Barr reacts to California Supreme Court decision

From the Barr 2008 Presidential Committee:

Bob Barr, former Member of Congress from Georgia and current candidate for President for the Libertarian Party, today issued the following statement in reaction to today’s decision by the California Supreme Court allowing for the recognition of same sex marriage in that state:

“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.

“Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states’ powers should work.”

133 Responses to “Barr reacts to California Supreme Court decision”

  1. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    If Barr’s primary reason for authoring DOMA was to “ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders,” then why did DOMA specifically require the federal government to deny recognition of any state’s determination pursuant to that end if said determination in any way deviated from one particular chosen basis?

  2. Confused Says:

    Funny, Libertarians are Anti-Federalists by definition and philosophy. I think Mr. Barr is confused. Government at no level has authority over peaceful assembly and that would include consensual agreements.

  3. Mike Theodore Says:

    I feel the state rights argument just sounds to much like what civil rights opposer’s in the 60’s said. It just seems to fishy that most folks that say it don’t approve of gay marriage personally.

  4. Justin Grover Says:

    I just wish that we could understand that marriage is a function of religious beliefs, and the government should get out of it.

    Until then, I’ll take the states rights argument.

  5. dodsworth Says:

    Actually, this is pretty good. I am not a fan of Barr.

  6. jonathan Says:

    I’m glad Confused recognizes he is a confused person

  7. svf Says:

    ok, so Barr clearly says it’s fine and dandy for the states to allow gay marriage… and he STILL isn’t libertarian enough! HOLLIST 2008!

  8. BobBarrForums Says:

    Guess what, folks. The first of several Bob Barr money bombs is now being pimped out at DailyKos. This is for May 20, and there is one for some time in June and one for July 4th already.

    Why aren’t they promoting a Root or Imperato money bomb? Why aren’t they promoting a Ruwart or Phillies money bomb? It isn’t fair that they only take the credible candidates seriously.

  9. jonathan Says:

    oh svf says he is not libertarian enough, booo hoooo
    svf would have made a fine Nazi with his purity supremacy

  10. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Confused,

    Libertarians generally agree that government at no level has authority over peaceful assembly, consensual agreements, etc.

    However, many libertarians also believe that the best way to achieve a situation in which fewer, or no, governments assert such authority is to decentralize government power to smaller units. That way, instead of having one government that might respect our rights or might not respect them, we have multiple governments, some of which may respect them and some of which may not (and presumably some competition between those governments for subjects, who would be more attracted to the states which respect rights than to the states which don’t).

    I’m not sure I find that theory especially plausible—indeed, as Mike alludes to, “states rights” has usually been the defense offered to protect authoritarian rather than libertarian governmental impulses—but it’s a theory.

    Interestingly, I see the opposite theory advocate much less frequently. Briefly put, that theory might consist of:

    – The notion that merging multiple governments into one might require compromises by the merging governments in favor of liberty.
    – The notion that one government with one neck that can be stretched is more amenable to the demand for liberty than a 51-government hydra that has to have all those heads cut off if it gets frisky.

    Of course, history says that “monolithic, because we need central planning” government tends to be at least as authoritarian as “states rights so we can keep the blacks from eating at the Woolworth counter” government.

    So perhaps the problem is with government, period, rather than with whatever form it takes.

  11. jonathan Says:

    the reason they are not promoting a money bomb for the others is because the others won’t be around after May 22nd, helloooooooo

  12. svf Says:

    HEIL HOLLIST!

  13. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    svf,

    Don’t you ever calm down?

    Whether or not Bob Barr is “libertarian enough”—to be nominated for president, at least—will be decided by the delegates at the LP’s national convention.

    I had a question. I asked it. It might get answered. The answer might be satisfactory to some or all of those with the same question (for example, “I wrote the states rights part—and then some asshole attached an amendment to let the federal government have its own definition for its own purposes and the amendment passed; at that point, the bill was set for passage whether I voted for it or not; it had what I was after even if there was a poison pill, so I held my nose and voted for it”).

    If you ask a question, it might get answered. If you don’t ask it, it probably won’t get answered. So, when in doubt, ask.

  14. mdh Says:

    Is this becoming BobBarrtyWatch? ;)

  15. Mike Theodore Says:

    “Is this becoming BobBarrtyWatch? ;)

    I think I just had a heart attack…
    But…why?....

  16. svf Says:

    Don’t you ever calm down?

    working on it…

    • pours scotch #2 *
  17. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    svf,

    Ah, there’s the problem. Single malt has the horrible side effect of unbalancing the operations of the pineal gland. What you want is sour mash.

  18. jonathan Says:

    Mike Theodore and Alvin and the chimpmonks

  19. Mike Theodore Says:

    “Mike Theodore and Alvin and the chimpmonks

    I hate those cheeky little bastards.

  20. Stephen Gordon Says:

    “Single malt has the horrible side effect of unbalancing the operations of the pineal gland. What you want is sour mash.”

    I have to agree with Knapp on this one.

  21. Brian Irving Says:

    Good questions TK. Barr supported a to supposedly limit Federal Power and protect state power (he’s afraid to say state’s rights). So I guess he felt the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 and the e 9th and 10th amendments aren’t sufficient in his mind to control the Feds.

  22. kombayn Says:

    I’m glad my state of California lifted the ban, all gay people should be allowed to marry. But I agree with Bob Barr, that should be left up to the states. I’m sure Bob Barr doesn’t agree with it, but he’s saying leaving it up to the states is the right thing to do. Eventually 30 to 50 years from now, I’m sure it’ll be a legalized entity or at least civil unions in every state (with a lot using “marriage” as the term in Liberal/Social States like California, New York and Mass.

    I have no problem with what Bob Barr said, and there is no evidence that suggest the DOMA would be a federal deal. The whole bill was to allow the states to vote if they don’t want Marriage to be used as the term for a Gay domestic partnership. Personally, I think it’s stupid and Gay Marriage should be allowed all over the world but unfortunately the world isn’t ready for that right now.

  23. svf Says:

    Single malt has the horrible side effect of unbalancing the operations of the pineal gland. What you want is sour mash.

    nothing against single malt fans, but personally I’m a Johnnie Walker blended guy… the horror!

    pours scotch #3

  24. Stephen Gordon Says:

    nothing against single malt fans, but personally I’m a Johnnie Walker blended guy… the horror!

    Cordial conversation and rational debate at TPW? Am I dreaming [pinches self] or something? I might just stick around for a bit tonight, as long as the politeness continues.

  25. svf Says:

    as long as the politeness continues.

    meaning: as long as the whiskey is flowing…. ?

  26. mdh Says:

    I hear potato vodka will be announcing a few days before the convention. Keep an eye out.

  27. Mike Theodore Says:

    “Cordial conversation and rational debate at TPW? Am I dreaming [pinches self] or something? I might just stick around for a bit tonight, as long as the politeness continues.”

    Politeness?
    “I hate those cheeky little bastards.”

  28. Mike Theodore Says:

    potato vodka? You have my ear.

  29. Fred Church Ortiz Says:

    I can’t believe there are still people out there that drink fiat liquor.

    Those of us that believe in sound alcohol choose Goldschläger.

  30. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    The single malt and blend deviationists are equally anti-bourbon and must be purged. If it ain’t Straight Bourbon, it ain’t whiskey!

  31. Confused Says:

    Mr. Knapp,

    The smallest unit is the family, and ultimately the individual. Federalists originally supported a strong central government as Mr. Barr does on several issues. Mr. Barr’s States’ Rights position is nothing more than a political strategy. I hope the delegates are paying close attention. It is not me that is Confused, I think Mr. Barr has jumped on the wrong bandwagon. The First and Fourth Amendments are not trumped by the Tenth.

  32. Jack Daniels Says:

    If elected I promise to work with the scotches, the rums, the vodkas, and yes even the tequilas.

  33. Justin Grover Says:

    It’s a whiskey, rye whiskey, rye whiskey I cry, If I don’t get rye whiskey, well, I think I will die. . .

  34. Susan Hogarth Says:

    The whole bill was to allow the states to vote if they don’t want Marriage to be used as the term for a Gay domestic partnership.

    WRONG. Barr is trying to re-write his own history. Barr himself said (in 2003) that DOMA:

    (from http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=426 )

    ...respects states rights, by allowing each state to decide this fundamental issue for itself, but at the same time, it properly defines marriage for all federal government purposes for what is has always been—the union between a man and a woman.

    So now he tries to sell Libertarians on DOMA as a way ... to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized… conveniently leaving out the bit about the new federal definition of marriage he proposed in the bill.

    This is like sponsoring federal legislation that allows the states to decide whether or not they will allow ‘whites only’ drinking fountains, but requiring the federal government to have segregated fountains. This is why the whole idea of states’ rights got such a bad name – because it has been perverted by people trying this same sort of trick.

  35. Gene Trosper Says:

    I prefer the Bob Barr approach.

    The Federal lawmakers need to stay out of marriage completely. Government shouldn’t be in the matchmaking business, so to me, that’s a good first step.

    I don’t recognize the concept of state’s rights, but I’ll go along with it merely as a tactical tool to keep the feds out of American bedrooms.

    Now we need to take this fight state by state. It will be a long process, but ultimately, I believe states will fall in line to support the concept of so-called “gay marriage”.

  36. Gene Trosper Says:

    With the talk of alcohol, this thread is starting to resemble Reason’s Hit & Run blog.

  37. Mike Theodore Says:

    “Now we need to take this fight state by state. It will be a long process, but ultimately, I believe states will fall in line to support the concept of so-called “gay marriage”.”

    I find flaw in these. It’s a nice thought that the states can run themselves, but you have to remember that they have state rights on the marriage issue. The state legislatures can legalize it anytime. But they don’t and they never will. I live in Illinois, which has the most inefficient useless state legislature in the union, I’m sure. They will never make rational decisions. I’m hesitant to leave it to them. National Initiative for Democracy, anyone?

  38. disinter Says:

    Where are the Outright Liber-Nazi’s?

  39. Mike Theodore Says:

    “Where are the Outright Liber-Nazi’s?”

    You have a problem with them as well?

  40. Justin Grover Says:

    2003 was before he was a Libertarian, right? Just checking.

    And it did take the edge off the Federal Marriage Amendment.

    Not that I support the concept of DOMA, as stated above.

  41. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I prefer the Bob Barr approach.

    The Federal lawmakers need to stay out of marriage completely.

    Those two statements are contradictory. Barr’s approach is to get the Federal lawmakers IN marriage. You might try reading DOMA or some of Barr’s earlier writings about it rather than swallowing without question his attempts to re-write his own past.

  42. Justin Grover Says:

    Mr. Theodore wrote:

    “I find flaw in these. It’s a nice thought that the states can run themselves, but you have to remember that they have state rights on the marriage issue. The state legislatures can legalize it anytime. But they don’t and they never will. I live in Illinois, which has the most inefficient useless state legislature in the union, I’m sure. They will never make rational decisions. I’m hesitant to leave it to them. National Initiative for Democracy, anyone?”

    So because you cannot get the relief you want from your local government, you think we should have the federal government involved? Should the Army occupy county reporters’ offices to insure compliance?

    Just double checking what you seemed to have expressed.

  43. Justin Grover Says:

    Susan:

    He should have said “Bob Barr’s new approach.” since that is clearly what he has been talking about.

    Which does not contradict the following statement at all.

  44. Mike Theodore Says:

    “So because you cannot get the relief you want from your local government, you think we should have the federal government involved? Should the Army occupy county reporters’ offices to insure compliance?

    Just double checking what you seemed to have expressed.”

    No. I’m just pointing out some flaws. Now I’d love for the federal government to just get out of the way completely in the marriage argument. States as well. But I’d love if more states had ballot initiatives so citizens can decide on the issue. Pro-gay marriage folks are springing up all over the place.
    In hindsight, there doesn’t seem to be any good ways to engage this…

  45. Stephen Gordon Says:

    Speaking of sour mash, people will be able to stop by the TPW section of Blogger’s Row at the Libertarian National Convention to smell Tom’s and my whiskey breath.

    We will be signing autographs, but won’t be passing out free shots, unless someone wishes to donate to the cause.

  46. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Confused,

    For the record, I wasn’t advocating libertarian adoption of the “states rights” argument. I was just explaining libertarian adoption of the “states rights” argument.

  47. Justin Grover Says:

    Mr. Theodore:

    “No. I’m just pointing out some flaws”

    Ah, figured that. Didn’t want to go off all wild-eyed without asking. ;)

  48. Mike Theodore Says:

    “Ah, figured that. Didn’t want to go off all wild-eyed without asking. ;)

    Remember this when I type something: I’m only 16. I don’t pretend to know anything about anything for sure. I’ll listen to all arguments. I just throw stuff out to get countered.

  49. disinter Says:

    You have a problem with them as well?

    This gay libertarian understands all too well that the Outright Liber-Nazis are by no means libertarian.

  50. Justin Grover Says:

    Good SOP (standard operating procedure), Mr. Theodore.

