Wedding blues

The author of the federal Defense of Marriage Act now thinks it’s time for his law to get the boot – but for political reasons, not in support of gays.

In 1996, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, I wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, better known by its shorthand acronym, DOMA, than its legal title. The law has been a flash-point for those arguing for or against same-sex marriage ever since President Clinton signed it into law. Even President-elect Barack Obama has grappled with its language, meaning and impact.

I can sympathize with the incoming commander in chief. And, after long and careful consideration, I have come to agree with him that the law should be repealed.

The true libertarian is an amoralist, thinking that common on-the-street life can be segregated from morality. Barr doesn't realize, or chooses not to, is that the Federal Gov't will be forced to consider whether to recognize "marriage," requiring gov't to come up with a definition of what it can recognize - effectively defining marriage. It will be in the marriage whether it wants to our not.

“The true libertarian is an amoralist, thinking that common on-the-street life can be segregated from morality. “

This is an astute statement. At the end of the day, there is no stepping out of the marriage game, as Barr says he wants to do. The major problem with libertarianism is that the government will always further values, whether it wants to acknowledge the fact or not. Everything we do is at least tinged by an underlying value.

In the article,

“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.”

Federal crud slims downhill, and sleazy morality is a race to the bottom. If the federal government doesn’t uphold what the states (much closer to the people’s will) have decided concerning the institution of marriage, then the sleaze of Massachusetts (inter alias) will end up on my doorstep in California. It’s not bad to have common morals; we just want to have morals informed by the right Source.

Uphold the right of the people to set the right moral tone by visiting the National Organization for Marriage site and send emails through the site to your local congressional representatives:

http://www.nationformarriage.org/

At the end of the day, there is no stepping out of the marriage game, as Barr says he wants to do.

Exactly right. Unfortunately, I'm learning that the libertarian solution of getting government out of "marriage" really means getting into the "civil union" business as a lowest-common-denominator construct - effectively legalizing same-sex "marriage." Libertarians and many leftists favor this course of action, saying that we should leave "marriage" to religious institutions to recognize or not. What everyone seems to be willfully oblivious to is that there are a handful of "churches," recognized by the state, that are more than willing to conduct such "marriages" between homosexuals.

Ironically, homo-activists will have done exactly what they've vehemently denied they are trying to do - destroy (government sanctioned) marriage.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.