Bob Barr On Gay Marriage

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Barr, History, Law, Legislation, Religion, Sexuality

“In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, “Decisions about marriage should be left to the states.” He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.”
- Bob Barr today arguing against the Defense of Marriage Act in an LA Times editorial


This entry was posted on Monday, January 5th, 2009 and is filed under Barack, Barr, History, Law, Legislation, Religion, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

10 Responses to “Bob Barr On Gay Marriage”

  1. Roy Says:

    What else should be left to the states? Whether African-Americans should be allowed to vote? Whether women can be airline pilots? And what about full faith and credit? Will Kansas be allowed to reject New York’s driver licenses?

  2. Jeremy Says:

    Roy, I tend to agree with you. States have proven throughout our country’s history to be especially sensitive to those political and social viewpoints of the majority, too often at the expense of some minority. While states, no doubt, should have a certain degree of autonomy. However, if I were to dredge up all of the wrong-doings in the name of state autonomy it wouldn’t be pretty. States can and do routinely use their so-called “right” to oppress, cajole and persecute its own citizens in the name of “what’s best for the many rather than the few.” While on it’s face that sounds rational, in practice it has borne many injustices. Some of them unforgivable. While I agree states can and should govern themselves as they see fit, there are clearly times when the government should amend burdensome, poorly fashioned law. Law has an enormous effect on every citizens life. It has the potential to protect or abuse. That being the case, poorly conceived or constitutionally backward legislation, in my opinion, should be overturned. I for example believe strongly in a woman’s right to an abortion. This is a perfect example in which states’ rights can interfere with a person’s individual rights as a human being. But depending on what state you live in this issue varies significantly. If you live in a southern state for example is a lot different if you live in New England or the West coast. It’s a slippery slope when you decide states should have “total” autonomy. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

  3. Cornet Mustich Says:

    Kudos to CT and MA. (And shame on CA)

    Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace
    Washington CT USA

  4. aaglaas Says:

    Here are all the arguments, both for and against, gay marriage. You decide:

    http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Aaron%27s+Story

  5. Dave Says:

    DOMA is unconstititional as it is apartheid law.

    Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others.

    Stop gay apartheid.

  6. David Says:

    Dave: overheated rhetoric does not help win arguments or change anyone’s mind. This is qualitatively different from apartheid, although a good argument can be made that it is discriminatory. The specific issue in question, however, is not whether it’s discriminatory, but whether it’s an appropriate question for the Federal government in the first place.

  7. thomas Says:

    Marriage should not be in any law, state or federal.
    Marriage is religon.
    Government should give out licenses to all.
    Churches should give out marriages.

  8. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    There is no different system of laws that apply to homosexuals. Case in point – Senator John Edwards is legally married.

  9. rene Says:

    I wonder why Obama can’t decide on his side on this. He shouldn’t just pass it out and let the states decide on it.

  10. patrice Says:

    @rene, i strongly agree with you, why Obama can’t decide for his own decision

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: