Gosh, here is something rather interesting.

The author of DOMA, Bob Barr feels this law should be repealed. In this opinion piece he addresses the and federalism.

I am a strong supporter of states rights (you know like the republican party used to say they were)so I found this interesting.

This opinion piece might also be a bit of a political gambit but...we shall see just how the wind blows over these next few years.

At any rate I thought people on both sides of not just the gay marriage debate but those interested in states rights might be interested in this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No defending the Defense of Marriage Act

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.
By Bob Barr
January 5, 2009

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 And, after long and careful consideration, I have come to agree with him that the law should be repealed.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 left now decries DOMA as the barrier to federal recognition and benefits for married gay couples. At the other end of the political spectrum, however, DOMA has been lambasted for subverting the political momentum for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In truth, the language of the legislation -- like that of most federal laws -- was a compromise.

DOMA was indeed designed to thwart the then-nascent move in a few state courts and legislatures to afford partial or full recognition to same-sex couples. The Hawaii court case Baehr vs. Lewin, still active while DOMA was being considered by Congress in mid-1996, provided the immediate impetus.

The Hawaii court was clearly leaning toward legalizing same-sex marriages. So the first part of DOMA was crafted to prevent the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause -- which normally would require State B to recognize any lawful marriage performed in State A -- from being used to extend one state's recognition of same-sex marriage to other states whose citizens chose not to recognize such a union.

Contrary to the wishes of a number of my Republican colleagues, I crafted the legislation so it wasn't a hammer the federal government could use to force states to recognize only unions between a man and a woman. Congress deliberately chose not to establish a single, nationwide definition of marriage.

However, we did incorporate into DOMA's second part a definition of marriage that comported with the historic -- and, at the time, widely accepted -- view of the institution as being between a man and a woman only. But this definition was to be used solely to interpret provisions of federal law related to spouses.

The first part of DOMA, then, is a partial bow to principles of federalism, protecting the power of each state to determine its definition of marriage. The second part sets a legal definition of marriage only for purposes of federal law, but not for the states. That was the theory.

I've wrestled with this issue for the last several years and come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned. In testifying before Congress against a federal marriage amendment, and more recently while making my case to skeptical Libertarians as to why I was worthy of their support as their party's presidential nominee, I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law.

In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.

Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.

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.

Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the Libertarian Party's 2008 nominee for president.

haha Why am I not surprised some of our favorite righties haven't commented on this?

I suspect they might be unsure just what to say.

(Speaking for myself only).

I am not using bulletin boards as my source of news. Do not expect people to comment on articles that you copy-post from some website.

It's not like I have a shortage of articles to read on the web.

I had approached my professor once with a book, asking what does he think about it. He smiled and asked me what did I learned after reading the book? I replied, that I have nothing to say, yet.

"Would you like me to comment on the book's cover then?", he said laughing and walking away.

I think he was onto something.

Bob Barr is a frggn idiot. In 1996 when this rediculout Act was being considered, there were thousands of repudiations. I wrote a letter, myself, to my representatives and another to every Supreme Court Justice, explaining all the stuff
"BARR" is just now figuring out.

The man is an idiot, I can only hope he never writes or even proposes another Act... geeeese

My source was the man who wrote the legislation.

That would differ from some random ass who has a random opinion born out of prejudice, ignorance, selective information gathering and confused postings on random boards.

Why did I copy and post this article?

Because if I said the man who wrote the DOMA now is calling for it's repeal some random self deluded poster would ask me to prove it.

New people to this board should trace some old threads. This arguments been had before.

I don't care what position you represent. This is what happens on these boards. The trolls come out to play. The hateful come out to play. The deluded come out to play.

If you don't post supporting info you are subjected to criticism for not providing support. If you do someone else whines that it was to hard to read, cut and post or too long.

I don't expect anyone to comment. I do expect anyone who might read my posts to think. Perhaps that is too much to hope for??

Oh...thank you for your comment.

I guess I could say that I give the guy credit for reconsidering, but what was he doing when he wrote it? Hell I didn't even know he wrote it. And I don't know much about Barr other than my ex neighbor was going to vote for him.

I can see why they wanted it to pass asap, but it ticks me off that they don't think these things through to begin with.

I don't particularly trust his motives for the reversal either. Is the republican party trying to reform so they win next time? I doubt they would use this issue to reform, but I will stop here because I don't quite understand the point to his reversal. Or I am just too tired right now.

Grr. I hope Gay/Lesbian marriage is legalized everywhere. We can't have people dying along in hospitals D:


Tolerance is good for both sides.

The Defense of Marriage Act will be struck down as unconstitutional.

Trust me.

RW

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship".


This re affirms the right of a state to ignore a gay marriage from another state. It is absurd for residents of a state that does not recognize gay marriage, to be able to go to another state, get married, go home and demand to be recognized. It doesn't establish a federal mandate that forces states to abolish gay marriage. It doesn't tie funding or any other federal compensation to abolition of gay marriage. Your conclusions are typical left wing revisionism.

Bob Barr may have wrote it, but to this day, Bill Clinton makes no apologies for signing it.

I think that the definition of marriage is two adults who are making a commitment to each other to support, cherish and love one another.

It should be a national law that this is the definition of marriage.

The only thing standing that defines marriage as man and woman are religious based ALL RELIGIOUS STUFF NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM GOVERNENT AT ALL COSTS. Religion does not govern our nation and they need to know it.

Now read it.

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting legislation under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe."


HMmmmmmm,,,,,,,
Where have I heard something like that before??

psst fanta...what party are we bashing????

Darn Republicans!
As always. Its kinda become an American tradition!

well now i'm lost without a map lol...did clinton sign it in??? i KNOW he wasn't a rep

He's the Sec of State's wife,,,uh, husband.