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 So if it were repealed, I think that would be a step in the right direction, with respect to that portion of DOMA."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)”
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.