OnTheIssuesLogo

Justin Amash on Civil Rights

Independent MI Rep; possible Presidential Challenger

 


Allow transgender people in the military

The House delivered a stinging rebuke to President Trump's transgender military ban, adopting an amendment that would bar the use of U.S. funds to pay for the policy. The vote on the amendment, introduced by Reps. Anthony Brown (D-MD) and Jackie Speier (D-CA), was 243-183 and largely along party lines. The amendment passed with bipartisan support. Nine Republicans--including Rep. Justin Amash--voted "yes" on the measure.

[Voting yes would overturn the Trump Administration's ban on military service by people with gender dysphoria; voting no would maintain the ban on transgendered military service.]

Before April, transgender people could enlist and serve openly in the military thanks to a policy change during the Obama administration. But under the new Trump administration policy, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria disqualifies potential enlistees, and a diagnosis of gender dysphoria--with the exception of transgender people already serving in the armed forces--is cause for discharge.

Source: Washington Blade on 2018 Congressional MI-3 election , Jun 18, 2019

Government shouldn't be defining marriage

And while Amash was an outspoken critic of the Defense of Marriage Act, arguing that such issues should be left up to the states, as a member of the Greek Orthodox Church he's personally opposed to same-sex marriage. "My position has stood since the beginning of time: I don't think government should be defining marriage."
Source: Mother Jones magazine on 2018 Congress MI-3 election , Nov 30, 2013

Repeal DOMA: Government shouldn't be involved in marriage

Amash said that he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, though he wouldn't commit to cosponsor legislation to do that. In an unexpected Twitter exchange with The Huffington Post, Amash, one of the more savvy members of Congress when it comes to social media, began with a tweet stating that the "real threat" to traditional marriage isn't lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender couples, but government itself.

This sparked a series of tweets with HuffPost about where he stands on repealing DOMA. Amash emphasized that his support for repealing DOMA is tied to his belief that government shouldn't be involved in anyone's marriage. Amash's spokesman explained the congressman's libertarian-leaning position on the matter earlier this week: "In his ideal world, the governments--at all levels all together--would get out of marriage. But as a federal legislator, he's in charge of shaping federal law and so he's willing to oppose the federal government's definition of marriage in DOMA."

Source: Huffington Post, "Amash backs DOMA repeal on Twitter" , Mar 29, 2013

Strongly support the federal Defense of Marriage Act

My family and I are committed Christians. My Christian faith is an important part of who I am. It informs my values and principles. Our most important unit of government is the family. When larger units of government attempt to supplant the family, we must say no. I believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage, and I oppose government efforts to redefine this private, religious institution. I strongly support the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Source: 2010 House campaign website, amashforcongress.com, "Issues" , Nov 2, 2010

Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

Congressional Summary:
    Amends the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) to add or expand definitions of several terms used in such Act, including :
  1. "culturally specific services" to mean community-based services that offer culturally relevant and linguistically specific services and resources to culturally specific communities;
  2. "personally identifying information" with respect to a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
  3. "underserved populations" as populations that face barriers in accessing and using victim services because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; and
  4. "youth" to mean a person who is 11 to 24 years old.

Opponent's Argument for voting No (The Week; Huffington Post, and The Atlantic): House Republicans had objected to provisions in the Senate bill that extended VAWA's protections to lesbians, gays, immigrants, and Native Americans. For example, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) voted against the VAWA bill because it was a "politically–motivated, constitutionally-dubious Senate version bent on dividing women into categories by race, transgender politics and sexual preference." The objections can be grouped in two broadly ideological areas--that the law is an unnecessary overreach by the federal government, and that it represents a "feminist" attack on family values. The act's grants have encouraged states to implement "mandatory-arrest" policies, under which police responding to domestic-violence calls are required to make an arrest. These policies were intended to combat the too-common situation in which a victim is intimidated into recanting an abuse accusation. Critics also say VAWA has been subject to waste, fraud, and abuse because of insufficient oversight.

Reference: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act; Bill H.R.11 ; vote number 13-HV055 on Feb 28, 2013

Don't elevate gender identity as a protected class.

Amash voted YEA H.Amdt. 1128 to H.R. 5055

Heritage Action Summary: The Maloney Amendment would ratify President Obama's 2014 executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as "discrimination" on the basis of "sexual orientation and gender identity" in their private employment policies. In practice, it would have required federal contractors to grant biologically male employees who identify as women unfettered access to women's lockers, showers, and bathrooms.

Heritage Foundation recommendation to vote NO: (5/25/2016): Congress should not be elevating sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class garnering special legal privileges, which is the intent of the Maloney Amendment. The Maloney Amendment constitutes bad policy that unnecessarily regulates businesses. It risks undoing longstanding protections in civil rights law and makes clear that the president's orders are not exempt from them.

ACLU recommendation to vote YES: (5/11/2016): We see today claims to a right to discriminate--by refusing to provide services to LGBT people--based on religious objections. Claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion is not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It's no different today.

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to impose those beliefs on others.

Legislative outcome: Amendment passed by the House 223-195-15 4/26/16; overall bill H.R.5055 failed 112-305-16 on 5/26/2016

Source: Supreme Court case 16-H5055 argued on May 25, 2016

2017-18 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Civil Rights: Justin Amash on other issues:
MI Gubernatorial:
Abdul El-Sayed
Bill Schuette
Brian Calley
Gretchen Whitmer
Jennifer Granholm
John Tatar
Mark Schauer
Rick Snyder
MI Senatorial:
Bob Young
Debbie Stabenow
Gary Peters
John James
Marcia Squier
Mike Bouchard

Freshman class of 2019:
"Freshman class" means "not in Congress in January 2017", with exceptions:
* Special election, so sworn in other than Jan. 2019
** Served in Congress in a previous term
*** Lost recount or general election
Freshman class of January 2019 (Republicans):
AZ-8*:Lesko
CA-39***:Kim
FL-6:Waltz ; FL-15:Spano ; FL-17:Steube
GA-7:Woodall
ID-1**:Fulcher
IN-4:Baird
IN-6:Pence
KS-2:Watkins
MN-1:Hagedorn ; MN-8:Stauber
MS-3:Guest
MT-0*:Gianforte
NC-9***:Harris
ND-a:Armstrong
NM-2***:Herrell
OH-12*:Balderson ; OH-16:Gonzalez
OK-1:Hern
PA-9:Meuser ; PA-11**:Smucker ; PA-12*:Keller ; PA-13:Joyce ; PA-14:Reschenthaler
SC-4:Timmons
SD-0:Johnson
TN-2:Burchett ; TN-6:Rose ; TN-7:Green
TX-2:Crenshaw ; TX-3:Taylor ; TX-5:Gooden ; TX-6:Wright ; TX-21:Roy ; TX-27*:Cloud
VA-5:Riggleman ; VA-6:Cline
WI-1:Steil
WV-3:Miller
Freshman class of January 2019 (Democrats):
AZ-2**:Kirkpatrick ; AZ-9:Stanton
CA-49:Levin ; CA-10:Harder ; CA-21:Cox ; CA-25:Hill ; CA-39:Cisneros ; CA-45:Porter ; CA-48:Rouda
CO-2:Neguse ; CO-6:Crow
CT-5:Hayes
FL-26:Mucarsel-Powell ; FL-27:Shalala
GA-6:McBath
HI-1**:Case
IA-1:Finkenauer ; IA-3:Axne
IL-4:Garcia ; IL-6:Casten ; IL-14:Underwood
KS-3:Davids
KY-6***:McGrath
MA-3:Trahan ; MA-7:Pressley
MD-6:Trone
ME-2:Golden
MI-8:Slotkin ; MI-9:Levin ; MI-13:Tlaib ; MI-13*:Jones ; MI-11:Stevens
MN-2:Craig ; MN-3:Phillips ; MN-5:Omar
NC-9***:McCready
NH-1:Pappas
NJ-2:Van Drew ; NJ-3:Kim ; NJ-7:Malinowski ; NJ-11:Sherrill
NM-1:Haaland ; NM-2:Torres Small
NV-3:Lee ; NV-4**:Horsford
NY-14:Ocasio-Cortez ; NY-11:Rose ; NY-19:Delgado ; NY-22:Brindisi ; NY-25:Morelle
OK-5:Horn
PA-4:Dean ; PA-5:Scanlon ; PA-6:Houlahan ; PA-7:Wild ; PA-17*:Lamb
SC-1:Cunningham
TX-7:Fletcher ; TX-16:Escobar ; TX-29:Garcia ; TX-32:Allred
UT-4:McAdams
VA-2:Luria ; VA-7:Spanberger ; VA-10:Wexton
WA-8:Schrier
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare/Poverty



Candidate Information:
Main Page
Profile
MI politicians

Contact info:
House Contact
Mailing Address:
Office 114 CHOB, Wash., DC 20515
Phone number:
202-225-3831
Search for...





Page last updated: Jun 01, 2020