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

[David Rudder]

Jed,
I really liked your write-up.  Yes, Barr's support of the California law
isn't a support for gay marriage, it's a constitutional thing.

Andrew Tannenbaum has a good write-up of Barr
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/May26.html
(Yes, *that* Andy Tannenbaum.  The Minix guy.  The guy who said Linux
would never succeed.  Turns out, he's a really good statistician).

Tannenbaum claims Barr is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, but I
can't find anything on his site to confirm that.  He's also polling 8%
in Georgia, and Tannenbaum claims that might give Georgia to the Dems.

Maybe the Ron Paul fans will flock to Barr?  It seems to me that most of
 this group is more ideologically in sync with the Libertarians than
with the Republicans.  Jed, would you vote for this guy?  Dennis,
Collins?  Anyone with a shout-out to the LP?

-Dave

P.S.  Dennis, I used the term "real progressive" to contrast with "real
conservative".  We can argue semantics later, but, yes I think it's a
simply rebranding and not something terribly interesting.
P.P.S.  Collins, I really didn't want this to become a "libruhls" vs
"repugnicans" thing.  I'm really interested in what this group thinks of
the current Libertarian Party.

Jed S. Baer wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk