Comments on: Gravel Issues Gay Marriage Remarks

By: Gary Baumgarten

Gary Baumgarten — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 03:30:50 +0000

Mike Gravel will be my guest on News Talk Online on Paltalk.com at 5 PM New York time Friday June 20.

Go to my blog, http://www.garybaumgarten.com to click on the link to join in the conversation to listen or talk to Gravel.

By: David

David — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:20:27 +0000

The state will always take an interest in marriage because of property issues. The question is how do we prevent the state from discriminating based on sexual orientation. Gravel has been the most outspoken candidate in the race in favor of gay issues. Do a Queerty search on Gravel and see.

By: Conspiracy Theorist

Conspiracy Theorist — Mon, 19 May 2008 02:16:34 +0000

“This is not a states rights issue, as many of my opponents argue.”-Gravel
He is right about that. It is not a government issue at all. Sure give gay couples the same breaks but then you have to give them to polygamists and all other non-traditional relationships. Then you have to give those benefits to singles or you are discriminating against them. Remove government. This idea that a government has to acknowledge your union is ridiculous.

We do not need more federal government we need less government. I would encourage people to look at real Libertarian candidates like Mary Ruwart or Steve Kubby and forget about Barr and Gravel.

The Other David: You do not believe homosexuality is genetic. Then who taught you to lust for women? When did your dad pull you aside and tell you you should like girls? Maybe he had to but most people’s sexual preferences are not dictated by others. The chemical and hormonal reactions that accompany arousal and love are not triggered consciously but unconsciously by mechanisms determined at birth.

By: David

David — Sat, 17 May 2008 17:25:50 +0000

Throughout history, the “let’s just hope they leave us alone” approach has been disastrous for minority groups. It never works. Gays will always be scapegoats as long as they fail to fight for their rights and support candidates who speak passionately and openly about their rights. Legalistic, half-hearted statements from politicians like Bob Barr’s should never be rewarded. I don’t understand how anyone could support a candidate who didn’t defend his/her rights with passion. Sure there are other issues but face it, until you have marriage rights you are a second class citizen. President Mike Gravel will not just sit by and allow the states to do whatever, he will actively advocate gay marriage in the states.

By: Brian Miller

Brian Miller — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:52:20 +0000

Libertarian presidential nominee candidate George Phillies also released a press release on the issue, which he issued the day of the decision (not the day after). I’m disappointed that Queerty didn’t decide to publish it. You can find it here:

http://www.choosegeorge.org/CaliforniaMarriage

Phillies has the added benefit of the endorsement of the gay Libertarian lobby Outright Libertarians, and a long history of fighting anti-gay state and federal laws.

In a recent debate in California, when asked about gay marriage, Phillies said simply that “we have solved the question in Massachusetts.” He received a standing ovation.

By: Mad John

Mad John — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:16:15 +0000

David, marriage is important, but it’s not the only thing I’ll be voting on. I appreciate Gravel’s strong stand on the issue (and find him funny as heck), but like Barr, there are other reasons not to support him.

As well, even Gravel, as president, couldn’t impose gay marriage nationally. The best he could do is back off and let the states make their own way – which is Barr’s position too.

An advocate at the federal level would be nice, but after the last eight years, I’d be happy with just being left alone.

By: Bitch Republic

Bitch Republic — Fri, 16 May 2008 21:15:51 +0000

Perhaps I’ll vote for Gravel since Hillz isn’t likely to get the Dem’s nom.

By: David

David — Fri, 16 May 2008 20:23:36 +0000

But Mad John:
Why not support a candidate who unequivocally supports gay marriage? If Gravel gets the Libertarian nomination, he will promote gay marriage nationally. If Barr gets it, there will be no voice for gay marriage in the race. And Gravel will be yet another politician who speaks out for gays and then goes down in flames. How can you expect politicians to support gay marriage if a homophobe like Barr can get gay support just because he’s a “principled federalist.”

By: Mad John

Mad John — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:55:31 +0000

Well, I won’t speculate what’s in Barr’s head, and there’s not much question that the original intent of DOMA was antigay. But I’d suggest that in recent years, it’s worked to our benefit by rebutting the argument for a federal amendment. States like Texas, et al, don’t have to recognize Massachusetts’ gay marriages – hence, it’s not “needed.” Virtually every top conservative who opposed the FMA has cited this. I kind of like the idea of something that was proposed to repress us is now working as somewhat of a benefit (like the Hatch Act).

Public opinion is changing fairly quickly on gay marriage. There are other reasons to oppose Barr, but on the whole, we could do worse than a principled federalist.

By: CHURCHILL-Y

CHURCHILL-Y — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:18:05 +0000

Good to know there is another option Libertarian Party.

By: Austrian Economist

Austrian Economist — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:02:44 +0000

MAD JOHN:

I wouldn’t call Barr’s statement and expression of “support” so much as weak-willed assent for reasons of belief in states’ rights. Certainly NOT a genuine conviction that all humans have the right to love and express that equally.

Barr’s statement equates to, “I may be bigot, but I’ll observe the law and begrudgingly comply.”

His track record of hateful scorn doesn’t lie.

By: the other david

the other david — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:56:08 +0000

Gay people can be OK. But it does not serve society to have them in positions of high influence over children, at the point they are nearing puberty. Family role models should be preferred here.
Most of you would passionately disagree, because you strongly believe that being gay is pre determined, probably genetically. If that is true, convince me.

By: DebbieKat

DebbieKat — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:46:32 +0000

Please don’t forget that Barr voted for the Patriot Act as well. He can try to defend that action and rationalize it all he wants, but that is DEFINITELY unconstitutional. Gravel is more of a Libertarian than Barr has ever been. Gravel for President 2008!

By: David

David — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:26:22 +0000

Bob Barr supports the decision but not gay marriage. He supported the Defense of Marriage Act. According to the DOMA, even if California has gay marriage other states do not have to recognize the legitimacy of marriages performed in California. If you dont think DOMA is anti-gay you are nuts.

By: Gregoire

Gregoire — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:09:57 +0000

Wow, he sounds positively giddy.

By: queerunity

queerunity — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:55:33 +0000

you gotta love this guy http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

By: Tim Hulsey

Tim Hulsey — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:54:42 +0000

Both Gravel and Barr are johnny-come-latelies to the Libertarian Party. Barr has a slightly longer history with the party, working as a lobbyist and spokesman for limited government ever since he retired from Congress. True, Barr’s announcement to seek the presidency under the LP banner gave the party more press coverage than it has had in years. But the LP can be rather perverse in its adherence to principle, and the convention might nominate a candidate that no one outside the LP has ever heard of.

By: Mad John

Mad John — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:42:42 +0000

Actually, Barr supports the decision. See http://marcambinder.theatlanti.....rnia_s.php