    Nice to see a younger person out in the wild, and all that. Don’t let the acrimony here jade you, like it has some of our other esteemed comrades(esses?). :P

  51. Fred Church Ortiz Says:

    “I don’t pretend to know anything about anything for sure.”

    That explains your affinity for everybody’s favorite progressive ;)

  52. Mike Theodore Says:

    “This gay libertarian understands all too well that the Outright Liber-Nazis are by no means libertarian.”

    You got me there. Frankly, there seems to be alot of libertarians accusing other libertarians of not being libertarian.
    What are your reasons?

  53. Susan Hogarth Says:

    2003 was before he was a Libertarian, right? Just checking.

    Yes. My point was that Barr is now trying to claim his previous legislative stupidity was Libertarian. If Barr said “Well, I had it half right, but half horribly wrong,” that would be honorable (though still arguable; the states’ rights thing only goes so far; the other half for a libertarian is to actually beleive in FREEDOM and getting gov’t out of marriage). Instead he tries to claim he’s always been libertarian, and that is simply not true. So he’s demonstrably a liar.

    If Barr was really concerned with devolving federal power to the states with DOMA, he would not have included the provision that (from wikipedia) “The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.”

    And it did take the edge off the Federal Marriage Amendment.

    DOMA was before FMA. Interesting Barr piece on DOMA vs FMA:

    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20040716_barr.html

    I find this fascinating:

    In contrast, the FMA - had it been ratified—would have neutered state authority. Moreover, it would have done so in order to promote a certain brand of social conservatism. I might agree with many of the tenets of this type of social conservatism, but I also believe that these should be promoted through lengthy and democratic deliberation – not imposed without such deliberation, and especially not imposed by Washington.

    ... especially in light of Barr’s support for an anti-flag-desecration amendment. “Especially not imposed by Washington”, eh?

    Also from the same article, this should make it clear that Barr has no desire to get government out of marriage, but only to use federalism as an excuse to allow state governments to deny marriage between two particular people:

    If we, and by “we” I mean conservatives in general, want to convince the American people of the propriety of our ideas, we must win that battle in the realm of public opinion. We must not impose our worldview by recklessly amending the greatest affirmation of individual freedom in the history of the world – our Constitution—to take power away from the people, and away from the states.

  54. Mike Theodore Says:

    “That explains your affinity for everybody’s favorite progressive ;)

    I do miss the jolly old chap. Shame he won’t be on much anymore (or ever).

  55. disinter Says:

    National Initiative for Democracy, anyone?

    Democracy Is Not Freedom
    http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0601e.asp
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html

  56. Brian Miller Says:

    Why aren’t they promoting a Root or Imperato money bomb? Why aren’t they promoting a Ruwart or Phillies money bomb?

    Because none of those candidates fit the Democratic Party’s agenda against John McCain.

    I’d prefer a candidate like George who fits the Libertarians’ agenda against both McCain and Obama.

    Where are the Outright Liber-Nazi’s?

    Mike, you should really let go of your bitterness and anger about the Texas delegation sending you on your way. It’s rather unbecoming and makes you appear rather insane, to be frank.

  57. disinter Says:

    Shame he won’t be on much anymore (or ever).

    Did Milnes finally croak?

  58. Susan Hogarth Says:

    He should have said “Bob Barr’s new approach.” since that is clearly what he has been talking about.

    I have yet to see Barr repudiate the half of DOMA that is explicitly federal. Instead he conveniently forgets it when patting himself on the back for his ‘federalism’. This way he keeps his cred with his conservative buds who LOVE the idea of the federal government ‘defining marriage’.

    That’s hardly a ‘new approach’.

  59. disinter Says:

    Ah-ha! The Outright Liber-Nazis ARE here. Stange they are quiet about Barr’s announcement, especially considering they were all crying that Barr was going to exterminate all the fags when he joined the LP.

  60. Mike Theodore Says:

    “Ah-ha! The Outright Liber-Nazis ARE here. Stange they are quiet about Barr’s announcement, especially considering they were all crying that Barr was going to exterminate all the fags when he joined the LP.

    *terrified whimper

  61. disinter Says:

    *terrified whimper

    Don’t be terrified of irrational hysteria.

  62. Mike Theodore Says:

    “Don’t be terrified of irrational hysteria.”

    1. Don’t take me seriously.

    2. How do you do that fancy quote dealy thing?

  63. disinter Says:

    Use the blockquote tag.

  64. Mike Theodore Says:

    What is that now?

  65. disinter Says:

    Try google.

  66. Mike Theodore Says:

    Test

  67. Mike Theodore Says:

    Test 2

  68. Mike Theodore Says:

    meh, screw it.

  69. Brian Miller Says:

    You got me there. Frankly, there seems to be alot of libertarians accusing other libertarians of not being libertarian.
    What are your reasons?

    While I am not one to air an organization’s dirty laundry, all the bitter comments about Outright make it important to understand Mike Nelson’s (“disinter”’s) history with Outright.

    He was not referring to Outright with pejoratives when he was an officer. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that his involvement with Outright predates mine by over a year!

    In summary, Mike was an officer in Outright who made a reputation for himself of not doing anything substantive. As a result, his state membership didn’t renominate him for his seat in Texas, and he left in a huff.

    Unfortunately, they had good reason. During Mike’s tenure as an officer, he did not oversee any significant outreach activities—the sole Texas pride event held in Texas, for instance, was overseen by a straight ally who did not receive any assistance from Mike (and complained bitterly about it).

    While Nelson didn’t do anything substantive, he was quite active in making regular attacks on members who thought differently than he did about a number of issues—including using his executive position to attempt to override dissenting opinions by rank-and-file members.

    A number of the Texas delegation said they’d rather have no representation than Mike Nelson as TX chair, and communicated that view vigorously to the Executive Committee. When he did not could not receive a single nomination from his Texas membership, he demanded that the Executive Committee nominate him unilaterally for his seat.

    Most other members of the Executive Committee (including myself) were duly elected by our membership to our posts. Such a unilateral appointment over the will of the state membership would have gone against the spirit of our organization, and would have been incredibly unusual.

    When the Executive Committee encouraged Mr. Nelson to receive a nomination and hold a yearly meeting of his own membership (another executive duty that he neglected), Nelson refused and departed after posting a rather intemperate rant on the group discussion list.

    Ever since that time, he has pursued a rather bitter and personal campaign against not only the organization, but also its membership and especially its executive committee members. Most recently, he referred to Ruth Bennett, Washington chair, as a “cunt.” This sort of behavior is one reason why his state delegation effectively fired him.

