Lansing, MI – The Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Michigan has issued the following statement:
“As libertarian we believe that marriage should be a matter of personal liberty, not requiring permission from the state. As Libertarians we believe that marriage is a right, and that by allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we merely have privilege, not the right, to marry. As an example, those born in the US receive a birth certificate, not a birth license.
As such we support Pastor Neil Patrick Carrick’s efforts to decriminalize performance of marriage ceremonies both in his present lawsuit against the state and his efforts to work with local, county and state governments to change the current policies that infringe upon the rights of individuals, clergy and families.”
In the coming days Reverend Carrick and his supporters may be serving Governor Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette with a complaint regarding their lawsuit against the State of Michigan over Religious Freedom and Marriage Equality.
The Lawsuit was originally filed on January 12th in Federal Court in Detroit Michigan.
They are asking the Attorney General to await the DeBoers v. Snyder before the United States Supreme Court decision which they believe will, in part, create a default win for them in Federal Court.
The case has drawn national attention in social media because of other Religious Freedom laws and proposed bills currently being debated in Indiana, Michigan, and Arkansas.
The Libertarian Party founded in 1971, is the third-largest political party in America. It is the only political party consistently calling for smaller government, lower taxes, and individual rights.
Background info from an earlier Michigan LP press release:
Rev. Carrick is a prominent promoter of the Freedom of Marriage movement in Michigan. He is currently embroiled in a lawsuit against the Governor and the Attorney General of Michigan over the issues of Same-Sex Marriage and Freedom of the Clergy in performing ceremonies. He specifically objects to a Michigan law, that makes it is a crime punishable by up to a $500 fine for someone who “knowingly” performs a marriage ceremony for same-sex couples.
States don’t have rights, but the Federal Government should be limited. For me invoking the tenth amendment is a statement of individual liberty because it limits one level of government (a big one).
All levels of government should be scaled back as much as possible (I place no limit on “possible”), but only by empowering the individual, not by empowering the Federal government.
And some “libertarians” would defend that on “states rights” grounds, I’m sure. So much for some people’s idea of “religious freedom”…
Well, I say “us.” Technically, I hadn’t been in Wisconsin long enough to be a resident yet when we got married. So on the face of it, my husband was guilty of “marriage evasion” under that statute, but I was not. Just for an extra layer of absurdity.
When I was married in Dubuque, IA in 2012 (a brief informal civil ceremony just to get the piece of paper, after our actual private religious ceremony), Wisconsin still had a law that made leaving the state to get a marriage you couldn’t get in-state, a crime punishable by nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine. Just like the Lovings in 1967, our out-of-state marriage certificate could have been theoretically used as evidence against us in a prosecution in the state where we lived (we weren’t too worried about it in reality of course, and chose to do it for federal and employer purposes and to avoid the rush-to-the-courthouse when the inevitable WI ruling came down).
That wasn’t struck down until the same court ruling last year that struck down the ban on same-sex marriage in WI. The state didn’t even really try to defend it, either, instead pleading that they would never actually prosecute a gay couple who got married in another state. It was just so absurd… like getting arrested upon your return from Vegas because gambling is illegal where you live. Yet it was still on the books, and had never been ruled unenforceable, so it wasn’t exactly a technical triviality either. It isn’t too hard to imagine some rural DA in a deep-red county trying it, even if they were bound to lose.
Amen!