Chuck Baldwin on gay marriage

[libertyVI]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_baldwin.html

This seems like it would have been posted already, but I can't find it anywhere. This saddens me a little because I was probably going to vote for Chuck but this article shows that he doesn't understand the real principles of liberty and he certainly lacks critical thinking skills. Any thinking human would read this and say it's completely ridiculous. His political judgment is severely clouded by his religion (or, more accurately, what people of his religion are "supposed" to think). I really thought he was different, but I guess not.

I have nobody to vote for now. Barr won't get my vote, and neither will Baldwin. Paul write-ins aren't counted, so it's meaningless. I guess the presidential section of my ballot might just go empty.

[Caulfield]

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Family

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.

...

Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.

[familydog]

Looks like he has the same position as Barr.

[libertyVI]

I knew about the CP platform. But candidates aren't exactly like the party platform, and Baldwin seemed to stray from it at some of the more authoritarian, meddling parts. Apparently not as much as I thought.

[Kludge]

Looks like he has the same position as Barr.

Barr says that it is a state issue.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/05/16/barr_on_gay_marriage_californi.html

[familydog]

Barr says that it is a state issue.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/05/16/barr_on_gay_marriage_californi.html

So does Baldwin.

They both want to see gay marriage banned at the state level as well it seems.

[electronicmaji]

I disagree with Baldwin, Barr, and Paul on this. If the goverment recognizes straight marriage it must recognize gay marriages. No 2 buts bout it.

[LibertyIn08]

I disagree with Baldwin, Barr, and Paul on this. If the goverment recognizes straight marriage it must recognize gay marriages. No 2 buts bout it.

I'd rather not the government be involved in religious covenants, only property ones.

But I suppose Locke's social contract theory has nothing to do with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

[FrankRep]

Okay, so you don't agree with him 100%.

Don't let one issue sway you from all the great points of Chuck Baldwin.

[Peace&Freedom]

I disagree with Baldwin, Barr, and Paul on this. If the goverment recognizes straight marriage it must recognize gay marriages. No 2 buts bout it.

No, and actually there are 3 buts about it. First, the federal government does not recognize marraige, it recognizes the states' recognition and licensure of it. Second, support for gay marriage seems based on an equal protection argument, when the concept of equal protection rights are supposed to apply to individuals, not groups. And third, it is disputable whether homosexuals are a real group, as behavior is not supposed to be a civil rights category. Presuming the federal government is supposed to directly recognize a special case when it doesn't recognize the general case, is not supposed to equate group rights with individual rights, and using the state to impose legal and social approval of a disputed group upon hundreds of millions of people of faith, is not my idea of 'liberty.'

[mrchubbs]

So does Baldwin.

They both want to see gay marriage banned at the state level as well it seems.

Wow... I challenge you to show me where Barr has said the equivalent of the following by Baldwin from the OP article:


"Beyond that, the willingness of our political and judicial leaders to embrace homosexuality reveals their rejection of God's moral law and authority. It is no coincidence that within a matter of weeks after the White House and federal courts collaborated to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery that the entire nation would be embroiled in a fever pitch effort to legalize same sex marriage. God will not be mocked. When one sows to the wind, he reaps a whirlwind.

By accepting homosexuality, America is now fueling the flames of debauchery. When homosexuality is finally and fully accepted by American law, pedophilia and other more onerous behavior will not be far behind. As such, America is on the verge of a self- induced implosion.

If the American people do not quickly reject the leadership of the two major parties and seek a radical return to moral and constitutional leadership, there is nothing left for America but a steady and certain undoing. "

Perhaps he's closer to the Constitution Party platform than some would like to admit? The rhetoric above is a perfect example of why I will not vote for Baldwin nor any Constitution Party candidate unless they stray far away from this type of theocratic nonsense.


Enjoy.

[electronicmaji]

I don't care what you think. If straight people can get married and its recognized by the state then Gay people should be able to get married to. That fucking simple.

[Kludge]

We should be moving to disallow marital recognition by the state if we are a truly secular society.

[LibertyEagle]

The government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. There. Problem solved. :)

If they're running for President, all I care about is that they believe the Constitution prohibits the federal government from getting involved in this issue. I could care less what their personal opinions are with regard to what they would like to see states do.

[LibertyEagle]

We should be moving to disallow marital recognition by the state if we are a truly secular society.

That's not how our country was founded, you know.

[Kludge]

That's not how our country was founded, you know.

Slavery.

[familydog]

Wow... I challenge you to show me where Barr has said the equivalent of the following by Baldwin from the OP article:


"Beyond that, the willingness of our political and judicial leaders to embrace homosexuality reveals their rejection of God's moral law and authority. It is no coincidence that within a matter of weeks after the White House and federal courts collaborated to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery that the entire nation would be embroiled in a fever pitch effort to legalize same sex marriage. God will not be mocked. When one sows to the wind, he reaps a whirlwind.

By accepting homosexuality, America is now fueling the flames of debauchery. When homosexuality is finally and fully accepted by American law, pedophilia and other more onerous behavior will not be far behind. As such, America is on the verge of a self- induced implosion.

If the American people do not quickly reject the leadership of the two major parties and seek a radical return to moral and constitutional leadership, there is nothing left for America but a steady and certain undoing. "

Perhaps he's closer to the Constitution Party platform than some would like to admit? The rhetoric above is a perfect example of why I will not vote for Baldwin nor any Constitution Party candidate unless they stray far away from this type of theocratic nonsense.


Enjoy.

See. We can all admit it now. The main reason that people hate Baldwin is because of his religion. Well, that and he doesn't have an (L) next to his name.

All I said was that Barr, for moral reasons, has the same position as Baldwin when it comes to the states and gay marriage.

"To be clear, I oppose any marriage save that between one man and one woman. And, I would do all in my power to ensure that such a formulation is the only one operative in my home state of Georgia." (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12110leg20040330.html)

So, why else would Barr oppose gay marriage? Why would he fight with everything he has to make sure a gay couple can't marry? He isn't as vocal about his moral opinions as Baldwin, but I fail to see the difference between the two.

[LibertyEagle]

Slavery.

We were not founded as a secular nation.

I'm not sure what slaves have to do with your argument.

[Kludge]

Errrrm... When did he say he disliked his religion?

He was arguing that his logic was flawed and is allowing his religion to influence his policies in a non-libertarian way.

[Kludge]

We were not founded as a secular nation.

I'm not sure what slaves have to do with your argument.

We were founded with slavery considered acceptable. The past is not relevant to now, only the ideas others left behind.

[LibertyEagle]

We were founded with slavery considered acceptable. The past is not relevant to now, only the ideas others left behind.

The Constitution is past too. Do you also think that irrelevant?

[Kludge]

The Constitution is past too. Do you also think that irrelevant?

Not its ideas... They remain relevant. The document should be unnecessary because administrators should know what they shouldn't do but... *shrug* helps us.

[mrchubbs]

See. We can all admit it now. The main reason that people hate Baldwin is because of his religion. Well, that and he doesn't have an (L) next to his name.

All I said was that Barr, for moral reasons, has the same position as Baldwin when it comes to the states and gay marriage.

"To be clear, I oppose any marriage save that between one man and one woman. And, I would do all in my power to ensure that such a formulation is the only one operative in my home state of Georgia." (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12110leg20040330.html)

So, why else would Barr oppose gay marriage? Why would he fight with everything he has to make sure a gay couple can't marry? He isn't as vocal about his moral opinions as Baldwin, but I fail to see the difference between the two.

I hate no one. I explained why I will not vote for Baldwin. That's far from hate. He's entitled to his opinion. I'm entitled to my opinion that someone who implies that recognition of homosexual marriage is a gateway to legalizing pedophilia is speaking theocratic nonsense. If you can't see a difference between that and your quote from Barr above, then... well read them both again.

I agree with the larger issue of Baldwin and Barr leaving it up to the states, but I will not vote for someone who publicly and proudly says the things that Baldwin says here. That is unless and until he renounces those statements in the same way that Barr has renounced his votes for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War authorization.

Enjoy.

[LibertyEagle]

Not its ideas... They remain relevant. The document should be unnecessary because administrators should know what they shouldn't do but... *shrug* helps us.

Well, that would be putting a lot of faith in man and that is exactly why the Constitution was written. To constrain them. Now, if they'd just follow it. :cool:

Power corrupts.


We were founded with slavery considered acceptable. The past is not relevant to now, only the ideas others left behind.

The past, or history, is VERY important. If more people understood it, we wouldn't be letting our government get away with what they are doing. What's that old saying? "Those who don't know history, are doomed to repeat it." (or it's something close to that)

[familydog]

I hate no one. I explained why I will not vote for Baldwin. That's far from hate. He's entitled to his opinion. I'm entitled to my opinion that someone who implies that recognition of homosexual marriage is a gateway to legalizing pedophilia is speaking theocratic nonsense. If you can't see a difference between that and your quote from Barr above, then... well read them both again.

I agree with the larger issue of Baldwin and Barr leaving it up to the states, but I will not vote for someone who publicly and proudly says the things that Baldwin says here. That is unless and until he renounces those statements in the same way that Barr has renounced his votes for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War authorization.

Enjoy.

Like I said, Barr obviously feels that homosexuals are a threat. That is also why he supports a ban on gay adoption. So again, I'm not sure why you are picking on Baldwin only, when Barr should be getting the same.

So I guess I should be asking you...why does Barr feel that homosexuals are a threat?

[mrchubbs]

Like I said, Barr obviously feels that homosexuals are a threat. That is also why he supports a ban on gay adoption. So again, I'm not sure why you are picking on Baldwin only, when Barr should be getting the same.

So I guess I should be asking you...why does Barr feel that homosexuals are a threat?

I'm not picking on Barr because I've never heard or read of him saying that the end of America is coming because of recognizing homosexual marriage. Nor have I heard him suggest that recognizing homosexual marriage is a gateway to legalizing pedophilia.

I've only heard Barr say that he would repeal the portion of the DOMA that has been used as a federal control club over the states to regulate marriage, and keep the portion that explicitly limits the federal govmt from interfering in state sponsorship or non-sponsorship of marriage.

Enjoy.

[familydog]

I'm not picking on Barr because I've never heard or read of him saying that the end of America is coming because of recognizing homosexual marriage. Nor have I heard him suggest that recognizing homosexual marriage is a gateway to legalizing pedophilia.

I've only heard Barr say that he would repeal the portion of the DOMA that has been used as a federal control club over the states to regulate marriage, and keep the portion that explicitly limits the federal govmt from interfering in state sponsorship or non-sponsorship of marriage.

Enjoy.

Bob Barr flip-flopped on DOMA because he wouldn't get the nomination if he didn't say what the LP wanted to hear. Two days before the convention he was still a strong proponent of it. That is a fact. If you can honestly believe his position is sincere, you are incredibly naive.

So again I'll ask you. Why does Bob Barr want to ban gay marriage? Why does he want to ban gay adoption? Why is Barr so afraid of gay people?

[WRellim]

Errrrm... When did he say he disliked his religion?

He was arguing that his logic was flawed and is allowing his religion to influence his policies in a non-libertarian way.


Well, the same can be said of anyone now can't it.
Candidate X is an atheist (or a ______________) and is obviously suffering from flawed logic [because he disagrees with me], and is allowing his DISBELIEF in any deity (or belief in Xenu or FSM, or whatever) to influence his policies in a libertarian (or non-libertarian, or anti-whig, or pro-socialist... etc.) way.
It's all just "an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, nestled in a sesame seed bun of subjectivity."

[WRellim]

Bob Barr flip-flopped on DOMA because he wouldn't get the nomination if he didn't say what the LP wanted to hear. Two days before the convention he was still a strong proponent of it. That is a fact. If you can honestly believe his position is sincere, you are incredibly naive.

So again I'll ask you. Why does Bob Barr want to ban gay marriage? Why does he want to ban gay adoption? Why is Barr so afraid of gay people?

And actually just a few days after he GOT the nomination, Barr said during an interview (CNN?) that he "still felt it [DOMA] was a GOOD piece of legislation" and he stood by it. (or something to that tune... I don't have an exact quote, but that was the gist of it).

[Hiki]

In what time do some of the people down there live for fucks sakes? It's the 21st century, goddamnit.

[WRellim]

In what time do some of the people down there live for fucks sakes? It's the 21st century, goddamnit.


Some people believe God very well might grant you your wish and do exactly that.
;)

[Hiki]

Some people believe God very well might grant you your wish and do exactly that.
;)

Ehh, I'm not sure I understood :D

[allyinoh]

Wow... I challenge you to show me where Barr has said the equivalent of the following by Baldwin from the OP article:


"Beyond that, the willingness of our political and judicial leaders to embrace homosexuality reveals their rejection of God's moral law and authority. It is no coincidence that within a matter of weeks after the White House and federal courts collaborated to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery that the entire nation would be embroiled in a fever pitch effort to legalize same sex marriage. God will not be mocked. When one sows to the wind, he reaps a whirlwind.

By accepting homosexuality, America is now fueling the flames of debauchery. When homosexuality is finally and fully accepted by American law, pedophilia and other more onerous behavior will not be far behind. As such, America is on the verge of a self- induced implosion.

If the American people do not quickly reject the leadership of the two major parties and seek a radical return to moral and constitutional leadership, there is nothing left for America but a steady and certain undoing. "

Perhaps he's closer to the Constitution Party platform than some would like to admit? The rhetoric above is a perfect example of why I will not vote for Baldwin nor any Constitution Party candidate unless they stray far away from this type of theocratic nonsense.


Enjoy.

You are assuming that because that's his PERSONAL view that he would force that onto others. You are incorrect.

I PERSONALLY believe that homosexuality is wrong based on a Biblical perspective. But I also believe that whatever you do in the comfort of your own home, as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights to life, liberty and property/happiness, is your business.

I believe marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony and should be left up to the church. I don't think that the government ought to tell ANYONE who can and cannot marry. The government's place is NOT in marriage.

If I remember correctly, Baldwin does NOT support a FEDERAL BAN on gay marriage.

[WRellim]

Ehh, I'm not sure I understood :D

Yes you did.

Can't make me type it...
:p

[allyinoh]

In what time do some of the people down there live for fucks sakes? It's the 21st century, g******t.

What do you mean? Makes no sense.

[WRellim]

Wow... I challenge you to show me where Barr has said the equivalent of the following by Baldwin from the OP article:

"Beyond that, the willingness of our political and judicial leaders to embrace homosexuality reveals their rejection of God's moral law and authority. It is no coincidence that within a matter of weeks after the White House and federal courts collaborated to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery that the entire nation would be embroiled in a fever pitch effort to legalize same sex marriage. God will not be mocked. When one sows to the wind, he reaps a whirlwind.

By accepting homosexuality, America is now fueling the flames of debauchery. When homosexuality is finally and fully accepted by American law, pedophilia and other more onerous behavior will not be far behind. As such, America is on the verge of a self- induced implosion.

If the American people do not quickly reject the leadership of the two major parties and seek a radical return to moral and constitutional leadership, there is nothing left for America but a steady and certain undoing. "Perhaps he's closer to the Constitution Party platform than some would like to admit? The rhetoric above is a perfect example of why I will not vote for Baldwin nor any Constitution Party candidate unless they stray far away from this type of theocratic nonsense.


Enjoy.

I believe you are completely missing a major point that Baldwin is trying to make regarding the government granting unprecedented "status changes" to certain groups.

What he is saying is a PREDICTION -- that if the government ensconces homosexuality as a privileged "civil right" via the "special groups deserve special rights" scenario -- that the NEXT group to "demand" to be legitimized with a "special legalized status" will be pedophilia... and after that necrophilia... etc.

In other words he is as AT LEAST (and I think MORE CORRECTLY) talking about a slippery slope of "special group status" (which Ron Paul also decried) as he is the specifics of sexual mores of individuals.


It would be as if "blond haired blue eyed people" were seeking to achieve special status under civil rights laws (or some would say a closer parallel would be "goth makeup wearing individuals" are seeking anti-discrimination quotas -- that all companies have to hire X% of "goths" or be faced with a fine... once THAT were done... we would have opened the proverbial door to demands by "people with tattoos on their left arms" or "people with rings through their noses" or any of a host of even smaller and smaller groups demanding "equal" (aka "special") treatment -- despite the lack of precedent for that as a basis in law).



Does that make you see it from a potentially different angle?
It's NOT simply "theocracy" that he is talking about -- it's legal concepts and setting precedents of "special group rights" for smaller and smaller "minority groups" that he is talking about "...fully accepted by American law..." (and yes, especially ones based on sexual "preferences" -- which cause is still controversial and scientifically uncertain origin, but because it opens the "door" to ALL claims of sexual preference as being "special").

It's like he is saying "Well judges, once you accept the concept of the 'insanity plea' as a valid defense... lookout, you're gonna get even more obscure previously unthinkable uses of 'insanity' as a defense."

--- Like say the "twinkie caused insanity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense) as the reason the guy {in LA? had to be CA somewhere} was not responsible for murder.



BTW there *ARE* other precedents for Baldwin's "slippery slope" prediction in this regard -- for example, divorce was once extremely difficult, and rare was the person who got divorced more than once. Once it was accepted as a "norm" and made easier in law, it subsequently became ever easier and easier for divorce to occur, to the point that many people have now been married and divorced multiple times (with devastating effects on children in the families) ...and likewise government (the law) essentially allows "marital rights" (division of property, insurance, health benefits, etc) to be claimed even in absence of an actual marriage (of record).... hence we "reap" what we have "sown." (This is not just a "religious" saying, it was once considered a common colloquialism... like many of Poor Richard's sayings... "a penny saved is a penny earned" etc.)

[Hiki]

What do you mean? Makes no sense.

This whole "Homosexuality is wrong!" thingie. Seriously what is the problem here, because a 2000year old book says that it's an abomination? Because of that homosexuals arent allowed to act like themselves?

I do agree on the issue that it's the Church's own business what they do inside their buildings and the government should have no business there. But I think that homosexuals should be allowed to have a legal union, a "non-religious" marriage if the church denies them the right (which, if they follow the Bible, would be the "right" thing to do.)

[allyinoh]

nm

[JS4Pat]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_baldwin.html

I have nobody to vote for now. Barr won't get my vote, and neither will Baldwin. Paul write-ins aren't counted, so it's meaningless. I guess the presidential section of my ballot might just go empty.

I disagree with Baldwin on this issue - but it isn't a "deal breaker" for me as far as support or a vote. I think we came so close to perfection in Dr. Paul that we might be a little impractical and unrealistic when it comes to supporting others within the Freedom Movement. This gay mariiage issue is a tough one for people of faith - especially older people. (I had to "come around" on it.)

I'm willing to cut some slack in this area if the candidate is with me on abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve, supporting a non-interventionist foreign policy and reducing the size and scope of the Federal government.

[Hiki]

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Why should that change for a small minority of people? There have always been gay people since the beginning of time. (Nothing new under the sun.) It's only until recently that they are trying to change things. Gay people have the same rights as straight people because they are PEOPLE.

Anyway, I just don't think that the FED GOVT should be saying who can or cannot get married. First it's a church thing but if the gov't is going to stay in the business of marriage it should be left up to the people of the state to vote on.


Mmm... Tradition. Just think that it's funny to allow it only between man and woman, but as said it's by far a religious thing. But if a gay couple want the same "benefits" a marriage gives, then why should they be denied those based on an old religious book? That's why I think that homosexuals should be allowed to have a registered legal relationship, basically the same thing as a marriage but without the "religious" sigma. That's the system we have here in Finland, and many European countries have the same thing.
When it comes to the religious marriage, it's a church thing and the government should have no authority to tell them what they can do.



I read somewhere that in Massachusettes a gay couple who fought for "gay rights" and were the first women married have already been seeking a divorce. Of course straight people get divorced all the time, it just seems funny to me that people fought so hard to be able to be called husband and husband or wife and wife and now they are fighting for their right to get divorced...

That's life.

[allyinoh]

Mmm... Tradition. Just think that it's funny to allow it only between man and woman, but as said it's by far a religious thing. But if a gay couple want the same "benefits" a marriage gives, then why should they be denied those based on an old religious book? That's why I think that homosexuals should be allowed to have a registered legal relationship, basically the same thing as a marriage but without the "religious" sigma. That's the system we have here in Finland, and many European countries have the same thing.
When it comes to the religious marriage, it's a church thing and the government should have no authority to tell them what they can do.




Well no offense, but just because Europe does something doesn't mean America should do it. Europe is what gets America into trouble. I mean, our Founding Fathers came here and left Europe for a reason.

Wanting to get married so you can get benefits defeats the whole purpose of marriage. It makes a mockery of marriage.

To solve the problem-stop giving benefits to married people. I would be completely fine with that.

[allyinoh]

I'm willing to cut some slack in this area if the candidate is with me on abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve, supporting a non-interventionist foreign policy and reducing the size and scope of the Federal government.

I agree. Gay marriage and abortion (issues like that) are really non-issues to me at this point in time.

The things you listed are the MOST important and those are the ones we should be focusing on.

[Peace&Freedom]

Mmm... Tradition. Just think that it's funny to allow it only between man and woman, but as said it's by far a religious thing. But if a gay couple want the same "benefits" a marriage gives, then why should they be denied those based on an old religious book? That's why I think that homosexuals should be allowed to have a registered legal relationship, basically the same thing as a marriage but without the "religious" sigma.

So, more government licensure and intervention in private human relationships, equals more liberty? Introducing force (state registration) to impose legal and social acceptance of 3% of the population's immoral behavior on 95% of the population, equals more liberty? Thereby imposing a secularist stigma equals more liberty? The myth of state neutrality seems to be a background assumption of the pro-gay civil union position, but to me and others it is latently humanist-theocratic to the core.

[Hiki]

Well no offense, but just because Europe does something doesn't mean America should do it. Europe is what gets America into trouble. I mean, our Founding Fathers came here and left Europe for a reason.

Wanting to get married so you can get benefits defeats the whole purpose of marriage. It makes a mockery of marriage.

To solve the problem-stop giving benefits to married people. I would be completely fine with that.

Well Canada does it too, in fact they go even further and allow gay couples to have a real marriage.
Nowadays the trouble goes the other way.

Well that's true. That's why I think that if a couple loves each other deeply, why even bother with a marriage? But yeah, a lot of people want to go with tradition and also the "benefits", so why deny it for people who just happen to like the same gender?

[tonesforjonesbones]

I am against ANY marrige legislation . I say that marriage is not a federal OR state issue. Before the War Of Northern Aggression, there were no "marriage licenses". We had common law. People picked their partners and generally the man approached the woman's father to ask permission. They went off to the church and got married..no paperwork whatsoever. Sheesh. That is the way it SHOULD be. After that war when interracial marriages came about...the issue of permission from the state came up and they charged the couples a fee. The greedy states decided they liked the tax and imposed it on everyone. We should END taxing the institution of marriage PERIOD! They (the wicked government) want you entered into a contract with your spouse AND the state ...for financial reasons and to gain control of your DNA. LOOK at what just happened to those families in Texas which I considered a huge infringement on those people's civil rights. TONES

[mrchubbs]

And actually just a few days after he GOT the nomination, Barr said during an interview (CNN?) that he "still felt it [DOMA] was a GOOD piece of legislation" and he stood by it. (or something to that tune... I don't have an exact quote, but that was the gist of it).

