In the comments to John’s post, I commented that I would never forgive Bob Barr for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Coincidentally, my partner just came home with the lastest issue of Southern Voice, an Atlanta area gay newspaper, and Bob Barr is on the cover. If elected president, he’d repeal a part of the law:
In a June 2 interview with Southern Voice, Barr, who served in Congress from 1995-2003, delineated between two sections of DOMA: a full faith and credit clause that protects the rights of each state to implement its own definition of marriage, and a section that defines marriage as only between one man and one woman under federal law.
“This [second part] was intended to apply to federal programs, such as survivor benefits, Social Security [and others],” he said.
Barr said it is the second part of DOMA he would work to repeal if elected president.
“Over the years and over the last year since I’ve been more active in the Libertarian Party, I’ve talked with a number of individuals, including members of Outright Libertarians [a gay Libertarian group], and have come to view the second part as having been used as a club, or the tail wagging the dog,” Barr said. “It has become in effect a national definition of marriage. This is not what I intended.”
Barr called that portion of DOMA a “mistake” during a May 25 speech to the Libertarian Party’s national convention. The speech is currently posted on YouTube. […]
“As I mentioned to you all last night, and I reiterate here today — standing before you, looking you in the eye — the Defense of Marriage Act, insofar as it provided the federal government a club to club down the rights of law-abiding, American citizens, has been abused, misused and should be repealed. And I will work to repeal that.”
I do agree with John that he’s not as batshit crazy as the most liberal people make him out to be. Still, I know a lot of gay conservatives, as you might imagine. My goal is to convince them, if they’re not going to vote for Obama, to at least support Bob Barr. While I disagree with him on many issues, I really do believe Bob Barr is a decent person – I mean, the guy worked for the ACLU on privacy issues – which I know we’re all about here. He’s the perfect example of what happens to people when their entire focus is on getting re-elected. When he doesn’t have to do that anymore, he can say what he means and mean what he says.
It seems to me that, what Barr is advocating is the rights of the states to decide what constitutes marriage. I’m ok with that. Well, I’m not ok with states that decide I’m not included, but I accept their right to decide. What he is now advocating is that the Federal government recognize a marriage if a state sanctions it (at least that’s what I think he means). So, if I got married in Massachusetts, for example, the Federal government would have to recognize it. I would be all for that. In fact, if I could vote, and if I thought Barr had a chance, I would vote for him for that reason alone. I married an American in Canada in 2002. My life would be so much simpler.
Slogan for the Barr campaign: Bob Barr – Not as Nutty as John McCain – and he can remember what he said yesterday.
(I’ll use the “Other” category when I talk about icky gay stuff.)
Dennis - SGMM
Can a Georgia Peach repear something?
The Moar You Know
Michael, I hate to tell you this.
When Bob Barr says “I’m tired of whuppin’ on them homuhsekshuls with mah big DOMA club”, it doesn’t mean that he thinks beating on homosexuals is a bad idea.
It means his arm is tired.
Bob Barr does not have your best interests at heart. I guarantee it.
HyperIon
umm, isn’t he running for office now?
and doesn’t that sorta undercut your argument?
NR
I’m telling you – with issue positions like these, Barr is going to take more votes from Obama than he will from McCain.
Jess
Barr might believe that states should decide such things, but how willing would he be to go to bat for this? The problem with a conservative supporting this is that he or she needs to ally him/herself with many who don’t. A Democrat is less likely to be forced to sell out.
OTOH, it’s great that some conservatives are finally getting past their “ick” response and are doing the right thing. It should be a no-brainer–however one personally feels about gays, the majority does not get to tell the minority who they can marry. It’s just wrong.
Dreggas
OT but anyone see that blackwater is now going into the Intelligence business?
BombIranForChrist
So here’s my question for the Noble Bob Barr:
Does he still think the government should force all women to take all pregnancies to term?
I definitely think that Mr. Barr’s conversion is true, as he has completely left the Republican Party and has in many cases appeared on the opposite side of the table as them, BUT I am not sure what exactly he has converted TO …
The spectrum of Libertarianism is very big indeed, and it amazes me how many Libertarians actually turn out to be nothing more than Anti-Tax nuts that, oh btw, still think the government should have final control over women’s bodies.
Helena Montana
I remember the Bob Barr of old. He’s said a couple of more or less classy things lately, but I remember the bad old days and the arrogant partisan nastiness of Bob Barr. A whisper of the words “liberal,” “abortion,” or “gay,” and he was foaming at the mouth.
Leopards don’t change their spots. He can bite me.
cynique71
Apparently Barr believes that abortion is an abomination for everyone except his second wife.
Rome Again
A german shepherd can remember if you stole his bone the day before, that would be a great improvement over McLost and as a dog, he couldn’t give a fuck if you were gay.
Jay B.
delineated between two sections of DOMA: a full faith and credit clause that protects the rights of each state to implement its own definition of marriage, and a section that defines marriage as only between one man and one woman under federal law.
How much stupid is there left in the world to parse?
The first part: Marriage should be left up to the states!
The second part: Defines marriage under federal law!
The whole thing is a travesty. It’s a contradiction and a dodge. Kabuki theater for the repressed set.
And if Barr’s whole deal with the definition of marriage is that the states should decide, then he should be very happy that Massachusetts and California have. Is he?
Rome Again
Personally, Michael, I think you should keep up this line of attack. Anything that splits the GOP more is a good thing, right? RIGHT?
Rome Again
Oooh, I’m sorry, I meant a Panamaranian.
calipygian
Santorum? Its not just for gay people, you know.
John O
This is something I’ll never understand.
Marriage between consenting adults, and no, I don’t care how many, is a personal decision for which the State has no practical, public interest. Put another way, there will be good and bad straight marriages, good and bad gay marriages, and good and bad polygamous marriages. And it will be the same for the child-raising no matter which.
And it is a measure of the power of the State that a gay person could feel otherwise. Marriage is a relic of property rights.
(And, for the record, some of my best parents and friends are married, and have been a long time. I just don’t need the State to recognize them.)
mcsey
“What he is now advocating is that the Federal government recognize a marriage if a state sanctions it”
What I got out of it is that he no longer wants the use the Federal government to beat gays. Leave it to the particular States to do that.
passerby
Michael I’m leery of Bob Barr but, I admit I havent been paying any attention to his candidacy. Though he’s not running for re-election he IS running to be elected and that puts him in the mode of panderer.
Didn’t he just a few months ago throw his hat into the ring? I can’t help but wonder, why is he really running for POTUS?
Tinfoil hat aside, is he being run as a vote-syphon for McCain?
In any event, I smell a rat.
T
WMass
Yet another despicable asshole who spends his entire career shitting on whomever is convenient, and when his career is over he “sees the light”, when it’s too late to mean anything. A decade or so ago it was to his advantage to shit on homosexuals, pot smokers, and other imminent threats to mankind. Now the Republican party is sinking faster than the Titanic, and he has jumped ship, like any smart rat, onto the Libertarian party, where it is to his advantage to reverse many of his prior positions. Does anyone seriously think he is acting from principle? He is looking out for himself, like any good Republican is supposed to.
Bob In Pacifica
I don’t think states have the right to decide on slavery either. Why should gays be 3/5s of a human?
Greg VA
What other rights and privileges are you OK with the states granting you or denying you based on something that is absolutely none of their business? If they decide it’s OK to deny you a driver’s license or the right to own a home? That’s OK? If they decide you shouldn’t be allowed to work with children or live near a school? Is that OK?
Help me to understand why you’re OK with the states being allowed to deny you things allowed to others based on your sexual orientation. Where does it stop?
Genine
Yes, he’s running for POTUS, but he doesn’t have a chance in hell. Or, maybe he has a chance in hell, but that’s the only place. So maybe he’s being more forthright. I don’t know.
I wouldn’t vote for him, but if he takes votes away from McCain… Go Bob!
SDS
“So, if I got married in Massachusetts, for example, the Federal government would have to recognize it. I would be all for that. In fact, if I could vote, and if I thought Barr had a chance, I would vote for him for that reason alone.”
“I’m telling you – with issue positions like these, Barr is going to take more votes from Obama than he will from McCain.”
Considering that Obama favors the full repeal of DOMA, I don’t really understand either of these comments. If you favor a partial repeal of DOMA, wouldn’t you also like someone who’s supportive of ENDA? If you favor gay marriage enough to vote Barr after hearing about his position, why wouldn’t you choose Obama when he was an option?