    Any “philosophical differences” he claims with Outright are manufactured. Outright’s positions on issues have not changed one iota since Nelson’s departure, and he was more than willing to pursue a leadership position for his own personal gain in the organization (while not honoring his fiduciary duty to the membership).

    I hope that bit of history sets the record straight.

  70. Justin Grover Says:

    Ms. Hogarth:

    “And it did take the edge off the Federal Marriage Amendment.

    DOMA was before FMA.”

    That somehow effects the effect that it had on the push for the FMA?

    “I have yet to see Barr repudiate the half of DOMA that is explicitly federal.”

    I don’t think that he will- I believe that he thinks that DOMA divests the power to fully deny same sex marriage from the federal government, which the states-rights people feel is the appropriate methodology.

    Again, I’m a “get government out of religious sacraments” guy personally, but I would rather win the states-rights battle than lose the war. The LP is 1000x more effective on a local and state level than on a national level, so it should be an easier fight for us.

    You quote Mr. Barr:

    “If we, and by “we” I mean conservatives in general, want to convince the American people of the propriety of our ideas, we must win that battle in the realm of public opinion. We must not impose our worldview by recklessly amending the greatest affirmation of individual freedom in the history of the world – our Constitution—to take power away from the people, and away from the states.”

    This, to me is an affirmation on why I CAN support him- the clear context that even though he does not SHARE my (and your?) view that “gay marriage” is incorrect, he is willing to attempt to socially convert people, rather than use the gun and lash of the State to do so.

  71. Justin Grover Says:

    Erm, that should be “Is correct”. Bleh, bloody silly typo.

  72. Justin Grover Says:

    Mr Miller:

    “I hope that bit of history sets the record straight.”

    I was hoping to continue on with the idea that it was blind hatred. . . .

    ;)

  73. -J- Says:

    How can Phillies, Barr, and other libertarians justify the judicial fiat which occured today as an exercise of libertarian political thought? The tyranny of 4 justices of the CA Supreme Court overruled 4.5 million Californians who voted for man/woman marriage in 2000 and now they will be forced to codify it with an amendment to their state constitution this fall.

  74. Brian Miller Says:

    he is willing to attempt to socially convert people, rather than use the gun and lash of the State to do so

    One thing I have ALWAYS noticed about people who claim to want government out of the marriage business, or people who “favor states rights on the issue,” etc. is that nine times out of ten, they have a marriage license.

    Ron Paul, for instance, has a marriage license. Why is it OK for him to use the gun and lash of the state to get himself a marriage license, while also using the same power to deny equal access to that license to people he doesn’t like?

    A similar question can be asked of many other politicians in the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as, unfortunately, a few in the LP as well.

    I would accept the honesty of “we oppose gay marriage because it’s the growth of state power in our lives” argument, if it was legitimately believed. However, virtually every well-known person to embrace this position (excepting a few hard-core anarchists) has a marriage license.

    If he is so principled, why is he expanding government and state power by getting a license of his own? It’s a morally, logically and ethically inconsistent argument not to practice what one preaches—grabbing the trappings of state licensing for oneself while simultaneously denying it to others out of a “sense of principle.”

  75. Stephen Gordon Says:

    “I have yet to see Barr repudiate the half of DOMA that is explicitly federal.”

    Barr has changed on this, and hopefully one of the Outright folks can help out with my incomplete version of the story. My understanding (I wasn’t involved in all of the related conversations) is that when Outright can find a legislative sponsor (and I’ve been looking for one) to repeal the “explicitly federal” portion of DOMA, he will be happy to assist in the lobbying effort.

  76. Fred Church Ortiz Says:

    J: Phillies isn’t one for separation of powers or federalism, and Barr probably isn’t familiar with the specifics of California law regarding initiatives or our obese constitution. It’s obvious Barr’s just making the case for federalism here, but I don’t think he’s trying to justify any judicial activism that might have occurred.

  77. Brian Miller Says:

    The tyranny of 4 justices of the CA Supreme Court overruled 4.5 million Californians who voted for man/woman marriage in 2000

    Actually, this is incorrect.

    The state legislature, elected by all California voters, had twice passed marriage equality legislation. Between the first passage of the bill and the second, there was an election—and the result was that the second passage of the bill had an even greater level of support than the first.

    Further, a similar argument was made for advocates of racial segregation in Virgina in the 1960s. Anti-interracial-marriage laws were very popular—and democratically supported—in those states. The Supreme Court, in those circumstances, actually DID overrule the “will of the people” and told them that government couldn’t segregate black and white Virginians in the “Loving vs. Virginia” case. The California ruling is in the same spirit—government may not segregate gay and straight Californians.

    There is a constitutional amendment in place that would overturn gay marriage being voted on in California in November. It is expected to fail. When it fails, the “will of the people” argument put forth will be even more absurd than it is today.

  78. Brian Miller Says:

    Barr has changed on this, and hopefully one of the Outright folks can help out with my incomplete version of the story. My understanding (I wasn’t involved in all of the related conversations) is that when Outright can find a legislative sponsor (and I’ve been looking for one) to repeal the “explicitly federal” portion of DOMA, he will be happy to assist in the lobbying effort.

    This is correct. I spoke with Mr. Barr at the Conservative Leadership Conference in Nevada last year and he agreed to support a position identical to Hillary Clinton’s—changing DOMA to eliminate the federal marriage definition imposed on the states.

    While this is obviously suboptimal from an Outright perspective, and the opinion of a majority of the Executive Committee is that a full repeal is the best option (and that Mr. Barr seems a bit circumspect in lobbying for the change to DOMA in any circumstance), it is fair to say that he does support a position of incremental improvement—making his candidacy superior to that of John McCain and other Republican Party candidates who are not open to such changes.

  79. Brian Miller Says:

    I would add that Dr. George Phillies’ opposition to DOMA from day one, and commitment to lobby for a full repeal of the law, contributed significantly to our organization’s endorsement of Dr. Phillies as our preferred candidate in the race. We believe that his position—plus his strong and successful lobbying around the issue at outreach events—make him the best candidate of the slate on this issue.

    We released our view of both Dr. Phillies’ strong record and our take on the Barr candidacy in a press release posted on TPW a few weeks ago.

    Speaking personally, I am profoundly disappointed that Mr. Barr did not choose to make his support for an amendment to DOMA part of his press release on this momentous day.

  80. Brian Miller Says:

    Actually our press release was posted a few DAYS ago. Sorry about that.

  81. Stewart Flood Says:

    Stephen “Sour Mash” Gordon wrote:

    Speaking of sour mash, people will be able to stop by the TPW section of Blogger’s Row at the Libertarian National Convention to smell Tom’s and my whiskey breath.

    Stephen,

    You know perfectly well where the sour mash will be. Could we bring anything other than Jack Daniels to Denver? After all, Tennessee is in our region…

  82. Pepe Johnson Says:

    Stephen Gordon said:

    May 15th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
    “I have yet to see Barr repudiate the half of DOMA that is explicitly federal.”

    Barr has changed on this, and hopefully one of the Outright folks can help out with my incomplete version of the story. My understanding (I wasn’t involved in all of the related conversations) is that when Outright can find a legislative sponsor (and I’ve been looking for one) to repeal the “explicitly federal” portion of DOMA, he will be happy to assist in the lobbying effort.

    Brian,

    What did you and Mr. Barr discuss at the CLC in Reno? I cannot recall all of the details, but I do remember you were excited about having the opportunity to discuss DOMA/same-sex marriage directly with Mr. Barr.

  83. Pepe Johnson Says:

    Thanks for posting that, Brian. I must have missed it when I was typing my own question.

  84. Stephen Gordon Says:

    “Could we bring anything other than Jack Daniels to Denver?”

    As my house is roughly 35 miles due south of the Jack Daniel’s distillery, I tend to prefer other bourbons (youthful rebellion, I suppose). Knob Creek, Bookers and Maker’s Mark are my general favorites.

    Knapp, on the other hand, still worships Hunter S. Thompson and his whiskey selection is more of a form of holy communion.

  85. Jared Says:

    So when will he address how his other votes like for the Iraq War and PATRIOT Act were libertarian? I’m just waiting for those press releases.

    Oh, I forgot. How were those votes “conservative”. Libertarian is taboo when you are running for the Libertarian Party.

  86. Mike Theodore Says:

    So when will he address how his other votes like for the Iraq War and PATRIOT Act were libertarian? I’m just waiting for those press releases.

    Oh, I forgot. How were those votes “conservative”. Libertarian is taboo when you are running for the Libertarian Party.

    eek. Someone get this man a drink. Put it on my tab.

  87. disinter Says:

    It’s a morally, logically and ethically inconsistent argument not to practice what one preaches—grabbing the trappings of state licensing for oneself while simultaneously denying it to others out of a “sense of principle.”

    It’s also a morally, logically and ethically inconsistent argument to argue for government forced “equality” with regard to marriage licenses when one claims to be libertarian – such as the Miller queen and his circle jerk organization: the Outright Liber-Nazis.

    If the Outright Liber-Nazis were really libertarian, they would be arguing to get the state out of the discrimination business altogether (ie out or marriage).

  88. -J- Says:

    Brian Miller,

    CA Prop 22 (aka the CA Defense of Marriage Act) passed with over 61% of the vote in 2000. Where is this “support” for gay marriage?

  89. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    “Knapp, on the other hand, still worships Hunter S. Thompson and his whiskey selection is more of a form of holy communion.”

    I don’t “worship” Hunter S. Thompson. I channel him.

  90. Brian Miller Says:

    It’s also a morally, logically and ethically inconsistent argument to argue for government forced “equality” with regard to marriage licenses

    What an oxymoron. Government licenses are themselves “force.”

    Equal treatment in provisioning of them removes a great deal of the force that they impose by creating subgroups of people who are targeted for their lack of a license.

    It is an incremental step towards getting government out of the marriage business altogether.

    If the Outright Liber-Nazis were really libertarian, they would be arguing to get the state out of the discrimination business altogether (ie out or marriage).

    As Mr. Nelson knows, that is actually Outright’s position. We advocate an incremental approach to this position that recognizes that since marriage licenses took hundreds of years to come into being, they’re not going to be phased out willy-nilly overnight, but also over time.

    Nelson’s deliberate mendacity regarding our organization’s position on this issue isn’t surprising.

    What is surprising is that Nelson is a fervent supporter of a Republican candidate who not only advocates marriage licenses as a tool to “punish immorality” but who also has a marriage license himself—Ron Paul.

    That lays out Mr. Nelson’s false purity argument on his face—his preferred candidate is one who supports more government force than either Mr. Barr or Dr. Phillies… and certainly more than Outright.

  91. Mike Theodore Says:

    CA Prop 22 (aka the CA Defense of Marriage Act) passed with over 61% of the vote in 2000. Where is this “support” for gay marriage?

    Good question. Who the hell opposes this? Why? Are there any convincing arguments? Family values? Protect kids? I know kids raised under gay couples. Good folks. Not bathing in hell fire and brimstone. I just don’t get it sometimes.

  92. disinter Says:

    “C’mon Steve. Can the wishful thinking. You and I both know that Bob Barr has no intention of running for president, and he’s made all within earshot quite aware of that.” – Brian Miller

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/29/the-barr-code/#comment-520585

  93. Brian Miller Says:

    CA Prop 22 (aka the CA Defense of Marriage Act) passed with over 61% of the vote in 2000. Where is this “support” for gay marriage?

    California’s 2007 and 2008 gay marriage authorization bills passed the statehouse by solid, and increasing majorities, in those two years.

    That’s not only support, but it’s more recent democratic support than the 2000 bill. You’re making a bankrupt argument.

    When the 2008 hate amendment by the right wing fails, your argument will not be merely bankrupt, it will be completely empty of substance. It will be three recent majority votes in a row in favor of marriage equality, not just two.

  94. Stewart Flood Says:

    I’ve never really gotten attached to Maker’s Mark.

  95. Brian Miller Says:

    Yes, I made the mistake of believing prior assurances by Barr and associates that he was unlikely to run. I fail to see how that’s germane to the present discussion, except as a way to avoid discussing the relevant issues.

  96. mdh Says:

    I like Jack Daniels. I guess I’m a bit typical in that, but it’s good stuff. I’m a sipping kind of guy anyways. I sip my vodka, too.

    Actually, sake is quite a good drink as well if you want that warm feeling without getting plastered as quickly.

  97. disinter Says:

    Government licenses are themselves “force.”

    Then why do you want gay people to have them? Idiot.

  98. disinter Says:

    It is an incremental step towards getting government out of the marriage business altogether.

    Bullshit. It is an outright endorsement of state sponsored discrimination.

  99. disinter Says:

    As a result, his state membership didn’t renominate him for his seat in Texas, and he left in a huff.

    Texas membership = one straight guy and me. Big time membership there.

    Umm, dumbshit, I have pointed out to you many times now that I only volunteered for the position because no one else was dumb enough to take it (and you still can’t find anyone). After I found out how corrupt and utterly retarded the national organization was (after what, 1 month?) I was not interested in continuing to be associated with your silly little circle jerk and I most definitely didn’t even try to be.

  100. Hugh Jass Says:

    “Ron Paul, for instance, has a marriage license. Why is it OK for him to use the gun and lash of the state to get himself a marriage license, while also using the same power to deny equal access to that license to people he doesn’t like?”

    Ron Paul used a service in which the state has a coercive monopoly. Why is it okay for him to not advocate not expanding this coercive monopoly to gay people? :P

  101. disinter Says:

    I fail to see how that’s germane to the present discussion

    Of course you do, yet you fail to realize your own red herrings. Hypocrisy exposed.

  102. redfish Says:

    Brian Miller: told them that government couldn’t segregate black and white Virginians in the “Loving vs. Virginia” case. The California ruling is in the same spirit—government may not segregate gay and straight Californians.

    No offense, that analogy wouldn’t pass on an SAT; the act of restricting interracial marriage as separating a black participant from a white participant; is not as; the act of a gay marriage as separating a straight participant from a gay participant.

    Some people who supported the outcome in Loving vs Virgina simply disagreed the Court had a Constitutional right to do that. I think that case was weak given the 14th amendment, but that its stronger with regards to same-sex marriage.

    People casually talk about marriage as if there was no reason to begin with that marriage constituted male-female relationships, that it was an arbitrary dictat of the Church which was discriminatory. I don’t think they were even plugging gays into that equation at all.

    I am for liberalizing contractual laws so that hopefully people can choose who they want to have visitation rights and who they want to be their next of kin.

    But your refusal to acknowledge a reasoned point of view on the other side, I think leads to naive ideas like that this will be over once you can get all the courts to overturn laws. It won’t be over.

    Plenty of conservative groups btw are supportive of working with gay advocates in liberalizing contractual laws, they just disagree with the particular legal agenda of gay advocates. People are just prolonging this fight by duking it out in the court system.

    Here’s a new poll on gay marriage by gallup btw:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/107305/Ruling-SameSex-Marriage-Bucks-Majority-View.aspx

  103. Stewart Flood Says:

    Well, we’re planning on having plenty of Jack Daniels with us in Denver.

    I was thinking of bringing some vodka, but that’s Russian and Russians aren’t Libertarians.

  104. John Lowell Says:

    Never one to be troubled with the moral implications of things, Barr gives us the typically amoral libertarian take on an issue of this consequence: That what matters most in the world is who has jurisdiction! Ron Paul had much of the same take on abortion, that there were no objective conditions to be considered in the murder of a human being, rather that what was ultimate was constitutional law.

    The more I become familiar with libertarianism, the more its moral deficit become obvious to me. It becomes a yawning chasm, replete with misplaced priorities and intellectualization. Libertarianism is a moral vacuity and its defenders half men. It is only coincidental that I find consonance with it on questions of moment, war most centrally. When one’s moral compass finds its ground in an absolutization of the Constitution of the United States, when the most significant questions one can identify have to do with the legalization of mind altering substances, the time’s come for a rethinking.

  105. Bill Woolsey Says:

    Lowell,

    You are just mistaken.

    You are wrong about Paul. I don’t think he believes that the key issue about abortion is jurisdiction. However, he does consider the jurisdiction issue important binding.

    The question of the importance of federalism is controversial among
    libertarians.

    The importance of the actually existing U.S. Constitution and complaints
    about wrongful interpretation is also controversial among libertarians.

    And drug prohibition isn’t the most important issue to many libertarians.

    I don’t see how even the limited knowledge of the variety of libertarian
    thought that can be seen on this list would allow anyone to make such
    blanket statements. Even here, it is obvious to me, that libertarians
    think all sorts of different ways.

  106. Michael Seebeck Says:

    J: Have you actually read the ruling? I have, about an hour after it came out. Findlaw and the LA Times both have it up. Go read it.

    The short form of the 172 pages of majority ruling, and the three concurs in part and dissents, were that Prop 22 A) violated the privacy rights as stated under the California Constitution, B) violated the equal protection of the laws right as stated under the California Constitution, and C) violated discrimination prohibition on basis of sexual orientation as stated under the California Constitution. All three specifically refer to violating Article I, Sections 1 and 7. The Court did NOT rule that Prop 22 was discrimination on the basis of gender.

    As for the idea of the Court overturning a vote of the people, here’s from the ruling, addressing that very point:

    “Although defendants [the state -MWS] maintain that this court has an obligation to defer to the statutory definition of marriage contained in section 308.5 because that statute — having been adopted through the initiative process — represents the expression of the “people’s will,” this argument fails to take into account the very basic point that the provisions of the California Constitution itself constitute the ultimate expression of the people’s will, and that the fundamental rights embodied within that Constitution for the protection of all persons represent restraints that the people themselves have imposed upon the statutory enactments that may be adopted either by their elected representatives or by the voters through the initiative process. As the United States Supreme Court explained in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 638: “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.””

    In other words, a statutory referendum passed by the people may not violate the state constitution. This actually parallels what the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Amendment 2 in Romer v. Evans in 1995 before it was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but in that case the CO SC ruled that the one amendment to the CO Constitution can’t violate another. (SCOTUS eventually upheld the CO SC ruling but for a different reason, namely that sexual orientation was a rational basis test for a suspect discrimination class and accordingly Amendment 2 denied GLBTs the equal protection of the laws under the federal 14th Amendment as well as the matching amendment in the CO Constitution.)

    I should also point out that while the ruling today does refer to some federal rulings in passing, the holdings are based entirely on California case law and the California Constitution. No federal constitutional issues were raised or addressed.

  107. Fred Church Ortiz Says:

    Thanks for the snippet Michael, damn thing was near impossible to hack through.

  108. Michael Seebeck Says:

    You’re welcome. It was very wordy, with a large chunk of it being the legal and legislative history. The court most definitely covered all the bases they could with this one.

    Good thing for lunch breaks…and dual screens!

  109. Susan Hogarth Says:

    When one’s moral compass finds its ground in an absolutization of the Constitution of the United States, when the most significant questions one can identify have to do with the legalization of mind altering substances, the time’s come for a rethinking.

    You’ve been hanging out with the wrong sorts of Libertarians :)

    Many of us, far form ‘absolutizing’ the constitution, feel that it is quite a flawed document. and certainly not the basis of libertarianism or of any freedom movement.

  110. Susan Hogarth - vodka drinker Says:

    I was thinking of bringing some vodka, but that’s Russian and Russians aren’t Libertarians.

    Brought to you by a member of the ‘big tent’ libertarian caucus.

    Do you also spurn AKs and SKSs?

  111. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I spoke with Mr. Barr at the Conservative Leadership Conference in Nevada last year and he agreed to support a position identical to Hillary Clinton’s—changing DOMA to eliminate the federal marriage definition imposed on the states.

    Until he commits it to writing, or says it on camera, it will appear to many folks as if he’s just trying to have it both ways – whispering to Libertarians “I’m on your side”, while shouting to ‘conservatives’ “”I’m on your side.”

    Unfortunately, too many Libertarians fall for this ‘stealth Libertarian’ game.

  112. Stewart Flood Says:

    Susan Hogarth wrote:

    Brought to you by a member of the ‘big tent’ libertarian caucus.

    Do you also spurn AKs and SKSs?

    Actually I prefer the M1911A1.

  113. Gene Trosper Says:

    Those two statements are contradictory. Barr’s approach is to get the Federal lawmakers IN marriage. You might try reading DOMA or some of Barr’s earlier writings about it rather than swallowing without question his attempts to re-write his own past.

    Oh, Miss Hogarth….I’s always believe what massah says. He’s da boss.

    Now seriously. Please. “swallowing without question”?

    I don’t believe the federal government needs to recognize any marriage whatsoever. I frankly believe that this could be used as a means of eliminating federal recognition of any marriage. Hear me out on this:

    There is currently a perceived division in the way the federal government recognizes marriage. Gays and lesbians want to be treated equally along with heterosexual marriages. However, some ultra conservatives may opt to support eliminating federal recognition of heterosexual marriages instead of seeing the federal government become “corrupt” by eventually giving in and recognizing same sex marriage. Sure, the conservatives may be acting out of spite against the so-called “gay lobby”, but so what? We will have gotten the federal government out of the matchmaking business.

    There is a method to my madness, Susan. Don’t make silly assumptions.

  114. Susan Hogarth Says:

    There is a method to my madness, Susan.

    Interesting logic. Do you know if this is Barr’s idea as well. I have no indication that he would support marriage freedom at the state level.

  115. Tom Bryant Says:

    We need move out of the theory world and into the real world for a moment. Out there, it makes perfect sense to have a federal definition of marriage. There are numerous tax laws and other laws where marriage status plays an effect. If you have 50 different “marriages” it would be a logistical nightmare to try to apply federal laws. In California, same-sex could qualify for marriage, in Utah, 15 people could all be married to each other, etc.

    It’s unfortunate that we have so many laws that are intertwined with marriage. I certainly don’t support them. In theory, they should not exist. In reality, they do exist. I can’t fault Barr for passing laws dealing with the reality of the situation while he was a real Congressman.

  116. Tom Bryant Says:

    I would hope that the repeal of the federal definition of marriage would also eliminate any references to marriage in other laws.

  117. John Lowell Says:

    Hello Bill,

    Well, you’re probably not used to having someone post at this site offering a critical analysis of libertarianism. I wish I’d heard during the campaign, and I didn’t, Ron Paul make an out-and-out moral statement about abortion – you know, that its wrong, an abomination – or, now, Barr one about homosexual “marriage”. The emphasis in both cases is placed on legal jurisdiction and there can be no escaping that fact. The best interpretation I can place on such evaluations is that they represent a kind of intellectualization, an unwillingness to confront the moral aspect of a question which ought, in any case, to be foundational for the forming of an opinion. It’s simply not enough to attempt the sidecarring of the moral by getting lost in the minutia of constitutional law and there’s much more of that in libertarianism than I can stomach, frankly. The human person simply isn’t reduced to the rational and any ideology that fails to recognize that fact risks only the most profound irrelevance.

  118. John Lowell Says:

    Susan,

    “You’ve been hanging out with the wrong sorts of Libertarians. :-)

    Many of us, far form ‘absolutizing’ the constitution, feel that it is quite a flawed document. and certainly not the basis of libertarianism or of any freedom movement.”

    One wonders whether libertarians, as concerned with questions of freedom as they are, ever manage to reach beyond the purely political, or ideological, and consider what freedom might be at the level of the ontological. I mean if one seeks to discover an authentic ground for human freedom, there’s where to look, but from what I can tell, that’s never even considered. All too often freedom to libertarians is license and not freedom at all. What remains to those then forced to justify it is the weak reed of relativism. One can do as well in adolescent college dormitory discussions.

  119. George Phillies Says:

    Skipping marriage licenses, Bob Barr’s Defense of Marriage Act is keeping Massachusetts Libertarian activist Jim Perry from renewing his Driver’s License. Yes, that’s right, his Driver’s License, and my County ACLU Chapter is already looking at the matter.

    Jim moved back to Massachusetts so he could legally marry. He did. His other half was promptly expelled from the Marine Corps under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. For full details on this piece of truly idiotic consequences

    http://casarjianperry.com/2008/05/09/why-bob-barr/

  120. Allen Hacker Says:

    Tom Bryant,

    in Utah, 15 people could all be married to each other,

    Not. The Mormon Church dropped polygamy in 1890 under pressure from the federal mafia and in recognition that the original reason for its institution was no longer applicable.

    Polygamy had been instituted as an emergency measure to preserve family remnants created by so many Mormon men being murdered by religious bigots, and by so many more of them dying on the frontier, that a crushing number of widows and fatherless children had been created and needed to go somewhere. Sex with second wives, however inevitable, wasn’t supposed to be a part of the deal; the marriages were intended only to circumvent the prohibition against women living under the same roof with men not maried to them.

    Polygamy has been “illegal” in Utah for a long time now, and is actually more widespread in San Francisco among “polyamory” groups than among Mormons in Salt Lake City.

    The LDS church strenuously disavows the splinter groups who broke off in 1890 to keep the practice, and anyone who practices polygamy now is either already not LDS or is excommunicated upon discovery.

    0

  121. Austrian Economist Says:

    What a soulless, cold, automatonic way to state “support” for a ruling that has been the lifelong mission of so many activists fighting for true equality and human rights.

    Barr’s rationale is about as heartwarming as a research paper by BF Skinner. I’ve felt more love in some of Barr’s DOJ rulings!

    Wonder if Barr still thinks the gays, rastafarians, and Wiccans have some terrorist plot to undermine liberty?

  122. Susan Hogarth Says:

    One wonders whether libertarians, as concerned with questions of freedom as they are, ever manage to reach beyond the purely political, or ideological, and consider what freedom might be at the level of the ontological. I mean if one seeks to discover an authentic ground for human freedom, there’s where to look, but from what I can tell, that’s never even considered. All too often freedom to libertarians is license and not freedom at all. What remains to those then forced to justify it is the weak reed of relativism. One can do as well in adolescent college dormitory discussions.

    Sounds like you’re speaking from experience here.

  123. disinter Says:

    Wonder if Barr still thinks the gays, rastafarians, and Wiccans have some terrorist plot to undermine liberty?

    The Outright Liber-Nazis do. It is called government forced “equality”.

  124. JT Says:

    What a soulless, cold, automatonic way to state “support” for a ruling that has been the lifelong mission of so many activists fighting for true equality and human rights.

    I don’t know if I’d call it “soulless.” But I think the point is well-taken that Bob Barr isn’t a passionate, inspiring communicator. That’s what I think is his biggest drawback (not his PAC or his issues). I think Mary Ruwart is certainly a warmer, more inspirational public speaker than Barr, who seems to be constantly measuring what he’s saying as he’s saying it. Wayne Root is clearly a better speaker as well.

    On the other hand, Mary Ruwart doesn’t have the juice to get on TV more than a dozen times before the election. So, the question is, how much does it matter how inspiring the speaker is if nobody hears the person?

  125. Nexus Says:

    “CA Prop 22 (aka the CA Defense of Marriage Act) passed with over 61% of the vote in 2000. Where is this “support” for gay marriage?

    California’s 2007 and 2008 gay marriage authorization bills passed the statehouse by solid, and increasing majorities, in those two years.”

    Ok, now I’m confused. I thought this recent court decision declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. So what are these “gay marriage authorization bills”? Did the Governor veto these bills? Obviously they are not on the books. Can you provide any links so I can research this myself?

  126. Brad Says:

    I don’t really understand why Barr is coming out so strongly in favor of the right of a state to engage in marriage discrimination once again. The government has no business telling anybody who they can or can’t marry (government laws that conflict with natural law are not legitimate laws to a libertarian). I also don’t take the right-wing crackpots who claim that marriage discrimination is OK (generally with some absurd claims about how it is “immoral”) because it is really just a cover for anti-gay bigotry (which often is a result of suppression of one’s own homosexuality or bisexuality).

    “On the other hand, Mary Ruwart doesn’t have the juice to get on TV more than a dozen times before the election. So, the question is, how much does it matter how inspiring the speaker is if nobody hears the person?”

    Didn’t the Ron Paul campaign show that it is possible to break through a media blackout by using the Internet (with word of mouth marketing)? I don’t see how it is much of a problem if the media won’t let her on TV. If the media gets alot of requests to bring her on, they will do so. Ruwart is better than Barr because Barr distorts libertarianism and better than Root because Root doesn’t have enough understanding of the issues to hold his ground when challenged.

  127. JT Says:

    The first paragraph of my post above was a quote by Austrian Economist. Sorry I forgot to put the attribution in to make it clear.

  128. JT Says:

    Brad: “Didn’t the Ron Paul campaign show that it is possible to break through a media blackout by using the Internet (with word of mouth marketing)?”

    You’re kidding me, right? Ron Paul is a Congressman. He’s also a Republican politician. Those things give him a credibility that Mary Ruwart (and every other Libertarian candidate) just doesn’t have. Period.

    Brad: “I don’t see how it is much of a problem if the media won’t let her on TV. If the media gets alot of requests to bring her on, they will do so.”

    Just like how LP presidential nominee Mike Badnarik was on TV a lot in 2004? Obviously, I’m being sarcastic.

  129. Gene Trosper Says:

    Susan Hogarth writes:
    Interesting logic. Do you know if this is Barr’s idea as well. I have no indication that he would support marriage freedom at the state level.

    Not certain if it’s his idea, but I am willing to use Bob Barr’s campaign as a TOOL to accomplish such things. If it works, then I am all for it.

    State laws should be left to the states for us to take care of. We do our best work and our greatest persuasion on the state and local level.

  130. John Lowell Says:

    Susan,

    “’One can do as well in adolescent college dormitory discussions.

    Sounds like you’re speaking from experience here.”’

    “Sounds like you’re speaking from experience here.”

    No reply to the substance of the post, only this remark? I’m disappointed, Susan. Your earlier remarks seemed so hopeful.

  131. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Allen,

    You write:

    The Mormon Church dropped polygamy in 1890 under pressure from the federal mafia and in recognition that the original reason for its institution was no longer applicable.

    Polygamy had been instituted as an emergency measure to preserve family remnants created by so many Mormon men being murdered by religious bigots, and by so many more of them dying on the frontier, that a crushing number of widows and fatherless children had been created and needed to go somewhere.

    Um, no. The threat of federal suppression was the sole and entire reason for Woodruff’s surrender on the issue.

    Joseph Smith’s revelation on plural marriage occurred before the Mormons headed for the frontier, and Brigham Young subsequently preached—from the bully pulpit of Prophet, Seer and Revelator—that those who did not enter into the institution of plural marriage were barred from the Celestial Kingdom.

  132. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Nexus, DOMA is a federal law. The ruling yesterday was on state law.

    Hope that clears things up some.

  133. Jim Davidson Says:

    If Barr were truly committed to a smaller government, at all levels, he would not want the states to outlaw or permit same sex marriages. Rather, the truly smaller government position is to say: government has no role in marriage.

    Where did we get the idea of marriage licenses in this country? The idea comes from the miscegenation laws of the Southern Jim Crow states which wanted to prevent blacks and whites from marrying. The fundamentally racist ideology behind them was discredited in the Loving versus Virginia Supreme Court of the USA ruling in 1967. Obviously, that ruling didn’t go far enough, since we still have state agencies issuing marriage licenses.

    In Kansas, rather oddly, the licenses are issued by the criminal courts. Imagine my shock when I was interviewing court officials in the civil and criminal courts about another peculiarity of Kansas law – no business aliases without a state corporation charter – and found myself in line behind a mother with a stroller trying to enter the criminal courts building to get her marriage license. Of course, she and the stroller had to be wand raped and scanned before they could be allowed inside with emptied pockets and scrutinized shoes.

    Yegads, is that any way to treat the holy institution of matrimony by two or more participants? Make it into a criminal controversy? No.

    Simply put, the government at any level has no role in determining whether people are allowed to marry. It has no role in demanding blood samples from prospective marriage partners. It has no role in determining how many people may participate in a family “unit.”

    Why no role? Because, fundamentally, absolutely, it is none of my business what you folks want to do with your family and sexual relations, and it is none of your business what I wish to do with mine. Beyond the basic matter of involving only consenting adults, where is there any role for anyone else?

    Anyone who wants to leave the regulation of marriage to the several states is not a libertarian. One could argue that Barr’s views in this area make him a federalist. In which case he should get the endorsement of, say, Alexander Hamilton. Not of Sam Adams, nor any of the other Tea Party of 1773 participants.

Leave a Reply