Skip to comments.Throw out federal definition of marriage altogether, Amash says ahead of Supreme Court hearings
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 So if it were repealed, I think that would be a step in the right direction, with respect to that portion of DOMA."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."
Faggotry should be a state issue!
OK, so then you have the federal government treating homosexual employees with “partners” differently if they live in state “X” (which recognizes SSM) vs. state “Y” (which does not). Throw out the federal definition of marriage and you create the circumstances for the next lawsuit.
Article 1 Section 8 gives the responsibility to the federal level to define weights and measures. Legal definitions fall under measures in order to ensure equal application of the law. As long as marriage is a legal issue, defining the legal term is congress’ responsibility.
If traditional marriage law which born most of us naturally is unconstitutional then it should be thrown out, so Americans really understand what this is about.
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.
The libs love this being a federal issue. Just like abortion and obamacare...they want a big brother declaration in their favor.
Return social issues to the states and many of the social problems disappear.
leave marriage alone, it;s worked pretty well for hundreds of years in this country so why frigging change it to suit some turd pokers
The marriage debate is similar to the illegal alien debate in one way: the reason the debate has any teeth at all is because the government hands out free stuff and tax benefits.
How was the FedGov involved in marriage before the 16th ammendment? Did anyone care about all the undocumented workers in the country in the 1920’s, when the government was not funding services?
Take the FedGov out of giving benefits (be they direct cash, services, or tax breaks) and the controversy evaporates.
That’S just fine...the more confusion there is the more pressure for states NOT to adopt gay marriage.
Especially when they see that states that DO have gay marriage end up with WAY more confusion and expense in social services (taxes).
To me the most appalling argument was when the gay marriage pimp said two gays marrying was completely different from multiple people marrying, because the former is immutable, and the latter is a choice.
Sorry, Ted, there’s ZERO proof that faggotry is immutable. It’s a behavioral CHOICE - just like marrying ten other people - or your dog - would be.
Cowardly elected critters will jump on the Libertarian solution rather than stand up for the Social Conservative/Religious solution.
Next, they'll be claiming like pro-aborts do: "Don't like abortions - don't have one," will become "Don't like the original definition of marriage - don't get married!"
Congress, rather than getting some cajones will change their previous conservative stance to,"We'll simply remove Marriage, it's benefits to society and to the children involved, from the tax laws rather than stand up to the militant homosexual lobby and say, 'Hell no, you can't get married!'"
I wonder if anyone will respond to your post?
It is not, or at least, should not be a federal issue. But the whole goal of our atheistic communist friends on the left is to elevate a bunch of deviate and immoral conduct to the status of “rights.” This accomplishes many things: destruction of a moral base, destruction of Christian belief, political empowerment of a class of persons dependent upon the government for enforcement and monetary subsidy of their “rights,” and finally a dilution of the real God-given rights of man contained in the Constitution such that those rights become meaningless.
That was the point all along - to UNDEFINE marriage.
It’s far too late for that. Conservatives let the camel’s nose inside the tent when they asked for government sanction of marriage in the first place. Now the battle is well and truly lost.
If they want to throw out the DOMA issue, they’ll also have to throw out the concept of divorce! Legally, you can only file for divorce if you were married. If the homosexuals want to “marry” each other, then in return, the government will have to stay out of the business of marriage, and any legal concepts or regulations. IOW, the government or parties who get married will have no benefit, protection, recourse, or obligations under law, and will not be recognized by the government. And all it will cost is to allow people of the same sex to “marry” each other. People want to live in a godless society, make them suffer the consequences.
George Washington, March 14, 1778, General Orders
Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778.
Parole Ormskirk. Countersigns Otley, Ottery.
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin28 of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier;
Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy.
His Excellency the Commander in Chief (George Washington)approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return;
The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.
ABHORRENNCE AND DETESTATION. What better words are.
Doesn’t sound crazy at all. I’ve thought that for a decade or more.
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.
The ONLY thing wrong with your post is it should read ... “federal law suit’(s)”
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.
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!!!!!
The libertarian position is pro-abortion at all stages with zero restraints or restrictions.
Redefining marriage is about much more than someone’s bedroom.
Libertarians support full homosexuality and polygamy in marriage and the military.
Yes it is, Muslims and Mormons, and Episcopalians all have religious views on what marriage is.
The Mormon Pope could have a new revelation returning polygamy , at any moment.
>> Mormon Pope
The military and immigration must have a definition of marriage.
TO be fair, his view is that there should be no federal law that makes any distinction between married and single people.
He doesn’t explain how that would work, but you would assume for example that there would be no “spouse” part of social security, each person would earn their own SS.
I don’t think that would be workable, but that is what he is talking about. And it would have the advantage of government not discriminating for or against people based on their life choices.
Those who support a definition of marriage for federal law generally argue that marriage as properly understood is an IMPORTANT part of society, and one that the federal government has an interest in supporting. So we tend to support the idea that if two people get married, they should get special treatment, like a wife could choose not to work and instead would have access to the spouses social security, and a family unit should get tax breaks because the one income is supporting one or more other people who otherwise would be on the federal dole.
People need to understand that pretty much everything the left does is based on greed and envy. It completely throws them for a loop when we sacrifice for a greater purpose.
Tell that to the Mormons who revere their Holy Prophet who receives revelations from God and can switch back to polygamy instantly, when he gets the signal.
The libertarian position on abortion is to do what ever you want, any time you want, 9 months or whatever, it is whatever the woman wants, zero restrictions or restraints.