The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Friday, May 16, 2008
Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr says that when it comes to gay marriage, what happens in California is California’s own business. He’s a states’ rights man.
Here’s the statement Barr’s issued, which — one week before the Libertarian national convention in Denver — is likely to generate some talk:
“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress).
The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.
“Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state.
The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states’ powers should work.”
Photo credit: Associated Press
Permalink | Comments (43) | Post your comment |
Comments
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 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 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 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.
Leave a Reply