I suppose the only reason would be if you favored Barr on his more conservative positions, and those people are the type who would’ve voted for the Republican were McCain not the nominee.
John O
Comparing marriage to slavery? Funny, I’ve done that myself, but me thinks not too many slaves entered their arrangements consensually, nor do I think there is much comparison (as much as I like to joke about it) between subjugation humans to forced labor vs. committing to love one another for some length of time, even if not “forever.”
Darkrose
I don’t.
I don’t accept the fundamental premise that says that the electorate can decide whether or not I have civil rights. Unless everyone gets to vote on every single marriage that’s performed in this country, I see no reason why anyone should be voting to decide whether or not my girlfriend and I get married.
John O
All this fine commentary makes me think if the Libs could nominate someone sensible about it, not all pure and carrying baggage, they’d get a lot of votes.
The starting principle should be something along the lines of, “It’s my life, and I’ll do with it what I want to, and that goes for my body, too, and unless I’m doing no tangible harm to anyone else, hurt feelings or bruised consciousness or life-style objections do not, the government is out of it.”
We’d save a lot of money just on the WOD, as Mr. Barr rightly points out. Sadly, he’s too Johnny come lately, as many here have pointed out. Bad messenger.
John O
Jeebus, Johnny Typo here.
“…life-style objections do not COUNT,” and “…subjugating humans,” or, “the subjugation of humans.”
Sorry. I hate when I do that.
Living in IL, I may have the luxury of sending a message vote to Barr.
HumboldtBlue
Darkrose wrote it for me. It’s not up to my neighbors to decide which of us gets to enjoy the rights guaranteed in the constitution. You don’t have to be gay to understand this, but claiming that voters have the right to determine which of us is more equal than others, well, let’s just say no fucking way.
eglenn
Please don’t bother. Same compass, different points.
John O
The first chapter in my personal manifesto largely tackles this very subject, though at a more macro level.
It’s long, and I’m no professional writer, so boring, but it still gets hits, and holds up well considering how long ago I wrote it. (’03-’04)
http://jonorato42.wordpress.com/the-political-plight-of-average-joe/
jake
As others have said. Why?
So … the guy from the party that wants to minimize the Fed’s involvement in pretty much everything is now having second thoughts about whether the glb crowd should be able to get Federal benefits.
What a fucking dick.
A clever fucking dick. But still a dick.
What other goodies are is in here?
Well, well. I wonder why THAT is. If I didn’t know better I’d say someone is mouthing the bare minimum of platitudes to get a few votes. And …
Hey Michael, did you read the entire article?
No, get this dirt bag out of my face. Anyone who wants to vote for this turkey may as well go all the way and queue up with the Feminist for McCain.
Jon H
This stuff isn’t the icky gay stuff. I’m not sure what would be, but this isn’t the icky stuff.
(Maybe Elton John/Clay Aiken/Liza Minnelli fisting slashfic? That would be icky gay stuff.)
jake
Slightly OT: Serious Cute Overdose.
Jon H
” Serious Cute Overdose.”
Honestly, I think they should let someone else be first this time.
There’s a fine line between “cute” and “politically connected activists get special treatment”.
John O
Damn straight, Jon H.
It’s fun to watch people get their underwear in a bunch over two octogenarian women. And ridiculous.
Thanks for the link. I say let them be first. They don’t have that much time left, God bless them.
Jon H
“Thanks for the link. I say let them be first. They don’t have that much time left, God bless them.”
Yeah, that was my reaction in 2004, until I found out they were ringers, which kinda took a little of the shine off it. But just a little bit.
Then again, I guess this time they were the plaintiffs in the court case that got to the state supreme court, so it’s fitting that they be first. So I retract.
But I bet they aren’t the only octogenarian gay couple in California.
jake
Quite. As fine as the line between “legitimate concern” and “concern troll.”
Good thing no one’s crossing either one here. Nosireebob.
JR
You know, I just can’t bring myself to like the guy. Honestly, it’s probably because I’ve never forgiven him for the campaign he ran against Buddy Darden in ’94.
What can I say? I like Buddy. Always have.
patroclus
I support Loving v. Virginia and believe that it should be extended to include gay marriages. The full, faith and credit clause is supposed to guarantee this but Mr. Barr decided to abrogate that by statute in an utterly mendacious fashion. He is despicable.
