RECENT  POSTS:  » Where art thou, Jeremy? » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Barr regrets federal Rose/Ann bar

by Jeremy Hooper

Authors are often embarrassed by their past works. Those who wrote manuals on how to survive Y2K probably look back with some face-egg. James Frey surely has some regrets about the way he presented A Million Little Pieces. And of course we all know about that late work-belying essay, Shrews Never Need Taming, that a young Billy Shakespeare wrote as an eighth grade English project.

200901060834But for former Congressman and recent Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr, it's the misguided Defense of Marriage Act (DUMBA DOMA) that he wishes he could send to the literary dustbin. This from a new Barr-penned LA Times Op-Ed:

"I can sympathize with the incoming commander in chief. And, after long and careful consideration, I have come to agree with him that the law should be repealed."
"I've wrestled with this issue for the last several years and come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned. In testifying before Congress against a federal marriage amendment, and more recently while making my case to skeptical Libertarians as to why I was worthy of their support as their party's presidential nominee, I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law."
No defending the Defense of Marriage Act [LA Times]

Oh, and plus it's just plain mean and discriminatory. But hey, if they want to do away with it on federalism grounds, then more power to them. Just get rid of the damn thing!

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails