Political Insider

By oskar

May 16, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this

One more reason not to vote for Bob Barr!

By Keep it real

May 16, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

I’m a life long registered Democrat, as well as a native of Georgia, so I’m in no way defending Barr because I’ve seen his dealings for a long time. However, this link from the home page was just misleading. He does NOT back gay marriage rule. He backs the state of CA’s ruling on a state decision. Stop the spinning.

By Jeff

May 16, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this

This is a case where a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is ruinous, but the explanation proves he needs to be in the Oval Office.

Guess that means that the Mainstream Media will only pick up on - as the headline on ajc.com states - “Bob Barr supports Gay Marraige.”. When in fact, quite the opposite is true. He is personally AGAINST gay marraige, but feels that each state should have the right to determine what it will or will not allow.

By Johnny P.

May 16, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this

As long as no one outside the state of California is obligated to recognize this I would agree with Barr. But as we’ve seen many times, these issues rarely stop at the state line.

By Dave

May 16, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this

One more reason to vote for Bob Barr!

By old friend of Bob

May 16, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this

Bob — WRONG WRONG WRONG Like most politicians you are gaining momentum and then go off half cocked on something that happens in the land of fruits and nuts and say that folks here in God’s County could have same sex marriage also. It will never happen in Georgia…..thank God! Too bad this happened because I would have voted for you.

By Mark

May 16, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this

Keep it real…go back and check the link. It says “ruling”, not “rule”. The link is not misleading. You’re just having a typical knee-jerk reaction.

By aha

May 16, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this

…um…if papers like the AJC didn’t spin, there wouldn’t be news and neither you, nor I, would click on links to read them…

don’t blink, you might miss the train wreck.

By Joe

May 16, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

The state didn’t decide. Four judges did. Sixty one percent of the state voted to ban homosexual marriage in 2000. Bob’s wrong and so were 4 judges.

By Karen

May 16, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this

Well it’s election time again…Time to start putting the Gay Issue back on the fore front. Not an issue for 3 1/2 years until the republicans want to unify the base. Can’t wait until there is another minority that replaces the Gays on the bottom of the totem pole, these people have taken enough & it’s time to let it go.

By AuggieDoo

May 16, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this

What makes you believe you’re better than anyone else? I don’t think that God recognizes state lines. You’re a very simple ignorant man…

By Mad Mary

May 16, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

We can not have different rules of marriage in different States. I say, stop all State Marriages. If couples want to get MARRIED let them go to a church or any other cult meeting and have a marriage service. The State should stay out of it. The State should not license marriage in any manner. Marriage is a personal lifestyle that adults may choose for themselves. If couples want to co-mingle property and have inheritance from each other sign a contract/make a will. Children are growing up in single family households all over the world so marriage is NOT necessary. Child support can be agreed to or ordered. Benefits from employers should only go to the worker. Period. If the worker wants to cover friends or relatives let the worker pay for the benefit. Get Government Out of the Bedroom. Get Government Out of the relationship between employers, workers, men, men, women, women, workers, children, et al.

By zeke

May 16, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

Yep! Bob is a nut! What an idiot! The voters of Calif. decided to ban these farce marriages, and, as usual in this country, a court oversteps it’s constitutional authority and makes law!

By Charlotte

May 16, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

This is great news!!Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue:) www.OUTTAKEonline.com

By Mike

May 16, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Look it up.

By gttim

May 16, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this

The state didn’t decide. Four judges did

Absolutely, and that is the roll of the court- to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If you and your church want to define what it recognizes as a religious marriage in your church, fine. However a legal marriage is nothing more than a granting of special rights for a partnership. The court has recognized that this cannot be denied to anybody. Remember not to many decades ago the court had to rule that it was legal for mixed race marriages because states, state majorities, and peoples in “God’s County” thought it should be against the law. Many churches would not have recognized mix race marriages or even let African Americans in their doors.

By Kirby

May 16, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

Dont you get it? He’s not in support of or against the decision, but in support of the way it was MADE! Some people just have no clue in this country. Hopefully over time, you will all be wiped out of this country like bad weeds in a beuatiful lawn!

By Mike K.

May 16, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

Have to agree with you Mad Mary. All consenting adults should be able to go to the courthouse to be able to get a civil union, which would answer legal questions like inheritance or a will.

If two people want to get married, then they go to a church and get married. If they’re gay, and the church doesn’t want to marry them, too bad.

By SCY

May 16, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

Barr is only HALF right no the federal government shouldn’t weigh in on the matter but then again neither should the states. Why does the government have a right to define interpersonal relationships one way or the other. I am a Christian and view marriage as a sacrament, not unlike Baptism or Communion. I don’t look for the state to regulate or dictate this matters either. If two individuals want to spend their lives together in Christian marriage they should be free to do so, but if they aren’t Christian and don’t profess to follow Christ why should I impose my will on them. As such individuals should be free to make decisions for themselves if they want to spend their lives with a partner or alone or whatever then the government should stay out of it!

