Political Insider

By CJKatl

January 5, 2009 9:19 AM | Link to this

Heck has frozen over. Pigs must now be able to fly. The Pope must be Jewish.

All those things and more that had to have happened before I would agree with Bob Barr must have happened.

Could we send him to Washington without having him revert back to the Bob Barr that was there last time? This Bob Barr has more horse sense than any other politician/commentator out there presently.

By David S

January 5, 2009 9:24 AM | Link to this

The more time Barr spends with the libertarians the more sense he makes (not surprisingly). What a shame he couldn’t have figured these obvious things out before he helped destroy freedom while in the Congress.

Appologies are fine Bob, but freedoms take a long time to get back.

By David S

January 5, 2009 9:35 AM | Link to this

CJKatl - Before giving Bob Barr the award for “most horse sense”, you might want to check out everything that congressman Ron Paul has been saying and writing since the mid ’70s.

The lack of campaign coverage and general ridicule of his comments don’t change the fact that he accurately predicted our current economic situation and has always offered up the most logical, consitutionally and economically sound solutions to every political problem that has faced this country.

Bob Barr is just trying to catch up with Ron Paul’s greatness.

By Copyleft

January 5, 2009 9:41 AM | Link to this

Interesting that Barr has re-thought his position, but of course he’s doing it for the wrong reasons.

This is the telling portion of his statement: “If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.”

That’s true, in the trivial sense. But DOMA is unconstitutional for far more important reasons than Barr’s bass-ackwards reasoning that states should have primacy over the federal government (there’s a little thing called the 14th Amendment standing in the way, there).

In fact, it’s the 14th Amendment—the ones that the states’ rights nuts hate so much—that provides the main obstacle to DOMA. The principle of “equal treatment under the law” is what DOMA violates, and THAT’S why it needs to be opposed and overturned.

Not because of some states’-rights silliness. I’d be perfectly happy to get the government out of the marriage business—just as soon as all straight couples agree to give up all the legal, medical, and financial benefits that go along with marriage.

By lovelyliz

January 5, 2009 9:45 AM | Link to this

Marriage should be left up to the churches and civil unions a matter of government.

By MB

January 5, 2009 10:00 AM | Link to this

Marriage should be left up to the churches and civil unions a matter of government.

Bingo!!

By morals_of_a_maggot

January 5, 2009 10:08 AM | Link to this

If the Defense of Marriage Act was the highlight of Barr’s career, what does he call his new “stance”?

By Mel

January 5, 2009 10:28 AM | Link to this

I am not surprised that a politician changed his mind. What is SHOCKING to me is that a politician gave a well thought out REASON for changing his mind.

And really, when Bob Barr and Ron Paul start making sense to me, that scares me a little bit.

By Southern Yankee

January 5, 2009 10:31 AM | Link to this

If we leave civil unions up to state or federal governments (where it belongs), it should not discriminate against anyone. If two people want to enter into a legal union knowingly, then they should be allowed to do so. Conversely, if we leave “marriage” up to the churches (where it belongs), then it should rightly have no legal status without a secular civil union to accompany it.

By Ben

January 5, 2009 11:02 AM | Link to this

I agree with him. Marriage laws should be left up to the respective states themselves without any kind of sanctions or predisposed conditions mandated by the feds.

I am personally against legalizing homosexual marriage but to be fair if it does become legal so should all other forms of marriage and cohabitation such as polygamy.

By Ben

January 5, 2009 11:10 AM | Link to this

I agree with him. Marriage laws should be left up to the respective states themselves without any kind of sanctions or predisposed conditions mandated by the feds.

I am personally against legalizing homosexual marriage but to be fair if it does become legal so should all other forms of marriage and cohabitation such as polygamy.

By Glenn

January 5, 2009 11:19 AM | Link to this

Well, Bob Barr is now reconsidering this and reconsidering that. He had to change his strategies sooner or later or else he would never be popular again or be able to write his commentaries, and ,oh yes, he has to be able to get government money in order to stay afloat.

By Nicole Kidman

January 5, 2009 11:31 AM | Link to this

I belive the REAL Bob Barr has been replaced with a pod person. Come back Bob!

By glenn129

January 5, 2009 12:06 PM | Link to this

The federal gov’t’s attempt to take over even our right of marriage is wrong. It is the right of the state to make marriage laws.

By jsmith1233

January 5, 2009 12:10 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, you may want to do additional research on what led Congress to use the phrase “…equal treatment under the law…” when enacting the 14th Amendment. You may be correct that what you term “…states’ rights nuts…” may hate the 14th Amendment, but that is because that is the Amendment that gave black folks like me our “Final Emancipation” in the eyes of the Federal government. The “…equal treatment under the law…” was intended to convey to the Confederate States that the Emancipation Proclamation meant exactly what it said! I highly doubt that the 14th was intended to cover so-called “same-sex ‘marriage’”, or the children born to persons who are illegally present in the U.S., (after all, slaves were technically ‘legally present’, even if not by their own volition) who then use those “anchor births” to justify their “rights” to continued ILLEGAL residence in the U. S.

By lemmings...

January 5, 2009 12:22 PM | Link to this

Why is anyone surprised that a politician has changed his mind, moral position, etc… to win the favor of the people?

Isn’t that the job of a polition in a democracy or republic?

By Copyleft

January 5, 2009 1:15 PM | Link to this

JSmith: If it were intended to apply solely to the slavery question, it would’ve said so.

Instead, the 14th Amendment makes it quite clear that ALL Constitutional rights must be applied equally across all states.

The writers probably didn’t have e-mail or abortion or school segregation in mind, either. But when it comes to Constitutional rights, “equal treatment” trumps “states’ rights” for ALL types of civil rights, not just slavery.

By JohnD

January 5, 2009 1:55 PM | Link to this

Copyleft the flaw in your arguement is that you specify Constitutional rights. There is no Constitutional right to marriage as that is not a power of the Federal government. Indeed, the 10th Amendment says “he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” While this amendment is totally ignored by Congress, the executive branch and the judiciary, it remains that there is no federal mandate for defining marriage and therefore, it falls to the states to define as they wish.

By Copyleft

January 5, 2009 2:30 PM | Link to this

As long as ‘marriage’ has any legal implications whatsoever, the federal government is empowered to ensure that all citizens enjoy equal access to and equal treatment of it across all states.

Now, if some church wants to give up the word “marriage” and perform religious ceremonies called “handfasting” or “liturgical unions,” I have no problem with it. They can exclude anybody they like.

But as long as marriage means legal, medical, and financial rights, it falls under federal purview to ensure the equal treatment guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. And tragically, it seems that “Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary” are in agreement on that. But maybe some states’ rights crackpots deserve more respect than all those folks, hmm?

By Copyleft

January 5, 2009 2:35 PM | Link to this

By the way:

Look up Hernandez v Robles sometime.

“The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the right to marry is a liberty right.”

“Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. [cite omitted]… These matters involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

You could (if you like) make the argument that there is no “right to marriage”—but then you’d have to accept that straight marriages would immediately lose all legal standing in the process. Is that OK with you? Because I’m fine with it.

By Warrior Woman

January 5, 2009 2:46 PM | Link to this

Everyone of legal “marriage-able” status already has the same marriage rights - to marry someone of the opposite sex that has the legal right to marry. There are no civil or equal rights implications of a prohibition on marrying someone of the same sex.