Libertarians for Gay Marriage—Including Bob Barr!

From the chair of California's Libertarian Party:

People who truly cherish freedom see today's Supreme Court decision as a victory for liberty and common sense. There's no reason why consenting adults should not be allowed to marry so long as their arrangement doesn't interfere with any other individual's ability to live their life in any way they want to.

Many supporters see the decision as a repudiation of bigotry and narrow-mindedness. But Libertarians also see it as a step towards a revision of the larger public policy issue surrounding marriage. Californians should start asking their elected officials why government is involved in granting marriage licenses at all.

And here's Libertarian presidential hopeful Bob Barr (via Marc Ambinder):

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.

Comments

Warren | May 16, 2008, 9:48am | #

Takenaga got it exactly right. Bob is close enough. Barr is really stating to talk the talk. I'm warming up to him even though I still don't trust him.

Shirley Knott | May 16, 2008, 9:48am | #

Someone really ought to ask Barr why this is a decision that each state exercises, rather than each individual.
If it is an abuse of liberty for the Federal Government to impose marriage standards, how is it any less an imposition for a State to do so?
If you don't support gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.
If you believe in freedom, don't tell 2 other people what they can or cannot do if it does not affect you.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

BakedPenguin | May 16, 2008, 9:51am | #

Damn it, Shirley was in before me. The only thing I'd add to her post is that marriage (between consenting adults) shouldn't be limited to two people.

BakedPenguin | May 16, 2008, 9:53am | #

Nevertheless, this is an improvement for Barr. If he can stop backsliding on certain issues, I won't have a problem voting for him in November (assuming nomination, etc.)

stephen the goldberger | May 16, 2008, 9:54am | #

Ahh the Ron Paul route. "My position on Gay Marriage is irrelevent because I'm running for Federal office and not state office." Certainly an acceptable position for my libertarian candidate to hold.

Episiarch | May 16, 2008, 9:54am | #

"You don't wanna beat me or screw me? What kind of marriage is this? Bring a book."

t3knomanser | May 16, 2008, 9:55am | #

It's always pleasing to see other people aksing the right question: why are there marriage licenses at all?

"Marriage" and all its variants are in the domain of corporate law- or at least, so it should be. "Household Corporations" should replace marriage.

Taktix® | May 16, 2008, 9:59am | #

I'm warming up to him even though I still don't trust him.

He's a politician running for office, so by definition there's no reason to trust him.

However, I think this was my one remaining gripe with his opinions, and he finally cleared it up.

It's official, I am now a shill for Bob Barr.

(I kinda starting liking him when he was throwing back scotch in between takes on Penn and Teller: Bullshit!, episode on the Patriot Act, IIRC)

Marshall | May 16, 2008, 9:59am | #

I'm in agreement with Shirley. This is going to be my first voting election, and while I intend to register as a Libertarian, I'm very skeptical of Barr. I went to his website, read his platform, and specifically looked for where he stands on gay marriage - that is a voting issue to me (if one's going to support civil liberties, one should, you know, support civil liberties).

He mentions it infrequently, but this just bugs me a little. It's okay to use gays as fodder but they can't get married? What the hell, man?

He's better than McCain or Obama, I'll give him that, but my God... I think this weird skating act he's doing in relation to the repealing of the anti-gay marriage stuff in California is pretty politically motivated and not very genuine. Not cool, but still better than the other two. I was just hoping that, in my first election, there'd be someone who I was actually interested in voting for. Now I just feel like a cog in the machine, a tool of The Man. :p

Marshall | May 16, 2008, 9:59am | #

(I kinda starting liking him when he was throwing back scotch in between takes on Penn and Teller: Bullshit!, episode on the Patriot Act, IIRC)

That wasn't Christopher Hitchens? lawl

kinnath | May 16, 2008, 10:01am | #

I keep telling my children to go for a three-year contract with an option to renew.

Adamness | May 16, 2008, 10:04am | #

Someone really ought to ask Barr why this is a decision that each state exercises, rather than each individual.
If it is an abuse of liberty for the Federal Government to impose marriage standards, how is it any less an imposition for a State to do so?

The Constitution says that an issue like gay marriage is to be left up to the states, at the most.

robc | May 16, 2008, 10:05am | #

BakedPenguin,

The only thing I'd add to her post is that marriage (between consenting adults) shouldn't be limited to two people.

I was about to call you on this, but I cant read. I missed the "n't".

If we arent going to have a strict definition on the word marriage, I agree with you. I prefer a stricter definition of what the word means. I also prefer the state not license at all, which allows each individual to define the word as they mean it.

MP | May 16, 2008, 10:06am | #

Some people don't like equating Marriage with Homosexuality. I don't really care. I think they're entitled to that opinion. The issue is not the word Marriage. The issue is state sanctioned contracts that are available only to a male/female pair. I haven't had time to review the court opinion to see if they recognized that it is on the issue of contracts where the problem exists.

B | May 16, 2008, 10:07am | #

"Our towns and our cities, then our counties, then our states, then our regional contacts - and only then, the national government. That, let me remind you, is the ladder of liberty, built by decentralized power."

Shirley (and others) are of course correct that individual sovereignty ought to be the guiding principle here, but better we climb (or is it descend?) the ladder of liberty one rung at a time than not at all...

Guy Montag | May 16, 2008, 10:08am | #

How is it that any "Libertarian" is for this State sanctioned fiction called marriage at all?

It is nothing mor than layer upon layer of arbitrary law deciding who gets your stuff after you die, combined with being a who-you-can-do list, that ties right back into who gets your stuff while you are alive or dead.

Bah! Marriage, the greatest scam on man ever!

Episiarch | May 16, 2008, 10:11am | #

So the divorce was rough, Guy?

Marshall | May 16, 2008, 10:13am | #

@ Guy:
In a perfect world, marriage is an idiotic social pipe dream. But working within the realm of obtainable items at the time, gay marriage is better than no gay marriage. I'd much rather see marriage as a state institution abolished than I'd rather see ANYONE married, but you'd have to be tripping to think that the government-sanctioned marriage is going to end any time soon. As in, like, within my lifetime. Gay marriage will become the norm in my lifetime. The end of state sanctioned marriage will not.

JohnD | May 16, 2008, 10:16am | #

seems to be a lot of faggots on this site.

NP | May 16, 2008, 10:18am | #

Best quote on gay marriage:

"I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us"
- Kinky Friedman

Tonio | May 16, 2008, 10:18am | #

Bob Barr is a weasel. This is really an equal protection issue under the US constitution, as indicated by SCOTUS in Lawrence v. Texas.

If marriage is truly, and only a state matter then why did the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) (authored by Barr, signed by Clinton) contain the following:

The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The above paragraph in Barr's DoMA precludes the federal government from offering spousal benefits to same-sex couples. This clause affects survivor benefits for social security, military pensions and insurance, etc.

Guy Montag | May 16, 2008, 10:19am | #

Marshall,

Are you hanging out with Mr. Chapman again?

Guy Montag | May 16, 2008, 10:20am | #

"I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us"
- Kinky Friedman

Quite similar to the Howard Stern Doctrine.

R C Dean | May 16, 2008, 10:24am | #

The Constitution says that an issue like gay marriage is to be left up to the states, at the most.

Well, kind of. One of the issues here is whether states have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. If so, then one state gets to decide for everybody, not each state for itself.

I've always wondered why states are free to refuse to honor my Texas concealed carry license, but apparently have to honor my Wisconsin marriage license.

Reinmoose | May 16, 2008, 10:24am | #

I agree that the state shouldn't be able to tell people they can't enter into a contractual agreement just as the federal government shouldn't be able to, but isn't an issue like this where we would alleviate some injustice better than not alleviating any in the name of not being perfect? Can the slippery slope ever work to our advantage?

Marshall | May 16, 2008, 10:25am | #

Maybe I'm missing something - I'm very tired - but I am not getting the Chapman reference.

Shannon Love | May 16, 2008, 10:27am | #

There's no reason why consenting adults should not be allowed to marry so long as their arrangement doesn't interfere with any other individual's ability to live their life in any way they want to.

Aye, there's the rub. Given the invasive nature of the state into all areas of life letting people make their own mistakes is not allowed.

We can see this in the history of the sexual revolution. We were sold the idea that people had the right to make their own decisions about sexuality free from involuntary restraints of law and culture. Yet, at the same time, it quickly become standard to regard dealing with the negative consequences of those choices as the responsibility of the rest of society.

People are free to do as they wish but if they catch an STD, the state is expected to pay for their healthcare. If they get pregnant, the state is expected to pay for abortions of pre-natal care. If people choose not to form and maintain a traditional family, the state is responsible for picking up any economic short fall and so on.

Liberty without responsibility is not freedom. It merely enslaves the responsible to the irresponsible. Creating a legal standard that people get to chose whatever marriage arrangements they wish will be a disaster unless we simultaneously create a legal standard of personal responsibility.

I personally support gay marriage but it is easy to see how Bar's legal thinking would support people choosing polygamy or polyamory. Not a problem in theory but with our present real world institutions, they could be disastrous.