J. Michael Neal
You guys have missed Michael’s point entirely. It isn’t that any level of government should prohibit gay marriage. He’s saying that the level of government at which gay marriage should be permitted is the state level. He’s adopting it because he’s a federalist who believes in state sovereignty. That’s fine, though it is perfectly acceptable to mock silly federalists on a regular basis. I agree with him, though, simply because I think that it’s going to be a long time before there are enough votes to get the federal government to pass a law allowing for gay marriage. In the meantime, we’re a lot better off if a bunch of states go ahead and do it.
Also, Bob Barr was, and still remains, batshit crazy. He’s just using some of his powers for good these days.
Chris M
Hey, you know what, there’s someone you can vote for who’s against DOMA, against Iraq, etc. His name’s Obama, and Bob Barr ought to just grow up and pick a side.
Koz
Why don’t we just all vote for McCain instead?
Barack Obama’s career has been a cozy game of go-along, get-along with the Establishment, both in Chicago and in Washington. It’s hard for me to see how, in these times, anybody can be in favor of that.
SGEW
While I disagree with this assessment (to say the least – see, e.g., here, here, and here), I have to ask:
How does your second statement (reproduced above) jive with your first statement (reproduced below)?
Does not compute.
Cassidy
Last I checked, marriage isn’t a “right”, nor is it codified in the Constitution. I could easily be wrong, but I don’t recall it.
Marriage, as it pertains to the gov’t, is more of a privilege, albeit much abused, but still, a privilege. And this is the problem people run into on these issues. You start bandying about the words civil rights, etc., and you’re making the wrong and easily defeated argument. The successful way to pursue this argument is that Homoguy is an American Citizen and deserves the same level of privileges as his neighbor, Straightguy. Bearing in mind that the state doesn’t grant rights, but exists to protect them, you can’t argue this as a civil rights issue.
Jay C
So given the choice, instead of voting for a candidate who “goes along” with the Establishment, we should vote for one who IS the Establishment???
File under “WTF???”…
Thom
Gay Libertarian here who cant wait to vote for Bob Barr. Gay guys need to understand that while the GOP is not our friend (too much reliance on the religous right vote), neither are the Democrats, who’s answer to everything is to stick their hand deeper into your wallet and make a federal bureaucratic nightmare out of every issue the media decides is important.
I want to live my life my way. And that means Democrats hands out of my wallet, Republican noses out of my bedroom. Yeah, Barr has a checkered voting past…but most of us change and morph as we mature. Those who dont have nothing to be proud of: anyone who hols the exact same political opinions from the time they’re a teenage until the day they die is probably pretty damned arrogant and boring as hell….
Koz
Easy. I’m not a big fan of everything John McCain has done, but clearly he has some history of laying it on the line for the benefit of the American people against the parochial interests, within the party and the political class as a whole.
If Barack Obama becomes President, we will be de facto ruled by the likes of Henry Waxman or Robert Byrd. I can’t see anything good coming of that.
Evilbeard
See the recent Oversight Committee hearings to see how terrible an administration “de facto ruled” might be. Sounds pretty good to me.
Evilbeard
*”de facto ruled” by Waxman might be.
Jon Karak
Might I suggest creating a new tag called, “teh gay”. John seems fond of the phrase as I have seen it a number of times printed in this blog. After all, I remember him creating a new tag, “Republican Crime Syndicate – aka the Bush Admin.”
From an equal rights perspective, I think it is shameful to pass issues relating to gay rights as, “other”. I think the gay community deserves a little more self respect.
W.B. Reeves
Get a clue guys. Bob Barr isn’t a conservative or a libertarian. His politics are an amalgam of far right reaction and rampant egomania. A former federal prosecutor who helped block any Congressional inquiry into the Oklahoma City Bombing (second only to 9/11 in terms of victims) in order that he could grandstand at hearings on the Ruby Ridge and Waco tragedies. Odd that he didn’t realize what “jack booted thugs” the ATF were when he was on the Justice Dept. payroll. This leaves aside his pandering to the racist fringe as typified by the likes of the Council of Conservative Citizens. His brand of “gay friendly” “federalism” is straight out of the old segregationist playbook. His candidacy amply illustrates what a joke the so-called Libertarian Party is,