Repeal DOMA? Some Democrats Don't Agree With Obama

[TomVols]

One of the chief architects of DOMA is Bob Barr, Libertarian presidential nominee. He now says he is against DOMA and would favor its repeal.

 

[Revmitchell]

One of the chief architects of DOMA is Bob Barr, Libertarian presidential nominee. He now says he is against DOMA and would favor its repeal.

Could it be that he compromised to get the nomination?

 

[KenH]

He now says he is against DOMA and would favor its repeal.

As Bob Barr stated this morning on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" he favors the continuation of DOMA; however, there is a provision in DOMA that he says is being used to indirectly impose a federal definition of marriage on the states and he would like to see that provision repealed.

It is at about the 27 minute mark:

http://switchboard.real.com/player/email.html?PV=6.0.12&&title=Washington%20Journal%3A%20Monday%2C%205%2F26%2F08&link=rtsp%3A%2F%2Fvideo1.c%2Dspan.org%2Farchive%2Fc08%2Fc08%5Fwj052608%5Fbarr.rm

Click on "Click to start RealPlayer" at the link above.

 

[TomVols]

But wasn't that one of the main goals of DOMA, some of Barr's own work?

Thanks for the link. I missed it this morning and forgot to TIVO it.

 

[KenH]

But wasn't that one of the main goals of DOMA, some of Barr's own work?

Not according to Bob Barr in his testimony on the Federal Marriage Amendment on 3/30/2004:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]To both these ends, I authored the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. DOMA, as it's commonly known, was designed to provide individual states individual autonomy in deciding how to recognize marriages and other unions within their borders. For the purposes of federal law only, DOMA codified marriage as a heterosexual union. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]In the states, it allowed legislatures the latitude to decide how to deal with marriage rights themselves, but ensured that no one state could force another to recognize marriages of same-sex couples.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]It was a reasonable and balanced measure, mindful of federal interests but respectful of principles of federalism. It has never been successfully challenged. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Importantly, at the time of its drafting, many of my colleagues in Congress tried to make DOMA a pro-active, punitive law that would force a particular definition of marriage on the states.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Their desired measure would have been the statutory equivalent of the main constitutional ban on any legal recognition of same-sex and unmarried couples that was pending before you until last week, and which has been replaced by a slightly modified substitute.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]We rejected such an approach then, and we ought to now as well. Simply put, DOMA was meant to preserve federalism, not to dictate morals from Washington. In our federal system, the moral norms of a given state should govern its laws in those areas where the Constitution confers sovereign power to the states or does not expressly grant it to the federal government."[/FONT]

- www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12110leg20040330.html

 

[carpro]

Could it be that he compromised to get the nomination?

Wants it bad , but couldn't handle it as a Republican.

Paul is a libertarian trying as a Republican.
Barr is a republican trying as a Libertarian.

Both lack the courage of their convictions(party wise) and are now simply losers.

 

[KenH]

Both lack the courage of their convictions(party wise) and are now simply losers.

I think you will be eating those words come the morning after November 4.

 

[carpro]

I think you will be eating those words come the morning after November 4.

No I won't.

Not a chance.

 

[KenH]

Just some friendly advice, carpro: Don't bet your house on your prediction.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think you will be eating those words come the morning after November 4.

Didn't you say something similar about Obama?

 

[carpro]

Just some friendly advice, carpro: Don't bet your house on your prediction.

I'm not given to delusional thinking based on what I want to take place.

My house is safe. Watch out for yours.

I repeat. Not a chance.

Neither Bob Barr nor Ron Paul will be elected President in 2008.

Tattoo it backwards on your forehead so you can read it every morning. It'll start your day off with a dose of reality.

 

[KenH]

The political terrain has shifted, Pastor Mitchell, now that Bob Barr is in the race. Also, if Bob Barr gets 6% of the vote and helps the LP achieve permanent ballot status in a bunch of states so that candidates can run as Libertarians up and down the ballot and saves the LP hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of man hours in achieving ballot status in future elections that in itself will be a huge, tremendous victory.

 

[KenH]

Neither Bob Barr nor Ron Paul will be elected President in 2008.

You are misunderstanding what I am defining as victory, carpro. Please read my reply to Pastor Mitchell just after your last post.

 

[carpro]

You are misunderstanding what I am defining as victory, carpro. Please read my reply to Pastor Mitchell just after your last post.

Good backstroke. :laugh:

I doubt that you misunderstood my meaning from the beginning.

 

[KenH]

No, I didn't. I was just wondering how long it would take you to figure out mine.

However, I am ruling out the possiblity of an outright victory by Bob Barr, even using your definition. I know you are, but I am not.

 

[carpro]

No, I didn't. I was just wondering how long it would take you to figure out mine.

As I said.

Good backstroke.

 

[just-want-peace]

"When I'm not with the girl I love, I love the girl I'm with."

Old song from way back; however the philosophy is still current.

 

[John18]

I find it disturbing that someone would support and vote for a man that is for abortion and gay marriage/civil unions.

We are warned about homosexuality and we have been told what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.

We have been warned about those that call evil good and good evil yet it seems that many have chosen to ignore this.

We have seen over and over again in the Bible what has happened to those nations that turn their back on God.The US is not exempt from the same fate.

When a person casts a vote,they are supporting what that candidate stands for,you cant pick and choose what you approve of and then turn around and say that we need morals in our country.

When a candidate is a liberal as Obama,a 95 out of 100 score on the liberal scale,it is rather scary that someone can support him.

The US is in a dangerous situation and it seems that many have left the old paths and are following the new.

It seems that many are trying to straddle the fence when it comes to political candidates.

On one side,they support what they consider to be good while they then on the other side say that morals are needed.

People,you cant have it both ways.You cant support a candidate on some issues while you over look the huge ones that are destryong our nation.

Homosexuality and abortion are things that are going to bring our nation to ruin and many seem to overlook the destrucive nature of their acts.

 

[Revmitchell]

The political terrain has shifted, Pastor Mitchell, now that Bob Barr is in the race. Also, if Bob Barr gets 6% of the vote and helps the LP achieve permanent ballot status in a bunch of states so that candidates can run as Libertarians up and down the ballot and saves the LP hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of man hours in achieving ballot status in future elections that in itself will be a huge, tremendous victory.

I see well that is a far cry from:

I think you will be eating those words come the morning after November 4.

 

[KenH]

we have been told what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.

One incident of direct judgment that happened thousands of years ago that has not been repeated even though such activity has continued all these years.