Colin | May 16, 2008, 10:28am | #

The problem is not gay marriage, but that it was decided by judges.

Fortunately, the people of California may very well have the right to vote on it this November.

ktc2 | May 16, 2008, 10:30am | #

Or the Kinnison rule "Any man who's been married is qualified to be a tour guide in hell."

NP | May 16, 2008, 10:30am | #

Guy,

I hate to gripe again, but Friedman is at least ten times funnier than the King of All Mongos. It's a damn shame that the great Texan does not have his own talk show.

BakedPenguin | May 16, 2008, 10:33am | #

robc - if people want to define marriage as between one man and one woman, that's fine with me. What they shouldn't be able to do is to force the government to discriminate against people who disagree.

Of course, as several people have pointed out, the government should have no business in marriage whatsoever.

J sub D | May 16, 2008, 10:37am | #

Who here is going to turn queer, abandon their family and dash off to California so they can get hitched to theur butt buddy?

IOW, only an idiot would see gay marriage as a threat to traditional unions.

NP | May 16, 2008, 10:39am | #

Another great Kinky Friedman line:

"Poly, more than one, tics, blood sucking parasites. That's what politics is."

Man, how can you not love this guy?

the innominate one | May 16, 2008, 10:40am | #

JohnD:

it takes one to know one, not that there's anything wrong with that

Colin:

what's your suggestion for how unconstitutional laws ought to be overturned, if you don't want judges doing it? It can't be by legislation, since legislatures passes unconstitutional laws all the time.

btw, the CA legislature has already passed bills legalizing gay marriage. the governator vetoed them, stating that the issue was for the courts to decide. try to find out some facts before you spout off.

Rhywun | May 16, 2008, 10:41am | #

an issue like gay marriage is to be left up to the states, at the most

What about certain *federal* benefits granted by marriage? I could marry my non-American partner in California, but that isn't going to stop the feds from kicking him out anyway. These "state" marriages aren't "real" until the federal government recognizes them as such.

ktc2 | May 16, 2008, 10:42am | #

The proper place of government in regard to marriage is the enforcement of voluntary marriage contracts. That's it. Nothing more.

Guy Montag | May 16, 2008, 10:45am | #

NP,

I was not commenting on their funnieness, just on the idea. Not sure when you ever had to tell me that Friedman was funnier than Stern, because that is the position that I have had ever since knowing of them both.

Marshall | May 16, 2008, 10:25am | #

Maybe I'm missing something - I'm very tired - but I am not getting the Chapman reference.

He was advocating higher capital gains taxes yesterday, something to do with it being a viable position, vs. some wacky principled position.

Tonio | May 16, 2008, 10:45am | #

The problem is not gay marriage, but that it was decided by judges.

So, if it was something you support, like (presumably) gun rights, it would be OK for judges to decide?

Your framing of this issue makes it sound like the California Supreme Court just arbitrarily decided to grant gay marriage. The court interpreted the California constitution and they found an equal protection issue. That's the job of the courts in our system of checks and balances.

And, FWIW, the California legislature has passed gay marriage TWICE. The executive branch, in the person of Gov. Schwarzenegger, failed to sign the legislation.

Fortunately, the people of California may very well have the right to vote on it this November.

Yes, and they may choose to not amend their constitution. Polling now indicates an essentially even split on this issue.

BakedPenguin | May 16, 2008, 10:46am | #

...only an idiot would see gay marriage as a threat to traditional unions.

I find it amusing that Conservative Christians often talk about how homosexuality is a choice. The implication to their argument that they're missing is that their God made us all bisexual.

J sub D | May 16, 2008, 10:46am | #

Can the slippery slope ever work to our advantage?

Sure. Some people are just too bullheaded to figure out that half a loaf is better than none. Get the camel's nose in the tent first.

Guy Montag | May 16, 2008, 10:47am | #

Full faith and credit question from another thread

If I purchase and register a vehicle without fenders or bumpers, in a State where it is legal to do so, and then drive it to a State where it is not legal to operate a vehicle without fenders or bumpers, how am I exempt from being ticketed? To avoid confusion, let's say the offended State is one that has "junker" laws where it is illegal to have that vehicle on that state on private property either.

To head off one side argument at-the-pass, I am aware that the offended State can not suspend or revoke the operator's license of the offender, but his licnsing State can if they recognize the infraction from the other State.

The point of this is that there are all sorts of things one can do in one State that are not recognized in other States and tossing about "full faith and credit" seems to cloud things to the point that, if it were valid as frequently used, there would be no need for Uniform Commercial Code and similar.

