Gravel statement on California Supreme Court ruling

From Mike Gravel for President 2008:

I congratulate the California Supreme Court for recognizing a self-evident truth: Marriage is a fundamental constitutional right that ALL Americans share! Anything short of marriage equality means second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians. Obama, Clinton and McCain choose to deny this truth but California just made their obstinate opposition much more difficult.

The California court dismissed the argument that “tradition” precludes same-sex marriage. Opponents of interracial marriage once shared this view. They were dead wrong just like opponents of gay marriage. As I said during the HRC/Logo debate, marriage is not about tradition but about love and what this world needs is more LOVE.

Next we must get all states to recognize the same sex marriages granted in California and other enlightened states. This is not a states rights issue, as many of my opponents argue.

Gay marriage, like civil rights for blacks, is a constitutional issue and individual rights must always trump states rights when they are in conflict. My fellow Libertarians who disagree ought to check the definition of libertarianism.

During the HRC/Logo debate I predicted that in five years the nation would embrace gay marriage. Thanks to California we have taken a giant leap toward that glorious day!

Mike Gravel on gay marriage below:

61 Responses to “Gravel statement on California Supreme Court ruling”

  1. Steve Says:

    Thank goodness, former Senator Gravel is out of step with the majority of Americans and as well as his home state Alaskans. He’s dead wrong for America and should move to Canada.

  2. Greg Says:

    Why don’t we just hold a national initiative on whether this country should allow gay marriage or not? After all democracy is the solution to everything.

  3. Austrian Economist Says:

    Well said, Greg. Put this to a National Initiative vote, I agree.

    Well hated, Steve. Back to your bunker, ok?

    The bigoted minority is always the loudest.

  4. Brian Miller Says:

    It’s good to see Mr. Gravel join Dr. Phillies and Mr. Barr in commenting on the California case in a press release.

  5. John Anderson Says:

    funny that people would mention putting it to a national initiative because that is the crux of Sen. Gravel’s platform. We need a national initiative process.

  6. Libertarian Joseph Says:

    Why not just leave all marriage as a private matter? The government should stop susidizing marriage.

  7. Susan Hogarth Says:

    funny that people would mention putting it to a national initiative because that is the crux of Sen. Gravel’s platform. We need a national initiative process.

    Someone needs more irony in their diet.

    Of course, that may be me.

  8. disinter Says:

    And Gravel joins Barr, Phillies and Root in the retard caucus… that leaves Kubby and Ruwart as the LP’s only real choices.

  9. disinter Says:

    Why not just leave all marriage as a private matter? The government should stop susidizing marriage.

    Exactly.

  10. disinter Says:

    After all democracy is the solution to everything.

    Democracy Is Not Freedom
    http://www.democracyisnotfreedom.com/

  11. Brian Miller Says:

    Why not just leave all marriage as a private matter? The government should stop susidizing marriage.

    Could someone direct me to the caucus that is actively campaigning year-round for an immediate end to government marriage?

    Because it seems to me that said caucus only seems to activate when the question of same-sex marriage comes up—yet seems perfectly content with the status quo otherwise.

    Call me cynical if you must.

  12. disinter Says:

    Could someone direct me to the caucus that is actively campaigning year-round for an immediate end to government marriage?

    As opposed to our Outright Liber-Nazi circle jerk group that campaigns year-round for government INTERVENTION in marriage??

  13. disinter Says:

    our = your

  14. disinter Says:

    Because it seems to me that said caucus only seems to activate when the question of same-sex marriage comes up—yet seems perfectly content with the status quo otherwise.

    And the pot calls the kettle black…

  15. Censored by FR and now TPW Says:

    Sen Gravel says:

    Gay marriage, like civil rights for blacks, is a constitutional issue and individual rights must always trump states rights when they are in conflict. My fellow Libertarians who disagree ought to check the definition of libertarianism.

    I don’t necessarily disagree with this statement, but I wonder what remedy Sen. Gravel proposes for states such as Utah, where a state constitutional amendment means that same-sex couples married in California and Massachusetts won’t be legally recognized as such in the State of Utah.

    Would a President Gravel roll tanks up to the state capitol in Salt Lake City, similar to military action mobilized against Utahns by U.S. President Buchanan when polygamy was more widely practiced there?

    To quote convention speaker Walter Block:

    Think of it like this: you have a dangerous dragon chained to a mountain. You want him to attack a roving gang of bandits, but to do this, you have to unchain him. So you unchain this monster, and he flies up and attacks the bandits, killing a couple of them. But to keep the analogy accurate, only some of the bandits are killed, not all of them, since the state is notoriously inefficient. We would say this is a good thing, for the dragon to have killed some of the bandits.

    But is it a good thing to unchain such a beast? The acts are intertwined. Both the means, and the ends, of the action must be libertarian. The end (killing bandits) is libertarian, but is the means, unleashing a dangerous monster? Likewise with the federal government: the end nullifying New York’s rent control laws, etc, is good, but the means chosen, loosening the restrictions on a monster, is clearly unlibertarian.

  16. Brian Miller Says:

    I’m aware of only one organization that is actively working for getting government out of the marriage business, and that organization is Outright Libertarians. We merely take an incremental approach, rather than an unrealistic “all at once” approach.

    I am not familiar with any seriously funded or operated caucus to get government out of the marriage business in one fell swoop. And I doubt that such a caucus would receive any real support, funding, time, or other resources from those who use “get the government out of marriage” as a fallback position.

    The absence of such an organization from the political scene, despite the supposed popularity of the concept, tells me that the concept is a rhetorical trick and not a real belief.

    The logic is pretty much undebatable.

  17. Brian Miller Says:

    I don’t necessarily disagree with this statement, but I wonder what remedy Sen. Gravel proposes for states such as Utah, where a state constitutional amendment means that same-sex couples married in California and Massachusetts won’t be legally recognized as such in the State of Utah.

    Suppose the state of Utah had a constitutional amendment banning the ownership of firearms—violating gun owners’ Second Amendment rights rather than gays’ Fourteenth Amendment rights.

    Would you expect the federal government to take action to rectify this situation?

  18. disinter Says:

    . We merely take an incremental approach, rather than an unrealistic “all at once” approach.

    More regulation as a means to get more liberty? Yea, okay…

    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength

  19. disinter Says:

    And I doubt that such a caucus would receive any real support, funding, time, or other resources from those who use “get the government out of marriage” as a fallback position.

    And you think the Outright Liber-Nazis get “real support” for their campaign for more government intervention in people’s private lives? Tell us, how much money does the Outright Liber-Nazi circle jerk raise these days?

  20. DrGonzo Says:

    I don’t necessarily disagree with this statement, but I wonder what remedy Sen. Gravel proposes for states such as Utah, where a state constitutional amendment means that same-sex couples married in California and Massachusetts won’t be legally recognized as such in the State of Utah.

    I would imagine he would think it is illegal. As mentioned hte other day, the LP statement of principles say the people may not empower the government to infringe on the rights of others. This is how a direct democracy could work instead of turning into mob rule.

  21. disinter Says:

    The absence of such an organization from the political scene, despite the supposed popularity of the concept, tells me that the concept is a rhetorical trick and not a real belief.

    The logic is pretty much undebatable.

    So there must be an “organization from the political scene” before anything is a “real belief”. You have just confirmed that you are, indeed, bat-shit insane.

  22. Brian Miller Says:

    Mike, you’re hardly in a position to question anybody’s sanity.

    As for Outright’s fundraising numbers, I’m surprised you’re so unfamiliar with them, given that you were on the Executive Committee for so many years. Perhaps if you’d done your job as an Ex-Com member, and worked to actually implement a path towards getting government out of our private lives, you’d be in a position to answer (or at least estimate) your own question.

    The perfect is the enemy of the good. The mercurial screamer like yourself, on the other hand, is the enemy of the effective.

  23. disinter Says:

    Brian - you just dodged the question, as usual. Again, you claim there is no support for an organization that supports freedom (privatization of marriage), so again I ask:

    You think the Outright Liber-Nazis get “real support” for their campaign for more government intervention in people’s private lives? Tell us, how much money does the Outright Liber-Nazi circle jerk raise these days?

  24. disinter Says:

    The mercurial screamer like yourself, on the other hand, is the enemy of the effective.

    Proudly so. The “effective” you refer to is to advance the state and to reduce liberty. I wish to make you less “effective”, for sure.

  25. disinter Says:

    I’m surprised you’re so unfamiliar with them, given that you were on the Executive Committee for so many years.

    Given that you are CURRENTLY an circle jerk member, perhaps you can answer the question instead of dodge it?

    You think the Outright Liber-Nazis get “real support” for their campaign for more government intervention in people’s private lives? Tell us, how much money does the Outright Liber-Nazi circle jerk raise these days?

    on the Executive Committee for so many years.

    So many years? You are quite the drama queen.

    I actively volunteered for about a month after your chief masturbator (Rob Power) asked me to be. And, as I have explained to you on many, many occasions now, I lost interest after I discovered how corrupt and ideologically bankrupt your little circle jerk (that included Ruth Bennett) was. Feel free to ask Gordon, he was on the board at the same time.

  26. johncjackson Says:

    While I don’t want government involved in marriage at all, I believe that IF government is to be involved in marriage ( and I really doubt that will end at ANY point) then the law should be applied equally.

    Therefore, I don’t get outraged at this issue that outrages some people only when same-sex marriage is an issue.

    I can only assume the same people support and would have supported a ban on interracial marriage and numerous other things that “expanded” government only to the extent that they required laws to be applied equally.

  27. disinter Says:

    Mike, you’re hardly in a position to question anybody’s sanity.

    Nice try. Again:

    So there must be an “organization from the political scene” before anything is a “real belief”?

  28. Brian Miller Says:

    Let me put it this way.

    Outright Libertarians has more financial resources at its disposal than any organization Mike Nelson is chairing to reduce government involvement in the personal lives of individuals.

