[clue-talk] Any feelings on Barr and Libertarian Party?

[Jed S. Baer]

On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:44:24 -0600
Collins Richey wrote:

> > Barr is campaigning as a true conservative.  When the California
> > Supreme Court laid down its decision to allow gay marriage, Barr
> > responded with "It's a state's right issue, and whatever California
> > does is good for California".
> 
> Where else would you find "true conservative" and approval for gay
> marriage in the same paragraph?

I don't see approval in that statement, taken by itself. A "true
conservative", in this example, would be someone who looks at the U.S.
Constitution and says, "I don't see anything in there giving the federal
government any powers with regard to defining marriage." He might further
examine the 10th Amendment, and conclude that California can do whatever
it wants, since there is no prohibition on the powers of the states in
this regard.

I'm not a historian, so I could be off base here, but it seems to me that
the notion of the government having anything to do with sanctioning
marriage (which is, BTW, a social contract, though if you're religious,
you can apply theological assertions as well), probably came about with
the church -- maybe the Roman Catholic Church -- becoming a political
power as well, for example the Holy Roman Empire. Are there other
examples, earlier in history, of a government being involved in
determining who is, and isn't married?

Getting back to the theological overtones, the current hoolpa we have
over gay marriage seems to me to be based primarily in arguments from the
religious right about it being sinful. However, the 1st amendment can be
used to make an argument that the government can't involve itself in such
issues. If we take away the religious argument, what basis then does the
state have for interference in a contract between two people to live
together and share their lives? From a civil point of view, marriage is
exactly that, and divorce law, and whatever other related statues,
establishes the default terms of the contract. (Another related area are
regulations, if they exist, which require insurance carriers to offer
coverage for spouses.)

A Libertarian position argues against government interference, except
where necessary to protect the rights of the people. Surely, if 2 men or
2 women want to enter into a civil contract to jointly own property and
live under the same roof, etc., then what interest does the state have in
preventing such? It doesn't cause harm to anyone else if they do so. But
if the state says such an arrangement is "marriage", then all of a sudden
a bunch of regulatory crap kicks in, affecting insurance policies,
taxation, and probably a heaping pile of myriad other stuff that
shouldn't exist in the first place.

jed