Episiarch | May 16, 2008, 10:50am | #

I could marry my non-American partner in California, but that isn't going to stop the feds from kicking him out anyway. These "state" marriages aren't "real" until the federal government recognizes them as such.

Good point. Taxes too. But having more and more states recognize gay marriage will clear the way to the feds recognizing it too. If all 50 states do it, the feds will follow suit.

Lawrence | May 16, 2008, 10:53am | #

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as a matter of "originalism", as a matter of controlling philosophy and original intent, should be every ones concern.

And we should always ask why so many, like Herr Scalia, should so object to it, as he did in Lawrence v. Texas.

Perhaps it is as he argued in the case about the "10 commandments" that he disagrees with the founders as a matter of principle, for in those arguments he stated that the commandments indicate that government originates in his fav sky fairie and not in the people, and not in the rights of individuals and their consent, as the founders believed.

Some day someone will have to ask why the republican party, and religious fundamentalists as well, hate the Founders so very, very much.

Reinmoose | May 16, 2008, 10:53am | #

I find it amusing that Conservative Christians often talk about how homosexuality is a choice. The implication to their argument that they're missing is that their God made us all bisexual.

Ever see that famous Colbert interview where he's talking to a gay rights supporter and he insists that he "chose" to be straight. :)
It's a classic.

Guy Montag | May 16, 2008, 10:53am | #

E,

I believe that this applies to other multiple-spouse situations too, like from countries where multiple wives are accepted, but I don't think that they are here.

Steve | May 16, 2008, 10:53am | #

I heard someone else mention Barr today at work, so i decided to check out his wiki page. What a phoney! He's done a complete 180 on so many issues how can you trust him? And a lot of his positions are so un-libertarian i can't believe anyone's taking his bid seriously.

examples:

War on Drugs: "Barr advocated complete federal prohibition of medical marijuana. In 1998, He successfully blocked implementation of Initiative 59 -- the "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998" -- which would have legalized medical marijuana in the District of Columbia. The "Barr Amendment" to the 1999 Omnibus spending bill not only blocked implementation of Initiative 59 but prohibited the vote tally from even being released. Nearly a year passed before a lawsuit filed by the ACLU eventually revealed the initiative had received 69% of the vote. In response to the judge's ruling, Barr simply attached an amendment to the 2000 Omnibus spending bill that overturned Intiative 59 outright. Since leaving Congress, Barr's position on medical marijuana has changed dramatically and he now lobbies for state choice on the issue."

Same Sex Marriage- "He authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, a law enacted in 1996 which states that only marriages that are between a man and a woman can be federally recognized, and individual states may choose not to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. However, he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, contending it is a violation of states' rights."

Terrorism- "He voted for the Patriot Act, but only after his amendments adding "sunset clauses" were added to the final bill. Barr played a similar role during the debate over Bill Clinton's Comprehensive Anti-terrorism Act of 1995, crafting pro-civil liberties amendments to the original text. He now publicly regrets his Patriot Act vote."


Religious Freedom- "In Congress, he also controversially proposed that the Pentagon ban the practice of Wicca in the military."

it can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr


And he used to be a spook too?

give me a break...

Steve | May 16, 2008, 10:55am | #

Is this the same court that ruled that parents can't teach their kids geometry without being certified by the state first?

lose an inch, gain an inch is suppose...

Guy Montag | May 16, 2008, 11:00am | #

Is this the same court that ruled that parents can't teach their kids geometry without being certified by the state first?

Assaults on hotrodding never cease. Those judges just want to get their fingers into everything!

Rhywun | May 16, 2008, 11:02am | #

If all 50 states do it, the feds will follow suit.

Stranger things have happened, I guess. Still not breaking my vow to never again consort with a foreigner...

thedifferentphil | May 16, 2008, 11:05am | #

As long as governments, both federal and state, pass laws that give preferential treatment to married people and also pass laws that restrict who gets to marry, the courts will need to step in. If a state wanted to pass a law that says that only catholics can marry and that everyone else can't, do you think that the states rights crowd would oppose federal intervention? I don't think so.

svf | May 16, 2008, 11:06am | #

(I kinda starting liking him when he was throwing back scotch in between takes on Penn and Teller: Bullshit!, episode on the Patriot Act, IIRC)

YouTube?? Pleeeease...?

Episiarch | May 16, 2008, 11:06am | #

Still not breaking my vow to never again consort with a foreigner...

Yeah, good luck with that.

At least I have the option of marrying mine to keep her here if necessary. Man, do I hate the government.

BakedPenguin | May 16, 2008, 11:09am | #

Still not breaking my vow to never again consort with a foreigner...

And the gay mail order husband business is right out, too.

Warty | May 16, 2008, 11:23am | #

I heard someone else mention Barr today at work, so i decided to check out his wiki page. What a phoney!

He has 0% chance of becoming president. He's the most visible possible candidate for the LP, so as long as he talks the talk, who cares if he's sincere?

And of course, there's the uncomfortable fact that if he actually was being a phony, he would most likely have stayed in Team R to pander his way back to power.

svf | May 16, 2008, 11:27am | #

YouTube?? Pleeeease...?

in the spirit of libertarian self-reliance...

Scotch swilling (out of the bottle, no less) here, at about the 14:00 mark...

that seals the deal: BARR 2008

Ayn_Randian | May 16, 2008, 11:30am | #

lose an inch, gain an inch is suppose...

or given the topic at hand, maybe it's lose an inch, gain seven inches?

hey-oooo...

Steve | May 16, 2008, 11:32am | #

He has 0% chance of becoming president. He's the most visible possible candidate for the LP, so as long as he talks the talk, who cares if he's sincere?

Are you being serious? Maybe because as the most visble possible candidate for the LP, it hurts the LP to have their front-runner be a an easily proved phoney? I don't care that he "talks the talk", GWB says all kinds of things about liberty and freddom as well, i care about his record and consistency on positions i care about.


And of course, there's the uncomfortable fact that if he actually was being a phony, he would most likely have stayed in Team R to pander his way back to power.

Not always true. There is a long line of 3rd party candidates and 3rd party nominees who have chosen to both Buck their own party when it was not politically viable to do so, and pretend to share values with demographics when their record showed the opposite. Just shows he's got too big of an ego to care about either parties platform or history. The "If he was that bad he's be a republicrat" has been proven false many times.

Ayn_Randian | May 16, 2008, 11:35am | #

Steve - none of that makes any sense, man. Seriously.

you're being deliberately obtuse and reflexively contrarian (which part of the charm of libertarians, I guess).

Steve | May 16, 2008, 11:35am | #

Makes me almost certain he's doing a Nader, turning a 3rd party into his own vanity candidacy vehicle without actually promoting or even accepting the views and platform of the party, all because he's a name (somewhat) on the national level.

Steve | May 16, 2008, 11:36am | #

Steve - none of that makes any sense, man. Seriously.

you're being deliberately obtuse and reflexively contrarian (which part of the charm of libertarians, I guess).

sorry, which part doesn't make sense?

Round Tim | May 16, 2008, 11:40am | #

"Sure. Some people are just too bullheaded to figure out that half a loaf is better than none. Get the camel's nose in the tent first."

J sub D, can we start with the camel toe, instead of the nose?

Steve | May 16, 2008, 11:40am | #

Put it this way, i'd rather have the most likely nominee for the LP have a proven track record of libertarian ideals, not just someone who is federalist enough (sometimes) that he's "passable". Big name plus so-so record does not excite me.

Ayn_Randian | May 16, 2008, 11:50am | #

Can you imagine how insane the refrain of “Bob Barr is no Libertarian! Look at his record!” would be if it were applied to say, my conversion from Christian to atheist?

ring ring

THE CHURCH: Hey there Mr. AR! We would like to have you be a pastor at our church!
AR: Well, I am not a Christian anymore.
TC: But look at your record in 2000 – 2002…you were a very strong advocate for Jesus and the Church.
AR: Um, yeah, I know that, but as I said, I am not a believer anymore, so I am not sure how I can help
TC: Ahh, people say that all the time! You are just doing it for the attention.
AR: Look man, how much more can I do to convince you? Here are all of the atheistic things I have said and done. Writings, quotes, secular activism…
TC: you are just doing that to stroke your ego.

click.

sorry, which part doesn't make sense?

well, all it is, is your Libertarian Spidey-Sense is a-tingling, and I don't play along with people's emotions. Barr does work with MMJ activists, was an LP delegate and has been on this pony for a while. And you think it's all some big ploy for attention? Through the L-freakin'-P? THAT doesn't make any sense any way you slice it.

Travis | May 16, 2008, 11:50am | #

"I keep telling my children to go for a three-year contract with an option to renew."

That made me LOL, but you know that makes alot of sense the more you think about it.

