August 22, 2008

To “evolve,” Bob Barr would have to learn to walk on his hind legs first.

The Washington Blade tells us that the supporters of failed Republican-turned-Libertarian candidate and hypocrite extraordinaire Bob Barr say he’s “evolved” on such gay-rights issues as marriage and immigration.

We’ve written about this before; one would have to be a complete idiot to believe that this “evolution” is genuine; there’s no question in our minds that “Barr was told he wouldn’t get the [Libertarian] nomination unless he changed his position on DOMA.”

Barr’s flip-flop is clearly opportunistic — and half-baked. For instance:

Would the hundreds of federal benefits of marriage only be given to gay couples who live in states that allow gay marriage, forcing gay people who live in states like Georgia to move to Massachusetts or California if they want their relationships treated equally under federal law?

Barr did say he supports allowing a gay American who legally weds a foreign partner to bring his or her partner into the U.S. as a legal family member. But whether the federal government would recognize the marriage if the second portion of DOMA is repealed is unclear.

“The response from the campaign staff is we won’t answer hypothetical questions,” said Barr’s campaign manager, Russell Verney, who also managed Ross Perot’s presidential campaign.

There’s nothing hypothetical about it to the more-than 60,000 binational couples waiting for federal marriage recognition so foreign-born partners can immigrate to the U.S. legally and permanently.

The part of DOMA Barr still supports — which says that states don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states — relates to the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which states “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”

Gay rights advocates have argued that the clause means states should have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. But Barrr argued that Congress has the authority to define exactly what comes under the clause.

“I don’t think it’s a question of gay marriage or non-gay marriage. The states, through a referendum or the court system, should decide their own definition [of marriage],” Barr said. “It is fundamental and appropriate for the people of each state to decide.”

You can’t say you support immigration rights for legally-wed couples and say you support “states’ rights” on marriage equality — immigration is a federal issue, period, and if all 50 states passed full marriage equality tomorrow, not one gay American would be able to sponsor his or her foreign-born partner for immigration, as long as the fed doesn’t recognize those marriages.

Now, Barr, if you support the UAFA (Uniting American Families Act) but not marriage equality on the federal level, that’s another story. It’s a wrongheaded, unfair position (and it’s the position taken by all politicians — including Barack Obama — who don’t want to piss off gay voters, but are still skeezy about full marriage equality), but it would make more sense.

Georgia resident Rob Calhoun nails the conflict:

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,” [Calhoun] said. “The government needs to recognize all marriages across all states. But that’s what the right-wingers fear.”

But it is typical. The Radical Righties keep screaming about “states’ rights” — yet when a state does make a decision in our favor, they scream about “activist judges.”

Bob Barr hasn’t “evolved”; he’s just floating around in the same primordial ooze as ever, while trying to look like he’s standing erect.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

Permalink | |