The Washington Blade, a gay-themed publication, runs a story on Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr under the headline “From Public Enemy No. 1 To Gay Rights Advocate?” The article is skeptical of the claim. It focuses primarily on Barr’s sponsorship of the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress and his current desire to repeal part of the law. The Blade says, “Barr and his campaign staff declined to answer follow-up questions about the legal chaos that could follow if the part of DOMA that bans federal recognition of gay marriages was repealed, with the rest of the law still intact. … ‘The response from the campaign staff is we won’t answer hypothetical questions,’ said Barr’s campaign manager, Russell Verney.”
One gay man interviewed in the story thinks Barr’s stance is “too problematic. Having to go state-by-state to get same-sex marriages legalized is a piecemeal way of governing. ‘It sounds like that would be complicated,’ he said. ‘The government needs to recognize all marriages across all states. But that’s what the right-wingers fear.'” But Outright Libertarians member Doyle Jones “plans to vote for Barr for president and said he believes Barr’s reversal on DOMA is ‘sincere.'” Still, Outright Libertarians Chairman Rob Power “said while pleased with Barr’s change of heart on DOMA, he was disappointed to hear Barr wants to repeal only part of the law.”
And yes, some of the stuff IS handouts: i.e. Social Security benefits for surviving partners, etc. The government should also not mandate who private insurers should have to give coverage to, etc. That is an infringement on property rights, and yes, of course, that includes when they force insurers to carry the spouses and children of heterosexuals.
What’s underneath my fig leaf is a hatred for gays and lesbians?
The fig leaf that you wear is that anyone who disagrees with you, from anarchistic principles, is homophobic.
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.
Can you explain to me how a married gay man would pay higher taxes than a straight single person? I’m not following.
Regardless, everyone should pay the same taxes, which should preferably be $0.
Gays pay higher taxes because of the privileges given to married couples.
That’s not true. They pay higher taxes because they’re targeted to pay higher taxes.
Paying higher taxes on one’s health insurance, one’s child’s medical care, or one’s spouse’s inheritance has no linkage at all to other married people. It’s the creation of a system that explicitly excludes and punishes that person.
Why is advocating that a person’s marital status not qualify them for tax preference not acceptable?
Because it shouldn’t matter in the first place.
But in the present system, there’s an imbalance in treatment, and that imbalance should be addressed as a tactical concern.
People who choose to be single, gay and straight, should not subsidize the married.
I’m not subsidizing the married. They just pay lower taxes than I do.
And even after I’m married, straight people in the same situation will still pay lower taxes than I do.
And my insistence that said unequal tax treatment be redressed is, in your parlance, “demanding handouts.”
You’d have a bit more credibility if I saw as many articles — or even one article — asserting the whole “single people subsidize the married” argument. But that’s a strawman argument that you don’t actually believe — and which only gets trotted out when gay stuff is mentioned.
So again, drop the fig leaf. We know what’s underneath already, kiddo.
Brian – Gays pay higher taxes because of the privileges given to married couples. It’s those privileges that should be attacked — as well as the principle of income taxation in general.
What I said above: “(svf is) right; it is mostly about handouts. But I don’t see Barr demanding that those handouts be taken away from straight married people.”
Why is advocating that a person’s marital status not qualify them for tax preference not acceptable? People who choose to be single, gay and straight, should not subsidize the married.
Yep, it’s all about the handouts. Jesus.
Yeah, because a tax refund is a “handout.”
“Jesus” is right. “Libertarians” describing tax rebates as “handouts” is pretty appalling.
And on the flip side, I haven’t seen any faux-puristes advocating a lower marginal tax rate for gay people, who have to pay higher taxes (in most situations) yet who get access to far fewer benefits.
That’s one reason why the Radical contingent in the party is so ineffective, and the Reform contingent so infuriating. Both justify their prejudices behind a patina of false ideology that they readily discard when it’s no longer a fig leaf for their prejudices.
I want the government out of any religious institution. Period. If people don’t support the idea of people of the same gender getting married, they can choose to not marry someone of the same gender. If a minister’s religion doesn’t believe in it, he should not have to perform the ceremony. But if two adults want to enter into a contract and call it whatever they want that is nobody’s business but their own. Period.
Like I said, langa, I chose my words poorly.
GE,
You said “I’ve yet to find a homophobic libertarian…who opposes your view”, which, to me, sounds like you’re saying there are plenty of homophobic libertarians, and they all agree with my position.
Then you say there are “plenty of libertine lifestyle libertarians who insist on equal welfare benefits for gay couples.”
You didn’t mention any other types of libertarians.
Putting these two statements together, it sounded like you were saying there are only 2 types of libertarians: homophobes and libertines.
That didn’t really sound like something you’d say, which is why I asked for clarification.
Justin Raimondo is the most prominent homosexual that I know of who is against legalization of gay marriage.
Well, I chose my words poorly, because you’re both wrong, but Hugh is closer. I’m not sure how langa’s interpretation came about, but what I was saying is that I’m not aware of any homophobic libertarians at all, but plenty of statists (gay and straight) who call themselves libertarians and demand equal welfare benefits for gay couples. I really don’t see how langa took that to be a pro-state marriage comment.
I think what G.E. was ssaying was that the gay libertines are less libertarian than homophobes.
Also, Justin Raimondo (who is gay) is opposed to legalizing gay marriage, for many of the same reasons that I am. Surely you’re not suggesting that he’s also homophobic, are you?
GE – Are you implying that anyone who opposes state-sanctioned marriage is homophobic?
I certainly don’t consider myself to be homophobic. I’ve known lots of gay people, and they’re just like straight people: some good, some bad.
langa – I’ve yet to find a homophobic libertarian (not counting Barr, who isn’t a libertarian) who opposes your view — but plenty of libertine lifestyle libertarians who insist on equal welfare benefits for gay couples.
I’ve never understood why this issue creates so much controversy among libertarians. The proper libertarian position is painfully obvious: there’s absolutely no reason why government should be involved in regulating, prohibiting, or recognizing ANY marriage, whether gay or straight. It’s a complete no-brainer.
Please… When we interviewed Bob Barr on the North Virginia Patriots show he LIED and told us that he wrote DOMA to protect the rights of gays to marry. And to keep the government out of it. Despite the fact that it quite frankly does the opposite. Seriously. This guy is such a liar.
svf – You’re right; it is mostly about handouts. But I don’t see Barr demanding that those handouts be taken away from straight married people.
If you want an advocate, look elsewhere. If you want someone who will leave you alone to live your life as you see fit, then I think Barr is your man. I’m not gay, but that is my litmus test for a candidate. I want the guy or gal who will do the most to get the government to do the least.
most telling quote from that article…
Yep, it’s all about the handouts. Jesus.