Amash on gay marriage?

[Ilhaguru]

What is Amash's stance on gay marriage?

From his website, it seems he is against it, and would support federal legislation to ban it.

I need someone to tell me this ain't so. :(

[erowe1]

What is Amash's stance on gay marriage?

From his website, it seems he is against it, and would support federal legislation to ban it.

I need someone to tell me this ain't so. :(

I don't think there's any remote possibility of federal legislation (or state legislation for that matter) banning two gay people having a wedding, living together, and doing whatever else they think marriage entails, any time ever in the near or remote future. So it seems like a moot issue.

[TonySutton]

What is Amash's stance on gay marriage?

From his website, it seems he is against it, and would support federal legislation to ban it.

I need someone to tell me this ain't so. :(

Yeah, not sure how he justifies his support for DOMA with his support for state and individual rights.

[erowe1]

Yeah, not sure how he justifies his support for DOMA with his support for state and individual rights.

How does Ron Paul justify it?

It's not the supporters but the opponents of DOMA who want more power centralized in the federal government, power for the federal courts to dictate to the states what their marriage laws have to be.

[Romantarchist]

"I believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage, and I oppose government efforts to redefine this private, religious institution." -amashforcongress.com

Sounds like he's de facto in favor of it.

[brenden.b]

"I believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage, and I oppose government efforts to redefine this private, religious institution." -amashforcongress.com

Sounds like he's de facto in favor of it.

Perhaps he is favor of eliminating government licensing of marriage and returning it to a truly private and religious institution?

I know I am.

[erowe1]

"I believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage, and I oppose government efforts to redefine this private, religious institution." -amashforcongress.com

Sounds like he's de facto in favor of it.

What business does government have redefining marriage?

[brenden.b]

What business does government have redefining marriage?

+1

[boneyard bill]

DOMA does not ban gay marriage. Gay marriage is a state issue. However, the constitution states that each state must give "full faith and credit" to the laws of other states. That's why you can get a quickie divorce in Nevada even though you live in New York. But New York doesn't have to recognize a Mexican divorce.

So if you live in New York and Vermont has gay marriage can you slip across the border to get married in Vermont and have that marriage recognized in New York? DOMA says New York does not have to recognize your Vermont marriage because marriage is defined as a union between people of opposite sex. Of course this issue is still going to wind up in the Supreme Court, but until it does, the full faith and credit clause will not be effective.

This is as it should be. A court ruling in some small state shouldn't have the effect of legalizing gay marriage throughout the country.

[TonySutton]

How does Ron Paul justify it?

It's not the supporters but the opponents of DOMA who want more power centralized in the federal government, power for the federal courts to dictate to the states what their marriage laws have to be.

This has always been my one rub with Ron Paul. I disagree with setting precedent by limiting federal judicial review on specific topics. When you put this on the table for consideration you may inadvertently open a Pandora's box.

Case in point:

The Federal Equal Access Act passed in 1984. This act was pushed by the religious right to allow faith based clubs in pubic schools. The same act is being used to allow Gay Straight Alliance clubs in public schools. Much to the dismay of the religious right.

[AlexMerced]

I thought Ron Paul wanted to abolish Marriage as legal contract, which I'm all for

[BrendenR]

This has always been my one rub with Ron Paul. I disagree with setting precedent by limiting federal judicial review on specific topics. When you put this on the table for consideration you may inadvertently open a Pandora's box.

Case in point:

The Federal Equal Access Act passed in 1984. This act was pushed by the religious right to allow faith based clubs in pubic schools. The same act is being used to allow Gay Straight Alliance clubs in public schools. Much to the dismay of the religious right.

What does limiting federal judicial review of specific topics have to do with school clubs exactly?

Are you saying that because students are free to participate in these groups we should give the Feds more power to decide specifically which groups should be allowed? Cause that's what I'm reading from your post, but that can't be what you mean.

[runningdiz]

What business does government have redefining marriage?

What business does government have even defining marriage?