Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Throw out federal definition of marriage altogether, Amash says ahead of Supreme Court hearings
MLive ^ | March 26, 2013 | Zane McMillin

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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: aclu; amash; blackhelicopters; doma; homosexualagenda; justinamash; karymoss; michigan; palestinian; paulistinian; ssm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last
To: DarkSavant

Obamanation Counterculture File.


21 posted on 03/27/2013 8:32:37 AM PDT by Graewoulf (Traitor John Roberts' Commune-Style Obama'care' violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laweeks
This is a federal issue for several reasons. One, social security survivor benefits are available to spouses. Including homosexuals in the mix will add untold billions of dollars to long term commitments we already can't meet. Second, military spouses are entitled to benefits, including housing, survivor pensions, travel, medical benefits. Now that the military has been turned pink, how much will that cost? No one knows. Third, spouses of federal employees are entitled to medical and pension survivor benefits. State Department spouses are also entitled to housing and travel benefits,and are issued diplomatic passports and privileges. Finally, immigration law permits issuance of visas to foreign spouses and fiances. This is already a wide open door to fraud. Can you imagine the future, when the problem is multiplied through homosexual “marriage”? Aging homosexuals importing comely young male “fiances” and “spouses” from the four corners of the earth? Whether we like it or not,this is a federal issue with enormous financial and social consequences. Amoral libertarianism bumps up against economic reality.
22 posted on 03/27/2013 8:32:41 AM PDT by Godwin1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

The federal definition of marriage is little more than a means of bribing the people through a tax definition.


23 posted on 03/27/2013 8:34:47 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DarkSavant
This is the problem with Liberaltarians, anything goes.

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.

24 posted on 03/27/2013 8:35:08 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
Sure, and in the larger view, is that when you get a marriage license; enter in agreement with the State, thus a polygamist.

Husband-Wife-State

25 posted on 03/27/2013 8:35:49 AM PDT by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: posterchild
RE :”I also don’t want a federal definition of baptism, nor one of reconciliation, nor of bar/bat mitzvahs, last rites, etc.
Let civil unions be the only thing a judge/justice of the peace/cruise ship captain/elvis impersonator can bestow upon a couple. It should be much like LLC formation.”

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.

26 posted on 03/27/2013 8:37:23 AM PDT by sickoflibs (To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
The ONLY thing wrong with your post is it should read ... “federal law suit’(s)”

I stand corrected.

27 posted on 03/27/2013 8:40:16 AM PDT by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction
I don't see how this is a potential lawsuit. The Federal Government already treats it's own employees differently depending on states they live, including employee compensation. The thought is services and benefits in the Federal level with marriage clauses will use contractual language that does not include marriage.

If State Y defines a marriage a certain way, it's not relevant to employee benefits. The Feds see will word the benefit as a civil contract that isn't privy to an individuals state's definition of marriage.
28 posted on 03/27/2013 8:41:22 AM PDT by DarkSavant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Godwin1

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.


29 posted on 03/27/2013 8:44:17 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
RE :”The federal definition of marriage is little more than a means of bribing the people through a tax definition.”

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.

30 posted on 03/27/2013 8:46:32 AM PDT by sickoflibs (To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Like I said. Its a bribe and we will see who can sell their principles to keep the money coming.


31 posted on 03/27/2013 8:48:10 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
RE :”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.

32 posted on 03/27/2013 8:51:11 AM PDT by sickoflibs (To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DarkSavant
If the Feds accept queer marriage but some states don't, the queers will get married in queer states and go back to normal states to live.

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.

33 posted on 03/27/2013 8:52:24 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DarkSavant
I think this is the best we can get or we're going to get federally sanctioned homo marriage by the courts (and possibly even church micromanagement) - if not now - soon. Loving v Virginia cited as precedent.

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.

34 posted on 03/27/2013 8:52:43 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (If most people were more than keyboard warriors, we might have won the election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarkSavant; All

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.


35 posted on 03/27/2013 8:55:52 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

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.


36 posted on 03/27/2013 8:56:06 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
That is probably what we will need because Justice Kennedy was a key vote making same-sex-sodomy a new US constitutional right, so I am not optimistic here,

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.

37 posted on 03/27/2013 9:00:30 AM PDT by sickoflibs (To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

The difference is that abortion kills babies. What two consenting adult homos do in their home isn’t my business.


38 posted on 03/27/2013 9:12:59 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (If most people were more than keyboard warriors, we might have won the election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

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.


39 posted on 03/27/2013 9:44:45 AM PDT by grellis (I am Jill's overwhelming sense of disgust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

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!!!!!


40 posted on 03/27/2013 10:02:26 AM PDT by LibreOuMort (I am still here, by the grace of God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson