There has been some confusion over whether Bob Barr called for the total repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act — which he helped write in Congress — or whether he wished to repeal a “portion” thereof. At the candidate debate in Denver, it seemed Barr was for the latter. But then later, he seemed to call for the complete scrapping of the anti-gay marriage act. Now it seems clear that Barr is not for getting rid of DOMA entirely, as highlighted on his own campaign Web site.
In a June 2 interview with Southern Voice, Barr delineated between two sections of DOMA: a full faith and credit clause that protects the rights of each state to implement its own definition of marriage and, a section that defines marriage to be between one man and one woman in federal law.
“This [second part] was intended to apply to federal programs, such as survivor benefits, Social Security [and others],†he said.
Barr said it is the second part of DOMA he would work to repeal if elected president.
It is however the first part of DOMA that many libertarians and constitutionalists find unconstitutional.
Article IV, Section 1 says: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”
DOMA, as a legislative act and not a constitutional amendment, cannot override this “full faith and credit” clause, which would seem to require states to respect the marriage contracts (acts, records, and judicial proceedings) of other states.
UPDATE: In the name of balance, I decided to append this article with the following:
It should be noted, however, that at least one constitutional expert — Ron Paul — does not consider DOMA unconstitutional. Paul voted for DOMA (correction) and continues to support it.
Furthermore, Barr’s supportive words of the GLBT community in this same article should be highlighted:
“Over the years and over the last year since I’ve been more active in the Libertarian Party, I’ve talked with a number of individuals, including members of Outright Libertarians [a gay Libertarian group], and have come to view the second part as having been used as a club, or the tail wagging the dog,” Barr said. “This is not what I intended.”
Gregg Jacoy is correct, it really shouldn’t matter how any congressman defines the marital rituals of others, cause it’s the federal government should have no say in marriages.
Barr is not a stupid man. He knew exactly what DOMA would do, and to claim now that it was used in ways he did not foresee is more than a little disingenuous.
You’re right, it was unfair, but unintended. I was trying to be concise, but now I can see how the part I did not quote could be interpreted as justifying DOMA’s constitutionality.
I have been an opponent of DOMA since it was first floated in 1995-96. But I think it’s unfair that you do not quote the complete “full faith and credit clause” of the Constitution, which reads:
“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.”
In other words, Congress can, by legislative act, preempt the requirement that each state recognize the acts of any other state. Consequently, the first part of DOMA is not unconstitutional.
It can and should, however, be repealed in its entirety.
Better to scrap a portion of it than do nothing at all. If Libertarians can manage to rally our forces to defeat even part of DOMA, it will be a major victory for us.
Ron Paul’s thoughts on DOMA in his own words:
“If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex†marriage license issued in another state. ”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
Thank you for the correction, Andy.
“It should be noted, however, that at least one constitutional expert — Ron Paul — does not consider DOMA unconstitutional. Paul voted for DOMA and continues to support it.”
Ron Paul was NOT in Congress when DOMA passed. DOMA passed in 1996. Ron Paul was elected to Congress in 1996, however, he did not assume office until 1997.
~chuckle~
Perhaps, but I also believe it’s a very Green position. I’d guess my Green friends will tell me if they disagree.
Wow, Gregg… That’s a very libertarian position!
So, what *was* his intention? Should it not be the case that marriage is a sacred institution, and as such should be recognized only by a faith authority?
Why does the good Congressman think the government at any level has a role to play in marriage? If two, or more, people want to enter into a regulated contract to get government benefits, like tax breaks and government goodies for the children, then shouldn’t it be the court’s responsibility to see to it that the contract is honored?
Turning marriage into a government backed contract instead of a faith based choice was a bad idea lo these many years ago. I don’t see that changing, but we can expect our standard bearers to call for equality without hesitation.