Libertarian Party applauds DOMA strikedown

The following is a press release from Lp.org, June 26th:

The Libertarian Party applauds the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today to strike the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that discriminates against non-heterosexual marriages.

The Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since its founding in 1971.

“The Republican Party has never supported marriage equality,” said Laura Delhomme, 2013 Libertarian candidate for delegate in Virginia. “Democrats, despite their alleged support of civil liberties, only added a reference to same-sex marriage to their party platform in 2012 — when it became politically convenient.”

DOMA was pushed through by a GOP-led Congress and signed by a Democratic president.

“This is a landmark victory for personal freedom,” said Geoffrey J. Neale, chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “The Democrats and Republicans who have advanced, defended, and let stand government intrusion into the private contracts and choices of consenting adults will be remembered for their inhumanity on this issue.”

Ending DOMA means that the federal government will recognize the legal marriages of same-sex couples in states that recognize marriage equality. This is a good first step toward ending government discrimination that has affected millions of Americans.

Libertarian candidates have long rallied for marriage equality. This year, Robert Sarvis, Libertarian Party of Virginia candidate for governor, along with Delhomme and several other candidates for legislature, have vowed to press for recognition of same-sex marriage in Virginia.

Libertarian candidates in New Jersey, the only other state that is holding legislative races this year, are also calling for marriage equality.

“Same-sex couples are denied the right to marry because the governor vetoed the marriage equality bill that would have guaranteed their civil rights,” said Ken Kaplan, Libertarian for governor in New Jersey. “I will sign such a bill.”

The Libertarian Party platform states that “Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.”

A recent poll from ABC News/Washington Post shows that 58 percent of Americans support marriage equality, a rapid change from just a decade ago, when only 39 percent supported it. Americans are coming around to the Libertarian view that big government does not belong in our lives, whether it’s our bedrooms or our wallets.

Source: http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-applauds-doma-strikedown?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Libertarian%20Party&utm_content=DOMA+Strikedown

From Der Sidelines June 26, 2013

Today’s rulings were a mixed bag.

There are two problems with the Windsor DOMA case:

First, the Court never ordered the U.S. government to pay Windsor the $363K they owe her from the lower court judgment. Her grievance has not been redressed and it should have been.

Second, the Court implies that the States may define marriage, and by extension restrict it with said definition. Per Loving v. Virginia, marriage is a fundamental right under the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. As such, States may not infringe upon those rights and may not define marriage except in the contractual sense. The religious aspect is and ought to be up to the churches.

As for Prop 8, all that happened was Judge Walker’s original ruling stands unless someone with legitimate standing appeals, at which point the 9th will hear the case all over again, and if that happens, it might still wind up back at SCOTUS another day, at which point they will hear the merits instead of ducking them. This was merely a procedural dismissal, and all it means is that California can do same-gender marriages again.

The ideal solution is to get government out of marriage altogether and correctly reassert that rights are individual and not collective, and that granting of governmental or legal privileges based on marital status is discriminatory and unlawful just as it is based on gender, age, ethnicity, religion, or orientation. As such, all such privileges should be revoked and should be covered by power-of-attorney contracts.

For the religious types arguing that their version of so-called morality should be the law forced upon everyone else, your religion is for the next life. The law is for this life.

6 Comments

paulie June 27, 2013
I don’t understand your comment either, Jose.
I was puzzled too, but then I realized it was all about the 3rd Amendment 🙂
More seriously, Nick is correct here, as is Alan.
Alan Pyeatt June 27, 2013
Good article, and I’m happy that the LP is working to let the public know that we support marriage equality.
Even so, I agree with From Der Sidelines @ 1 that, “The ideal solution is to get government out of marriage altogether.” If his/her criticisms of the ruling are correct, then this ruling is, indeed, a mixed bag. But at least it’s a step in the right direction.
Steve Rhodes June 27, 2013
I don’t understand your comment either, Jose.
Nicholas Sarwark June 27, 2013
@2: The 10th Amendment is the one that reserves powers to the states. How does a decision that strikes down Federal discrimination between legal marriages in the states violate the 10th Amendment? If anything, it strengthens it.
Jose C June 27, 2013
The Bill of Rights – the 10 Amendment to the US Constitution . . . RIP.
From Der Sidelines June 26, 2013
Today’s rulings were a mixed bag.
There are two problems with the Windsor DOMA case:
First, the Court never ordered the U.S. government to pay Windsor the $363K they owe her from the lower court judgment. Her grievance has not been redressed and it should have been.
Second, the Court implies that the States may define marriage, and by extension restrict it with said definition. Per Loving v. Virginia, marriage is a fundamental right under the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. As such, States may not infringe upon those rights and may not define marriage except in the contractual sense. The religious aspect is and ought to be up to the churches.
As for Prop 8, all that happened was Judge Walker’s original ruling stands unless someone with legitimate standing appeals, at which point the 9th will hear the case all over again, and if that happens, it might still wind up back at SCOTUS another day, at which point they will hear the merits instead of ducking them. This was merely a procedural dismissal, and all it means is that California can do same-gender marriages again.
The ideal solution is to get government out of marriage altogether and correctly reassert that rights are individual and not collective, and that granting of governmental or legal privileges based on marital status is discriminatory and unlawful just as it is based on gender, age, ethnicity, religion, or orientation. As such, all such privileges should be revoked and should be covered by power-of-attorney contracts.
For the religious types arguing that their version of so-called morality should be the law forced upon everyone else, your religion is for the next life. The law is for this life.

Comments are closed.