Bob Barr, the original author of the Defense Of Marriage Act and the 2008 Libertarian Presidential candidate, today penned an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, which was then covered by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In his editorial he gave his former reasonings for supporting and helping to pass the Defense Of Marriage Act–and describes the reasons why he no longer supports it.
In 1996, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, I wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, better known by its shorthand acronym, DOMA, than its legal title. The law has been a flash-point for those arguing for or against same-sex marriage ever since President Clinton signed it into law. Even President-elect Barack Obama has grappled with its language, meaning and impact.
I can sympathize with the incoming commander in chief. And, after long and careful consideration, I have come to agree with him that the law should be repealed.
This, more than any other single issue, was the one cited by many libertarians for why they could not support Barr.
93 responses so far ↓
1 Richard Winger // Jan 5, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Yeay!
2 Andy // Jan 5, 2009 at 5:05 pm
“This, more than any other single issue, was the one cited by many libertarians for why they could not support Barr.”
For all of the reasons to not support Bob Barr, this was probably the weakest, especially considering that he claimed to repudiate DOMA before he got the LP Presidential nomination.
3 John Lowell // Jan 5, 2009 at 5:28 pm
What’s next for Bob, repeal of the 13th Amendment?
4 derkel // Jan 5, 2009 at 5:33 pm
John,
Can you show me where the Constitution addresses marriage at any point? Can you tell me how recognizing the equal rights of everyone to marry is relevant to making people slaves once again.
People who don’t support a repeal of DOMA are more likely the ones who don’t like the 13th amendment.
5 Trent Hill // Jan 5, 2009 at 5:38 pm
This was definetly one of the two largest issues libertarians had with Barr–the other being his pissing off Ron Paul.
6 Jeff Wartman // Jan 5, 2009 at 5:43 pm
From the editorial:
Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.
In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, “Decisions about marriage should be left to the states.” He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.
I’m a little perplexed as to why Barr won’t come right out and say what he hints at in the first paragraph I’ve sampled: that it isn’t the role of the federal government or the states to set a definition of marriage at all. Get the government, whether federal or state, completely out of the business of marriage. End state sponsored homosexual marriage. End state sponsored heterosexual marriage. Give everyone a legal civil union and let the individual churches decide who they want to marry.
The argument over which government should regulate marriage is missing the point. We need to get the government out of marriage, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
7 Trent Hill // Jan 5, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Probably because he wanted his editorial printed in the Los Angeles Times, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and elsehwere and his arguement wouldn’t be taken seriously otherwise. Not defending that point of view, just saying.
8 derkel // Jan 5, 2009 at 5:47 pm
“This was definetly one of the two largest issues libertarians had with Barr–the other being his pissing off Ron Paul.”
That wasn’t even close to as large as some of the Paulites had hoped.
However, I still never understood why people would be mad at Barr for snubbing a Republican, a theocrat, and two socialists.
9 Jeff Wartman // Jan 5, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Probably because he wanted his editorial printed in the Los Angeles Times, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and elsehwere and his arguement wouldn’t be taken seriously otherwise. Not defending that point of view, just saying.
God forbid the most recent LP Presidential candidate take a libertarian position on an issue.
The “leave marriage to the states” argument is statist and anti-liberty. End of story.
10 Andy // Jan 5, 2009 at 5:52 pm
“However, I still never understood why people would be mad at Barr for snubbing a Republican, a theocrat, and two socialists.”
Because Ron Paul sparked the biggest campaign for liberty in recent history, and because that press conference was a good opportunity to spread the message and bring more people into the movement.
Bob Barr no-showing that press conference, especially after he had said that he was going to be there, showed himself to be a self centered jerk who wasn’t willing to reach out across the political spectrum to spread the message of liberty and promote the Libertarian Party.
11 derkel // Jan 5, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Andy,
Ron Paul does deserve a lot of credit. Doesn’t mean he is above all criticism. He still refused to commit to the liberty movement when it came time and remained part of the two party system he so often preaches against.
Barr also said he agreed with the 4 principles. Should he have just got up there to make everyone happy even though the two socialists up there were in no way going to reduce government spending? I guess the appearance is more important than the substance.
12 Andy // Jan 5, 2009 at 5:57 pm
“Trent Hill // Jan 5, 2009 at 5:38 pm
This was definetly one of the two largest issues libertarians had with Barr–the other being his pissing off Ron Paul.”
I don’t think that DOMA was one of the two biggest reasons that some Libertarians did not support Bob Barr. Yes, it was a reason, but I would not call it one of the biggest reasons.
If we are to take Bob Barr at his word, he repudiated DOMA BEFORE he got the nomination.
My main reasons for not supp0rting Bob Barr were over issues that he did not repudiate (such as him saying on Hannity & Colmes shortly before the nomination that he does not support ending the war on drugs at the state level) and for things that he did AFTER he got the nomination.
13 Trent Hill // Jan 5, 2009 at 6:00 pm
“That wasn’t even close to as large as some of the Paulites had hoped.”
I disagree. In the couple of days afterwards, the LACP recieved several hundred emails (just in Louisiana) saying they’d vote for Baldwin instead of Barr. Most of those people actually ended up voting for Paul,obviously.
