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 So if it were repealed, I think that would be a step in the right direction, with respect to that portion of DOMA."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 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
Bigot.
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.
Horsecrap.
That is what the Mormon church wanted in 1862 when the feds first moved against polygamy.
Today the church of Islam and the Episcopalian church supports you as well.
Since you don’t know anything about libertarianism, why do you post such vile language in some sort of weird defense of it?
Why use that language at all?
You said Mormon Pope as to denigrate Catholics?
Did you know it was a devout Mormon that protested the “Stomp on Jesus” assignment?
Do you realize the Libertarian Party is infested with Leftwingers much like the GOP is infested with RINOs?
You seem more interested in dividing than forming coalitions. And no, I’m not saying a coalition that involves compromising conservative values.
No, I think that there are other Popes, and that Bishop Romney , the 2012 presidential nominee has a Pope, I don’t really keep up with all the definitions of the various church leaders.
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.
>> Since you don’t know anything about libertarianism
I’m well aware of what the Libertarian Party stands for. It’s a party of idiots. But that doesn’t mean the definitive meaning libertarianism, which opposes statism, is wrong.
It is you and the Libertarian Party that misrepresent the meaning of libertarianism. The same way the Republicans misrepresent republicanism, and the Democrats misrepresent Democracy.
Your Catholic bigotry is far more vile than the barely crude offense you’re complaining about.
>> No, I think that there are other Popes
Really?
No, their party does not misrepresent their libertarianism, it represents the principles, it does not misrepresent them.
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.
That's why I think this should be looked at as an important tax issue. Limit "head of household" to no more than two adults. If Mormons want to return to polygamy, let them do it sacramentally. Any adult dependents in the household should be limited to only those with physical/mental incapacitations (aged parents, adult children with severe disabilities).
A major part of the probelm is that, not only do many patriots evidently not know the Constituton and its history, but pro-gay marriage liberal media spins on lawmaker’s intentions for constitutional statutes like the Equal Protections Clause of Section 1 of 14A prevail.
Otherwise, if patriots were taught the Constitution in public and private schools as lawmakers had intended for it to be understood, then this case may newer have made it to the Supreme Court.
How would the military handle polygamy?
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.