Bob Barr on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

[lockwoodisafaggot]

Bob Barr couldnt cut it as a DOMA and War-on-Drugs republican so he picked up his ball and left. he'd say anything to stay relevant.

[ResinatedLung]

If being gay isn't taught or learnt and is genetic like most of you say, then I believe that would be called a defect i.e. an imperfection, failing, or blemish. I think we should treat gays just like any other disabled human.

[jgehb]

As has become the norm, the gay and lesbian community chooses to engage in threats, intimidation, and violence to oppose DOMA, because they cannot win with truth and scientific research demonstrating homosexuality to be the equal of heterosexuality. We just witnessed the thuggery through the intolerant, hateful bunch at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which used intimidation and threats to force Spalding & King not to defend DOMA. Since you cannot win through truth, resort to terrorism.

[PrisonerNumber9653]

With friends like this, who needs enemies? You do not show "love" by spreading poisonous destructive lies. Jesus said the old Jewish purity codes were NOT God's law, love was. Being gay is NOT a sin. And you do NOT know former homosexuals, they do not exist. You know victims of the most evil of hate groups, this vile lie that homosexuality can (or should) be cured is destroying lives.

[warriorgal1]

Number YOU are deceived just like the father of lies. Don't call me a bigot because I stand on the side of God's Truth. In the end all will stand before the Almighty at that time all your words will be shown to you. In that day, YOU will NOT be able to say YOU were NOT told. Your own words will condemn you. Romans 1 read it for yourself. Why do I know EX-Homosexuals and Lesbians if this lifestyle is "genetic? Because IT'S NOT! Changing what the Almighty calls fruitful is unconstitutional

[PrisonerNumber9653]

@warriorgal1 Blasphemous lies. You are NOT with God's truth. Hate and lies aren't God's truth. Bigotry isn't God's truth. My own words will only show me as knowing FACTS and following the law of Jesus Christ, unlike you. I've read, taught classes on, and preached sermons on Romans, which is NOT the words of God but of Paul, and is NOT about homosexuality. There is NO SUCH THING as an ex-homosexual, they do not EXIST. it isn't a "lifestyle" its been PROVEN genetic. equality isn't unconstitutional

[warriorgal1]

@Number, I do not hate any one. I speak the TRUTH in LOVE. Jesus the Messiah did NOT come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it. There IS TOO such a thing as EX HOMOSEXUALS AND LESBIANS... I KNOW SOME! AND GUESS WHAT LOVE THEM.

[PrisonerNumber9653]

Despicable KKK lies. Sexual orientation is not a "sham", IS genetic, and gay people damn well ARE equal to straights. DOMA is unconstitutional and Obama has no more obligation to spend our money defending Jim Crow than Kennedy did 50 years ago.

The idiocy of gay people not being "complimentary" is as stupid as it gets. MYOB.

[PrisonerNumber9653]

Being gay is not "behavior" and IS genetic. The comparison between today's civil rights battles and those of the past is appropriate, and it's blasphemous and immoral to claim God supports bigotry. The "law" you misquote is not from God, there is nothing immoral about equality and nothing Christian about homophobia.

[warriorgal1]

The bible is the cornerstone where America has received her laws. Don't attempt to change what God Almighty has sanctioned holy. Same sex is against the bible and ALL nations that believe in family, ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN understand this is the blessing of the Creator. Stop taking a BEHAVIOR and attempt to ride the coat tails of the Civil Rights Movement which men like Frederick Douglass and Dr. King gave their lives. Homosexuality is BEHAVIOR NOT GENETIC.

[PrisonerNumber9653]

@warriorgal1 That's insane, America did NOT get laws from the Bible. Same sex is NOT against the Bible, and the blasphemy of blaming bigotry on God is absolute trash. The "blessing of the creator" is not Jim Crow and discrimination. Homosexuality is NOT "behavior" and Frederick Douglass and Dr. King would AGREE with equality for ALL people. Homosexuality is NOT BEHAVIOR, a gay virgin is still gay. It has been PROVEN it is genetic. It is NOT chosen and can NOT be changed.

[jgehb]

In 1870, the department of justice was charged with enforcing and defending federal law. Obama and Holder have willfully chosen not to do that and Obama should be impeached. It is not his call nor is it Holder's to say DOMA is unconstitutional ... that is the court's. Until then, they are to perform the duties accorded to them.

[PrisonerNumber9653]

@jgehb Lies. They are NOT charged with enforcing the whims of bigoted congressmen, they're charged with enforcing the Constitution. And DOMA violates the constitution. It is NOT their "duty" to defend bad law.

[jgehb]

@PrisonerNumber9653 - you had better go back and listen to the oath Mr. Obama took. You are welcome to your OPINION that DOMA is unconstitutional, but the fact of the matter is that it has not ruled as such. Bad law? How can you defend the illegitimate, where Homosexuality is not genetic and can never be sexually complementary as is the case with heterosexuality?

[CatholicFaithInfo]

traditional marriage is good.

[PrisonerNumber9653]

@CatholicFaithInfo Traditional marriage is fine. And equality for gays doesn't harm it in the slightest.

[warriorgal1]

Go learn from countries that HAVE embraced same sex unions. The societies are falling apart

just like the Roman Empire. God loves all but he never changed his Holy Word to "suggestions".

"You shall NOT lay with the SAME FLESH." What kind of flesh is the Almighty speaking of? Fish?

Know this, God will always love his creation but he will NOT compromise his Holy Scriptures to

please sin. We are nearer now to the return of Jesus Christ. Be still and know HE IS GOD!

[PrisonerNumber9653]

@warriorgal1 No, nations that embrace equality are NOT falling apart. The pathetic lie that the Roman Empire fell because of marriage equality is a radical example of historical revisionism, even for today's American right. The BIble (and calling the purity codes of Leviticus "God's Holy Word" is false, Jesus said so Himself) NEVER says "not to lay with the same flesh" nor does it mention homosexuality at all. Knowing God is God means loving one another, and bigotry is not love.

[Mutedvox]

marriage is a false concept that was merely a way to create a self perpetuating working class for feudal lords and barons who needed servants to work the fields and service their fiefdom. it wasn't sacrosanct, only a means to an end. to worship at it's alter is tantamount to idolatry. in modern times it takes on a more legal aspect than a holy one. DOMA is no more than legalized intolerance!

[CatholicFaithInfo]

xoxoxo Support and defend traditional marriage because "from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate." Mark 10:6-9.

[Zunile03scape]

@CatholicFaithInfo DOMA is Unconstitutional under the first amendment. Congress broke the law to make DOMA, as it is a law respecting a religious establishment. Mark 10: 6-9 is an irrelevant reason that may not be used in justifying United States law construction.

BTW many animals have multiple partners in nature, under many different sexual orientations and for more reasons than just create a new generation.

[CatholicFaithInfo]

@Zunile03scape Marriage is an institution made by God, not by human beings. Therefore, we human beings cannot arbitrarily redefine marriage at our whim. Doing so perverts the meaning and purpose of marriage that God intended. Our U.S. Constitution and authentic human rights are predicated on a belief in God. Homosexual marriage is not one of those authentic human rights. Homosexual marriage is an arbitrary concoction of homosexual activists in order to legitimize homosexual relationships.

[Zunile03scape]

@CatholicFaithInfo The concept of a "deity's sacred anything" is an invention of man and false witness. The US Constitution is our country's highest law not some religious text falsely promoted as all things good.

Your claim that DOMA is exceptable in our laws I rightfully reject as Unconstitutional. We just need our judges, executives, and legislature representatives to remember that they can't legally be required to uphold your deity or use your deity as an escape clause to their duties.

[CatholicFaithInfo]

@Zunile03scape Even without referring to any deity, by reason, nature, and common sense, homosexual relationships are unnatural, disordered, and unhealthy. Marriage in our U.S. Constitution never meant to include homosexual marriage. When the U.S. Constitution was created, there was no such concept of a homosexual marriage. Therefore, the marriage spoken of in the U.S. Constitution exclusively refers to heterosexual marriage. DOMA simply protects that original and true concept of marriage.

[Zunile03scape]

@CatholicFaithInfo Marriage is never mentioned in the US Constitution, but religion in general is. In Article 6 to prohibit the 'bias of religion' from excluding people in services of our nation, and in the 1st amendment to prohibit "bias of religion" from being used to justify US laws.

Any further attempt by those who believe the false "Christian Nation Notion" to turn this country into a theocracy must be opposed by impeachment of offenders. Religion is NOT THE LAW!

[CatholicFaithInfo]

@Zunile03scape The concept of traditional marriage as between a man and a woman is not exclusive to religious people. DOMA simply protects this traditional concept of marriage. Therefore, DOMA is not unconstitutional and it does not violate the 1st Amdmnt. Homosexual marriage, however, is a novel concept whose main aim is in fact to legitimize an unnatural and disordered form of relationship, and to silence or even criminalize any criticism of it and opposition to it, a violation of 1st Amdmnt.

[Zunile03scape]

@CatholicFaithInfo By your own admissions you indicate that DOMA is religiously conceived. So now you drop that indication as a cheep dodge of the truth of your position.

DOMA = Religious Establishment in law form, is Unconstitutional.

My position is that this law must be removed. It's authors and signatures should be reprimanded for attempting to impose this religious standard.

[CatholicFaithInfo]

@Zunile03scape If one has to follow your line of reasoning (which is a gross misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment), then Congress should make no law against stealing and against murder because these are also religiously conceived. That would be absurd! The 1st Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting a law that happens to be compatible with an established religion. The concept of traditional marriage as between a man and a woman is not only religious, but also secular or civil.

[Zunile03scape]

@CatholicFaithInfo I can point to at least three non religious reasons for not killing my fellow man in most general situations. 1 Safety desire by social animals (like us) would be reduced, this jeopardizes cooperation and general trust of one another. 2 Vigilante justice rises endangering the innocent, because vigilantes don't care about due process to properly identify criminals. 3 Murder victims contribution to society end, no more paying of taxes, child rearing, working job, etc.

[Zunile03scape]

@Zunile03scape What secular reason do you have for DOMA marriage that makes it Constitutional. Its tradition?(This hardly adequate to reason prevent consenting Adults from engaging in the relation ships they are comfortable with, such as consenting polyandry) Psychology?(Every report i ever heard of about trauma to kids is caused not by an alien marriage contract but by disrespect from society) Divorce?(Statistics have put money, cheating, etc above type of marriage for causing divorce)

[Zunile03scape]

@Zunile03scape Lastly the threat of Shira Law and other unfavorable religious-theocracy is aided with every religious law on the USA books. These create the basis for their justifications as well. Religious oaths, separate sectarian courts, honor killings, and persecution of non-mainstream sects.

If you want to send further comment use the private message on my channel.

[CatholicFaithInfo]

@Zunile03scape Reasons against same sex marriage: 1. It seeks to legitimize an inherently unnatural, disordered, deviant, & an unhealthy type of human relationship- a disservice to gay people. 2. It is a grave disservice to children to be raised by gay couples because it will cause children confusion as to their gender identity. Children need both father and mother. 3. It trivializes & undermines the importance of procreation & natural bonding between parents and their biological children.

[PrisonerNumber9653]

@CatholicFaithInfo 1. A despicable lie. Homosexuality is natural, is NOT "disordered" and is not unhealthy in ANY WAY AT ALL. 2. Another sick lie. Bigotry doesn't serve or help children, and gays are 100% as capable of being good parents. 3. Balderdash. Do straight couples have fewer kids if the gay couple next door is married? More if they aren't? "Gee, Joan, the baby's beautiful but I'm just not bonding with it because John and David on the next block got married".

[PrisonerNumber9653]

@CatholicFaithInfo @CatholicFaithInfo 1. A despicable lie. Homosexuality is natural, is NOT "disordered" and is not unhealthy in ANY WAY AT ALL. 2. Another sick lie. Bigotry doesn't serve or help children, and gays are 100% as capable of being good parents. 3. Balderdash. Do straight couples have fewer kids if the gay couple next door is married? More if they aren't? "Gee, Joan, the baby's beautiful but I'm just not bonding with it because John and David on the next block got married".

[Stephthatackle]

@CatholicFaithInfo Government has NO right to make stealing OR murder illegal! That is a states issue.

[mrekbass]

Damn! I haven't seen Bob Barr since he was cheating on his wife with a prostitute while giving daily morality lectures on TV about Clinton getting a BJ. Those cooky Republicans!!

[sds7508]

You people are missing the point. It should put shivers up your spine that he is doing this. As much as I hate abortion, if say Obama has a change of heart, yeah right and decides abortion is wrong, which it is, he can say all abortion must stop now because I say so. He doesn't have to go through Congress just on his decision alone. Welcome to the dictatorship of America.

[krsauls]

The government shouldn't be sanctioning any marriage. It is none of their damn business.

[daggerdaddy7]

There are going to be some bad turn-outs. There are gonna be some crappy gay and lesbian parents. That's where discrimination comes in, though. You can't say EVERY gay person would be a bad OR good parent. To me, it's not about reaching out on a limb of good faith for gay people. It's simply acknowledging anyone (gay or straight) deserves the right to give a valid attempt at parenting.

[Imaginefree69]

@daggerdaddy7

"There are gonna be some crappy gay and lesbian parents. "

Absolutely.

And they will have neighbours who are crappy hetero parents.

Sexual orientation is no predictor of fitness to parent.

At least most gay parents won't teach their children to fear a scorekeeper in the sky who threatens to burn them in his eternal torture chamber if they fail to embrace the correct Bronze Age fairy tales.

There's a HUGE improvement in parenting right there!

[jgehb]

@Imaginefree69 - "sexual orientation" is a sham - not genetic and can never be sexually complementary ... an imposter that masquerades as the equivalent of heterosexuality.

[clay56]

I voted for this guy in the last election even knowing he wouldn't win simply because I thought he was the best of the three choices.

[Imaginefree69]

I've been married for 35 years

to my best friend, lover, and wife.

It's been the greatest joy of my life

and I want everyone to have that opportunity.

I live in Canada, where gay marriage is perfectly legal,

and I assure you that gay marriage has not cost me a thing.

Gay marriage has not diminished my marriage one bit.

I hope many, many gay people AND straight people

experience the stability and refuge and joy

that marriage has brought to my life.

[pachecosita]

Congratulations to you and your country. I will someday be able to say that as a gay american man.

[Imaginefree69]

"Congratulations to you and your country."

Thank you, Sir.

I hope you can, indeed.

All the best to you and your partner!

[Pilgrim812]

@Imaginefree69 Both Bob Barr and then President Bill

Clinton were probably well aware that they were tampling on the constitutional

right of LGBT folk when this law was made. They simply found it politically

expedient to complete this faustian bargain, while disregarding concern for

the personal welling of such persons and disregarding the constitutional

rights of citizens that they are sworn to uphold.

[Imaginefree69]

@Pilgrim812

"probably well aware that they were tampling on the constitutional"

No doubt about it.

Unfortunately, that applies to Bush and Obama, too.

They support the Constitution only when it benefits them.

[warriorgal1]

@Imaginefree69 , This might be so in your case but I know same sex couples that it has not worked for them. The plan of Almighty God is one man and one woman whom he blessed and called them to be fruitful. Why should a child be denied a Mother and Father? I am not judging you but in America the majority of us believe the God who gave us his Holy Word means what he says. Man is not to lay with the same flesh. We believe in the absolutes of God. Take care.

[PrisonerNumber9653]

@warriorgal1 Horribly untrue. The plan of God is that some people are gay, some are straight, and it was NOT God's plan that gay people be discriminated against and hated. Gay marriage doesn't "deny" children ONE THING. Children adopted by gay couples aren't stolen from Ward and June Cleaver, they're given a family when they had NONE. The majority of Christians do NOT believe the Bible is "God's word" and the Bible NEVER says gays cannot marry. Ever. The absolute of God is LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR.

[jr602az]

FUCK BOB BAR. MIKE GRAVEL MADE HISTORY

[Vote3rdParty]

bob barr = fascist. look up his voting record and past stances and you find he is no libertarian.

[TimeWarp66]

He was a Republican congressman for most of his political life. Is a mind such a terrible thing to change?

[Vote3rdParty]

The damage has already been done. He should have done something when it actually mattered. He has no power now.

[TimeWarp66]

That doesn't make him a fascist lol.

[Vote3rdParty]

Bob Barr voted:

To ban gay adoptions in DC

To add anti-flag desecration amendment

NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals.

For the USA Patriot Act.

and authored Defense of Marriage Act

Sounds like a facist to me.

[TimeWarp66]

You would compare 1940's Nazi fascism to Bob Barr's voting record? Have a sense of proportion buddy.

[Vote3rdParty]

You must be seeing things. Or either just making shit up. Where did I write "Nazi fascism?" My point is he was clearly in favor of a non-free society..

[TimeWarp66]

You called him a fascist. My point is you really ought to save that word for people who actually deserve it.

[Pilgrim812]

@Vote3rdParty the 90's were big on gay bashing via legislation like DADT and DOMA. But times change and

we change with them. The Supreme Court decision in Lawerence v Texas in 2003 which repealed the remaining "sodomy" in 15 states has set the stage for acceptance by American Society as citizens who are entitled to due process and equal protection under law. If homosexuals are not inherently criminal, then are they equal as citizen's and equal in rights? American thus far is saying "yes".

[kitmarq]

didn't you know? Disagreeing with a gay man makes you the equivalent of a genocidal tyrant.

People who play identity politics games are big into "crying wolf". Someday real fascists are going to terrorize them, and they're not going to have any words left, they will have spent them all.

[Eastmanarium]

I'm not sure how you consider depriving rights to people to be equivalent to "disagreeing" with someone.

[kitmarq]

I don't know, gays are the ones who want to deprive their own children of rights:

- the right to have a mom and a dad

- the right to not have their biological links to their ancestors severed for frivolous reasons

- the right to expect their parents will take their best interests into account when making decisions on their behalf

Gays want to turn marriage into something merely symbolic, but doing so stomps all over the rights of children to be the center of child-rearing decision making.

[Eastmanarium]

....They are for raising both daughters and and sons in loving home environment. that's infringing on a child's well-being? There is NO right for children or anyone else to have a mother and a father. That is nowhere in the Constitution.

I guess I'm just speaking to someone who's a fan of Pat Robertson, Maggie Gallagher, and bordering on Fred Phelps. Everything you said its contrary to ALL facts.

[kitmarq]

A loving parent doesn't ask a child to do without his mother or father. Not for frivolous reasons, anyway.

A loving parent knows how wrenching it can be for a child to not know his real parents, and would never do that to a child for such a selfish reason.

You use the word loving as an excuse why parents don't HAVE to take care of their kids. "We are loving, so why would you ask us to actually care about THEIR rights?" That is a perversion of the word "loving".

[Eastmanarium]

Really? What about a mother whose husband was abusive and had to leave him? What about couples who have adopted? Are they violating these children's nonexistent right to be raised by their own parents?

You seriously could not be possibly more uninformed about same-sex parenting, adoption, or its complete lack of any negative ramifications, as EVERY study as shown.

[kitmarq]

So you're saying it's okay to do bad things to your kids, because other people do?

Seriously?

As for your studies, history demonstrates that gays who aren't allowed to marry don't suffer any measurable harm, either - so does that mean gays don't really need marriage? Nice double standard you've set up: you want what you want cuz you deserve 'justice', but your kids have to suffer measurable harm before you'll even consider their feelings.

Real "loving".

[kitmarq]

Adoption is supposed to be based *entirely* upon what is best for the kid. It is something that only occurs when somehow things have gone terribly wrong - so much so that taking a child away from its biological kin is the lesser evil.

There's a big difference between that vs. doing the same thing to a kid when it is NOT in the child's best interest.

You want to change it from parents doing what is best for the kid, to kids doing what is best for the parents.

[kitmarq]

Also, you should know, that adopted kids DO mind not being able to know their real kin.

Given how strong the disincentives are (shaming, pressure, fears of hurting the adoptive parents' feelings, the 'gratitude' thing) it's amazing that so many adopted kids feel the need to seek out their true identity.

When I hear about these studies you cite (which have tested some pretty irrelevant things IMO) I wonder: how come nobody wants to study why so many adopted kids feel the need to go back home?

[Eastmanarium]

I never one even mentioned gays doing "bad things" to kids. Gay parents are parents - children need parents, but that's an entirely different issue from same-sex marriage. Having two parents of the same sex has virtually no effect on the child, as studies show.

[kitmarq]

Yes, and I remember when studies showed that second-hand smoke didn't hurt anyone, and my then-next door neighbor used to sound just like you, getting all mad at people who felt that her blowing smoke in her kids' face was wrong, because she has RIGHTS dammit! She can smoke in her own damned house if she wants to!

LOVING parents don't take that attitude. You shouldn't push questionable evidence as if it were definitive. You should err on the side of caution. But clearly you don't WANT to.

[kitmarq]

Incidentally, the entire "studies" approach assumes that doing X to a kid is all right as long as the kid does not suffer obvious harm.

Well, certainly if the kid does suffer demonstrable harm, then doing X to him is bad.

But it does not follow that if the kid does NOT suffer demonstrable harm, therefore it's perfectly OK to do X to him.

Value judgments, happiness, ethics, & justice are beyond what science can measure right now.

Your studies are flawed by the assumptions they're based on.

[daggerdaddy7]

@kitmarq I agree. There is no way to know, in advance, if this turn of events will ultimately be good, bad, or neutral for children. As a single gay man at 26, I have no children. I'd love to jump on the activist train and give you study results, theories, and biased ideals, but all of those are exactly what they're called. There isn't even scientific proof that, without a doubt, sexual variance origins from factors beyond environment. No, I cannot prove that I deserve to be a parent.

[Eastmanarium]

As for your second ridiculous assertion, what about the hundreds partners of the same sex who have been turned away from visiting them in the hospital? From making medical decisions for them? To be unwilling to inherit the fortune they both built together?

I'm not sure I can change your mind, you've clearly not even done your own reserch on the dramatically negative effects of DOMA on gay couples - AND gay parents and their children.

[kitmarq]

I have no problem with gays getting rights. I just think they should take civil unions and make that into an institution that meets their needs, instead of trying to prove they're identical to "breeders".

You're not identical. You have different needs. (Like, for instance, you need some legal way to separate the relationship with your child's other parent, from your relationship with your lover - your child's stepparent - so that rights & benefits are distributed appropriately.)

[Eastmanarium]

Why? I'm from Iowa - you want to take marriage away from me? Why do we need a separate institution? You realize it would just be separate in name only, right? It's like saying Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat and is completely arbitrary.

And, I'm sorry, but no two relationships are identical, in countless ways. So they should be treated civilly different? What would people have said if interracial marriages had to have been called "civil unions"? What would you call those people today?

[Y2Krashman]

@kitmarq

It's not about *proving* anything kitmarq. It's about not being treated as second class citizens.

[34roberees]

@kitmarq But what about same sex couple who cannot have babies and same sex couples in which both come from previous marriages? The purpose of marriage is not just breeding anymore, it goes beyond and what I just asked proves it.

[MrXfromPlanetX]

Barr did write the bill, but I don't know whether to believe him or not. I'm tied between Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

I wish Baldwin didn't have the Moral Majority, Jerry Falwell connection. If he wasn't a Babtist minister who might shove the Bible down everyone's throat, he would be the perfect candidate, since we lost Ron Paul.

If the Dems had picked Kucinich instead of Obamanation, I would have voted for him.

[aliakbar01]

Fraud. He is Romney. A Flip Flop... excusing the bill but then saying it's the abuse of it. HE WROTE IT!

[MrXfromPlanetX]

I do think it's weird to day it's abuse of the bill. I looked it up. it's H.R. 3396 from 1995-1996.

It states no state has to recognize the marriage of another state, and marriage is defined as being between two people of the opposite sex.

How would that be used for a purpose other than the one he intended it for?

If he came right out and said he was going to support gay marriage, he would lose the Evangelical, Baptist, and Mormon vote.

[buraianto]

He wouldn't lose all of the Mormon vote.

[frionelhero]

I believe him.