Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2008 > May > 24 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USConsensus on gay marriage
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Denver - All seven candidates on the stage have found agreement on one key point of the Libertarian philosophy: Government should not be in the business of defining marriage.
All agreed that gays and lesbians should be free to marry. For Bob Barr, the issue is particularly important as he was the author in Congress of the Defense of Marriage Act, which sought to ban gay marriage.
Barr stood from his stool to answer the question for two reasons, he said.
“One, because my rear end is killing me,” he said, with a smile.
But he said he also was standing “to tell you, eye to eye, and face to face,” that he has wholeheartedly changed his position on the issue, after speaking to a group of gay Libertarians.
“As I promised them then and I promise you now, I will work to repeal that provision of law,” Barr said.
The best line on this question, however, again came from Steve Kubby.
“I’m actually perplexed by how it is that government feels it has the authority to look up skirts and trousers and decide who gets to get married and who doesn’t,” Kubby said.
Aaron Gould Sheinin
Permalink | Comments (15) | Post your comment | Categories: Libertarian Convention
Comments
By Mike
May 24, 2008 11:09 PM | Link to this
Why we are even wasting our time with this. No one in this entire country cares except gay people who are in the VAST MINORITY. Let’s move on to more important things… PLEASE.
By Rob
May 24, 2008 11:43 PM | Link to this
Who are we to decide on who can marry? Let anyone that wants to get married, get married. Time to do away with the old fogie ways of thinking. Let everyone have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
By JD
May 24, 2008 11:51 PM | Link to this
Vast minority, eh?
Why does this garbage come up every election cycle? The GOP has become extremely good at scaring evangelicals and morons (they are often an inclusive group) at turning out because gays are “a threat to our way of life.”
You, Mike, should also be concerned. Conservatives have continuously sought a group to blame for America’s problems…then sought to deny them basic human rights. Like the right to enter into a contract with another individual (aka civil union/marriage…whatever name you want to apply)
Conservatives deny due process to Arabs that are merely “suspect” for having possibly thought of anything bad. They denied African-Americans equal political rights until the Federal Government had to step in with the ‘64 CRA and the ‘65 VRA. they are continually attempting to subvert a woman’s right to decide what happens with her body and when. They were the cause behind prohibition.
It might just seem like an issue amongst religious nuts and gays, but the real issue is that all human having unalienable rights. The right to enter into a contract with another human/entity is one of those rights.
By Reverand Right-on
May 25, 2008 1:11 AM | Link to this
If Gawd wanted man to love man he it would have been Joseph and Jerry instead of Joseph and Mary think about it Lawd forgive em 4 they no not what they do ezekial 40-45
By Realization
May 25, 2008 1:53 AM | Link to this
Mike - I agree! The minority should just shut-the-h3ll up and be happy that we don’t kill them all. The majority rules, right?
We should kill all minorities. First, start with the gays. Then, the blacks, the mexicans, and the asians. Then, the blond people - they are a minority. Then, the blue-eyed people. Then, all people with any handicap at all. Then, left handed people. Am I missing any?
We can use the bible to justify this killing. I’m sure there is a passage somewhere that will support us. All we have to do is take one out of context and quote it a million times. Maybe we can even make a cute little rhyme to go along with it.
By Mike
May 25, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
Wow I feel dumber for reading some of these responses.
@Realization - I don’t even know I am wasting time responding to that stupidity. Where did I or anyone for that matter talk about killing someone?
@JD It comes up for the same reason the liberals bring up social security to scare the elderly. It’s a scare tactic to get people to the polls. You can enter into a contract, You can go to a church (if you can find one) and get married and live blissfully ever after. The problem is you want all the benefits the government provides to married couples. That isn’t a right. It’s a privilidge. I like you bring up “rights” all the time. I assume them your pro-gun, and anti censorship too then right?
Just so I bring it right out front here. I am am not a religious nut. Heck I am athiest even.
By jd
May 25, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
That is a separate issue, Mike. The benefits, in a nation that believes in the democratic tradition, ought to distributed regardless of the orientation of the married couple. Discrimination is the correct adjective to describe the situation. All of those government benefits do not state that said benefits apply only if the married couple is hetero-sexual. We are getting closer to making this a non-issue. First was getting a court ruling in favor of the right to enter into contract regardless of orientation. Next is a plaintiff that is denied marriage benefits or even penalties.
You are correct about my being pro-gun and anti-censorship though…so long as neither infringe on the rights of of others.
I am not a homosexual. Your last statement seems to lead in that direction.
By JD
May 25, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this
Furthermore, Mike. The progressives do not need to bring up Social Security as a scare tactic. The conservative “bankrupt the system” approach works good enough to pull elderly individuals to the polls.
By Chuck
May 25, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
The government isn’t preventing anyone from doing anything. It has a definition of marriage for its own purposes which anyone is free to ignore. If you have an issue with the tax code, then go after that. If there is injustice in the tax code, adding a few gay couples isn’t going to rectify it - what about all the single people? It’s like having a problem with tax credits for children, but instead of trying to change the tax code, trying to define more things to be “children” (maybe pets?). Barr will lose some of my support if he goes too far down this silly road.
By Chuck
May 25, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
And by the way, this isn’t anything like a civil rights issue because homosexuals can do everything the heterosexuals can do. There is nothing in the legal code specifying sexual orientation, so there is certainly no discrimination.
By Reverand Right-on
May 25, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
Jack and Bill didn’t go up the hill it was Jack and Jill the bible says clearly a woman will eat your ribs who dat say i’m a gay basher I love the sinner I hate the sin ‘scuse me can I get an Amen How u doin’
By John Bisceglia
May 25, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
The “Right” may be fighting for their personal values and beliefs, but when those “values and beliefs” affect my life, family, home, and career, we have a problem. Marriage Inequality turned my life from a tax-paying, contributing member of society (as an educator and local volunteer) to homeless, destitue, with PTSD, and living on welfare. Now I am unable to pay taxes (morally or otherwise), and never will.
Those with civil rights can pay; those without rights have no moral obligation to do so.
By Millie
May 25, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
Why is gay marriage such a big issue in the first place? Do we hear politicans or anyone else for that matter berating movie stars, singers, etc. for living together and having babies out of marriage. What’s the difference? If one is sin aren’t they both sin?
By jdbro
May 25, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this
To all, whose Against Gay-marriage I dont thing it should be a majority of people, who vote on the matter since We are a smaller Minority Group, that is Very true I do think it Should be left up to the few Judges we appoint, because we hired/appointed them to make the tough decisions,
I Also Feel as long is Gay-Marriage is Not Legally accepted, people will continue to hurt others emotionally, by not being open about themselves, instead they will stay in the closet , some will marry someone of the oposite sex, be miserable because that is why society says is socially acceptable to do. As long as Gay Marriage is considered not leagal, there will be people who will get hurt due to the fact some gays and lesbians will stay in the closet and be afraid to be themselves, But be what the Majority wants them to be and that is “Normal” (hey what is normal anyways)… And not be able to be themselves to the fullest and have the opportunity for the pursuit of happiness…. by being who they are and who they choose to Love…jdbro
By Mike
May 25, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
Sorry JD your logic is flawed in so many ways.
First off marriage is not and will not ever be a “right” it was set up by the church and the government allowed for special tax benefits to those who are married. Don’t give me the pursuit of happiness crap you know as well I do thats a stretch.
You’re either clueless or are in denial if you really believe the tax benefits is a different issue. Both CA and MA allow gay marriage. If gay’ want to marry go there and get married making this entire discussion a moot point. It’s all about the love for each other and those state provide the ability for you to do what you want. Go and be married.
Chuck brings up the last and most important issue. Gays are not asking for equality in the law. They are asking it to be changed to be adventagous to them. No one is preventing them do anything everyone else can’t. THEY are the ones who are different.
The reality is JD this no one cares about this issue anymore. In 2004 when a handful of states voted on whether or not to ban gay marriage it was a landslide. I think in GA it was something like 80% wanted it banned. Look at the lack of response on both sides of the issue here in this comment section. 24 hours 10 response from like 4 people.
We need to spend time focusing on important things like the economy, the war, the growing debt, peak oil and securing the boarder. Instead of listening to a whiny special interest group like the gays.