Perhaps someone familiar with the issue could draft a resolution for Barr to introduce at an LNC meeting.

Barr is supportive of a repeal of the section of DOMA that imposes a federal definition of marriage on the federal government (and the states), a position that Hillary Clinton has since also adopted.

The key problem, as Rob has already noted, is that since we don’t have any Libertarians in Congress to introduce the legislation, we’re at a bit of a standstill. I am hoping that part of Barr’s campaign efforts (along with other prominent recent Libertarians such as Mike Gravel) will be working to draw attention to this issue and encourage voters to send Libertarians to Washington who will make sure this bill indeed gets a number.

I’d also add that those defending the status quo, especially defending unequal treatment by government in this issue, would probably be better off in another party. Presently, the LP is the only party that’s staked serious political capital on ensuring that the government’s unequal treatment of gay people ends.

To get a bill number, we first have to find a sponsor. We tried to get Kucinich to be that sponsor, since he’s introduced it twice before, but he is too wrapped up in his Congressional campaign. We’re still looking for a sponsor. If anyone has a suggestion, we’d love to hear it.

We could always pull a DownsizeDC and push for legislation that nobody is willing to sponsor, but we were under the impression that Mr. Barr would not lend his name to that sort of effort. Of course, if he decides to run for President, we’ll of course ask him to take that extra step and advocate for the repeal even before there’s a Congressional sponsor.

The Constitution also does not allow the federal government to pass laws informing states whether or not they are permitted to ignore the licenses offered by other states.

And, if the fourteenth amendment extends the bill of rights to the states, then it could be argued that no state has the authority to issue marriage licenses to anyone. On the other hand, it could also be argued that even with the fourteenth amendment in place, no state is required to abide by the first amendment because of its stipulation of reference to Congress.

But as long as libertarians fall somewhere between anarchism at the most extreme and constitutionalism at the most moderate, DOMA is unlibertarian.

Mr. Eric write,

Gay activists who see the strong arm of the federal government as a tool to be used to put some sort of governmental blessing on gay marriage and to force my state to recognize gay marriages performed in another state are not libertarians.

Moreover, any person who uses the guns of the federal government to force any state, church, business, organisation, or individual to recognise any marriage is not a libertarian.

DOMA may not be perfect, and it may not be necessary, but the idea it embodies of protecting states’ rights coheres just fine with libertarian values.

I do not see DOMA as protecting states’ powers (the tenth amendment says nothing about rights), but I understand how some of its proponents might see it as such, even though I do not. A federal government powerful enough to pass DOMA is powerful enough to force states to recognise heterosexual marriages performed in other states. The federal government ought never be that powerful.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak

Mr. disinter:

Where has Outright Libertarians ever supported government-mandated “equality”? It was my impression that Outright Libertarians was strictly against such things.

All:

What I think Mr. Burk is trying to say is that the position of the federal government toward marriage ought to be that marriage is a state issue, not to be touched by the federal government; and that the position of the state government toward marriage ought to be that marriage is a private issue, not to be touched, regulated, or defined. I would agree.

For those interested, I’ve created this short list of works dealing with marriage from a libertarian perspective.

Cheers,
Alex Peak

Sullivan, if you read this comment I’ll suggest you call Barr’s office. They take my irritating calls so I know they will take yours. I’ve read your stuff for years and love you, bro—but you are dead wrong on this one. From what you have written in the past, Barr should be your closest political ally—unless you are taking a paycheck from Obama or McCain at the moment.

Here’s an idea. Government out of marriage! At least, the federal government.

Let states decide, or not decide. The term “marriage” is a religious one, why have government involved?

But no, people want papers that have recognition from the government that says “we are married”. I never understood that. Maybe because of the welfare that is attached to it.