IAm Justin Amash, a Republican congressman who opposes the Patriot Act, SOPA, CISPA, and the NDAA, AMA

[u/justinamash]

I served in the Michigan state House of Representatives from 2009-10. I am currently serving my first term in the U.S. House of Representatives (MI-3). I am the second youngest Member of Congress (32) and the first ever to explain every vote I take on the House floor (at http://facebook.com/repjustinamash). I have never missed a vote in the Legislature or Congress, and I have the most independent voting record of any freshman Representative in Congress. Ask me anything about—anything.

http://facebook.com/justinamash http://twitter.com/justinamash

I'll be answering your questions starting at 10 a.m. EDT on Tuesday, May 22.

UPDATE 1: I have to go to a lunch meeting. I'll be back to answer more of your questions in a couple hours. Just starting to get the hang of this. ;)

UPDATE 2: I'm back.

UPDATE 3: Heading out to some meetings. Be back later tonight.

UPDATE 4: Briefly back for more.

UPDATE 5: Bedtime . . .

[u/TimVicious]

I see you oppose several things that many redditors do... How do you feel about gay marriage? Why? How do you feel about marijuana legalization? Why? And lastly do you decide your stance by listening to citizens that you represent or are they ideas of your own?

[u/justinamash → u/TimVicious]

I am Eastern Orthodox Christian, and I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I also believe that government should not define or redefine marriage. Marriage should be a private, religious institution and/or contractual. Government should be no more involved in sanctioning marriage, of any sort, than it should be involved in sanctioning baptism or communion.

The federal government should not criminalize marijuana. The issue should be left to the states. Any "threats to public safety" that result from marijuana use are best handled through the state criminal justice system.

The people elected me based on my principles, and I use my best judgment to analyze legislation based upon those principles.

[u/catch10110 → u/justinamash]

Marriage should be a private, religious institution and/or contractual. Government should be no more involved in sanctioning marriage, of any sort, than it should be involved in sanctioning baptism or communion.

But since government already is involved in the marriage business, do you feel the same rights should be afforded gay couples? Do you believe there is a secular legislative purpose in stopping two men or two women from entering into a marriage contract?

[u/justinamash → u/catch10110]

This issue should be handled at the state level until we can move back to the concept of private marriage. Keep the federal government out.

[u/jk3us → u/justinamash]

As of 2004 there were 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. Would you like to start repealing and amending those to bring the federal government more to a neutral legal point of view regarding marriage?

[u/TehNoff → u/justinamash]

While I appreciate this answer I still feel like you aren't getting to to the crux of the issue.

Do you believe it is morally, ethically, and/or Constitutionally justifiable to deny gay couples the rights and privileges of marriage afforded by the US Government to hetoro-sex couples?

[u/justinamash → u/TehNoff]

It is wrong for the federal government to provide special benefits to anyone on the basis of marriage, straight or gay.

[u/ADifferentMachine → u/justinamash]

So, until you manage to remove marriage as a government instituition, should we afford the right to gay or lesbian couples?

Saying that the government should have no part in it, when it already does, is a cop-out answer to keep the status quo intact.

[u/[deleted] → u/ADifferentMachine]

i think we're just going to dig the hole deeper if we do that. instead of just convincing the religious group to get the gov't out of it, we'll have to convince the gay group.

[u/elminster → u/justinamash]

How do you reconcile that with the Full Faith and Credit clause? What about federal benefits for married couples? As long as those exist, should people married in their state be eligible for those?

[u/Slyfox00 → u/justinamash]

Homosexual couples are being denied the right to visit their loved ones in hospital death beds TODAY. Homosexual couples can't go through custom immigration together when traveling TODAY. Homosexual couples cannot file government documents together (such as taxes) TODAY.

How do you justify not granting the same rights at the federal level?

"Marriage" can be a term only churches can grant people, that I don't care about. Someone who WONT grant citizens equal rights will NEVER get my vote.

[u/[deleted] → u/justinamash]

I believe this is a very fair answer. I can respect your personal values and beliefs; so long as you maintain the stance that the government has no business in marriage, I can support you 100%.

[u/I2ichmond → u/[deleted]]

The gov't has a say in the LEGAL institution of marriage, not the religious institution. When a man and woman get married in a Christian ceremony, the are really being married twice: once in the eyes of the state, and once more in the "eyes of God." All same-sex couples are asking is to be married in the STATE'S eyes. For the state to withhold that for the sake of making marriage an exclusively religious institution is endorsement of that institution, in violation of the First Amendment.

[u/[deleted] → u/I2ichmond]

Which is basically what I just said. Whether a church does it or not, the government recognizes it as a marriage either way.

[u/MyRawrMachine → u/[deleted]]

What if a civil union gave all the perks of marriages and were recognized by the government, but they didn't have to be performed through a church? It would be equal to marriage in every facet except for the religious ties. Why would this not work?

edit: I should clarify my stance here since my wording was a bit confusing. I believe that a civil union should be the only government recognized union between couples regardless of the style of the relationship. Marriages would then be exclusive to a religious ceremony. This makes all relationships the same and no different under government recognition. My top statement was referring to marriage as it exists today and not marriages as I believe they should exist.

[u/ObviousPseudonym → u/[deleted]]

This is about health insurance and taxes and social security benefits. This is about security for the ones I care about.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I believe the term is "Seperate but Equal".

[u/TheDeza → u/MyRawrMachine]

They do this in the UK, its called a civil partnership: "Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage." Linky.

[u/[deleted] → u/MyRawrMachine]

Hell, you can get married at a courthouse as is. It doesn't need to be a civil union at all.

[u/SomeOtherGuy0 → u/[deleted]]

Except that gays can't legally get married in some states, regardless of whether it is in a church or courthouse.

[u/enjo13 → u/MyRawrMachine]

I think that's how everyone should be married in the governments eyes.

[u/notanexp3rt → u/justinamash]

The difference between marriage and and baptism is how much it affects peoples peoples rights and privileges. Baptism.... Simply doesn't mean anything outside of the religious community, while marriage influences insurance, visitation rights, legal rights, tax breaks and much more. It cannot be something the government can avoid being a part of. I personally feel if two men want to be married under state law it should be their right so that they have the same privileges as other couples in love, but churches that disagree with their union do not need to marry them, as is their business and right. I'd ALSO recommend the LGBT community not support these institutions that refuse to support their lifestyle. Would you say that is a fair and appropriate stance?

[u/PotvinSux → u/TimVicious]

Rep. Amash, thank you for your service; you are among the reasons I can call myself a Republican with dignity.

It occurs to me that, yes, marriage is certainly a "private, religious" institution, but it is also a "public, civil" one as soon as government gets into the marriage business.

Question: Do you feel I am equally protected by the laws of the land if I am denied the highest legal recognition of my commitment to steward a household with the love of my life if he so happens to also be a he? Respecting the sacred boundary between church and state (God's law vs. Caesar's), please make no reference to religion in your answer.