Brian Miller wrote: BM) DOMA creates a federal definition of marriage and imposes restrictions on individual liberty. (BM
Note that DOMA did not un-recognize a single federally-recognized marriage. DOMA deplorably restricted individual liberty, but it didn't constrict individual liberty. BM) The MPA imposes restrictions on individual liberty AND unconstitutionally attempts to short-circuit gay people's rights to petition the Supreme Court for a ruling on their constitutional rights. (BM The copy of the Constitution available to this straight white suburban guy says that "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make". Does your gay copy ready any differently? I don't like this provision and wish Congress would never use it, but you can't pretend it's imaginary. I would love to see the Supreme Court take a case putting such legislation up against the Bill of Rights, so that we could have a nice little constitutional crisis and train Congress to stop writing stupid laws like this. BM) The omnibus marriage bill increased federal benefits and payments based on marriage status. Three bills. Ron Paul supported them all, to various degress [sic] (BM What is "the omnibus marriage bill"? Google, Yahoo, and Wikipedia haven't heard of it. It sounds like you're trying to claim that Ron Paul supported an increase in federal transfer payments (e.g. Social Security) based on marriage status. Care to substantiate that claim? BM) All three make government bigger and more involved in marriage. (BM DOMA and MPA didn't make government bigger; they froze a certain aspect of the status quo. They didn't make government "more involved in marriage"; they (regrettably) made the several states less involved in how other states and the federal government decide who should be considered legally married. Your thesis fails because you cannot plausibly explain why Ron Paul doesn't advocate the federal government forbidding states to allow gay marriage. BM) Suffice to say that Brian Holtz has as much of a basis for a day-to-day understanding of LGBT policy issues as I do of raising children. His lecturing me on the former is as comical as me lecturing him on the latter. (BM Again: I dare you to fully quote any three consecutive sentences of mine, and then say "Brian Holtz has no basis for saying the above, because Brian Holtz is not gay." I wouldn't think that the Outrights would stand for someone being shouted down merely on the basis of his sexual orientation, but I'm only an outsider here, so maybe my opinion of this group is higher than it should be. BM) his lack of concern for other gay folks' concerns -- particularly Rob's family status -- strikes me as tone-deaf as well. (BM This is just outright calumny. You have no basis for claiming that I lack concern for Rob's family status. I've argued repeatedly on the Platform Committee and in public that gay rights should be one of the LP's top issues. Will your lies ever stop? BM) It's almost as embarrassing as when a white guy lectures a black guy on what it's like to be black. (BM Like I've ever lectured a gay person on what it's like to be gay. Shame on you, and shame on the Outrights for encouraging such mendacity with their silence. Is there none beside Starchild among the Outrights who will stand up for a libertarian's right to speak out on the facts of American jurisprudence without being shouted down on account of his sexual orientation? Brian Holtz blog: Knowing <http://knowinghumans.net/> Humans book: Human <http://humanknowledge.net/> Knowledge 2006-2008 LP <http://marketliberal.org/FixLP.html> PlatCom 2007-2009 <http://knowinghumans.net/search/label/LPCA> LPCA ExCom 2004-2008 for Congress, <http://marketliberal.org/> CA14 (Silicon Valley)
