Libertarian Party applauds DOMA strikedown

Libertarian Party Press Release ^ | June 26, 2013 | Libertarian Party

[Timber Rattler]

The Libertarian Party applauds the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today to strike the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that discriminates against non-heterosexual marriages.

The Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since its founding in 1971.

[little jeremiah]

If these libertarians are going to vomit all over FR like this, I’m going to have to take a long break.

[little jeremiah]

So you place no blame whatsoever on homosexual activists who have been agitating for same sex marriage for a long time? Via courts and various kinds of legislation? They’re pure as the driven snow? Only evil people who don’t want same sex marriage forced on the whole country are the evil ones?

[Mad Dawgg]

"So that is a yes then, you support the libertarian position on personal relationships."

Are you impaired in some way we are not aware of?

How can I make this any clearer.

My position is simple. If the Constitution does not give the power to regulate any issue be it personal relationships or whether its legal to own a Frisbee then I don't want them involved in the issue.

If libertarians agree with that position then so be it. But see I don't need to identify with a group to make up my own mind. I can read the Constitution by myself and understand it.

AND someday if you work real hard you will be able to do so as well!

[little jeremiah]

Libertarians never do respond to the libertarian position, they flinch like vampires and refuse to respond.

You got that straight, they never answer that question, I've asked many of them numerous times.

[little jeremiah]

Yes it is a noob retread, absolutely.

Jim, PlanToDisappear needs a bit of attention.

[little jeremiah]

So people should have just rolled over and let homosexual activists pass whatever laws they want. Fag marriage, fag adoption, fag foster children, fag clubs in schools, fags teaching children how to be fags, fags in the military, and so on. And anyone not wanting to go along with the fag agenda is guilty of various hate crimes and should be punished.

That is obviously your postion since you have said not one word against how the homosexual activists have used GOVERNMENT to force their agenda for 25 years.

Your position is very clear.

[Nowhere Man]

One more time. If you give the Fed Gov power over something THEY WILL DESTROY IT!

Agreed, I think all of this started with DOMA. As we all know, government tends to destroy things instead of building them, there have been very few successful government programs, I can name only one offhand which was the Apollo Moon Landing.

[tanknetter]

Crap like this is why the Libertarian Party has never amounted to a hill of beans, and why it never will.

I don't know, I think that (and this is strictly from a political mechanics standpoint) the Libertarians are doing a smart thing for themselves here.

There are Republicans (note, I'm not using the word "Conservative") who are looking for other alternatives. The coalition that elected Reagan and Bush (43) and brought in the GOP House/Senate in 1994 was made up of Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives and Foreign Policy/National Security hawks. That coalition is increasingly balkanized and is in the process of fracturing.

Then there are Democrats (note, I'm not using the word "Liberal") who are looking for other alternatives as well. Primarily young people who right now seem to be damn ticked off about the surveillance thing (witness Pelosi getting heckled and booed at Netroots), but aren't willing to cross over to the GOP because they can't stand Social Conservatives.

The Libertarians are trying to position themselves to pick off people from both those groups, with an emphasis right now on dissatisfied young Dem voters. Who actually support gay marriage to a large degree. So what the Libertarians do is inoculate themselves from criticism on social issues while hammering away at wedge issues like the surveillance.

It's not a bad strategy at all, again just from a political mechanics standpoint. Kinda surprising that the Libertarians actually put down their bongs long enough to come up with it tho.

[Mad Dawgg]

"That is obviously your position since you have said not one word against how the homosexual activists have used GOVERNMENT to force their agenda for 25 years."

Ahh we have finally hit on the truth of the matter. HOW DID THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA USE GOVERNMENT TO TRASH MARRIAGE?

BY EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. Now if Government had not been involved in the first place they would have had no argument.

Thus QED! Thank you for proving my position. Which is Marriage should not be in the purview of Government!

[little jeremiah]

You are a fool.

Equal protection should not apply. There is no class of people who intrinsically practice perversion. It is not like being born a particular race.

You are a fool and don’t belong on FR. I’m sick of your lying idiocy.

You should be happy now, go have a party or something.

[little jeremiah]

If you think that homosexual activists are not the movers and engineers of this, you are beyond deluded.

Have fun with this because it’s going to be a rough ride, and freaking liberaltarians share the blame along with the perverts. But I probably am repeating myself.

[Amendment10]

Dissenting (Alito -- correctly -- notes that in defining marriage, DOMA does not infringe on the States' rights to regulate it.)

Good grief! Defining marriage is an act of regulating marriage which the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to do.

[Mad Dawgg]

"You are a fool."

"Equal protection should not apply."

I'm a fool?

Did you read the damn decision? You dumb ass "Equal Protection Under the Law" was exactly the reason the Court used to strike down the law:

"DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government," Kennedy said...

Maybe you should actually bone up on a issue before you try and talk about it.

[vox_freedom]

Ditto's little jeremiah.

[Nowhere Man]

I see your concerns, maybe there were times things have gotten out of hand on the side of the homosexual lobby, heck, you have hotheads on both sides. My take is that if I was on the Scotus, I'd ask, "OK, what does the Federal Constitution say on this matter?" That is the only important question. My take is that the Constitution is silent on the Federal level, thus kicking it back to the States, that's how I write my opinion. I remember Red Skelton did a presentation on how the system works where you have 48 individual States (well in his day, 50 States now or if you are Obongo, 57 States B-P) getting together to unite as one, yet each are individual. On this matter, it means some States will allow same sex marriage, others oppose it, others may not even care. Let the people of each State decide through their representatives. Sure I have a personal take on it but we need to remember, "What would the Constitution say?" Again the ruling on Prop 8 destroys that.

I guess if there are people that want the Feds involved in defining marriage, which I don't suggest, but the legal way to do it is to amend he Constitution itself much like Serbia and Russia did.

[Nowhere Man]

Did you read the damn decision? You dumb ass "Equal Protection Under the Law" was exactly the reason the Court used to strike down the law:

You're right but that is bad law, IMHO. The news reporters did say that the SCOTUS was afraid to use the States' rights clause because it would open up a lot more issues even though that is the correct response.

[ansel12]

Which is Marriage should not be in the purview of Government!

Who should decide what marriage is, churches only?

[FredZarguna]

The statute defines marriage for the purposes of the Act in terms of who participates in it in a way consistent with the entire history of law including more than 1000 years of the Common Law and marriage as defined by all 50 states at the time the law was written.

When Alito says the "definition of marriage" under that kind of context it's clear that the definition is expository, falls clearly under the judicial discretion afforded to terms in common use, and is not a regulation. I know you've got an untenable position to defend, but please stop being outrageously silly or I'll have to stop discussing this with you.

[Amendment10]

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [X Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition (emphasis added)." --Thomas Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791.

[FredZarguna]

Here is the issue you are missing, and why DOMA was passed to begin with.

Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, every state is Constitutionally required [to respect the] "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

The meaning of this Clause in case law has never been fully resolved as it applies generally; it has always been dealt with on a case by case basis (or weighed against the case law already ruled upon.) It has never been satisfactorily resolved with regards to marriage in particular. In (long) past holdings, the Court did not rule that states which forbade interracial marriages had to recognize interracial marriages performed in other states. Nobody believes the court would do anything but require them to be recognized today.

The reason for DOMA was that gay activists attempting to pass gay "marriage" in Hawaii told supporters and contributors that once gay "marriage" was approved there, gay "marriage"s performed in Hawaii would have to be recognized in every other state (because of the FFC Clause.)

In the event, the initiative failed in Hawaii, but Congress -- and President Clinton -- wanted to short circuit the possibility that Federal Courts would require gay "marriages" performed in one state to be recognized in another.

The Constitution gives Congress broad power to circumscribe the authority of the Federal Judiciary.

[

Article III, Section 2 clearly states: "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

]

There is no aspect of DOMA which would have forbidden the Federal Courts from involving themselves in such cases that can possibly be deemed Unconstitutional.

Had Congress simply removed the Court's jurisdiction to rule in cases involving the FFC Clause in case involving the definition of marriage, DOMA would have survived.