A day after the convention he reiterated what I just said. He's for repealing the portion of DOMA that has been used by the feds as an excuse to regulate the states sponsorship of marriage. He's for keeping the portion that explicitly protects the states right to regulate or not regulate marriage.

So he's not completely for repeal of the DOMA, just the portion that is against federalism.

Enjoy.

[familydog]

Well that's true. That's why I think that if a couple loves each other deeply, why even bother with a marriage? But yeah, a lot of people want to go with tradition and also the "benefits", so why deny it for people who just happen to like the same gender?

If they want the benefits, apply for a domestic partnership. One doesn't have to be "married" to have these benefits.

[familydog]

A day after the convention he reiterated what I just said. He's for repealing the portion of DOMA that has been used by the feds as an excuse to regulate the states sponsorship of marriage. He's for keeping the portion that explicitly protects the states right to regulate or not regulate marriage.

So he's not completely for repeal of the DOMA, just the portion that is against federalism.

Enjoy.

So do you believe his "conversion" is sincere? Like I said, he was told he had to change his position if he wanted to get the nomination.

[zach]

They're entitled to their opinions on this, but linking homosexuality with pedophilia makes me question how Baldwin and/or Barr will handle gay marriage. Are they leaving this up for the states to decide?

[kombayn]

I'd rather not the government be involved in religious covenants, only property ones.

But I suppose Locke's social contract theory has nothing to do with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Most people do not understand that when people want gay marriage, they're not doing it to go to the Church. That's almost suicide, they want gay marriage so they can get all the benefits as well for being married. Better tax incentives, etc. So the government does need to be involved with gay marriage. I fully support it 100%, you're alienating people's civil rights because of their sexual orientation. Plus, Chuck Baldwin doesn't get it and that shows off his true side of things. He would act as a Theocratic Fascist telling us what is moral and what isn't.

[zach]

He would act as a Theocratic Fascist telling us what is moral and what isn't.

Who, the Huckster?

[mtmedlin]

So, more government licensure and intervention in private human relationships, equals more liberty? Introducing force (state registration) to impose legal and social acceptance of 3% of the population's immoral behavior on 95% of the population, equals more liberty? Thereby imposing a secularist stigma equals more liberty? The myth of state neutrality seems to be a background assumption of the pro-gay civil union position, but to me and others it is latently humanist-theocratic to the core.

Did you just say forcing 3% of the populations immoral behavior on the 95%? Are you being serious or is this a really bad joke? The actions of those 3% in no way shape or form restrict your freedom, or damage your property, so how in the hell is it a problem for you other then your stick in the ass religious beliefs. Remember in the Constitution that Freedom of Religion has always stood for freedom FROM religion, just as much as it is freedom for religion.
The bible in no way stipulates the differences within sin. A sin is a sin neither great nor small. If someone is gay, is it worse then my eternal love of the word FUCK. I LOVE to use the word FUCK. It is amazingly offensive to some and I am certain that most christians would see it as a major sin. IS my love of this word enough for you to force me to not say it?
How about if I loved more then one women? Would it be ok if we screwed like fuzzy bunnies till the morning light came up....as long as neither girl touched each other? remember that defining marriage between a man and a women limits it to a single man and women and I do have to say that an occasional extra in the bedroom aint all bad! Are you willing to force me to never have two wives....many of the disciples did. Hell many in the middle east still do.
Gays living their life do not harm you. You forcing your moral position down their throat and having the government deny equal status DOES harm them. IS this truly the act of Christ. SHow me in the Bible where he segregated out people and turned them away. I dare say he would have had and might have had gays at many of his events.
Do the words judge not less ye be judged come to mind? How about not removing the spec from thy neighbor.... He without sin cast the first stone? ANything......Anything at all ring a bell?
If your going to attempt to create a theocracy at least follow the direction of the leader himself. Christ wasnt even as much of a bigot as the rest of you.

[mtmedlin]

They're entitled to their opinions on this, but linking homosexuality with pedophilia makes me question how Baldwin and/or Barr will handle gay marriage. Are they leaving this up for the states to decide?

funny thing is the rate of pedophilia amongst "out" gay males is significantly lower then the Catholic church.
:eek:

[haigh]

So do you believe his "conversion" is sincere? Like I said, he was told he had to change his position if he wanted to get the nomination.

Here's Barr calling for the repeal of DOMA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1zBkDqYjhU

[mrchubbs]

So do you believe his "conversion" is sincere? Like I said, he was told he had to change his position if he wanted to get the nomination.

Yes I believe he is sincere.

Whether he was told such a thing just to get the nomination is a total guess/conjecture on your part, yet you state it as if you know it to be true.

The truth in fact is that Barr opposed any federal control over marriage way back when he authored the DOMA. The act was abused by the feds and he'd like to overturn that portion that allows such abuse.

Rather than conjecture here is a quote from Ron Paul saying how he agree's with Barr's assessment of the DOMA. This is from 2004, so unless the Libertarians in power traveled back in time and told Barr to say this so he could get the nomination in 2008, I think your suggestion is simply wrong.



Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:

“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution."

Source:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

The point is, Barr has been for federalism for a long time and Ron Paul back in 2004 praises and agrees with him for his position.

Enjoy.

[Mesogen]

It never ceases to amaze me how people can call themselves libertarian, then scream that it's a state's right to interfere with a person's personal life.

It's so dishonest.

[Theocrat]

It never ceases to amaze me how people can call themselves libertarian, then scream that it's a state's right to interfere with a person's personal life.

It's so dishonest.

I think it's because you confuse being a libertarian with being a libertine. A true libertarian believes that people have the freedom to do what's right, not what necessarily feels good to them, which is essentially hedonism. I would venture to say that most libertarians on these forums are really libertines and just don't know it.

Though I would agree with you that marriage should not be a function of civil government, it still, nonetheless, is a ministry of God's Church. It is God Who defines marriage, not man, and therefore, man cannot just arbitrarily decide to marry someone of the same sex because that is sin in God's eyes.

True liberty comes from deliverance from sin, and that is by a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ. How can a man who is enslaved to sin thereby be free? It's impossible. Those who find pleasure in their sin (like homosexuals) cannot be libertarian by nature, but in truth, they are libertines who have no moral restraints upon their own sexual perversion. As I've said before, if we lose our standards of morality, we cannot have justice. If we lack justice, then there will be no peace. If there is no peace, there is no prosperity, and therefore, a society will eventually crumble into the dust of other fallen and depraved civilizations in history past.

[amy31416]

I think it's because you confuse being a libertarian with being a libertine. A true libertarian believes that people have the freedom to do what's right, not what necessarily feels good to them, which is essentially hedonism. I would venture to say that most libertarians on these forums are really libertines and just don't know it.

Though I would agree with you that marriage should not be a function of civil government, it still, nonetheless, is a ministry of God's Church. It is God Who defines marriage, not man, and therefore, man cannot just arbitrarily decide to marry someone of the same sex because that is sin in God's eyes.

True liberty comes from deliverance from sin, and that is by a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ. How can a man who is enslaved to sin thereby be free? It's impossible. Those who find pleasure in their sin (like homosexuals) cannot be libertarian by nature, but in truth, they are libertines who have no moral restraints upon their own sexual perversion. As I've said before, if we lose our standards of morality, we cannot have justice. If we lack justice, then there will be no peace. If there is no peace, there is no prosperity, and therefore, a society will eventually crumble into the dust of other fallen and depraved civilizations in history past.

I certainly don't want to get enmeshed in this debate, but, as a female, I have a vested interest in homosexuality being something that society can be open about.

Homosexuality has existed since written history and likely prior, and it's not going to go away. Animals in the wild exhibit homosexual behavior. In a repressed society where gay men try to force themselves into a socially acceptable role of heterosexual male--they end up marrying women and hurting them profoundly. There are so many instances of closeted males destroying women's self-esteem and essentially wasting their time, making vows that they can't keep.

Living a lie is never the answer.

[kombayn]

I certainly don't want to get enmeshed in this debate, but, as a female, I have a vested interest in homosexuality being something that society can be open about.

Homosexuality has existed since written history and likely prior, and it's not going to go away. Animals in the wild exhibit homosexual behavior. In a repressed society where gay men try to force themselves into a socially acceptable role of heterosexual male--they end up marrying women and hurting them profoundly. There are so many instances of closeted males destroying women's self-esteem and essentially wasting their time, making vows that they can't keep.

Living a lie is never the answer.

+1, good post. Theocrat, you don't have the right to tell people how to live their lives. You can have your opinion by subjecting people to morals they don't follow is wrong.

[Theocrat]

I certainly don't want to get enmeshed in this debate, but, as a female, I have a vested interest in homosexuality being something that society can be open about.

Homosexuality has existed since written history and likely prior, and it's not going to go away. Animals in the wild exhibit homosexual behavior. In a repressed society where gay men try to force themselves into a socially acceptable role of heterosexual male--they end up marrying women and hurting them profoundly. There are so many instances of closeted males destroying women's self-esteem and essentially wasting their time, making vows that they can't keep.

Living a lie is never the answer.

First of all, we're not animals, so trying to compare human sexual behavior to animals is simply irrelevant. We find animals in the wild which perform cannibalism, too, but that's not a moral behavior that humans should emulate, either, just like homosexuality.

Second of all, I disagree with your premise that heterosexuality is a "socially acceptable role." Heterosexuality is simply a natural behavior (as evidenced by our inherent sexual organs and reproductive systems), and that's how God created us. Man were created to enjoy women, and vice versa. The only repression which correlates with homosexuality comes from within the person who chooses to act contrary to his or her own sexual nature. Homosexuality is a choice, not a chromosome.

[coyote_sprit]

Though I would agree with you that marriage should not be a function of civil government, it still, nonetheless, is a ministry of God's Church. It is God Who defines marriage, not man, and therefore, man cannot just arbitrarily decide to marry someone of the same sex because that is sin in God's eyes.

Not everybody has the same god remember that.

[Theocrat]

+1, good post. Theocrat, you don't have the right to tell people how to live their lives. You can have your opinion by subjecting people to morals they don't follow is wrong.

Hmmm. You say I don't have the right to tell people how to live their lives, and it's wrong, but then you're telling me how to live my life by not subjecting people to morals they don't follow, and for that, I'm wrong. That makes sense... :rolleyes:

[Peace&Freedom]

Did you just say forcing 3% of the populations immoral behavior on the 95%? Are you being serious or is this a really bad joke? The actions of those 3% in no way shape or form restrict your freedom, or damage your property, so how in the hell is it a problem for you other then your stick in the ass religious beliefs.

If the government officially recognized Jesus Christ as Lord, exactly how would that restrict your freedom? As the actions of Christians don't affect you or your property, how would it be a problem for you? Or, would you have a problem with your taxmoney being used to effectively promote the state's Christian position, but NOT a problem with MY tax money being used by government to effectively promote a gay-relations-are-morally-neutral position?

Clearly, some people want a situation where only the acknowledgement of traditional religious beliefs by the state becomes an 'issue,' but never its adoption of humanist religious beliefs. If 'imposing values or beliefs' on others is improper, it is invalid whether done by the social left on the right, or the social right on the left. Stick in the mud secularism is a problem, as far as I'm concerned, and just as imposive as other beliefs.

[familydog]

Yes I believe he is sincere.

Whether he was told such a thing just to get the nomination is a total guess/conjecture on your part, yet you state it as if you know it to be true.

The truth in fact is that Barr opposed any federal control over marriage way back when he authored the DOMA. The act was abused by the feds and he'd like to overturn that portion that allows such abuse.

Rather than conjecture here is a quote from Ron Paul saying how he agree's with Barr's assessment of the DOMA. This is from 2004, so unless the Libertarians in power traveled back in time and told Barr to say this so he could get the nomination in 2008, I think your suggestion is simply wrong.



Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:

“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution."

Source:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

The point is, Barr has been for federalism for a long time and Ron Paul back in 2004 praises and agrees with him for his position.

Enjoy.

Like I said, both Barr and Baldwin have the same opinion on this issue. They both disaprove of homosexuality personally, and they would have no problem banning it in their respective states. Barr has called the homosexual lifestyle bizzare (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/13/barr-dont-ask/)

By the way, it is indeed true that Barr would not get the nomination unless he changed his opinion. I thought this was well known which is why I didn't cite it.

"On the Friday afternoon before last (May 23), Barr came on my radio program to talk about his run for the presidency. The Libertarian Party was convening that weekend in Denver, and he was hopeful that he would get the nomination.

We spent some time discussing DOMA, which he authored and sponsored in 1996 and which Bill Clinton signed into law. He'd come out a few years ago against an amendment to the U.S. Constitution barring gays from marrying, largely because he felt DOMA took care of the problem: states would not have to recognize gay marriages from other states if they didn't want to do so. On the show, he supported the California Supreme Court decision of two weeks ago based on the fact that California exercised its sovereign right and that other states would not have to recognize the marriages because of DOMA. We went back and forth about DOMA, the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, and how, in my view, his position just didn't gel with libertarian principles. Nonetheless, he staunchly defended DOMA.

Then, two days later, in his acceptance speech after snagging the Libertarian Party nomination, Barr vowed that he would work to repeal DOMA!

What the hell happened? According to Brian Miller, a Libertarian Party member and a member of Outright Libertarians, an LGBT group, Barr was told he wouldn't get the nomination unless he changed his position on DOMA. Outright Libertarians led the charge with the leadership to pressure Barr; Miller is a listener to my show and heard me comparing audio clips showing Barr's turnaround, and called in last week to explain what happened behind the scenes at the convention." (http://signorile2003.blogspot.com/2008/06/bob-barrs-curious-flip-flop-some.html)

There you have it. If you can believe Barr on this issue (or any other) simply because he asks you to trust him, you are naive.