Amash warns GOPers on gay marriage; don't do anything stupid

[supermario21]

http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/amash-warns-gop-to-watch-its-words-on-gay-marriage/


They're already not listening...



Rep. Justin Amash does not want Republicans to say anything stupid about gay marriage.

During Wednesday morning’s House Republican Conference meeting, according to multiple sources in the room, the Michigan Republican stood up and told his GOP colleagues they should watch what they say about gay marriage.

Amash was concerned that some Republicans might make the wrong remark just after the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and that California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, would be overturned.

According to sources in the room, he warned Republicans in the closed-door meeting that younger conservatives support gay marriage.

Despite Amash’s plea, a number of conservatives held a news conference Wednesday to denounce the court’s decision. Among the 12 Republican lawmakers in attendance was tea party darling Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who issued a press release earlier in the day saying, “Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted.”

Asked about Bachmann’s release during a separate media availability praising the Supreme Court decision, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., simply responded: “Who cares?”

[Christian Liberty]

Bachmann is actually correct, in a way. Even if the State recognizes gay marriage, the term is still an oxymoron.

I doubt I agree with the connotations of what Bachmann said, but what was actually said was fine.

[VIDEODROME]

So God's Will is in the hands of the Supreme Court.

WTF

[angelatc]

Amash is right. But the younger conservatives also need to remember that the older conservatives don't believe in gay marriage, and they are largely the people who decide the primaries.

The Santorum wing of the party is going to go into self destruct mode over this - I do not envy anybody who has to try to walk a line between the two, that's for sure.

[opal]

why don't we have a ruling called *this is not in our job description*? Legislation over marriage is not in the constitution.. should not be on a court docket

The government has no business in the bedroom, board room or the doctors office.. and especially my wallet.

[jmdrake]

Amash is right. But the younger conservatives also need to remember that the older conservatives don't believe in gay marriage, and they are largely the people who decide the primaries.

The Santorum wing of the party is going to go into self destruct mode over this - I do not envy anybody who has to try to walk a line between the two, that's for sure.

Good analysis. Sadly nature abhors a vacuum and politics abhors a leadership vacuum. It's not good enough to tell people (especially politicians) what they should not to. Instead Amash needs to give them something to do. I hope he will lead the charge to start stripping the federal code of all references to marriage. Simplify the tax code. Decouple health insurance from employment. Make social security benefits "defined contribution" instead of "defined benefit" so you have an actual real pot of money that's yours regardless of what the government does in the future and that you can pass on to whoever you wish regardless of whether you are romantically involved with that person. Then the "Santorum wing" can either fall in line...or admit that they're really for big government after all.

[Miguel]

Too bad Rand did'nt listen to Amash today

[erowe1]

Among the 12 Republican lawmakers in attendance was tea party darling Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who issued a press release earlier in the day saying, “Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted.”

Does anybody really have a problem with this quote?

[Christian Liberty]

Amash is right. But the younger conservatives also need to remember that the older conservatives don't believe in gay marriage, and they are largely the people who decide the primaries.

The Santorum wing of the party is going to go into self destruct mode over this - I do not envy anybody who has to try to walk a line between the two, that's for sure.

Civil Unions.

Not the perfect answer, not even the answer I ultimately support, but short term I think it works.

Most conservatives I know who have an issue with this I think just have an issue with the using of the name "marriage". When you call it a civil union they don't have as much of an issue with it.

My ideal, of course, is to get government out of it. I merely suggest the above as a political strategy for an issue that really just doesn't matter.


Good analysis. Sadly nature abhors a vacuum and politics abhors a leadership vacuum. It's not good enough to tell people (especially politicians) what they should not to. Instead Amash needs to give them something to do. I hope he will lead the charge to start stripping the federal code of all references to marriage. Simplify the tax code. Decouple health insurance from employment. Make social security benefits "defined contribution" instead of "defined benefit" so you have an actual real pot of money that's yours regardless of what the government does in the future and that you can pass on to whoever you wish regardless of whether you are romantically involved with that person. Then the "Santorum wing" can either fall in line...or admit that they're really for big government after all.

I thought they already did?



Does anybody really have a problem with this quote?

Nope.

[cajuncocoa]

Does anybody really have a problem with this quote?I don't. That's why I believe the State should have never been allowed to intrude on marriage, whether to create one or to dissolve one.

[supermario21]

Rand pretty much did listen to Amash. He said not to fight it at the federal level, accept the decision, and if you care about the issue, deal with it at the state level. He's not supporting a constitutional amendment now is he?

[Brian4Liberty]

GOP Establishment: "Young GOPers better get in line or go away. Libertarian leaning GOPers can go to hell. Gay GOPers? They don't exist! But we have a new crop of Hispanic immigrants that we hope will join us when we give them amnesty and prove that we are more macho than the Democrats!"

[Brett85]

So young conservatives are going to vote for liberal Democrats because of this one issue? If that's the case then maybe our country deserves the desctruction that's likely coming our way.

[Occam's Banana]

Among the 12 Republican lawmakers in attendance was tea party darling Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who issued a press release earlier in the day saying, “Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted.”


Bachmann is actually correct, in a way. Even if the State recognizes gay marriage, the term is still an oxymoron.

Not so. "Marriage" is a particular kind of agreement between two people (or possibly more, if one lives in a polygamal society).

Some wish to define that agreement as being solely between a male and a female. Others reject this as a superflous requirement.

Since this definitional matter is the very issue at question, to dismiss "gay marriage" as an oxymoron amounts to begging the question.


I doubt I agree with the connotations of what Bachmann said, but what was actually said was fine.

It was not fine. See below.


Does anybody really have a problem with this quote?

I do.

I fail to understand how my marriage (or its sacredness or any such thing) is in any way undermined or "undone" by formal State approval of "gay marriage."

I fail to understand how my marriage (or its sacredness or any such thing) is in any way enhanced or protected by formal State disapproval of "gay marriage."

(NOTE: I am speaking generically here for rhetorical effect - I myself am not married).

Government-sanctioned marriages in and of themselves are nothing but legalisms - bureaucracy-issued pieces of paper granting their bearers certain legal priveleges and/or responsibilities. Nothing more. Nothing less. Any sacredness they possess lies entirely outside the purview of the State. As noted above, I am not married - but if I were, I would be deeply offended by the notion that the worth or validity of my marriage was contingent upon the approval of some goddam bureaucrat like Michelle Bachman.

[GregSarnowski]

The media will always be able to find some Republican somewhere saying something, if it fits their agenda. CNN makes a huge deal out of it and then John Stewart yucks it up on The Daily Show, and all the Democrats pat themselves on the back for being on the right team. As jmdrake pointed out in detail, instead of playing their games Amash should take actions to get the federal government out of marriage.

[Christian Liberty]

So young conservatives are going to vote for liberal Democrats because of this one issue? If that's the case then maybe our country deserves the desctruction that's likely coming our way.

You know... let me ask you a question...

(Note that I reject the implicit connotations of this question, but a lot of people accept them, so bear with me)

If a candidate was a rock solid liberty candidate except that they opposed interracial marriage, would that one issue change whether or not you'd vote for them?

Many people, however incorrectly, (And I think they're wrong) view the situations as comparable.

Personally, I view foreign murder, murder of the unborn, and our economy as being a heck of a lot more important than even interracial marriage, so yes, I would. Its ridiculous, but if Ron Paul did in fact write the newsletters (Again, absurd hypothetical) I'd lose some respect but I'd still support him.

But that's an incredibly un-PC thought to have.

Not so. "Marriage" is a particular kind of agreement between two people (or possibly more, if one lives in a polygamal society).

Some wish to define that agreement as being solely between a male and a female. Others reject this as a superflous requirement.

Since this definitional matter is the very issue at question, to dismiss "gay marriage" as an oxymoron amounts to begging the question.



It was not fine. See below.



I do.

I fail to understand how my marriage (or its sacredness or any such thing) is in any way undermined or "undone" by formal State approval of "gay marriage."

I fail to understand how my marriage (or its sacredness or any such thing) is in any way enhanced or protected by formal State disapproval of "gay marriage."

(NOTE: I am speaking generically here for rhetorical effect - I myself am not married).

Government-sanctioned marriages in and of themselves are nothing but legalisms - bureaucracy-issued pieces of paper granting their bearers certain legal priveleges and/or responsibilities. Nothing more. Nothing less. Any sacredness they possess lies entirely outside the purview of the State. As noted above, I am not married - but if I were, I would be deeply offended by the notion that the worth or validity of my marriage was contingent upon the approval of some goddam bureaucrat like Michelle Bachman.