By John

May 16, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

When you use God in an argument. The rule should be that u lose. The law is man made. The constitution man written. God’s laws are God’s laws. let him dole out his punishment if he indeed exists. But our laws do not need to follow his laws. Why do you fail to see the difference. There will come a day when DNA proves “gayness” is biological. What then?

By Daytunaguy

May 16, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this

Mad Mary,we already have different marriage rules for different states,they vary in many ways. It is the right of each state to decide these matters,not the Federal Government.

By ROBERT

May 16, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

THEY NEED THE LORD!!!!!! READ THE BIBLE!!!!

By roget

May 16, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

And each state also should issue its own currency, have its own immigration rules, its own postal system, etc., etc.

By Chris

May 16, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

the point isn’t about gay marriage, its that the federal government is not, by design, supposed to be the master of the state governments. If it came up for vote that smoking crack was legal in California, then the fed rulings on the subject would not supercede.

I still support Ron Paul anyway…

By medoctorzane

May 16, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

Lets see. The people of California voted to ban gay marriages. Four judges overturned it. The judges I guess are simply “gods unto themselves”.

By straightman

May 16, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

I have yet to hear one effect that gay marriage has on any other couple’s marriage. Can someone shed some light on this? How does gay marriage harm you? Half the hetero marriages end in divorce. I’d put good money on a lower percentage of gay marriages ending in divorce.

By johnson is a johnson

May 16, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

Whatever. I’m voting for Curious George.

By Ryan

May 16, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this

Wow really? You people infuriate me, this country is called the land of the free. Yet, at every turn the masses are trying to prevent someone from doing something. Sadly, its usually the religious groups that are doing the loudest complaining.

Get over yourselves, your “God” should only care that people are happy. Why does it matter who they are with? Go ahead and say its in the bible that its a sin.. Its all you people can go back to. The bible has be retranslated so many times its impossible to know what its supposed to say.

Christians are ignorant, judgemental hypocrites.. I hate you all

By The Angry Intern

May 16, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this

Try again, Joe. 6 out of 7 judges voted to overturn the ban. This is the right thing to do. Last time I checked we have a Separation of Church and State in this country, so there should NEVER NEVER NEVER be anything the bible (IMO a fantastic work of FICTION) that dictates what the laws in this country are.

By John

May 16, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

First - Slave States & Free States Then a war.

Now - Gay States & Straight States ???

By Jan

May 16, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

Unfortunately, the ramifications from same sex unions will not stay in Massachusetts and California. It is a legal can of worms and cannot simply be put aside as typical of the land of fruits and nuts. The courts deciding these rulings are not bending to the will of the people, but a group of visible minorities, which will eventually wreak havoc in the other 48 states where these unions find themselves living. I am not against gay rights. but I do not feel gay unions can be dealt with on a state by state basis. Like it or not, this country is based on Christian ideals and morals, and legalizing gay unions in some states will not change the long instilled beliefs of most of America.

By Rae

May 16, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

Gov’t has done very wrong when it comes to this subject. They need to get their behinds out of it. Mainly because they can’t get past the one rule that was put in place. Separation of Church and State Just by letting basis of religion alone stand with their decision is wrong. Unfortunately we as a people can’t get past our own pettiness. If it’s not our views it’s the wrong views. If it’s not our religion it’s the wrong religion etc. The gov’t as well as the people who can’t rationalize what they don’t understand need to realize we are living in 2008 not the 1800s. Everyone has a right to live how they so choose. Isn’t that the reason our ancestors came to this country in the first place? To be free of persecution?

By LilZ

May 16, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

Go California! Equal rights for all!!!

By Steve

May 16, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

The “defense of marriage” act is unconstitutional on its face. It is contrary to the “full faith and credit” clause of the US constitution. And, it does nothing to defend marriage as an institution. If you really want to defend marriage, you would do two things: make marriage available to all couples; and eliminate the extra tax that married couples now must pay.

Despite the knee-jerk reactions, this ruling is a good, fair ruling. It just says that the state must treat all people equally. The concept is called “equal protection”. Equal protection is the foundation of the rule of law.

The court didn’t actually rule that gay couples may marry. The ruling was about the use of one word, not about the recognition of the relationships. It ruled that whatever word the state uses to denote the relationship between two people that is usually called “marriage”, the state must use that same word to denote all such relationships. If the right wing nuts pass an amendment to deny any couples the right to use the word “marriage”, that same amendment will deny that same right to all couples in the state, including heterosexual couples!

By Helena

May 16, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

The world is really coming to an end. They should be very careful. Cause they’re incurring the wrath of God.

By Sam

May 16, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

The govt. is for the punishment of the evil and praise of the good.

Being a Sodomite is a sin and is evil.

By Ben

May 16, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

How bout everybody just worry about their own marriage and their own lives and not what everybody else is doing or not doing…

By Jane

May 16, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

How is putting the decision in states’ (rather than individuals’) hands a libertarian position? If you’re against gay marriage, don’t have one!

By Mark Ayers

May 16, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

Bob, the Bible states it is not for us to judge any person! Why do you only want to stand on one aspect of the Bible, because you choose the part that covers the subjects you are not comfortable with or don’t understand and try to force it on everyone else. Jesus taught us in of his teachings to not worry ourselves with judging others, God will take care of that it. Are you trying to be God?
Worry about you own personal life and not that of others!!!!!

By Brad

May 16, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

If you against gay marriage…don’t marry a gay!

Gay marriage has absolutly no imapct on traditional marriage.

What a bunch of small minded, red necked, bible thumping BIGOTS!

By STEVE WAINSCOTT

May 16, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

ONCE AGAIN POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON DONT GET IT. A MATTER OF THIS IMPORTANCE SHOULD BE PUT DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE ON A BALLOT. THE REASON THEY WON’T DO THIS IS BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THE VAST MAJORITY WOULD NOT VOTE FOR THIS. SO WE RUN IT THROUGH CORRUPT POLITICIANS AND A COMPLETELY BROKEN SYSTEM. AND THAT DEAR FRIENDS IS HOW YOU END UP IN A SOCIETY WHERE THE POLITICAL SYSTEM AND ABOUT EVERY INSTITUTION IN THE NATION IS AT SOME POINT OF COLLAPSE. UNTIL THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION GET SICK AND TIRED OF BEING SICK AND TIRED OF THIS JUDICIARY, NOTHING WILL CHANGE UNTIL THE FINAL POINT OF OUR COMPLETE COLLAPSE AS A FUNCTIONING SOCIETY.

By steven

May 16, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

Amen Mad Mary,

The Church should have never given up the right to marry people to the state, that’s the problem. And gay marriage can not mess up the heterosexual marriages, they are already doing a fine job of that themselves, 60% divorce rate.

By Mad Mary

May 16, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

We can not have vastly different rules of marriage in different States. Too confusing. I say, stop all State (Government) Marriages. If couples want to get MARRIED let them go to a church or any other cult meeting and have a marriage service. The State (Government) should stay out of it. The State should not license marriage in any manner. Marriage is a personal lifestyle that adults may choose for themselves. If couples want to co-mingle property and have inheritance from each other sign a contract/make a will. Children are growing up in single family households all over the world so marriage is NOT necessary. Child support can be agreed to or ordered. Benefits from employers should only go to the worker. Period. If the worker wants to cover friends or relatives let the worker pay for the benefit. Get Government Out of the Bedroom. Get Government Out of the relationship between employers, workers, men, men, women, women, workers, children, et al.

By Timur

May 16, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

So going against the people’s 60% vote in favor of the ban is the way it’s supposed to be done?

By Brad

May 16, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

This nation was founded on Christianity, which, amoung other things, commands us to “love others as yourself”, “treat others as you want to be treated”, and “marriage is the union of one man and one woman”. You don’t have to be a Christian to live here, but stop trying to make it something it is not. Gay marriage is a sin and should never be allowed be a Godly nation. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah!!!

By Andy

May 16, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

What’s this “READ THE BIBLE” comment for? It’s not a defining document for laws. It’s a guidebook for the lives of those who choose to follow it, as is the Koran.

And someone said “It is the right of each state to decide these matters,not the Federal Government”. It really should be neither. You could take the same argument to the next level - and have counties defining marriage instead of states.

By Bryan

May 16, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MAD MARY, I’D VOTE FOR HER FOR PRESIDENT

By Andy

May 16, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

What’s this “READ THE BIBLE” comment for? It’s not a defining document for laws. It’s a guidebook for the lives of those who choose to follow it, as is the Koran.

And someone said “It is the right of each state to decide these matters,not the Federal Government”. It really should be neither. You could take the same argument to the next level - and have counties defining marriage instead of states.

By Sobecat

May 16, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

Nice to see someone from Georgia not being a complete redneck.

By I Cal

May 16, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

Good ol’ South. Pro States Rights when the feds want to integrate races. No States Rights when the feds want to get into the bedroom.

The feds got involved in integration because it was a civil rights (citizen rights) issue, not because it was a moral issue. What really doesn’t make sense is how the feds have the right to get involved in ay other type of issue. The only way the fed gov should legimitately get involved is to determine whether or not one state should have to recognize marriages made in other states. If the federal government wanted to define what type of union was included in the definition of marriage, that would seem reasonable. But that would not mean a state could not define marriage differently. As long as that definition applied only to its own folks. Summary: US could say that marriages between man and women must be recognized by all states. US could simply refuse to rule on the legitimacy of same sex marriage. US could not say California cannot allow same sex marriages. US could not say Georgia cannot refuse to allow those marriages or to recognize them.

By Mike

May 16, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

You know, when I read the bible that so many preach about, it seems to speak of forgiveness. I’m so tired of people claiming God and Jesus and then spreading hate. I think you people who speak of who you hate are the ones who need to really accept Jesus. Idiots. These gay haters are the same people who preach pro-life then support the republican war machine. You can be Pro-life and pro war.

By E Dawlatly

May 16, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

What will same sex couples by known as: Mr and Mr OR Mess and Miss? And whose surname are they to adopt? Will they appear in their passport as “Married”? What is even more mind boggling: if there are children what do they call their same sex providers? Dad and Dad or Mum and Mum? Just a thought on what things will be like!

By Constitution is my friend

May 16, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

I’m an independent and Mad Mary got it right! Read the constitution. Licenses were not required until all the slaves were freed so the government could keep track of them. Take Michael Badnarik constitution class-educate yourself-learn your history.

By SCY

May 16, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

Hey Ryan, Can you be more bigoted? If you made that stereotypical statement about any other group there would be no question on side your bread was buttered on….

What other groups do you hate ALL? Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, Hindus?

I still say that the state has no place in defining interpersonal relationships (gay, straight or otherwise).

By Wilmoth

May 16, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

Bob Barr is right that the decision should be up to the state to make, but specifically the states people, not some out of touch with reality judges. I would be surprised and disappointed if he is actually ok with a few judges making this decision for the whole state.

By China Rider

May 16, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

Burke wrote: Civilization’s are not defeated - they commit suicide. Both California’s supreme court and Barr’s commentary lend credibility to this view.

Don’t cut cards with wolves.

By Andrew

May 16, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

Yes, elect Bob Barr, “The Libertarian” - Boy you folk are deluded. Yes, elect the man that railroaded a bill through the house several years ago which forced the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia to rename the National Airport metro station to Ronald Reagan-National Airport Metro Station. A man from Georgia which forced, THRU his own nationally elected position, three STATE-level governments to WASTE millions of dollars to change signage, brochures, advertising, maps, buses, posters, websites, media, in OVER one THOUSAND subway cars, 83 stations and three states. Because HE wanted the most “over-named used President” (President with the most things named after him already) to have ANOTHER thing named after him.

And so what happened when WMATA said the county of Arlington would have to pay the initial $400K to do this and chose not to and the name change died - Bob Barr threatened to withhold FEDERAL FUNDS from projects and bills that were forthcoming in order to strong arm and basically intimidated local and state governments, ones far far away from his own jurisdiction, to me HIS demands. Yeah, libertarian my f….. a*….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RonaldReaganWashingtonNationalAirport(WashingtonMetro)

Why? So Bob Barr would look good.

By ElbinoBunny

May 16, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

How does a decision made by a justice a decision made by the entire state? So one justice thought gay marriage would be an alright thing, did the people of California vote on it? If so, alright, that’s how the political process should work. However, it is unwise and totally against libertarian political thought to say that one high court justice should have the power to make policy, whether that policy be on the state or national level.

By RalphSchmalph

May 16, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

If I want my brother to inherit my Social Security benefits, why shouldn’t I be able to marry him. It’s not incestuous because we are unable to procreate. This is just the type of insanity that comes from “gay” marriage.

By SCY

May 16, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

Great point Mad Mary!

By Joe

May 16, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

4 to 3 John. Check facts before posting. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004418250_gay16.html

By brian

May 16, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

I think that polygamist would do well to move to California instead of TX. They just have to petition the courts to allow them multiple marriage license.

By Adam

May 16, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this

No we should not put an issue like this on the ballot because people that hate gays for no reason would vote against it and it effects there life in no way. When we didn’t let black people have rights either should we have put that on the ballot for white America to vote for NO. This is a great step towards Gay rights. People need to understand that if you don’t like the gay lifestyle thats fine but this doesn’t effect them only for the gay people that wanna get married.

By Cindy D

May 16, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

If the “long instilled beliefs” of most of America, includes the “belief” that we have the right to squelch another’s liberty based on our own views…then that “belief” will become a relic.

It doesn’t matter if many American’s, after the civil war, still held onto some “long instilled belief” that they had the right to own other people. So, you are entitled, as is anyone, to to hold onto your long instilled beliefs. You are not, however, entitled to force other free individuals to accommodate them, by giving up their rights to your preferences. Because that is what freedom is. Having the right to differ, without being oppressed because you differ.

I am confused, as usual, because I can’t seem to understand how a person can be a “libertarian” and be opposed to individual rights.

By Butch

May 16, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

The shallowness of arguments against “gay marriage” should be apparent to anyone with a brain when opponents say that marriage is “for having children and raising families”. If that’s their definition of marriage, then why are they willing to allow infertile couples, or those who have no intention at all of having children, from getting married? As others have here have said - let marriage be a religious ceremony. If your church is anti gay, then don’t marry gays. In civil law, we should all have civil unions (or “civil marriages” if you want to retain the word marriage).

By Beth

May 16, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

For everyone throwing religion around, I refer you to the 1st Amendment. For all those who do not grasp the concept of a Democratic Republic, there is a reason why, on occasion, the rulings of judges are what takes place instead of a vote. It is to prevent MOB rule, that if there are 99 people who think one way and 1 person who thinks another, that 1 person’s rights are protected, under out Constitution. It’s called Equal Protection under the Law. “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It means if you don’t like gay marriage, that’s just fine. But you don’t have a right to stop it. In the end, it has no effect on your life, why do you care??? Of all the things going on in the world right now, don’t you have something more important to be worried about? The Bill of Rights stands above all of our personal beliefs and encompasses them at the same time. This is America, it’s called freedom, it’s picking your own life and not having the right to decide someone else’s. Is it actually hurting you or your life? No, it’s not. Get over it.

Signed, Straight Southern Born and Bred White Girl Sick of This Gay Bashing Foolishness

By Bob

May 16, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

Being a Sodomite is a sin and is evil. - Sam

Oral is also sodomy. So, is your opposition to gay marriage due to your wife not doing that?

By David Verzi

May 16, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this

Therefore, I expect, that if the people of California vote in November to ban homosexual marrige, Mr. Barr, to be consistant, would support that decision. Someone should simply ask him.

By reed

May 16, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

Lets all remember the words of that truly great philosopher, Wanda Sykes; “If you are opposed to same-sex marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex”.

By Nodoginhunt

May 16, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

Good Lord…Typical responses over an issue that is so far down the list of what important issues face our nation…where do you people find the time to waste on these distracting issues? Equal rights under the law is VERY important to the foundation of our country, but given what we are up against in terms of terrorism, energy, economics…do you think you might be able to FOCUS on what is of NATIONAL IMPORTANCE…?

By Tom

May 16, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

Bob Barr is right, there has been a massive constitutional fraud happening since Abraham Lincoln, in the federal usurpation of power. It was greatly accelerated the New Deal of FDR, and has been gaining steam ever since.

The voters of California will more than likely pass an ammendment this Novmember to the California state constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman only. This is consistent with the belief of mankind from time immemorial, and Nature herself bears witness to its propriety. Let’s not be the generation that terminally confused our own children, and our children’s children.

By Rob

May 16, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

Bob Barr is NOT the Libertarian Party Candidate. He is a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s nomination. And not a very libertarian one at that. There are others also running for the nomination who are far more qualified to represent libertarian ideals.

By T. Lassiter Jones

May 16, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

Barr is ignorant of the constitution, it seems. The 14th amendment prohibits any state from denying citizens equal protection under the laws. Further, the regulation of marriage is not one of the powers allowed to government under the constitution. It’s not a matter of the feds or states “legalizing gay marriage.” Gay marriage simply is, and neither the feds nor the states are allowed to have any legal authority over it, period. It’s one of the powers reserved to “the people.”

By T. Lassiter Jones

May 16, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

Barr is ignorant of the constitution, it seems. The 14th amendment prohibits any state from denying citizens equal protection under the laws. Further, the regulation of marriage is not one of the powers allowed to government under the constitution. It’s not a matter of the feds or states “legalizing gay marriage.” Gay marriage simply is, and neither the feds nor the states are allowed to have any legal authority over it, period. It’s one of the powers reserved to “the people.”

By bobrop

May 16, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

If you are a Christian you follow the teachings of Gods word and not judges. It plainly says that marrige is for man and woman only.If you are not a christian ,i hope you become one so that i might spend eternity with you.

By Jimbo

May 16, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

I still don’t understand why it’s any business of ours if gay people get married. If two consenting adults who love each other can’t get married what’s the point of calling this a “free society”? The people of this nation are A: embarrassingly squeamish, B: incredibly nosy, and C: hypocrites

I’ve seen so many people get married and divorced for such stupid reasons so don’t pull that sanctity of marriage crap on me. Mind your own business, get on with your lives, and let the divorce lawyers have their day.

By T. Lassiter Jones

May 16, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

Barr is ignorant of the constitution, it seems. The 14th amendment prohibits any state from denying citizens equal protection under the laws. Further, the regulation of marriage is not one of the powers allowed to government under the constitution. It’s not a matter of the feds or states “legalizing gay marriage.” Gay marriage simply is, and neither the feds nor the states are allowed to have any legal authority over it, period. It’s one of the powers reserved to “the people.”

