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 So if it were repealed, I think that would be a step in the right direction, with respect to that portion of DOMA."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."
The military and immigration must have a definition of marriage.
It is liberalism that promotes abortion, conservatism that promotes life.
It is statism that enforces the law, and libertarianism that advances self governance.
Yes, a liberal will use libertarianism as justification for the lawless killing of nascent life, but a liberal will also use Roe v Wade as justification for the lawful killing of nascent life. It is the liberalism that’s advancing the killing, not libertarianism. You know this.
Gene, how can you not know that libertarianism is for removing all limits on abortion and homosexuality and opening the borders and things so radically leftist that even liberals recoil?
That is their roll in politics, to promote and fight for the end of social conservatism.
Those are liberal policies supposedly distinct from conservative policies.
I have no argument with you concerning the Libertarian Party — however, there are many libertarians that do not agree with its Leftwing agenda.
The distinction between statism and libertarianism is very important. And it’s different than the distinction between liberalism and conservatism.
Of course those are liberal positions and not conservative.
What do you think the war the libertarians are fighting against conservatism is about, it is about ending social conservatism in America.
Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Are you going to tell us what definition that the federal government should use for marriage, or not?
Good point. Although it might be argued that DOMA and the Edmunds Act, as examples, apply to the military.
Would the military accept any and all legal standards of marriage from the various states, or would it exclude some of them?
” Its one thing to throw out laws, another for the courts to write them , like a new gay marriage law.
But they wont, there are 5 justices including Kenndy who think its their job to fuel certain social movements, not rule on laws. And so changing the definition is the way for them to do it”
Well stated, SOL!
Can you cite your claims?
I don't think it's up to military. I think that it's up to Congress as per Section 8 of Article 1, although Congress must respect constitutionally protected rights.
Also, I understand that soldiers are still legal residents of their home states, so that might come into play.
You keep avoiding the question, of course congress rules the military, but would they be required to recognize any and all marriages from all states no matter what the definitions, or would they be able to reject them, how would that work and fit with the institution?
What about immigration, what about people traveling and moving, do they carry their marriages with them?
There's different types of libertarians. Some are part of the Libertarian Party. Some are independent. Some are democrats. Some like Justin Amash are Republicans.
Of course I can, do you know ANYTHING about the libertarians?
You seem totally in the dark about them and absolutely baffled and mystified when you find out their ordinary, everyday positions.
Cite your claims.
Here is one for you to chew on, immigration.
“IMMIGRATION:
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.”
You’re quoting. Do you have hard references?
I think quoting the libertarian platform itself, should be adequate for today.
I am not your daddy who is going to walk you through everything, including introducing you to a complete education on libertarians starting at the kindergarten level.
You cannot back up your wild assertions despite your intellectual superiority.
Which of my claims on the libertarian platform is merely a wild assertion rather than a simple fact?
You don’t like the one on immigration, how about unlimited abortion at any time, any stage, zero restrictions or restraints?
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.