# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Justin Amash criticized by same-sex marriage advocates, opponents

## CaseyJones

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...e_of_same.html 




> GRAND RAPIDS, MI - When Vote Equals new president visited MLives hub last week, on the eve of a march through downtown Grand Rapids, he said ousting U.S. Rep. Justin Amash is one the groups goals as it strives to build a progressive base of support for putting a same-sex marriage proposal on Michigans 2016 ballot.
> 
> Yet, Chris Silva also noted that Amashs ideological peculiarities could complicate Vote Equals agenda.
> 
> Wed like to get rid of Justin Amash, Silva said. But if he comes out and talks for marriage equality, itd be really hardit would change things a little bit.
> 
> RELATED: Throw out federal definition of marriage altogether, Amash says ahead of Supreme Court hearings
> 
> So what exactly is Amash coming out and saying this week as the U.S. Supreme Court debates gay-marriage law? Amash on Monday during an American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan forum in Grand Rapids said he wants the federal government to stay out of marriage, and he supports repealing the definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act and leaving the matter to states to decide.


more at link ^

----------


## supermario21

I'm sorry but this just proves how moronic progressives are. Why would Amash be one of your top targets? He's probably the best civil liberties/anti-war representative in the entire state? There are other Republicans that are worse, as well as probably a few Democrats that you could take out in primaries.

----------


## EBounding

> I'm sorry but this just proves how moronic progressives are. Why would Amash be one of your top targets? He's probably the best civil liberties/anti-war representative in the entire state? There are other Republicans that are worse, as well as probably a few Democrats that you could take out in primaries.


That's why I don't get why Amash has been trying to appease these people recently.  Not with his policy positions, but with his rhetoric.  These die hard progressives will never vote for him and will oppose him no matter what.  However, he does still have to win a Republican primary in a state that voted to define marriage between a man and a woman less than 10 years ago.

----------


## itshappening

They're going to target Amash because they made his district slightly less safe so he's a softer target.

They don't care about principles.  They're partisans and want a Democrat.

----------


## Smart3

U.S. Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., is the latest Republican to come out in favor of same-sex marriage.

http://www.wisconsingazette.com/brea...-marriage.html

----------


## RP Supporter

How interesting. The president of Vote Equal, A group that supports gay marriage, is actually lamenting that a Republican may come out in favor of it! This is how progressives play the game. The minority they purport to defend and represent is irrelevant. What matters is that Democrats get to take the credit for "saving" that minority, and any Republicans who appear sympathetic must be demonized. It's frankly sickening, especially since Silva all but outright admits it won't be as easy to rile gays up against him as the Democrats would like.

----------


## jmdrake

Wow.  Just wow.  And people somehow think that if we go "all in" on marriage equality, these nutty progressives will turn around and say "Okay.  Now we'll help you get the federal government out of marriage altogether?"

Edit: No relation to this thread, but for the hallibut, I searched for images of "nutty progressive".

----------


## kylejack

> Wow.  Just wow.  And people somehow think that if we go "all in" on marriage equality, these nutty progressives will turn around and say "Okay.  Now we'll help you get the federal government out of marriage altogether?"


No, nobody thinks that. That remains an uphill battle either way.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, nobody thinks that. That remains an uphill battle either way.


It's better to convince those who have the most to lose (social conservatives) that forming an alliance with us on the issue is the best way to go.  That's especially true if saying "Get the federal government out of marriage" draws fire from progressives.

----------


## kylejack

If you don't buy in to the argument that a gay marriage somehow damages heterosexual marriage (and I don't), then social conservatives don't have anything to lose.

Social conservatives are also losing very hard at the ballot box and aren't very valuable allies.

----------


## jmdrake

> If you don't buy in to the argument that a gay marriage somehow damages heterosexual marriage (and I don't), then social conservatives don't have anything to lose.
> 
> Social conservatives are also losing very hard at the ballot box and aren't very valuable allies.

