# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Conservative GOP congressman comes out for gay marriage

## 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

----------


## TaftFan

Not according to what I read.

----------


## Christian Liberty

"I want the government out of it" =/= I support SSM.

----------


## Smart3

> Not according to what I read.


He opposes DOMA and is not against Michigan legalizing same-sex marriage. He stressed that his ideal scenario is getting the govt out of marriage, but basically said "why not?" to the question of gays getting govt marriage while marriage is still a govt thing.

----------


## fr33

Misleading title.

----------


## Smart3

> Misleading title.


Perhaps, but I'm not the one who wrote it. 

Better title would be "Conservative GOP Congressman comes out for DOMA repeal"

----------


## fr33

> Perhaps, but I'm not the one who wrote it. 
> 
> Better title would be "Conservative GOP Congressman comes out for DOMA repeal"


And I agree with him. This current supreme court case, as I understand it, is about the IRS and tax benefits. IMO it shows why Ron was wrong to support DOMA while saying leave gay marriage up to the states. DOMA is designed to ignore the states' decisions on marriage.

----------


## Brett85

> He opposes DOMA and is not against Michigan legalizing same-sex marriage. He stressed that his ideal scenario is getting the govt out of marriage, but basically said "why not?" to the question of gays getting govt marriage while marriage is still a govt thing.


No, he never said that.  Read the article again.

----------


## thoughtomator

I'm in the "why not" camp. Obviously "gay marriage" is a ridiculous proposition, but marriage as a whole in the US is already a ridiculous proposition with 50%+ divorce rates. Let the gays get a taste of divorce courts and their desire for marriage will dissipate quickly and this manufactured distraction will be over with.

----------


## Brett85

On his Congressional page he says that "the government should neither define or redefine marriage."  Thus, he doesn't support government recognition of gay marriages.

----------


## supermario21

I blame the polarization of the activists on both sides for the misreporting. People just want to assume you support gay marriage as soon as you say you're opposed to parts of DOMA. People attacked Rand for awhile about his stance on striking down the federal portion of DOMA and now this might make Amash look "too liberal" to some GOP primary voters. It's sad because Amash is so thorough (more than any other member of Congress) and they still can't report it right.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm in the "why not" camp. Obviously "gay marriage" is a ridiculous proposition, but marriage as a whole in the US is already a ridiculous proposition with 50%+ divorce rates. Let the gays get a taste of divorce courts and their desire for marriage will dissipate quickly and this manufactured distraction will be over with.


Government shouldn't have the power to redefine marriage.  its not my hill to die on but its still ridiculous and I'm still against it.

The gay couple can call it whatever they want and agree to any contract they want.

----------


## angelatc

> I'm in the "why not" camp. Obviously "gay marriage" is a ridiculous proposition, but marriage as a whole in the US is already a ridiculous proposition with 50%+ divorce rates. Let the gays get a taste of divorce courts and their desire for marriage will dissipate quickly and this manufactured distraction will be over with.



Once again, the liberal lies that permeate our youth's perception of reality.  The divorce rate is not now nor has it ever been 50%.  ALthough I'm sure the government would like it to be.  Can't have enough single mothers on the dole, you know!

----------


## erowe1

What in the world kind of propaganda is this?!

----------


## Smart3

> Once again, the liberal lies that permeate our youth's perception of reality.  The divorce rate is not now nor has it ever been 50%.  ALthough I'm sure the government would like it to be.  Can't have enough single mothers on the dole, you know!


the divorce rate among Christians is 50%, but among Atheists it is 2%.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Once again, the liberal lies that permeate our youth's perception of reality.  The divorce rate is not now nor has it ever been 50%.  ALthough I'm sure the government would like it to be.  Can't have enough single mothers on the dole, you know!


What's wrong with the recorded stat here?

----------


## Brett85

When you think about it Amash's position on this issue is really 180 degrees opposite of the pro gay marriage position.  The pro gay marriage people want to have more government involvement in marriage, and Amash wants less government involvement in marriage, or none at all.  I can't believe this kind of reporting.  This is the kind of thing that could really hurt him in a GOP Senate primary in Michigan.

----------


## erowe1

> the divorce rate among Christians is 50%, but among Atheists it is 2%.


I assume that your leaving of a digit off of that atheist number was an innocent typo.