14 Andy // Jan 5, 2009 at 6:07 pm
“11 derkel // Jan 5, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Andy,
Ron Paul does deserve a lot of credit. Doesn’t mean he is above all criticism. He still refused to commit to the liberty movement when it came time and remained part of the two party system he so often preaches against.”
Ron Paul was prohibited from running as a third party candidate because in oder to participate in the Republican Primaries in several states, he had to sign a document saying that if he did not win the Republican Primaries that he would not run as a third party candidate.
“Barr also said he agreed with the 4 principles.”
Saying that he agreed with the 4 principles was not enough. He should have shown up at the event. Not showing up – especially after he said that he was going to be there – made him look like a classless jerk.
“Should he have just got up there to make everyone happy even though the two socialists up here were in no way going to reduce government spending? I guess the appearance is more important than the substa”
Yes, Barr by all means should have been there. Barr COULD HAVE been there and given an impassioned speech for liberty and he COULD HAVE inspired people from across the political spectrum to support his campaign and the Libertarian Party over the other candidates. You don’t win people over to your side by acting like an egotistical jerk.
I’d be willing to bet that if Mary Ruwart or Steve Kubby had been the candidate that they would have been there. I bet that Michael Badnarik or Harry Browne (RIP) would have been there.
Barr snubbing that Ron Paul press conference is what pushed Ron Paul to endorse Chuck Baldwin over Barr, and I can’t say as I blame Ron Paul for doing that one bit. This cost the LP votes and made the party look bad. I’ve been in the embarrassing sitaution of having to explain to people that many Libertarians did not support Barr and that nominating him was a mistake.
If the Libertarian Party had a better candidate who would have actually shown up at that Ron Paul press conference then I’d bet that Ron Paul would have either not endorsed anybody or would have endorsed the Libertarian Party candidate (as he endorsed Badnarik and Browne in the past).
15 John Lowell // Jan 5, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Derkel,
Well, the Constitution didn’t prohibit slavery until it was amended. If the question of marriage is to be left to the states, why not slavery? You have something against a man’s right to own a slave or two? I mean do you want to cook your own breakfast? Just keep your cotton pickin hands off my Jemima, damn it, and I’ll keep my hands off your pre-pubescent boys.
And such is the substance of libertarianism.
16 derkel // Jan 5, 2009 at 6:14 pm
“Ron Paul was prohibited from running as a third party candidate because in oder to participate in the Republican Primaries in several states, he had to sign a document saying that if he did not win the Republican Primaries that he would not run as a third party candidate.”
And he signed it?
“I’d be willing to bet that if Mary Ruwart or Steve Kubby had been the candidate that they would have been there. I bet that Michael Badnarik or Harry Browne (RIP) would have been there.”
That’s where the difference between Barr those two candidates begins. He is a professional politician. They are not. He realizes he didn’t really need to suck up with something he didn’t believe in to win votes. I have no problem with that and respect politicians who do that.
Like I said, it was not as big of a deal as people made it out to be. Outside of these circles of people who follow 3rd party politics closely, nobody really knew or cared.
I don’t care if we got Ron Paul’s endorsement. Wouldn’t have hurt, but not a big deal. It wouldn’t have won, or made a great showing in the election. An extra 100k votes does not matter in the end. Nobody will remember getting .6 or .7% of the vote.
17 derkel // Jan 5, 2009 at 6:17 pm
John,
I must have misread where your original post was coming from.
Stopping people from marrying isn’t exactly as important as enslaving a whole race of people, but it is a key issue.
I don’t mind the states part because it was a step forward and an improvement over the current situation. Possibly could have paved a way for complete legalization, but didn’t happen of ocurse.
18 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 6, 2009 at 1:56 pm
The “leave marriage to the states” argument is statist and anti-liberty.
Not when it comes from the viewpoint of a U.S. PRESIDENTIAL candidate, dude. After all, would rather he advocated that the President and Congress just come over the top and strip those powers away from the states too?
Because Ron Paul sparked the biggest campaign for liberty in recent history
Largest how? In what metric and numbers? By money or by followers? From what I have seen, it’s just another marginalized group in the Republican Party that Paul uses to give jobs to his friends and family.
19 Trent Hill // Jan 6, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Steven,
By what metric? The million voters who voted for him, the $34 million dollars he raised, the percentage garnered in a national vote…
20 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 6, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Wait, you mean the ~%5 he garnered in a Republican Primary? That’s your movement? That’s the “largest campaign for liberty EVAR!!?” Blowing money in a primary?
21 Rocky Eades // Jan 6, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Jeff @#6: “I’m a little perplexed as to why Barr won’t come right out and say what he hints at in the first paragraph I’ve sampled: that it isn’t the role of the federal government or the states to set a definition of marriage at all.”
There is a very simple answer to that question. Barr opposes gay marriage just as he opposes legalization of drugs. He would be perfectly happy if the state’s all banned gay marriage and maintained their harsh wars on drugs.
Barr does not support individual rights; he supports “states” rights. He does not support negative rights; he supports positive rights. In short, he is not a libertarian, he’s a state’s rights conservative.
22 Brian Miller // Jan 6, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Now Mr. Druckenmiller, it’s cruel to deprive Paultards of their delusions of “revolution.” Pointing out that more people in California voted for chicken coop rights laws than for their hero — as well as pointing out Herr Paul’s unsavory relations with the fringe right AND his Christian nationalist positions on social issues — sends them into a frenzy.
It does so even when the facts are indisputable. I’ve given up on them, you should too. If they’re persisting in their Pauldolatry, it’s like arguing with a religious fundamentalist… a losing proposition.
23 Vindex // Jan 6, 2009 at 2:34 pm
It’s not a movement if it doesn’t last longer than the presidential election. The leftovers of Paul’s campaign are not so much a “movement” as they are a death rattle.
24 Trent Hill // Jan 6, 2009 at 2:41 pm
“Wait, you mean the ~%5 he garnered in a Republican Primary? That’s your movement? That’s the “largest campaign for liberty EVAR!!?” Blowing money in a primary?”
Oh yes, Bob Barr, Harry Browne, or even Ed Clark did much better…except none of them even got 1 million votes….hmmmm.
Oh–and none of them raised more than 3 million dollars.
25 Trent Hill // Jan 6, 2009 at 2:43 pm
“Pointing out that more people in California voted for chicken coop rights laws than for their hero ”
10 times more people voted for Prop 8 in California than voted for Bob Barr nationwide.
26 Trent Hill // Jan 6, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I would love to hear who Druckenmiller or Brian Miller which candidate inspired the largest movement for liberty?
27 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 6, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Barry Goldwater. Even though Reagan didn’t fulfill Goldwater’s conservative-libertarianism, there is no doubt in my mind that institutions like the LP and people like Ron Paul and his followers would even exist but-for Barry Goldwater.
28 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 6, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I’m sorry, Mr. Hill, but you have to break out of a primary first to even be considered. RP blew his chance by remaining wedded to the GOP.
29 Jeff Wartman // Jan 6, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Not when it comes from the viewpoint of a U.S. PRESIDENTIAL candidate, dude. After all, would rather he advocated that the President and Congress just come over the top and strip those powers away from the states too?
Just because someone is running for U.S. President does not mean he must find some level of government to regulate actions. It’s perfectly acceptable, as a Presidential candidate, to say “I do not believe any level of government has an interest in legislating this matter.”
30 Trent Hill // Jan 6, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Steven,
I think Barry Goldwater is the ONLY decent answer to that question. Nonetheless, Paul comes in second–at least in modern history.
As for whether the LP and Ron Paul-types would exist without Goldwater, I think so. Goldwater’s campaign was in 1964, but there were already highly-influential individualists at that time.
31 Trent Hill // Jan 6, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“I’m sorry, Mr. Hill, but you have to break out of a primary first to even be considered. RP blew his chance by remaining wedded to the GOP.”
Um,why? A primary is a national vote,albiet with smaller numbers. Paul’s over 1 million votes in a primary are certainly more impressive than any LP candidate’s, ever.
32 Jeff Wartman // Jan 6, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Mr. Drunkenmiller,
I’m not sure you that you’re understanding Trent’s point. Ron Paul’s campaign probably the most successful, ever. What you’re failing to grasp is that liberty movements haven’t been successful in the past. It’s been decades since someone like Ron Paul came along with the GOP. We’ve never come close to that amount of money or those amount of votes in the LP.
33 Jeff Wartman // Jan 6, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Barry Goldwater. Even though Reagan didn’t fulfill Goldwater’s conservative-libertarianism, there is no doubt in my mind that institutions like the LP and people like Ron Paul and his followers would even exist but-for Barry Goldwater.
There’s very few who are as big of a Goldwater fan as I am. But to say that Ron Paul and the LP wouldn’t exist without Goldwater is baseless.
If you study some history, you’ll see that there were a number of Goldwater-type Republicans around in the 1930’s-1940’s-1950’s.
34 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 6, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I’m aware that there were plenty of the Old Right back in the day. Stop condescending to me. I am still convinced that that movement reached its nadir in the GOP with Goldwater, and is was the disaffection post-1964 that led to the LP. Just look at some Old Right writings post ‘64 (like Ayn Rand) and ask yourself why they are pissed at the GOP all of the sudden.
35 Trent Hill // Jan 6, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Druckenmiller,
So I should blame Goldwater,huh? lol. I think the LP would be FAR more effective if it were a large caucus within the GOP. Just think about it–500,000 members of a Major-party caucus?
36 Karole Noymann // Jan 6, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Bob Barr repudiating his past is like listening to Bill Clinton say he’s celibate.
37 Susan Hogarth // Jan 6, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Just think about it–500,000 members of a Major-party caucus?
Trent,
What makes you think that an libertarian caucus within the RP would -have- 500K people?
Where does the 500K number come from, anyway?
38 Trent Hill // Jan 6, 2009 at 5:18 pm
500k votes is where im getting the number from–which the LP has sort of hovered around for the past 4-5 Presidential elections.
39 VirtualGalt // Jan 6, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Perhaps Mr. Barr has seen the light. I hope so. After all, he was the only Presidential candidate to talk with me in Denver… and he seemed like a nice enough guy.
(ducks and covers)
40 Michael Seebeck // Jan 6, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Barr only did this to make himself seem relevant, especially with the nationwide DOMA protests going down this Saturday.
A “states’ rights” position is bogus. States do not have rights, only powers. Read the Tenth Amendment.
DOMA was prima facie unconstitutional but never challenged in court as violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause. He knew that when he wrote it. That makes him guilty of writing unconstitutional laws on the front end. While that may or may not have been the single or a key reason for a support lack in Denver, it sure didn’t help him any. He always was and still is a GOP carpetbagger and no libertarian. We warned people of this prior to and in Denver. They didn’t listen. We were right.
Had Barr any brains or balls, his argument would have been stronger, along the lines of, “Preventing two consenting adults from marrying runs afoul of constitutional rights and is anathema to liberty. I was wrong then to write DOMA, and it should be either repealed entirely or challenged in court as unconstitutional, or both.”
And yes, using federal power to usurp state power in order to preserve individual constitutional rights is not only entirely appropriate, but part of the first duty of representative government. See also the Ninth Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights, et al. The same holds true for states using their power to usurp federal power to preserve individual rights, but you don’t see that because too many state-level and lower police lack the brains and balls to jail DEA agents etc. They fall for the “federal law trumps state law” argument while ignoring the “individual rights trump ALL laws” argument that is at the very heart of our republic.
41 Thomas M. Sipos // Jan 6, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Trent Hill: “the LP would be FAR more effective if it were a large caucus within the GOP. Just think about it–500,000 members of a Major-party caucus?
A caucus requires a group of ideologically cohesive activists, committed to longterm work.
The LP’s roughly 20,000 dues-paying members are a better estimate of how large a libertarian caucus in the GOP would be.
Your 500,000 estimate is unrealistic, since it includes people who did nothing other than vote LP. That doesn’t require much time or commitment, and says less about a person’s overall ideology than due-paying membership.
People vote for a candidate for all sorts of reasons, especially when they vote for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning. It could just be voting for what third party candidate is on the ballot, to give a finger to “the system.”
500,000 people who once a year vote LP is a far less realistic estimate for a longterm caucus of activists than the 20,000 LP members.
42 John Lowell // Jan 7, 2009 at 12:05 am
Derkel,
More seriously, when moral questions are dealt with in a way in which the individual is absolutized – made into a kind of context, that is – by the operation of a perverse principle, the relationship between that individual and any other is reduced solely to that of power. Its only when an objective moral standard is shared by a community of individuals that the rights of any are insured. Democracy is simply an abstraction in the absence of such a shared standard and must, of necessity, find itself debased into countervailing power relationships. And here we find Adorno’s so-called “contradiction of the Enlightenment”. We are in the midst at the moment of living out the unreality of such a contradition, one in which democracy gives way to force as in the question of “gay marriage”. The moral force of the “gay marriage” argument – no matter how it manifests itself legally – is confined to an atomistic, or relativist, construct that by its very nature can never serve as a shared standard. Grounded in the subject, its public expression requires of necessity the application of coercive force for it to gain any community standing whatsoever. The application of a universal, federal standard in questions where objective moral precepts are the focus – whether they concern slavery or gay marrriage – is an important guarantor of democracy, therefore.
43 Steven R Linnabary // Jan 7, 2009 at 12:35 am
Grounded in the subject, its public expression requires of necessity the application of coercive force for it to gain any community standing whatsoever.
John, then that would mean that coercive force is used with the acceptance of inter religious or inter racial marriage.
Could you explain this further?
PEACE
44 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 7, 2009 at 2:00 am
DOMA was prima facie unconstitutional
That is a downright lie, Seebeck. From Article IV Sec 1.:
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Sorry, Michael, but Congress was well within its authority to approve DOMA.
45 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 7, 2009 at 2:02 am
And yes, using federal power to usurp state power in order to preserve individual constitutional rights is not only entirely appropriate, but part of the first duty of representative government.
There is no, nor should there be, an individual “right” to get married, in terms of what marriage means in the context of the modern State.
46 John Lowell // Jan 7, 2009 at 2:21 am
Steven,
The point here is simply that culture changes arising in opposition to objective moral standards always find their ground in the subject and, therefore, in the presence of these standards, require coercion to be realized. Objective moral standards, on the other hand, having been given objectively, are simply there and require a mere acceptance. Herein lies the myth of the “imposition” of an authentic faith on the faithless in any culture. Here, faith simply points to a given, something already present in the environment as it were. What is already present can’t be imposed. Yet that which emerges subjectively and contradicts that which is given before the fact can only gain admittance by imposing itself. I hope I’ve helped.
47 darolew // Jan 7, 2009 at 7:24 am
@article: Good to see Barr repudiate the rest of DOMA. At the NatCon, and, if I’m not mistaking, until now, he had only repudiated a portion of DOMA. He agreed that the federal definition of marriage needed to go, but he called the rest of the legislation “good federalism”.
@Barry Goldwater: His campaign, obviously, was far, far huger than Ron Paul’s was; however, Goldwater was a member of the Buckleyite New Right. He may have imitated the Old Right in calling for a repeal of the welfare state, but he deviated from that honorable group in his support of militarism and statism to wage war against the non-threat of global communism. I think, for that, Goldwater deserves to have quite a few points deducted.
@states’ rights: While an extremely useful concept, states’ rights is a horrible term. As a concept it’s useful because it promotes decentralism. As a term states’ rights is bad because, as it has been accurately pointed out numerous times, states have no rights; only individuals have rights.
48 Catholic Trotskyist // Jan 7, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Fuck off, John.
49 Steven R Linnabary // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Here, faith simply points to a given, something already present in the environment as it were. What is already present can’t be imposed.
So…In parts of Utah (where Mormons reign) or Israel (where some Jewish sects reign) or in much of the Muslim world, polygamy isn’t “imposed”. It is just a part of a “faithful” life.
And is apparently OK with you.
I’ll accept that. But when a couple in San Francisco wants to marry, you maintain that it is being “coercively imposed” on YOU.
I fail to see the “coercive” part of your argument. NOBODY is forcing you to accept same sex marriage any more than nobody is forcing you to accept inter racial marriage or inter religious marriage (or non religious civil unions).
My point is that as long as the government is in the marriage business, it MUST allow for anybody who is forced to pay for it to get the same benefits as anybody else.
It’s called “equal protection under the law”, a part of the US Constitution.
PEACE
50 Libertine Party // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:39 pm
DOMA was bad. But the in-fighting going on in the LP is just downright pathetic. Who cares what he did? He wasn’t going to win anyway.
51 Trent Hill // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:40 pm
“It’s called “equal protection under the law”, a part of the US Constitution.”
Having to get permission from the government to marry is not a good thing, it is oppressive. You want everyone oppressed equally? Im sure in 1855 you would’ve been argueing that whites should be enslaved too.
52 paulie cannoli // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Were there whites in 1855 asking for the right to be enslaved?
53 Libertine Party // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:49 pm
No. Unless BDSM existed back then.
54 Steven R Linnabary // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Trent, you are absolutely correct here, that forcing people to get “permission” to marry is not a good thing.
However, the government IS in the marriage business. And it provides special benefits to those that take part in that business.
Therefore, until the government gets out of the marriage business and quits giving special rights to those that do take part, it is only equitable that ALL persons be able to take part.
Whether the government should even be in this business is a totally different argument. One where I would argue the government shouldn’t be involved.
PEACE
55 Libertine Party // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I agree, Steven.
56 paulie cannoli // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Steven, exactly.
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2009/01/judge-forces-couples-to-separate-every.html
57 Dick // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Yes, Steven. You are right on the mark with this one! :p
58 paulie cannoli // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:58 pm
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-bloody-generous.html
59 paulie cannoli // Jan 7, 2009 at 2:07 pm
LJ, please confine yourself to one pseudonym at a time when expressing agreement with a post.
60 Dick // Jan 7, 2009 at 2:08 pm
There’s alot of dicks out there.
61 Coming on the back of the LP // Jan 7, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Marzullo, cut the shit.
62 Trent Hill // Jan 7, 2009 at 5:12 pm
“However, the government IS in the marriage business. And it provides special benefits to those that take part in that business.”
Ohk,let us change the subject from slavery to modern affirmative action.
Affirmative action allows blacks and women special priveleges, higher pay being one of them, as well as higher rates of employment for those groups. The affirmative action system exists, and we both agree that it should be abolished–but while it exists, should whites, males, American Indians, Asians, Cubans, etc all be included to? If a company has 100 employee-spots, should they have to employ not just 14 blacks and 49 women, but also specifically 51 men, 80 whites, and 6% other?
No, we just want to abolish the system. We dont want “equal treatment”.
63 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 7, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Mr. Hill – If we included as many groups as possible, there would be no sense in maintaining a system and things would work out naturally.
64 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 7, 2009 at 5:22 pm
In other words, if you extend marriage to gays, lesbians, polygynists and polyandrists, man-on-dog, woman-on-cat, child-on-hamster…well, then there really is no difference between abolishing marriage and including so many people under the umbrella that you might as well not even have an umbrella.
65 Trent Hill // Jan 7, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Steven,
So that IS what you want to do with Affirmative Action?
Besides Steve, this “In other words, if you extend marriage to gays, lesbians, polygynists and polyandrists, man-on-dog, woman-on-cat, child-on-hamster…well, then there really is no difference between abolishing marriage and including so many people under the umbrella that you might as well not even have an umbrella.”
This smacks of social engineering.
66 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 7, 2009 at 5:42 pm
what? do you know what social engineering means? It would be if the government enacted certain policies that benefitted one group over an other in the interest of either promotiong the growth of Group A or diminishing the effects/punishing Group B.
Right now, we have a government that is socially engineering through marriage: yes to man/woman, no to man/man woman/woman. Part of the rationale is that the government wants to promote the birth of children and the other part is that there are people are just don’t like TEH HOMOSEXSHULL.
The current restrictions are social engineering attempts. If we make the class of persons who can get a license so large that the license is meaningless, it’s the same as abolishing the system.
67 Trent Hill // Jan 7, 2009 at 5:50 pm
“what? do you know what social engineering means?”
Would I use the word if I didnt know what it means?
“Right now, we have a government that is socially engineering through marriage: yes to man/woman, no to man/man woman/woman. ”
Obviously.
“The current restrictions are social engineering attempts. If we make the class of persons who can get a license so large that the license is meaningless, it’s the same as abolishing the system.”
No, it isnt. It is just MORE social engineering, social engineering that engulfs the entire population. Government should not possess the power to “license” marriage at all, regardless of the population of those who are licensed. This is an example of social engineering because it morphs/disturbs/transforms the meanings of the word and institution of marriage through government action.
The fact is this: Like affirmative action, marriage licensing is beneficial to the group that recieves it. Like affirmative action, only a portion of the population is able to apply for, and recieve, marriage lisences. Both institutions should be abolished, NOT expanded in the name of “equality”. Just as Affirmative Action should be not expanded to include other ethnic and gender groups in order to supply “equal treatment under the law”, neither should marriage licensing.
As for your idea that if we expand licensing to such a point that said license is meaningless, it’s the same as abolishing the system–that is false.
-First of all, under your system Government retains control of marriage. This is a moral evil, regardless of whether the govenrment actually uses it (and it will, eventually).
-Second of all, it might be desirable to make “licensing” meaningless–but it is not desirable to make “marriage” meaningless. The two are inextricably linked under your scenario. Marriage will cease to be a “meaningful” institution, you are correct about that. This is an example of social engineering–and a terrible idea.
68 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 7, 2009 at 5:54 pm
The two are inextricably linked under your scenario.
No they are not.
Think about it this way: if all you had to do to get your driver’s license was fill out a few forms, pay 15 bucks and whammo! there it is…would a driver’s license mean anything to anyone? Would you now feel any safer just because Driver X has his state license?
Of course not.
marriage licensing is beneficial to the group that recieves it.
And if everyone receives it, it is beneficial to no one. If we all got a 1000$ welfare check every year, that’s the same as not getting one at all (assuming zero implementation costs). If we can all get a marriage license, then it makes no difference any more.
69 Trent Hill // Jan 7, 2009 at 6:03 pm
“And if everyone receives it, it is beneficial to no one.”
How on earth would everyone recieve it? Only couples who fill out the paperwork will recieve it–only couples who want to be “married”. It cannot logically be extended to EVERYONE.
“If we all got a 1000$ welfare check every year, that’s the same as not getting one at all (assuming zero implementation costs).”
In terms of my advantage over Bill and Jim, maybe–but it costs my alot more in terms of taxes,doesnt it? Again, you want to expand this welfare state–I want to abolish it.
” If we can all get a marriage license, then it makes no difference any more.”
Precisely my point–marriage will cease to matter if we expand marriage licensing the way you are proposing. Government will have altered the very meaning and function of government–which might be your goal, I dont know, but it isnt mine. Essentially, you want the government to expand its licensing system in order to cheapen or eliminate the advantages it gives (which is impossible, since you cant include everyone and someone is going to have to pay the taxes for this universal welfare)–in the process, you dont care if marriage is altered to sometihng completely foreign by government. I suspect you dont care because you consider marriage a “traditional” institution.
70 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 7, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Now who’s equating marriage with government-sanction licenses? If government gives marriage licenses to everybody who applies, I am failing to see how that somehow dilutes the traditional, societal (as opposed to political) notion of marriage.
For my money, you sound like you want government to continue discriminating in who it gives its licenses to because you have an interest in maintaining the traditional definition.
Government can either discriminate towards no one, have a rational basis for the discrimination (and no, your genital set is not a rational basis), or eliminate the institution. But we should not continue to allow government to discriminate just because they show no signs of eliminating the institution.
71 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 7, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Precisely my point–marriage will cease to matter if we expand marriage licensing the way you are proposing.
No, Marriage LICENSES won’t matter. Marriage will matter (or not, I really don’t care) to the extent that the social system wants it to matter. IOW, it is up to you to determine how much marriage matters, but marriage licenses should not carry the kind of social weight they do now.
72 Trent Hill // Jan 7, 2009 at 6:17 pm
“For my money, you sound like you want government to continue discriminating in who it gives its licenses to because you have an interest in maintaining the traditional definition.”
I want the government completely OUT of the marriage industry. In the meantime, I dont want government expanding its control of marriage, or altering the definition of it. My defense of marriage as a societal institution doesnt matter for the purposes of this discussion.
73 Trent Hill // Jan 7, 2009 at 6:19 pm
“But we should not continue to allow government to discriminate just because they show no signs of eliminating the institution.”
I agree. Seeking to minimize or eliminate the advantages gained by enterring the welfare system (marriage licensing) is the way to do this, not EXPANDING the welfare state.
74 Trent Hill // Jan 7, 2009 at 6:24 pm
“Marriage will matter (or not, I really don’t care)”
This shows your real bias. You have no concern for whether your process will morph, transform, or distort the institution of marriage.
75 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 7, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Mr. Hill, for whatever reason, you seem to think that the blanket distribution of marriage licenses cheapens the societal institution of marriage. To me, that feels like you want the government to protect your definition and no one else’s. If you want marriage to be one man/one woman, good for you; don’t call anything else a marriage. That does not mean that licenses should be restricted solely to your definition. They should either be distributed without discrimination or eliminated altogether; however, you cannot continue to discriminate in face of the government’s refusal to eliminate the requirement.
76 Trent Hill // Jan 7, 2009 at 6:46 pm
“To me, that feels like you want the government to protect your definition and no one else’s. ”
You don’t listen so well. I want the government entirely out of marriage, unlike you–who wants to expand the state of marriage. I dont want government defend my definition of marriage, I want it to leave marriage alone entirely. However, you also don’t know what I think about marriage, concering whether it should be one man/one woman–you are jumping to conclusions because of your pre-conceieved ideas about what I think, and you are wrong.
I do not believe in the “traditional” definition of marriage, so your entire last post is essentially worth dirt.
“however, you cannot continue to discriminate in face of the government’s refusal to eliminate the requirement.”
Let’s tackle this again, just so you can get it. If a welfare program, which is available only to people under 30,000/year income, is instituted in the United States–this is obviously beneficial AND discriminatory. My proposal, is to eliminate this system. Until it can be eliminated, we ought to try to shrink it (as in, only offer $500 a year instead of $1000 a year), or disciminate more (as in, shrink the base. Only people who make less than 20,000/year).
You, on the other hand, want to expand this welfare system.
77 Trent Hill // Jan 7, 2009 at 6:47 pm
“however, you cannot continue to discriminate in face of the government’s refusal to eliminate the requirement.”
And it is not me who is discriminating, but government. We shouldnt make slavery “less discriminatory” by including American Indians and Asians too–we should eliminate the system alltogether.
78 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 7, 2009 at 6:52 pm
A marriage license is not equivalent to slavery. Now, perhaps what you want to do is eliminate the State benefits granted to said license-holders, and that is all well and good. However, there is no rational basis for the government to discriminate among the populace to whom it will give this license.
Just because a welfare state exists does not mean liberty and equality before the law should be held hostage to that welfare state. This is akin to restricting immigration because immigrants use social services. The key is to eliminate the social services, not immigration. Likewise, the key is to eliminate the discriminatory benefits conferred on license-holders, not restrict who gets the license.
79 Dick // Jan 7, 2009 at 6:56 pm
@62
Elif air ab dinich
80 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 7, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Until it can be eliminated, we ought to try to shrink it
I’m curious: how would one “shrink” marriage? Does that mean you’re in support of the reinstitution of miscegenation laws?
81 Dick // Jan 7, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Perhaps he means the state should remove a powerful incentive to marry. The tax breaks. Yeah, like that would ever happen!
82 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 7, 2009 at 7:08 pm
I don’t have a problem with removing the tax breaks; I do have a problem with discriminating against certain people because those tax breaks exist.
83 Dick // Jan 7, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Yeah, I told you that I agree with you, peecha.
84 John Lowell // Jan 7, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Steven Linnabary,
I think were on two different wavelengths here, Steven. My point are largely philosophical, not legal, in the hope of bringing something more in the way of a foundation to these arguments. That is in no way to say they are not germaine, au contraire, they are simply more compelling and decisive that way.
When speaking of a moral structure that is given, what I have in mind is a morality that is natural to its environment, that comes with the territory so to speak. One might say with accuracy that it is ontological or present in the very being of things. We know of such structures through revelation, an objective source. In contrast, alternative moralities arise only subjectively and are at best merely psychological, never reaching to the depth of the ontological. And it is precisely here that the weakness of these subjective moralities is perceived. They can be no more than an imposition upon a pre-existing superstructure and have authenticity only to the extent that they are in conformity with it. The idea of “gay marriage”, so-called, lacks conformity with this superstructure and can only be introduced by doing violence to it. Hence the point about coersion.
85 Catholic Trotskyist // Jan 7, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Very good points John. Too many people do not understand the philosophical impact of law. I hope you realized that the offensive comment posted by the person identifying as “Catholic Trotskyist” earlier was not me. It is an impostor, possibly the person known as Libertarian Joseph, who is attempting to discredit Catholic Trotskyism by turning the other contributors of this site against me. Hopefully, my writing style is so distinctive that it cannot be immitated, and people can tell the real posts from the fake posts.
86 Michael Seebeck // Jan 7, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Druckenmiller erronesouly claims @44:
“DOMA was prima facie unconstitutional
That is a downright lie, Seebeck. From Article IV Sec 1.:
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Sorry, Michael, but Congress was well within its authority to approve DOMA.”
Nope I told the truth. Congress may prescribe the manner in which such acts are proved, sure, but NOT the manner in which they are disallowed, resticted, or prohibited. The clause you quote in error indicates recongizition of those acts, not circumscription of restrictions on them. Remember the Tenth Amendment applies, too.
Congress has no authority to pass unconstitutional legislation, and if passed it has no effect. See Marbury v. Madison, applied in this case through Loving v. Virginia.
Durckenmiller also erroneously claims @45:
“And yes, using federal power to usurp state power in order to preserve individual constitutional rights is not only entirely appropriate, but part of the first duty of representative government.
There is no, nor should there be, an individual “right” to get married, in terms of what marriage means in the context of the modern State.”
But there is. It is part of the unenumerated rigths of the Ninth Amendment, and it has its roots in teh First and Fourth Amendments as well. Go read Loving v. Virginia. Just because YOU in your statist mental illness think there should be no right to get married, making it then either impossible or a government-allowed privilege, doesn’t mean that it isn’t there, because is clearly is.
And Steven @49 and @54 is dead-on correct.
87 paulie cannoli // Jan 7, 2009 at 8:41 pm
CT,
You are correct. The fake CT posts were from the same IP address as “Libertarian Joseph”, “Joseph Marzullo”, “Libertine Party” and “Dick”.
That also includes the N-word post he tried to pawn off as yours on a different thread.
88 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 7, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Mr. Seebeck, the section quoted authorizes Congress to provide what effect those records and proceedings will have on the States. Regardless, your bald and stark claim that DOMA is prima facie unconstitutional is ridiculous. For one, you’re not the authority on what is and is not constitutional. For two, the level of debate proves that your case isn’t as straightforward and obvious as you make it out to be.
89 John Lowell // Jan 7, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Cattrot,
Knew darn well something was wrong. That wasn’t my good friend, Cattrot. Never once did I think of that comment as being in character. Regret that you’re having these troubles. Just don’t let that crumb force you to use another identity in the interests of trying to get distance from him. You’re Cattrot. There’s only one Cattrot!
As to my interchange with Steven, thank you for the kind remarks. When speaking of the moral superstructure at the core of being I am referring, of course, to the form and presence of God the Son, Jesus Christ. In Acts 17:28 the glorious Saint Paul teaches us that “in Him, we live and move and have our being”. So in perceiving the superstructure itself we come to realize that it is in no way static. On the contrary, it most intensely alive. It is, in fact, life itself. We are most fortunate to share in this life in the Blessed Sacrament, Cattrot. In and of ourselves we are wholly unworthy of the honor.
90 Michael Seebeck // Jan 8, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Ever read Loving, Druckenmiller? I have.
Ever heard of Greyhound Corp. V. United States? I have: “Doubt relative to statutory construction should be resolved in favor of the individual, not the government.”
Sorry, Steve, but you just don’t seem to get the fundamental concepts of how consent of the governed, federalism, and individual rights fit together.
As for the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the clause itself is the governing statement: what part of “FULL” don’t you get? That means that any proscriptions by Congress cannot detract from that.
Words have meaning, Steven, and the Committee on Style headed by Governor Morris had a specific intent in their words. I suggest you go study it, since you appear to be seriously lacking in that area.
And arguing to authority is meaningless, especially since the so-called authorities are generally clueless on those fundamentals as well–and that includes the current President-elect.
One last thing: the level of debate has everything to do with more pin-dancing, not the basic constructs, which you lack an understanding of.
91 Michael Seebeck // Jan 8, 2009 at 1:00 pm
P.S. Steven, Congress cannot by statute restrict constitutional rights. That principle is settled law as old as the nation itself. The push for a federal constitutional amendment on marriage is precisely because DOMA apologists *know* it is unconstitutional!
92 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 8, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Congress cannot by statute restrict constitutional rights.
That’s a circular argument and you know it. If Congress has the authority to describe what class of documents are to be given “Full Faith and Credit”, then they are not, by definition, “restricting constitutional rights”; they are wielding constitutional powers. You’re begging the question.
what part of “FULL” don’t you get? That means that any proscriptions by Congress cannot detract from that.
That too is one of the more ridiculous arguments you’ve put forth. You’re arguing that the states have to give credit to ALL proceedings and judgments because they use the word “full”? An alternative (and correct) reading would say that if the States or Congress allow a certain proceeding to fall under the clause, then the states have to give that proceeding “full faith and credit”.
Words have meaning, Steven, and the Committee on Style headed by Governor Morris had a specific intent in their words.
You’ve got a lot of smug in you for someone who does not know the name was “Governeur Morris”, not “Governor”. And you have the audacity to tell me to read up on it!
One last thing: the level of debate has everything to do with more pin-dancing, not the basic constructs
Right. So, when the Eleventh Circuit talked about “strict scrutiny” versus “Rational basis” for whether DOMA violates the 14th Amendment, that was just pin-dancing?
Something tells me that you’ve read like, two books from LRC on the constitution and haven’t dipped a toe in modern jurisprudence.
93 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 8, 2009 at 3:08 pm
The push for a federal constitutional amendment on marriage is precisely because DOMA apologists *know* it is unconstitutional!
Or, alternatively, if your goal was to make an unchallengable statement as to what the United States Government defines marriage as, the FMA is the correct way to go.
You cannot point out the FMA advocates as proof for your own case. Yes, DOMA is being challenged, but you’ll note that very few of those challenges are successful; your description of events defies logic.
Leave a Comment