In the LA Times on Monday, Bob Barr, Republican from Georgia from 1995-2003 and the 2008 Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States, explains in this op-ed piece why the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which exempts states from having to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, should be repealed.
What is tremendously interesting about this, is that Bob Barr was the author of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Let’s be clear: Bob Barr is not necessarily advocating same-sex marriage. But as a Federalist, a believer that the states’ rights trump the rights of the federal government, he makes a compelling argument why DOMA has failed.
Considering that President-elect Obama has indicated that he feels DOMA’s time has passed, this could prove to be a very interesting turn of events.
christao408 
I’m curious to see what happens.
Talk about flip-flop…. makes me dizzy.
We’ll see… hopefully it’s good.
Some people hold some convictions more than others.
I think this is going in the right direction. We’re still in for some rough times ahead in this area. Thanks for the cartoon the other day. Very appropos.
Barr used to be a total jerkwad, but he’s changed a lot for the better.If I was old enough and if he was on the ballot in this WONDERFUL state, I would’ve voted for him.He’s an interesting person, to be sure.
so he wrote it and now is appealing it eh? interesting.what a waste of time…
I don’t see this as a contradiction.Sooner or later DOMA — which, in my opinion, is unconstitutional — will be challenged and, eventually, revised. A federalist argument from a conservative means that states like Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, and those that already ban same sex-marriage, can keep on doing so.My two cents.
@ongkun – Thanks for sharing your two cents. Hadn’t heard from you in a while and always appreciate your perspective.
There’s a part of me that feels that it really should be a states’ right issue and that voters in each state can choose not to perform same-sex marriage if they want, but that in states that do perform it, couples should receive federal benefits.
Of course, that doesn’t answer the whole “full faith and credit” problem: should states that choose not to perform same-sex unions be required to recognize unions performed in other states. And that, it seems, would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court to be a big fat “yes”. The “full faith and credit” clause is a lynch pin to the way the US is organized.
@moptoplop – I certainly applaud his willingness to continue to revise and expand his views. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney could learn from that.