2008-10-07 Bob Barr on Same Sex Marriage

Bob Barr on marriage from www.bobbarr2008.com

Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions ought to be made by each state rather than imposed as a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government. Any federal laws that prevent states from determining their own standards for marriage should be repealed; the federal government should not define marriage, whether by statute or constitutional amendment.

Well I suppose Mr. Barr would also favor letting states decide whether they should discriminate against women, minorities or the handicapped or perhaps he just thinks it's okay for states to discriminate against gays.  In any event, his philosophy would leave in place all of Federal immigration laws that discriminate against me and keep me and my family out of the country right now.  Strict constructionism of a constitution that was written 200 years ago fully supporting the enslavement of Africans and the disenfranchisement of women is either seriously disingenuous or otherwise out of touch with the progress of civil society that has occurred ever since.

Comments

[Gale]

Fred I see your point..however nothing much has been done yet on your side other than California and that is still up for debate if it will be knocked down again..what do you think?

[Frederick]

Well Massachusetts and California are both bringing equal rights to all of their citizens despite on-going efforts by radical right wing extremists to take them away. And that is fine, because they are great places to live--I have lived in both! The point I was making is how ironic it is that radical right wing extremists want to let States decide on marriage but want the supreme court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Where I come from that's called "catch as catch can" instead of an cogent, moral argument. Of course the real issue is to separate civil relationships for official purposes from religious marriage (and this would primarily benefit unmarried heterosexual couples). The Republicans successfully turned this into a debate about intrusion on religious freedom instead of what is was--a movement for equal civil rights (in inheritance, immigration, insurance coverage, adoption, etc.) That is of course the typical politics of division practiced by Republicans in lieu of have any real answers to the problems of average Americans. In any event, life is too short. As the son of a family that was instrumental in the quest of blacks for civil rights in America, I will never live in the US again as a second class citizen. Honestly I don't even expect everyone to agree with my point of view. I am just trying to explain it. I hope you understand.

[Chris]

You could also add that the whole original intent reading of the interpretation is a red herring since marriages, in my view, fall under inter-state commerce and thus according to the fourteenth amendment fall under Federal jurisdiction.

Really, regardless of someone's stance on what is, and is not, a marriage the idea that State's could have different laws is preposterous. I promise to love and to cherish you until I die or am forced to move to pursue employment opportunities does not exactly have the authority of catechism.

The argument is incoherent since the whole point of the traditional view concerning marriage is to create lasting institutions that are directed towards the eternal that can act as a bulwark in the temporal world of change. Allowing a legal situation in which whether a couple is married or not changes according to geography undermines the very principle of marriage and is, dare I say it, anti-family values.

I consider myself a traditionalist on this issue and I think that the more people who want to make lasting commitments to each other, that want to make these ethical commitments in public in front of witnesses, and want to work at keeping their commitment their whole life as a symbol of what they believe in, the better. If it is true that the institution of marriage is under attack the problem is one of apathy and infidelity. Excluding an entire group of people who want a share in our ethical communities who genuinely want to be married and to live up to their obligations doesn't make any sense.