By GOD

May 16, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

I don’t care if gays marry. I got bigger problems. Like wishing the gays would hurry up and redesign Heaven for me…I’ve been looking at this dated kitchen since Moses got here. And that chair that everyone is seated at the right hand of is SO 1970’s. I need a makeover…hurry Queer Eye!!!

By Kevin

May 16, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

racists, sexist, homophobes oh My. I just summed up the democratic party. Can we move on now.

By glen

May 16, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

Barr’s an idiot. Libertoons and bible thumpers take note: Judges in California have taken it upon themselves to redefine a word and thwart the will of the people.

By The Captain

May 16, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

Amen, Mad Mary. Marriage is a religious ceremony. The state should no more give any recognition to it than they would a bar mitzvah. Oy! Let there be legal contracts for those who want legal recognition of thier partnership.

This is the whole “equal protection under the law” thing, friends. If John and Marsha get special rights, benefits, and recognition because of a religious ceremony, then Mike & Phil and Lauren & LeighAnne should get the exact same rights, benefits, and recognition.

Our own governor has shown his hypocrisy under this same argument. He says the new stadium can sell alcohol on Sunday, but the convenience store across the street can’t? Equal Protection, folks. Look it up, it’s already the law. Simple constitutional issue. Cut and dried, open and shut.

On marriage, know this: heterosexual couples do more to destroy marriage than homosexual couples.

On Sunday alcohol, I would like to see one liquor store have the courage to open his doors Sunday morning, and wait to be charged and ticketed. That coourt case would be over before the ink on the AJC’s website story dried.

By LATINOVOTER1

May 16, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

This is why people should vote for BOB BARR 08. Real change and getting away from OLD SCHOOL WASHINGTON thinking.

By nlbknitter

May 16, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

So here’s a solution. The government recognizes only civil unions, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals (so long as it’s between two consenting adult human beings) and equal for everyone. A civil union is a legal contract and if you want to dissolve that contract you have to go through legal channels. Any product of that contract (children, assets, etc.) would be dealt with in a legal manner.

The government no longer deals in “marriage”. “Marriage” is a sacrament and the purview of the “church”. If your “church” does not recognize same-sex marriage, you can’t get married there. If it does, then more power to you!

It’s really quite simple.

By Sam

May 16, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

I find it funny how people think they are progressive and open-minded when they support people doing what they want, such as gay people being married. “Gay marriage” is an oxymoron. You people who are married, and aren’t religious, probably had a man of the cloth perform your ceremony. You don’t want God in your day to day lives, but you want to be married and wanted to have a minister perform the ceremony.

And I think you people who want to accuse anyone who opposed gay marriage as being bible-thumping ignorants, I would object and say that there are millions of people who believe in the Bible who are more intelligent than you are, so don’t even try to posit everyone who believes in the Bible as ignorant.

You progressive, holier than religious people, ones are actually gullible and subject to the whims of the current secular zeitgeist. I would examine your values, and see if any of them are immutable. I would suspect that they are as fugacious as the temperatures.

By suidae

May 16, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

Mad Mary is right. All this confusion is because religious ‘marriage’ and state-recognized ‘marriage’ are two fundamentally different things.

A judge performed my ceremony, I have state-recognized union, but as an atheist I do not have a church-recognized marriage. They are two different institutions that happen to go by the same name.

I say we change all legal references to ‘marriage’ to ‘civil union’ and make it an at-will contractual association between any type and quantity of consenting adults. The law will only define a bare minimum of what a union is, for example, joint tax filing. The rest of the union will be defined by the contract.

People who have religious beliefs about marriage can have their church provide the contract with the particular legal bindings that they prefer, giving them both a state and church recognized union and marriage.

I think this way because I believe the law should make accommodations that fit as many people as possible, and that it should absolutely not be dictated by the will of the majority.

Just because lots of people disapprove of same-sex unions does not give them the right to ban it. This is precisely why we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. We elect people who are (ostensibly) wise enough to do what is right instead of what is popular.

James Bovard wrote it very well “Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”

By Laura Hicks

May 16, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

I agree with gttim. I mean, I can totally understand religious folks being upset by gay marriage… that’s their prerogative. But marriage isn’t just a religious institution; it’s also a legal institution. I think churches should be completely free to deny marriage services to anyone they want if the couple in question doesn’t fit with their beliefs. However, the legal aspects of marriage should be available to all; to do otherwise would be discriminatory, which is uncool, and un-American.

I think it should be noted that what most folks seem to be upset over is the religious aspect of things, which they feel somehow defiles their faith. They don’t want to see gay couples being married in a church or having gay weddings. I hate to burst your bubble, but that ship already sailed. Even without legal backing, gay people all over are getting their marriages sanctified in churches. (Feel free to disagree on what ‘sanctified’ or ‘churches’ actually mean.)

Full disclosure: I’m a queer-identified woman living in California.

By cgb

May 16, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

I think Barr’s a little confused. I didn’t think marriage was to be decided by judicial fiat … but by the legislatures of each individual state. That’s federalism at work. This is only federalism in the weakest sense …

By Rev. DR

May 16, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

Mad Props to Mad Mary! Stop all government intrusion into private cult matters!

By Andrew

May 16, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

Should states have the right to make murder legal too? There are things in this world that are fundementally wrong. Discrimination is one of these things. If a gay man wants to move to Georgia he should be allowed to and also have his marriage recognized. Anyone who disagrees is doing so from ignorance or hate.

By G Rags

May 16, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

I am gay and I don’t want to have a CA only marriage, legal marriage needs to and someday will have full Federal rights and recognition. Cling to the past all you like, this is inevitable.

By G Rags

May 16, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

I am gay and I don’t want to have a CA only marriage, legal marriage needs to and someday will have full Federal rights and recognition. Cling to the past all you like, this is inevitable.

By RW

May 16, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

Questions for Charlotte: “Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose.”.

If you answer “NO” to any of these then you don’t really believe that marraige should be available to “all Americans”, you actually believe the state has a legitimate role in regulating marraige.

By The O-Gee

May 16, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

* Gay marriage is already illegal by God’s law. It should be illegal by man’s law. Bob Barr is a sinner and should go back to eating t** cheese like he did in the Borat movie.* The Bible says gay marriage is an abomination. Read the Bible and believe, or leave this state and this county - GO TO SAN F*!!!!

By Micheal

May 16, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

Ok, time to finally give my opinion. I like the way we have separation of church and state and the state has to meddle in the personal lives of others. I see all the negative comments about gays and such. Yes, I am a gay man and personally don’t want anything to do with gay marriage, but if it is wrong, then let GOD deal with it. Its between the persons involved and God. This is why I quit going to church. The churches like to meddle in our rights and the state has to support them …One major example is “Liquer sales on Sunday”. Come on people….Separation of Church and State? nada!! I never felt welcomed in church, but I am a very good person and God put me here for a reason. I pray everyday and try to help others as much as possible. We have more to worry about right now instead of worrying about other peoples personal business (Iraq, gas and the economy). I realize today that I am glad that I am the way I am because after reading some of these posts, I am not an idiot!! I am sure many on here have cheated on their spouses, stolen something or even mistreated someone else…trust me, you are in a whole different catagory. Thank God I am who I am!!

By Dmac

May 16, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

First to Ryan: It is a misunderstanding of biblical translation’s that the bible we have today has been carried forth from each succesive translation. In fact some of our most recent translations, the NIV, NASB, etc, come from more original documents, dating from within 100 years or less of Christ’s death, than King James. Yet they are more than 99% consistant. To the marriage question: As a Christian I don’t see the legal definition of marraige a religious issue at all. It has to do more with how a people want to define a special right, as someone earlier put it. There is no fundimental right to gay marriage, or mulitple marriage partners for that matter. I aggree that licencing of a marriage does not make a marriage, but it does define the values of a people.

By Mad Mary

May 16, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

We can not have vastly different rules of marriage in different States. Too confusing. I say, stop all State (Government) Marriages. If couples want to get MARRIED let them go to a church or any other cult meeting and have a marriage service. The State (Government) should stay out of it. The State should not license marriage in any manner. Marriage is a personal lifestyle that adults may choose for themselves. If couples want to co-mingle property and have inheritance from each other sign a contract/make a will. Children are growing up in single family households all over the world so marriage is NOT necessary. Child support can be agreed to or ordered. Benefits from employers should only go to the worker. Period. If the worker wants to cover friends or relatives let the worker pay for the benefit. Get Government Out of the Bedroom. Get Government Out of the relationship between employers, workers, men, men, women, women, employees, children, et al.

By CAN'T BELEAVE THIS COUNTRY

May 16, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

WAKE UP !!THE BIBLE IS NOT THE LAW OF THIS COUNTRY!! GET A LIFE PEOPLE!!!! THIS IS THE (UNITED!!!) STATES OF AMERICA!!!!! WHAT COUNTRY DO YOU LIVE IN???

By luvwknd

May 16, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

Why is it ANYBODY elses business who wants to marry who?

It ain’t…that’s just it!

By lee

May 16, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

“Whatever. I’m voting for Curious George.”

You can’t, he’s limited to two terms.

By Kj

May 16, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

Its easy - penis + penis = wrong, vagina + vagina = wrong, penis + vagina = right. If you cant figure out those simple equations, then you shouldn’t be getting marrieds. Simple!

By jjaok

May 16, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

He’s just pandering to try and build up his libertarian cred. As a lib myself, I’m not buying it. He’s anti-gay marriage, and hes not coming back from that one.

By Mike

May 16, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

Get over it everyone. Same sex unions to not pose a threat to me or to my marriage, any more than they do you or yours. And supporting the states right to decide does not mean you support same sex unions, any more than being “pro choice” means you support abortion. Get over it.

By VoteBARR08

May 16, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

Bob Barr is the only viable candidate for freedom minded Americans. By that I mean people who are courageous enough to live by thier own principles while not attempting to force their views on others. This is supposed to be the land of the free people, wake up!

Barr is simply saying the federal government needs to back out of our personal lives and allow us local control through elections which really count. Do you really think the national election machine gives you a voice? I’m personally against homosexuality but the fact of the matter is that it is not my place to tell other people what to do with their genetalia as long as it is not harming someone else. That said, I don’t want the gay community on my TV everyday telling me I have to do this or that either. Live and let live people. Freedom, look it up.

By W.T.F.?

May 16, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

what is a queer-identified woman? whatever it is, we’re glad your lining in california - home of the sickees!

By Bobby

May 16, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

Um, yeah. The folks here who are complaining so vociferously about gay marriage should pause for just a moment and think about this -

The “fruits & nuts” of this country (myself included) are STILL required to pay the same taxes (sales, state, federal) that “normal” people do. Yet, we are treated as second-class citizens because we are not allowed the same legal benefits when we decide to permanently share our lives with someone.

I, personally, don’t give a crap about the word “marriage”, and I think it totally muddies the waters. That’s the religious right’s spin on this to get folks all riled up and against it. Call it what you will, all we want is to be able to have our relationships legally recognized and gain the same benefit set as everyone else.

If you don’t want to grant me the same rights that you enjoy - then give me my tax dollars back.

By nina

May 16, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

The government is overtaking the will of the people. Anytime any laws are written in, it should be by vote of the people. This country is becoming a dictatorship. Marriage since the beginning of time has been between man and women. However, people have the right to do what they will. However, why should the government change things. If someone chooses to buy benefits for their partner, that is fine

By James

May 16, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

ok…

I think California is rather pathetic to be honest. The voters already don’t like the idea of same sex marriage, we DONT WANT IT. The only people that want it are a few p** off homosexuals. I guess what people don’t realize is they already have a bunch of rights in terms of civil unions and even living together, which give them the same ones as married couples. But now they want to intrude on the majority’s definition of marriage. And people are still dumb enough to say that gays are NOT militant? Come on! The will of the people says otherwise when it comes to gay marriage. But gays don’t agree with everyone elses’ will but their own.

By John

May 16, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

If I was poking some guy in the fanny, I’d keep my mouth shut.

By whofailednow.com

May 16, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

Please come over to whofailednow.com Anonymous posting free speech forum. Discuss this matter among other things.

By alexa salcedo

May 16, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

I LOVE YOU BOB.NOW I CAN GET MARRIED WITH MY GIRLFRIEND..!!!I LOVE INGRID

By uh boy

May 16, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

uhhhh… you May want to read up on your jr high government classes… the judicial branch of government is “supposed” to “interpret” the law. Federal judges have seem to have forgotten that fact along with just about everybody else, and have begun “making” laws by overturning decisions made by the “Legislative” branch of the government, nor are they supposed to “enforce” the laws, that is “supposed” to be up to the “Executive” branch of government, NOT the “Judicial” system. IF you want to use the word “Tyranny” then THAT describes the Judicial system and what it is doing! Judges are abusing their power and imposing their will on the rest of the people who…(if you pay attention to the VOTES) are not in aggreement with them. Judges need to STOP MAKING laws and stick to interpretting them. and I won’t even dingify the comparison of ‘mixed race’ marriages to ‘gay’ marriages… because they don’t compare.

By Sandra Shannon

May 16, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

I believe that yesterday’s decision is just one more step that our Country has taken to further further damage itself for the future. I am NOT anti-gay or homophobic, however I believe this ruling was ridiculous. It is not meant for the same sex to be joined in marriage. It is a choice that people have made to be homosexuals. And it is my choice not to be, therefore I don’t like this “In your face” approach to the matter. I am sick of hearing about it on the news. It is morally wrong. How sad it is that a parent must explain to their children all the nonsense that is going on in the headlines these days. With a ruling as such, being so morally incorrect, what could possibly be next? Maybe letting the polygamists do as they please as well. Seems our government works overtime on taking God out of every aspect of society. This is a sad sum that occurs when that happens!

By Douglas

May 16, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

Barr’s stand is simply a “states’ rights” position. I agree, however, with Mad Mary: It is not the business of government to control marriage. Marriage has always