----------


## compromise

> If you don't buy in to the argument that a gay marriage somehow damages heterosexual marriage (and I don't), then social conservatives don't have anything to lose.
> 
> Social conservatives are also losing very hard at the ballot box and aren't very valuable allies.


Don't be silly. ~50% of conservatives are Evangelical.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm sorry but this just proves how moronic progressives are. Why would Amash be one of your top targets? He's probably the best civil liberties/anti-war representative in the entire state? There are other Republicans that are worse, as well as probably a few Democrats that you could take out in primaries.


It makes perfect sense to me.  "Gay marriage" is not about freedom, its about expanding government.

----------


## cheapseats

> ...A group that supports gay marriage, is actually lamenting that a Republican may come out in favor of it! *This is how progressives play the game.*



This is how POLITICIANS play the game.

----------


## cheapseats

> It makes perfect sense to me.  "Gay marriage" is not about freedom, its about expanding government.



Gay Marriage ADDS to the Marriage Industry, whereas legalization of Marijuana DETRACTS from Big Booze/Big Pills.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> It makes perfect sense to me.  "Gay marriage" is not about freedom, its about expanding government.


1. Marriage is a commitment between two people.
2. Marriage is a commitment between two people and one of them must be a man and one of them must be a woman.

Which one looks like more government?  Which one looks like more freedom?

----------


## cheapseats

> 1. Marriage is a commitment between two people.
> 2. Marriage is a commitment between two people and one of them must be a man and one of them must be a woman.
> 
> Which one looks like more government?  Which one looks like more freedom?



1.  Alcohol is a potentially harmful mind-altering substance that "of-age" people can use, albeit with restrictions and care, while Marijuana is strictly bad and illegal.

2.  Alcohol & Marijuana are mind-altering substances that "of-age" people can use, albeit with restrictions and care.


Which looks more like Freedom?

----------


## cheapseats

> U.S. Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., is the latest Republican to come out in favor of same-sex marriage.
> 
> http://www.wisconsingazette.com/brea...-marriage.html



"And another one down, and another one down, and another one bites the dust."

HEADS UP:  I will ridicule and otherwise pillory all "conservatives" who flop-flip on GayMarriage but NOT on legalization of Marijuana.

----------


## kylejack

> Don't be silly. ~50% of conservatives are Evangelical.


So you're trying to change the law with maybe 25% of the electorate? Half of half is a quarter.

----------


## Brett85

> "And another one down, and another one down, and another one bites the dust."
> 
> HEADS UP:  I will ridicule and otherwise pillory all "conservatives" who flop-flip on GayMarriage but NOT on legalization of Marijuana.


Me too.  Gay marriage is just an issue where gay people aren't getting certain benefits from the government, and marijuana is an issue where people are actually getting thrown in prison for 20-30 years.  Which is more important from a liberty perspective?

----------


## jmdrake

> So you're trying to change the law with maybe 25% of the electorate? Half of half is a quarter.


It's the liberals who are "trying to change the law."  The conservatives are attempting to hold the line.  And despite your claim of "loses at the ballot box", they've done pretty good when the issue comes up for a vote on a state referrendum, including in the "liberal" state of California.  This wouldn't even been going to the Supreme Court if conservatives were having the "losses at the ballot box" that you claim.  Now have republicans been losing presidential elections lately?  Yet.  That's because at the presidential level, conservative = "Big government warmonger."  And the OP shows why giving into the progressives on this is a lose/lose proposition.  You risk losing conservative support, and progressives aren't happy if you try to split the difference.  Amash said he's okay with repealing DOMA and that's not good enough for these people.  It would be politically smarter to work to bring conservatives around to a sensible position that they can defend long term.

----------


## jmdrake

> 1. Marriage is a commitment between two people.
> 2. Marriage is a commitment between two people and one of them must be a man and one of them must be a woman.
> 
> Which one looks like more government?  Which one looks like more freedom?


Well at least you're no longer calling marriage a "contract".    So you believe two people can only be "committed" to each other if they have government license to do so?  I'm not asking this to be facetious.  (Well...maybe a little).  But some who are pushing for gay marriage seriously believe that health outcomes for gays will improve because if they're allowed to get married promiscuity will decrease.  Ummmmm......huh?

----------


## kylejack

SCOTUS is about to get fedgov out of the business of defining marriage. Then you can press for abolishing all government recognition of marriage, but I'm not optimistic.

----------


## jmdrake

> "And another one down, and another one down, and another one bites the dust."
> 
> HEADS UP:  I will ridicule and otherwise pillory all "conservatives" who flop-flip on GayMarriage but NOT on legalization of Marijuana.


Justin Amash already is on record supporting medical marijuana.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ill/?mobile=nc

----------


## jmdrake

> SCOTUS is about to get fedgov out of the business of defining marriage. Then you can press for abolishing all government recognition of marriage, but I'm not optimistic.


So you think the SCOTUS will  uphold DOMA?  Because otherwise the SCOTUS will be getting the federal government further in the position of defining marriage, only the SCOTUS will be making the definition.

----------


## kylejack

> So you think the SCOTUS will  uphold DOMA?  Because otherwise the SCOTUS will be getting the federal government further in the position of defining marriage, only the SCOTUS will be making the definition.


Incorrect, they will be deferring to state definitions of marriage.

----------


## jmdrake

> Incorrect, they will be deferring to state definitions of marriage.


No.  States are already allowed to define marriage.  What will happen if this law is struck down is that the SCOTUS definition of marriage will then be applied to feder.  al benefits.  That's what's at stake.  The federal government will be more deeply involved in marriage.  Now maybe conservatives will will finally say "Screw it.  Let's get rid of marriage at the federal level", or they may waste their time an energy pushing for a federal marriage amendment.  My guess is the latter.  Oh, and the case that's before the SCOTUS?  The plaintiff is upset over estate taxes.  But with proper planning she could have avoided the tax without marriage.  http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxe...-trusts-1.aspx  So again we are going more "nanny state."  Make sure the federal government does stuff for people that they could (and should) do for themselves.  Yeah freedumb!

----------


## PaleoPaul

> Don't be silly. ~50% of conservatives are Evangelical.


"Evangelical" isn't quite the same today in 2013 as it was in 2004.

Many evangelicals, especially in the 18-35 range, for example, are more liberal on social issues.  Many churches, even some of the allegedly "conservative" ones, are softening their stances on homosexuality.  Some of those churches may not be flying a rainbow flag, but their approach to the gay issue is less harsh than before.  Some may not even touch the issue at all, even if they're against homosexuality.

----------


## jmdrake

> "Evangelical" isn't quite the same today in 2013 as it was in 2004.
> 
> Many evangelicals, especially in the 18-35 range, for example, are more liberal on social issues.  Many churches, even some of the allegedly "conservative" ones, are softening their stances on homosexuality.  Some of those churches may not be flying a rainbow flag, but their approach to the gay issue is less harsh than before.  Some may not even touch the issue at all, even if they're against homosexuality.


Support for gay marriage among evangelicals remans low.  http://features.pewforum.org/same-se...des/slide3.php  And "softening their stances" on homosexuality is nebulous.  Backing away from stupid comments like "9/11 is punishment for America tolerating gays" is a far cry from doing gay weddings at Southern Baptist churches.

And all of this prognosticating on how supposedly "weak" evangelicals are how attitudes are supposedly "shfiting" grossly misses the big picture.  Libertarians could be the savoirs of the social conservative movement by pushing the agenda now of getting the federal government out of marriage, education and other spheres.  Convince the social conservatives that since they can't win long term at the federal level on these issues that the best bet is to shrink the federal government to its proper size.  At the same time you pitch to liberals the same message.  Expand "marriage equality" by getting the federal government out.  Everybody is happy.  Really, no matter what the SCOTUS vote is on the gay marriage cases, the response from the liberty movement should be the same.  Get the federal government out.

----------