Steve | May 16, 2008, 11:55am | #

I don't know how that makes me contrarian, but just because he's a nominee for a 3rd party with little chance of winning the general, doesn't make it okay with me that he doesn't represent (at least in my view) the core values of the party. And no, he's not "talking the talk" any more than he's walking the walk. His "federalism" might maybe possibly attract some right-winger unhappy with McCain, but why should i care about attracting them if it means my party's positions are distorted or misrepresented in the process? Is it going to equal party growth? no, because it's probably going to attract about as many right-wingers as libertarians it alienates. Is it going to help promote libertarian ideas in the political marketplae? not if the ideas being pushed around are conservative and not libertarian, if anything it's just going to give a GOPer who thinks McCain is too liberal an outlet for 1 election and do nothing for the party.

my opinion at least.

Steve | May 16, 2008, 11:58am | #

Barr does work with MMJ activists, was an LP delegate and has been on this pony for a while.

yeah, now that he's out of office and has no chance of effecting change. Did more damage than he has made up for...

Travis | May 16, 2008, 11:58am | #

Long before Barr announced any attention to run for President. I happened to see a video on you tube of Barr being interviewed by someone from Integrity in Service which is a organization that works for gays to be able to openly serve in the military. Knowing what a piece of shit Barr was when he was in congress. I was expecting him to be against gays serving in the military, but to my suprise he was saying gays should be able to openly serve in the military. That changed my opinion of the man.

Steve | May 16, 2008, 12:00pm | #

He can't unvote for the Patriot Act, DOMA, or undo the damage to Initiative 59. but hey, he's working with "activists" now. great.

Steve | May 16, 2008, 12:06pm | #

would be if it were applied to say, my conversion from Christian to atheist?

Big difference.

It's more like a christian who stoned gays and persecuted jews now trying to be taken seriously by both and trying to be their spokesman. And even then still not accepting of gays or jews, just not trying to hurt them anymore. Barr wants to be taken seriously as a libertarian convert, then maybe he should ditch the federalist stances and actually, i dunno, talk and walk as a libertarian?

Bingo | May 16, 2008, 12:06pm | #

Bob Barr threads are my new favorite thing because they show that the libertarian movement has just as many idiots as the other political parties. Heaven forbid someone analyze a situation critically and change their viewpoint!

Ayn_Randian | May 16, 2008, 12:06pm | #

whatever, Steve. I thought I was cynical, but you're entirely too ridiculous to carry on this conversation.

you're one of those libertarians who revels in being completely irrelevant. if the LP (and its platform) became a major party tomorrow, you'd be down in An-Cap party, sniping at the "Republitarians".

Ayn_Randian | May 16, 2008, 12:09pm | #

It's more like a christian who stoned gays and persecuted jews now trying to be taken seriously by both and trying to be their spokesman.

Yeah, what did Saul of Tarsus do for Christians, anyway?

Steve Torquemada wants to have the Libertarian Inquisition. Put 'im on the rack, Steve...then you'll uncover his nefarious plot to propel himself to power by latching on to the oh-so-popular label of "libertarian".

then maybe he should ditch the federalist stances and actually, i dunno, talk and walk as a libertarian?

you know, I could give you a whole spiel on how I think that federalism and libertarianism can mesh, but it'd be lost on you. go read a book.

NP | May 16, 2008, 12:10pm | #

Guy,

I know. Never been a huge Stern fan, so I just wanted to "gripe" a little, that's all.

Reinmoose - Who are you talking about?

Steve | May 16, 2008, 12:13pm | #

How is it ever going to become a major party by mimicing the other parties? I don't want GOP lite or a little-less-interfering-Democrat party. A party named the Libertarian Party, should be nominating a libertarian with a libertarian record and appealing to libertarians! Barr is not a libertarian he is a conservative, he has no libertarian track record he has a conservative one, he is not appealing to libertarians or libertarian ideals, but to conservatives who feel the GOP is too liberal. We already have several conservative parties in this country, i want a libertarian one...

Steve | May 16, 2008, 12:15pm | #

Ayn_Randian you don't have to be a jerk. I don't know who Saul of Tarsus is, i never bothered reading the christian's manual, but if he went from persecutor to spokesman, i'm guessing it didn't go very smoothly.

Steve | May 16, 2008, 12:19pm | #

you know, I could give you a whole spiel on how I think that federalism and libertarianism can mesh, but it'd be lost on you. go read a book.
It have to be a history book, cause that's where it shows where federalism FAILS. States rights rhetoric works for 1 demographic, and they are not people i feel kinship with...

Bingo | May 16, 2008, 12:19pm | #

Wow, way to go Steve! You're the one that made an analogy to Christianity. Don't get all butthurt when A_R calls you on your argument which you apparently don't know anything about.

Ayn_Randian | May 16, 2008, 12:19pm | #

Steve - ok, sorry for being mean. I think you mean well here.

Here's the thing, Steve: a party that mandates we have Pure Libertarians and Pure Libertarians Only is going to end up like the "Eighth Baptist Reformed Church (Reformed)". It will devolve into never-ending purges and litmus-tests.

Politics is zero-sum: there are a set number of people, and those people will be split up by libertarian, conservative, liberal, etc. Right now, we can't affect change because the ascribed "libertarians" are too small of a number.

Appealing to libertarians is like preaching to the choir...what converts do you win like that?

Ayn_Randian | May 16, 2008, 12:20pm | #

I don't know who Saul of Tarsus is, i never bothered reading the christian's manual, but if he went from persecutor to spokesman, i'm guessing it didn't go very smoothly.

Ouch. that one hurts.

Saul of Tarsus = The Apostle Paul. It went about as well as a conversion of that nature could go.

Steve | May 16, 2008, 12:24pm | #

Appealing to libertarians is like preaching to the choir...what converts do you win like that?

But can go too far the other way as well, to the point where "libertarianism" means nothing more than, not a liberal, but not from the south.

Funny how the liberals don't compromise their core values (the ideas that make a liberal a liberal) in order to attract others, and i don't Rush limbaugh compromising his views in order to attract others. You can't spread an idea or belief system if it isn't consistent, i have no problem with Barr's conversion on it's own, or his semi-maybe-possibly-under-a-certain-light current libertarianism. but both together doesn't sound like someone i want as our NOMINEE. From the party leadership? yes purity is important. the priest is always held to a higher standard than the layman, he bears a heavier burden, and his reach and voice carry further.

. | May 16, 2008, 12:25pm | #

Politics is zero-sum: there are a set number of people, and those people will be split up by libertarian, conservative, liberal, etc. Right now, we can't affect change because the ascribed "libertarians" are too small of a number.

Which leaves the LP with two options (if they want to be a real force in American politics):

Wait(as in, try to indoctrinate enough people over several generations that their ideas start to become mainstream) until the people living in the United States are more Libertarian.

or

Do what the two major parties do and move towards the center then hope that they have enough of an impact to destabilize the party system so they can move in.

Steve | May 16, 2008, 12:35pm | #

Wow, way to go Steve! You're the one that made an analogy to Christianity.

actually Ayn_randian made an analogy to christianity to which i responded to. I didnt know the christians went that far with their forgiveness thing, it's bit extreme if Saul of Tarsus went from tormentor to leader...

Ayn_Randian | May 16, 2008, 12:35pm | #

Steve - we're having two different arguments now. One (that the LP needs to ensure it does stray to far) we shouldn't be having, because I generally agree with you.

The other (that Barr isn't sincere) is just silliness because neither one of us has any way of knowing, but common-sense tells me Barr's legit with this.

The Wine Commonsewer | May 16, 2008, 12:37pm | #

the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own

That worked particularly well when the other 47 states refused to recognize a Nevada divorce and occasionally charged people with bigamy for remarrying after getting legally divorced in Nevada.

While all the conservative pundits are having puppies over what the Ca ruling means, I can assure you that it will have little effect in the real world. California still sucks and will continue tottering around the drain, leaking tax money profusely, regardless of how many of our friends in West Hollywood and the Castro District tie the knot.

And [nods to Shirley] WTF business is it of government in the first place to determine what constitutes marriage and why aren't we working harder to get government out of the marriage business?

Reinmoose | May 16, 2008, 12:39pm | #

NP -
I'm talking about Steven Colbert, of the Colbert Report. The question from the gay rights supporter was "did you choose to be straight" and Colbert, who always plays the stereotypical fox news conservative, replied that "yes" he did make that choice.

Steve | May 16, 2008, 12:43pm | #

The other (that Barr isn't sincere) is just silliness because neither one of us has any way of knowing, but common-sense tells me Barr's legit with this.

Then why is it for example in regards to the California decision he brings up states rights rather than the individual's rights? Seems to me that if California went the opposite direction it would be fine with Barr as long the Feds didn't interfere with the way California was imposing it's mandate on individuals marital relations. Seems to me that he isn't interested in presenting the libertarian (pure or unpure) position that the government (any government) as no business in marriage, but rather the federalist arguement that the California Government has a say in the matter thought the feds do not. makes me question his sincerity, is he running for the libertarian ticket because he shares those values, or because the GOP is to left of right for him?

NP | May 16, 2008, 12:45pm | #

Reinmoose,

Gotcha. I thought there was another "he" that you were referring to.

Steve | May 16, 2008, 12:51pm | #

And so it seems natural to me to question the sincerity of the LP nominee hopeful, when he says something that contradicts the platform of the LP. Remember also that Barr isn't yet the LP nominee, if he isn't interested in promoting libertarianism during the primary/caucus process, what makes you syre he'll do anything during the general other than try to win those who are to conservative to be happy with McCain. Isn't there whole point of the nominating process to choose who does best represent your parties platform? Especially a party that has no chance of winning at all, might all grow your base instead of switching it for a new one built out of the remains of the GOP. That didn't work for the CP it isnt going to work for the LP.

Bingo | May 16, 2008, 12:53pm | #

Yeah Steve, good point. It sure would be awful if someone with federalist views got elected! What a huge blow to the libertarian movement. We need someone that will expand the power and role of the executive branch and federal government in order to give us freedom.

appending_doom | May 16, 2008, 12:55pm | #

Some people don't like equating Marriage with Homosexuality. I don't really care. I think they're entitled to that opinion. The issue is not the word Marriage. The issue is state sanctioned contracts that are available only to a male/female pair. I haven't had time to review the court opinion to see if they recognized that it is on the issue of contracts where the problem exists.

MP-

IIRC, the opinion allows for the state to refuse to call a gay marriage "marriage", but only if they do the same for straight couples.

Which would be cute, I think, in that the fact that California would not be entering people into a marriage, the questions of taxes and especially benefits would run into a political morass the likes of which we've never seen.

Steve | May 16, 2008, 12:58pm | #

Bingo, no one with federalist views is going to get elected. this is post-civil war, post-civil rights era.

If you remember it wasn't Paul's libertarianism that turned off voters, it was his ties to the old right. those are not people i want to be associated with, they have no chance of helping our parties growth.

Steve | May 16, 2008, 1:08pm | #

Reason is no one gives a crap about State's rights anymore (except the dying old right), but people still care about individual civil liberties. that's what we can use to our advantage because that's what we're about. instead we hitch ourselves to obsolete leaders of the dying old right who have nowhere else to go, so they can in turn appeal to voters of the dying old right who have no one else to vote for because McCain is too liberal and the LP has a bigger base than the CP and nominal agreement on tax cuts.

prolefeed | May 16, 2008, 2:40pm | #

From the chair of California's Libertarian Party:
People who truly cherish freedom see today's Supreme Court decision as a victory for liberty and common sense ... Californians should start asking their elected officials why government is involved in granting marriage licenses at all.

Wow, this is just blatant pandering by the chair of California's Libertarian Party. These two statements directly contradict each other. This would be clearer with this rephrasing:

"People who truly cherish freedom see today's Supreme Court decision increasing governmental involvement in granting marriage licenses as a victory for liberty. We call on elected officials to give us a further victory for liberty by ending all governmental involvement in granting marriage licenses."

J sub D | May 16, 2008, 3:50pm | #

Heaven forbid someone analyze a situation critically and change their viewpoint!

When I can no longer do that, put me out of my misery. Please.

Rhywun | May 16, 2008, 4:26pm | #

These two statements directly contradict each other.

You omitted the bit about how the former is just one step leading toward the latter. And considering that the latter is not ever going to happen in this universe, I'll gladly settle for the former.

ChrisO | May 16, 2008, 5:06pm | #

If you remember it wasn't Paul's libertarianism that turned off voters, it was his ties to the old right. those are not people i want to be associated with, they have no chance of helping our parties growth.

That's right. All those young folks working on Rep. Paul's campaigns were really *secret John Birch Society operatives*. Sneaky bastards.

Antiglobalism | May 17, 2008, 4:21pm | #

Gays need their own community where they can engage in all the sodomy they want to. The rest of us stay away :)

MJ | May 18, 2008, 9:41am | #

“[f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman.” - Majority opinion.

So what justifies the majority's ruling? What has changed in the law that mandates the majority's logic? Beyond that four of the seven justices have come to believe that same-sex couples are the social functional equivalent of a male-female pair? Which by the facts of biology simply is not true.

“Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means.”- CA Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter (writing in dissent).

sh(A)ne | May 28, 2008, 9:18pm | #

@ Ayn_Randian

you know, I could give you a whole spiel on how I think that federalism and libertarianism can mesh, but it'd be lost on you. go read a book.

I'd like to hear your speil. I've read books, and I don't see anything particularly "libertarian" about federalism.

Federalism could very well describe an arrangement of lots of little tyrannical states, each cooperating with one another. That doesn't sound like libertarianism to me.

sh(A)ne