My bias is not hidden, I'm a Christian, and I believe God does indeed define marriage as being between a man and a woman, regardless of what the State says.

Does that mean gay marriages should be "Illegal" or that the state should be involved in marriage? Of course not.

Bachmann may have been connotating that, which is why I said I agree with what she said but disagree with the connotation of what she said.

[erowe1]

I don't. That's why I believe the State should have never been allowed to intrude on marriage, whether to create one or to dissolve one.

It's good to see Bachmann coming around to that. I don't see what the article in the OP was getting at.

[erowe1]

I do.

I fail to understand how my marriage (or its sacredness or any such thing) is in any way undermined or "undone" by formal State approval of "gay marriage."

I fail to understand how my marriage (or its sacredness or any such thing) is in any way enhanced or protected by formal State disapproval of "gay marriage."

Isn't that the same thing Bachmann said?

[Brett85]

If a candidate was a rock solid liberty candidate except that they opposed interracial marriage, would that one issue change whether or not you'd vote for them?

I guess if some people actually view the gay marriage issue that way, I can see why it would be a deal breaker for them. For me I guess it would depend on what that candidate believed on other issues. If the candidate opposed interracial marriage but simply wanted to leave it to the states, I suppose I could over look that. But of course any candidate who took that position would be unelectable.

[McBell]

People who agree with Bachmann: are all non-Christian marriages invalid?

[James Madison]

People who agree with Bachmann: are all non-Christian marriages invalid?

Theologically, yes. As would any Christian marriage that ends in divorce.

[McBell]

As long as the state recognizes marriages (it shouldn't, I know and agree), should they be treated that way?

[James Madison]

The state can recognize whatever it wants. I wouldn't be caught dead with a government permission slip for what are God-given rights.

[McBell]

Right, great. Michele Bachmann does care what the state recognizes and isn't just talking about theology. She is applying her own beliefs to the law in a totally different way than I think pretty much everyone here is. She is saying the state should recognize marriage, and it should only recognize her religion's form of it. You might agree with her statement when you take it completely out of its context, but in the context of her political history and the meeting that was taking place, that's pretty clearly what the implication is.

[James Madison]

Okay...?

I don't think you're going to find anyone on these forums that seriously advocates the government only recognizing Christian marriage.

[McBell]

Not even Bachmann would say that, probably. She's being inconsistent, was my point there. Anyone who agrees with her from a legislative perspective (and I'm sure there's at least one person here who does) for the same reasons she's stated, but doesn't agree with that, is also being inconsistent. Whether or not anyone here agrees with her from a theological perspective isn't relevant here, because she wasn't just talking about theology.

[McBell]

(Also, am I being rude? I feel like I being kind of rude, and I don't mean to be. I'm sorry.)

[Occam's Banana]

My bias is not hidden, I'm a Christian, and I believe God does indeed define marriage as being between a man and a woman, regardless of what the State says.

Does that mean gay marriages should be "Illegal" or that the state should be involved in marriage? Of course not.

Bachmann may have been connotating that, which is why I said I agree with what she said but disagree with the connotation of what she said.

Although I disagree with the "God defines marriage" bit, I have no problem with your belief to the contrary - or any other part of what you have said.

Unfortunately, though, Michelle Bachmann does.


Isn't that the same thing Bachmann said?

If we restrict ourselves solely to the particular words "Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted," and completely ignore the remainder of what she said (not to mention what she has said about the issue at other places and times), then I suppose I would have to answer, "It does not contradict or conflict with what Bachmann said." (But it certainly isn't the "same thing" as what she said.)

But I ought to have noted that I was reacting to the whole of Bachmann's statement (which I had encountered before reading the OP) - not just the portion of it quoted in the OP. I apologize for failing to have made that clear, as it was more than a little relevant to my point.

FTA GOP leadership on DOMA: It's up to the states (emphases mine): http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court-decision-republican-response-93423_Page2.html

Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted. For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman. Only since 2000 have we seen a redefinition of this foundational unit of society in various nations. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of [politicians] through DOMA. What the Court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States.

NOTE: Bachmann said "the people's representatives" in place of "politicians" in the above.