Former Congressman Bob Barr (Rep-GA) was the author of The Defense of Marriage Act. As the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 2008, he came to oppose DOMA as unnecessary federal intrusion in the issue of marriage.
Now Mr Barr is a candidate for Congress in the Republican primary, and he has posted this statement on his Facebook page:
“I personally believe marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman and, if it were on the ballot in Georgia, I’d vote that way. However, I have come to believe that it’s yet one more example of the federal government’s delving into areas that throughout our history have been best left to the states. I trust the judgement of the people of Georgia more than that of Washington, DC.” – BB
Source: https://www.facebook.com/bobbarrcongress?ref=stream&hc_location=stream
George is correct here.
@11 Actually the Constitution is very clear on this. A marriage is a contract. States are required to accept the validity of contracts made in other states–that Full Faith and Credit clause was a major reason for the current Constitution.
BTW, item #1 in the list I just posted would also satisfy the separation of church and state, which right now the current marriage arrangement does not do!
The next battle will be in civil union/domestic partnership-only states to get the federal benefits that were just opened up by tossing DOMA. THAT will be a can of worms, too, and all over terminology.
Expect an EO from Obama that tells federal agencies administering these benefits that if a couple is married in a state where same-sex marriage is legal that the feds are to consider them married even if they live in a state where same-sex marriage isn’t. That does two things–one, it simplified the federal benefits question somewhat by removing a need to verify the geography, and two, it avoids a Dred-Scott-like situation where the legal status in the eyes of the feds varies by state. It actually would make some sense, too.
The ultimate solution:
1. For now, make marriage a religious ceremony only. For the legal/civil side, civil unions all around, including for benefits and taxes.
2. Remove all benefits for being married or a being in a civil union as that is discriminatory against single folks because they are not married. Make all that stuff enforceable by power-of-attorney contracts only.
3. Then eliminate those benefits entirely so that in the civil/legal arena it is a pure contract issue.
4. Eliminate all taxation of estates, the marriage penalty, and community property laws, and get back to the proper role of individual rights in those areas.
The only role of government in these arrangements should be as an arbitrator for property issues of an estate or a dissolution, including child custody, but even that isn’t necessary with proper planning and a good family lawyer.
I doubt Barr reads IPR comments.
Mr Barr, I also agree that no state should require you to have more then one wife, or to share a wife, or to be married to a non-human animal or an inanimate object or even to an idea.
We only care about government definitions of marriage because of their (the governments) effect upon taxes, property of when marriages dissolve, inheritance and medical service decisions.
Get the government out of these areas and then we are happy to let churches and other social clubs decide whom they will think of as married.
Well, Barr wrote DOMA, so his opinion is more relevant than Wayne’s.
Wow, you were still subscribed?
Yep.
Alan @ 5–
But we always suck up to the big names.
What would you do: put principle ahead of pragmatism?
Now, now, that won’t get us elected. But if we just go with ex-Republican bin name X, look at all the spoils we will enjoy…..
Bob Barr for Congress email:
Aannnnnddd… UNSUBSCRIBE.
IMHO, this just underscores the importance of nominating candidates who have demonstrated their commitment to freedom, instead of trying to achieve short-term benefits by nominating candidates with greater name recognition, whose commitment to liberty is questionable.
@3: Federalism, it’s why you can (legally) smoke pot here in Colorado, but not in Ohio. The Supreme Court can only decide the issue before it, which was the Federal benefits provision of DOMA (specifically a greater estate tax applied to one legally married couple because they were of the same sex).
I still struggle with this in the context of interstate commerce. No Federal guidelines, so you’re legal in some state and not in others? Eventually, it will be legal just about everywhere, but maybe Ohio, Oklahoma, and a few other states–thinking of their laws against voter freedoms.
Maybe we’ll get WAR’s opinion next.
Someone get some clippers for that hedge!