriage is little more than a means of bribing the people through a tax definition.
We would be paying survivors SS benefits to Effing farm animals if they had their way. As long as they can smoke dope they don't care how immoral things get.
Husband-Wife-State
That wasnt what I was getting at.
I like DOMA and I want it defended. But judges need to stop writing new laws through modification. But both sides want them to do it, for their own issues.
I stand corrected.
It’s a damn shame that this is a federal issue. Social Security, Medicare, faggot marriage is a state issue. FDR never should have been allowed to start that over-budgetted, fraudulent social security to begin with. This whole thing is a cruel joke, and we elected the clowns that started and perpetuated it.
Its a tax deduction like one on home loans, a probably a better one. And certainly a better than GWBs single Mom tax credit, which would stand BTW.
In some cases getting married actually costs y MORE in taxes than singles living together in sin. Here in Maryland Federal AMT does that to middle class where both in married couple work professional jobs, because combined income triggers it.
Like I said. Its a bribe and we will see who can sell their principles to keep the money coming.
If what you are getting at is that those deductions (or any tax law related to marriage) should be removed once gay couples get them then I agree.
How the hell would they file taxes? Married on Fed forms and single on state?
There are millions of laws on the books that would have to be changed.
Personally, my church will never recognize gay marriage and doesn't even like civil marriage in general. I'm offended that I need a license by the state. As far as threats to marriage go, gays aren't the same threat to it as divorce.
The Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage, abortion, euthenasia, etc., automatically makes such issues unique state power issues. So DOMA, for example, was arguably pure political theater, winning votes for incumbent lawmakers from voters who don’t know about the Constitution’s division of federal and state government powers, such powers evidenced by the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I, Article V and the 10th Amendment.
That’s pretty much exactly what I’m saying. Do away with marriage licenses and allow the earners to name a beneficiary of things like social security.
Christians will still be married in the eyes of God and their church.
If it plays out that way Roberts may be sorry he was restrained on Obama-care mandate because throwing out that mandate would be nothing compared to judicial destruction of Marriage via new rights.
The difference is that abortion kills babies. What two consenting adult homos do in their home isn’t my business.
I’ve said this all along. Marriage is a sacrament. If we continue to allow the state to meddle in the sacraments, things are going to go from bad to much, much worse. Do away with all government involvement with marriage and the issue becomes one of rewriting some tax code and ironing out some beneficiary legalities. The only possible exception I can think of is setting a reasonable age of consent.
Marriage should NOT be a matter of State. As instituted by God in Holy Scripture it is a sacred covenant. The State has nothing to do with it. But we allow the State to define the terms of the contract when we apply for a “marriage license” - the “benefits” of marriage (a contract sanctioned and controlled under under the State) also include State control over the issue (progeny) of said contract. That which is Holy should never be under State control, period. The first amendment does NOT give power to the State to control religious covenants. State, stay out of the Church!!!!!
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.