----------


## Smart3

> When you think about it Amash's position on this issue is really 180 degrees opposite of the pro gay marriage position.  *The pro gay marriage people want to have more government involvement in marriage*, and Amash wants less government involvement in marriage, or none at all.  I can't believe this kind of reporting.  This is the kind of thing that could really hurt him in a GOP Senate primary in Michigan.


You seem to be forgetting that a significant chunk of the 1990's Marriage movement in Hawai'i was Libertarians. The Libertarian Party, as well as most self-identified libertarians have been instrumental in achieving equality for gay people. Many libertarian-minded Repubs have fought to change the platform on this issue, including one Rhode Island GOP'er who wanted to adopt a "civil unions for everyone, govt out of marriage" position into the platform.




> I assume that your leaving of a digit off of that atheist number was an innocent typo.


Two percent of Atheist marriages end in divorce.

----------


## Brett85

> You seem to be forgetting that a significant chunk of the 1990's Marriage movement in Hawai'i was Libertarians. The Libertarian Party, as well as most self-identified libertarians have been instrumental in achieving equality for gay people. Many libertarian-minded Repubs have fought to change the platform on this issue, including one Rhode Island GOP'er who wanted to adopt a "civil unions for everyone, govt out of marriage" position into the platform.


I know, and the position that the Libertarian Party takes on the issue has nothing to do with limited government.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You seem to be forgetting that a significant chunk of the 1990's Marriage movement in Hawai'i was Libertarians. The Libertarian Party, as well as most self-identified libertarians have been instrumental in achieving equality for gay people. Many libertarian-minded Repubs have fought to change the platform on this issue, including one Rhode Island GOP'er who wanted to adopt a "civil unions for everyone, govt out of marriage" position into the platform.


Civil unions are fine.  Gay marriage is unlibertarian.  Even if self-proclaimed libertarians (I wouldn't actually say they aren't libertarians over just this issue, but whatever) say that gay marraige is libertarian, it still isn't.

----------


## erowe1

> Two percent of Atheist marriages end in divorce.


What do you base that on?

----------


## Smart3

> Civil unions are fine.  Gay marriage is unlibertarian.  Even if self-proclaimed libertarians (I wouldn't actually say they aren't libertarians over just this issue, but whatever) say that gay marraige is libertarian, it still isn't.


I'm not sure what you mean. Government isn't getting out of marriage anytime soon. As long it is involved in marriage, it should honor all marriages, including same-sex unions and polygamous ones. Favoring one radical definition of marriage (1 man/1 woman, with virtually no chance of divorce) over all others is discrimination. There's also the concern over religious liberty, since many churches, synagogues, temples, etc fully support and bless same-sex marriages, by the government not recognizing same-sex marriage they are infringing on the rights of those religious groups. That's part of the reason I opposed Prop 8.

----------


## EBounding

> No, he never said that.  Read the article again.


He does oppose DOMA, I don't know about Michigan though.

Amash's position is to get the government out of marriage, but the rhetoric he's been using lately makes him sound like a liberal.  He should really tone it down if he's really interested in running for Senate.  He does have to win a Republican primary after all in a state that defined marriage less than 10 years ago.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm not sure what you mean. Government isn't getting out of marriage anytime soon. As long it is involved in marriage, it should honor all marriages, including same-sex unions and polygamous ones. Favoring one radical definition of marriage (1 man/1 woman, with virtually no chance of divorce) over all others is discrimination. There's also the concern over religious liberty, since many churches, synagogues, temples, etc fully support and bless same-sex marriages, by the government not recognizing same-sex marriage they are infringing on the rights of those religious groups. That's part of the reason I opposed Prop 8.


I get that lots of people think this. But there's nothing libertarian about any of what you just said. If people who call themselves libertarians happen to think it, then it's in spite of their libertarianism.

----------


## Brett85

> He does oppose DOMA, I don't know about Michigan though.
> 
> Amash's position is to get the government out of marriage, but the rhetoric he's been using lately makes him sound like a liberal.  He should really tone it down if he's really interested in running for Senate.  He does have to win a Republican primary after all in a state that defined marriage less than 10 years ago.


You can oppose DOMA on 10th amendment grounds.  That doesn't have anything to do with redefining marriage.  But I agree with you on his rhetoric lately.  Maybe that's why the author of the article got the headline wrong.

----------


## fr33

> I get that lots of people think this. But there's nothing libertarian about any of what you just said. If people who call themselves libertarians happen to think it, then it's in spite of their libertarianism.


I just can't agree with you on this. I do want the government out of marriage but I want current laws to treat people equally. The feds give tax benefits to one union but not another. I'm tired of special treatment for certain families.

----------


## juleswin

Good for him and while govt is still involved with marriage, they should open it up for the gays. Imagine if someone would have said the same for interracial marriages (yes, it is comparable to SSM), they would have been called out on it. Govt should not be in the business of discrimination.

----------


## erowe1

> I just can't agree with you on this. I do want the government out of marriage but I want current laws to treat people equally. The feds give tax benefits to one union but not another. I'm tired of special treatment for certain families.


Marriage inherently, no matter how you define it, includes some people and not others.

I'm all for getting the government out of marriage and whatever benefits go with it. But those benefits, as stupid as they may be, only exist entirely because of their applicability to a certain model of the household. If that's problematic, it doesn't get less problematic by expanding them out to other kinds of groups of people that have no connection to the point of the benefits.

Take Social Security. I'm for scrapping every bit of it ASAP. But while it exists, making it bigger by expanding the marriage benefit, which exists because of the assumption of a woman giving up career opportunities to be a stay at home mom, to include same-sex spouses makes no sense. It would make things worse, not better.

----------


## EBounding

> Good for him and while govt is still involved with marriage, they should open it up for the gays. Imagine if someone would have said the same for interracial marriages (yes, it is comparable to SSM), they would have been called out on it. Govt should not be in the business of discrimination.


It's exactly because of racism that we have government involvement in marriage.

----------


## Brett85

> I just can't agree with you on this. I do want the government out of marriage but I want current laws to treat people equally. The feds give tax benefits to one union but not another. I'm tired of special treatment for certain families.


So I take it you're in favor of giving out benefits to polygamists, cousins that get married, and a man who marries his sister?

----------


## fr33

> So I take it you're in favor of giving out benefits to polygamists, cousins that get married, and a man who marries his sister?


Absolutely. Consenting adults can enter unions if they wish to in "my government". While we're at it, let's give tax benefits to everybody and abolish the income tax altogether.

----------


## fr33

> Marriage inherently, no matter how you define it, includes some people and not others.


It's a broad statement maybe because you've got your finger on the pedophile trigger or something but the fact is marriage is defined by those that call themselves married. Who in the world are you to tell them they're not married and why do you think you have the authority to use government to punish them? Because that's exactly what you do by legislating one union as marriage while refusing to recognize another union.




> I'm all for getting the government out of marriage and whatever benefits go with it. But those benefits, as stupid as they may be, only exist entirely because of their applicability to a certain model of the household. If that's problematic, it doesn't get less problematic by expanding them out to other kinds of groups of people that have no connection to the point of the benefits.


You are defending the federal government central planning our most personal aspects of living. I contend that you have no legitimate right to use a monopoly on force to discriminate and unfairly tax one household over another.




> Take Social Security. I'm for scrapping every bit of it ASAP. But while it exists, making it bigger by expanding the marriage benefit, which exists because of the assumption of a woman giving up career opportunities to be a stay at home mom, to include same-sex spouses makes no sense. It would make things worse, not better.


I do not acknowledge your right to make things better (your arbitrary standards) by stealing more from one in order to make things easier for another.

----------


## erowe1

> It's a broad statement maybe because you've got your finger on the pedophile trigger or something but the fact is marriage is defined by those that call themselves married. Who in the world are you to tell them they're not married and why do you think you have the authority to use government to punish them? Because that's exactly what you do by legislating one union as marriage while refusing to recognize another union.


That's not at all what legislation like that does. Gay couples can and do call and consider themselves married all the time in every state. Nothing needs to change in any law in order for them to be able to do that.




> You are defending the federal government central planning our most personal aspects of living.


What do you base this on?




> I contend that you have no legitimate right to use a monopoly on force to discriminate and unfairly tax one household over another.
> 
> I do not acknowledge your right to make things better (your arbitrary standards) by stealing more from one in order to make things easier for another.


Of course not. Nobody has such a right. Are you under the impression that this would not happen if the definition of marriage were expanded to include more people?

----------


## erowe1

> Absolutely. Consenting adults can enter unions if they wish to in "my government". While we're at it, let's give tax benefits to everybody and abolish the income tax altogether.


I don't care about tax benefits. The less anyone pays in taxes the better.

But expanding entitlements doesn't make any sense.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not sure what you mean. Government isn't getting out of marriage anytime soon. As long it is involved in marriage, it should honor all marriages, including same-sex unions and polygamous ones. Favoring one radical definition of marriage (1 man/1 woman, with virtually no chance of divorce) over all others is discrimination. There's also the concern over religious liberty, since many churches, synagogues, temples, etc fully support and bless same-sex marriages, by the government not recognizing same-sex marriage they are infringing on the rights of those religious groups. That's part of the reason I opposed Prop 8.


Government isn't getting out of marriage anytime soon.  True.  I don't see why it matters to my point.  That's still what I'm going to advocate, and continue to advocate, for.

Secondly, at least you're consistent enough to include polygamous couples.  I'll give you that much.  However, this also demonstrates my problem with the contract.  A polygamous marriage is a contradiction of terms, as is gay marriage, and government should not be involved in redefining terms.  If they want to give anyone a civil union, go for it, but they shouldn't be redefining marriage.






> Good for him and while govt is still involved with marriage, they should open it up for the gays. Imagine if someone would have said the same for interracial marriages (yes, it is comparable to SSM), they would have been called out on it. Govt should not be in the business of discrimination.


It is completely not comparable to SSM.  Interracial marriage isn't a contradiction of terms.




> Marriage inherently, no matter how you define it, includes some people and not others.
> 
> I'm all for getting the government out of marriage and whatever benefits go with it. But those benefits, as stupid as they may be, only exist entirely because of their applicability to a certain model of the household. If that's problematic, it doesn't get less problematic by expanding them out to other kinds of groups of people that have no connection to the point of the benefits.
> 
> Take Social Security. I'm for scrapping every bit of it ASAP. But while it exists, making it bigger by expanding the marriage benefit, which exists because of the assumption of a woman giving up career opportunities to be a stay at home mom, to include same-sex spouses makes no sense. It would make things worse, not better.


This.

----------


## fr33

> That's not at all what legislation like that does. Gay couples can and do call and consider themselves married all the time in every state. Nothing needs to change in any law in order for them to be able to do that.


Married people that the Feds recognize as married are required to pay less taxes. Those marriages the Feds refuse to recognize using DOMA are required to pay more. If we are allegedly equal as the bill of rights states, then the extra taxes paid are punishment.




> What do you base this on?


This statement you made:



> _But those benefits, as stupid as they may be, only exist entirely because of their applicability to a certain model of the household._


What on earth gives you the right to enforce how our households are structured? It sure sounds like central planning to me.




> Of course not. Nobody has such a right. Are you under the impression that this would not happen if the definition of marriage were expanded to include more people?


Oh sure I know all about how unfairly taxed certain people are. I have no kids but am forced to pay for everyone else's kids to go to school. Hetero married couples are allowed to file taxes using a lower percentage rate than **** married couples are. It's the same thing. DOMA should not exist and the Feds should recognize state laws and apply their laws equally instead of discriminating.

----------


## fr33

> I don't care about tax benefits. The less anyone pays in taxes the better.
> 
> But expanding entitlements doesn't make any sense.


I made the mistake of using the word benefits instead of addressing the unfair tax rates married couples, as defined by the the fed-gov, receive.

----------


## Pisces

Filing as married for federal taxes doesn't always mean a lower tax burden. In fact, if both partners have similar incomes, they can end up paying what's called the "marriage penalty". Gay couples might actually be better off filing separate returns. 

Marriage isn't the only family status that gets different tax treatment. Single people with dependants also get a larger standard deduction than singles without dependants. I think the point is to make the tax burden somewhat lighter for families since they are incurring a lot of expense raising the next generation of taxpayers. Since all Social Security recipients depend on the next generation for their benefits, it makes some sense. I wish we could eliminate both the income tax and Social Security.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Secondly, at least you're consistent enough to include polygamous couples.  I'll give you that much.  However, this also demonstrates my problem with the contract.  A polygamous marriage is a contradiction of terms, as is gay marriage, and government should not be involved in redefining terms.  If they want to give anyone a civil union, go for it, but they shouldn't be redefining marriage.


People doing stuff you disagree with is not "redefining" terms.  This is why you so naturally use "gay marriage" and "polygamous marriage" in your own post.  Anything else is excess verbiage and fails to communicate your point.

Maybe if you figure out a way to stop talking about "gay marriage", the rest of us will too.

----------