    One reason why Mike Nelson has no resources to reduce government involvement, and why Outright may have fewer resources than it should, is because he was tremendously ineffective at working in a real executive role at a fully funded organization—to the point where he could not discuss even estimates of an organization he co-managed for years!

    Anybody who has a real interest in Outright’s fundraising and finances is welcome to attend our annual meeting, being held during the Libertarian National Convention in Denver. The Outright web site (http://www.outrightusa.org) will have a full agenda and dates/times/locations.

    Anyone who claims to be in favor of getting the government out of marriage immediately is welcome to point me to a single organization—better or worse funded than Outright—that is both continuously active and conducting lobbying on the issue. Let’s just say that I’ve looked for years and haven’t found one.

    Mr. Nelson also is a supporter of marriage statism, in the form of his extensive involvement in the Ron Paul campaign. Dr. Paul has a marriage license and supports the role of the state within marriage. Nelson’s refusal to criticize Dr. Paul and his campaign with the same vitriol that he uses against actual Libertarians who have a more libertarian position on the issue underscores the fact that his so-called “principles” are merely a foil for his psychotic ramblings—easily abandoned when they cannot be used to bash someone he doesn’t like, or go against a candidate he does like.

    That’s one reason why Mike Nelson is not taken seriously within either the LGBT community at large, or even the relatively small LGBT Libertarian community.

  29. Brian Miller Says:

    BTW, Mike, I am not under any obligation to answer any of your “questions,” and am not inclined to do so until you demonstrate some modicum of respect towards those you are having discussions with.

    If you don’t like that, no skin off my nose.

  30. disinter Says:

    Brian dodges the question again. Perhaps he is ashamed of the Outright Liber-Nazi’s inability to garner support for it’s advocacy of more government intervention into the private lives of people?

    I will repeat the question for the third (or fourth?) time:

    You think the Outright Liber-Nazis get “real support” for their campaign for more government intervention in people’s private lives? Tell us, how much money does the Outright Liber-Nazi circle jerk raise these days?

  31. disinter Says:

    BTW, Mike, I am not under any obligation to answer any of your “questions,” and am not inclined to do so until you demonstrate some modicum of respect towards those you are having discussions with.

    In other words, you are ashamed of what the answers would be.

  32. disinter Says:

    because he was tremendously ineffective at working in a real executive role at a fully funded organization

    Fully-funded? With what, $100? What a joke your little circle-jerk group is.

    Again:

    I actively volunteered for about a month after your chief masturbator (Rob Power) asked me to be. And, as I have explained to you on many, many occasions now, I lost interest after I discovered how corrupt and ideologically bankrupt your little circle jerk (that included Ruth Bennett) was. Feel free to ask Gordon, he was on the board at the same time.

  33. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Utah doesn’t get to “not recognize” marriages performed in California. When they joined the union, they agreed to abide by the Constitution—including the Full Faith and Credit clause.

    In any situation where a married couple are entangled with the state government such that the outcome depends on Utah “recognizing” or “not recognizing” their marriage, then a California marriage license / certificate can settle the matter … or a court can tell Utah to stop messing around and follow the law.

  34. darolew Says:

    I view marriage as a religious agreement and/or private contract. Ideally, the state shouldn’t be involved in marriage issues at all. On principle, I have to oppose state-sanctioned gay marriage—ditto state-sanctioned heterosexual marriage. However, for practical reasons, I can see the benefit for people—gay or straight—to obtain a marriage license in our statist system. So I’m not really on either side.

  35. Censored by FR and now TPW Says:

    Mr. Knapp,

    I think the Full Faith and Credit Clause argument is a good one (on a legal basis rather than a libertarian basis).

    But same-sex marriage advocates in Utah don’t seem be too hopeful that the Full Faith and Credit Clause will change things there anytime soon.

    Follow the link (which is a local Utah blogger’s analysis of the issue and not binding legal precedent … although he is a lawyer ;-) .

  36. disinter Says:

    Quick Brian, go tell your butt-buddy Robbie Power-bottom to come to your defense!

  37. Austrian Economist Says:

    disinter:

    Can you please wear a big dunce’s cap with the word DOUCHE written on it at the national convention?

    That way I know not to waste even a breath interacting with you.

    Thanks in advance.

  38. Brian Miller Says:

    Can you please wear a big dunce’s cap with the word DOUCHE written on it at the national convention?

    Just look for the guy picking fights with everyone, including the waiter and hired help, and you’ll find him. :)

  39. disinter Says:

    Can you please wear a big dunce’s cap with the word DOUCHE written on it at the national convention?

    I have never attended one of those silly things, nor do I intend to. But if you loan me yours, I will put it on and take a picture for ya!

  40. disinter Says:

    Oh good, the drama queen has come back. Perhaps she can answer some of the questions above? Or is she still trying to figure out how the get her butt-plug out of her ass?

  41. G.E. Says:

    Yes, individual rights trump state rights. But the problem is, the federal government is not the entity that should be intervening on behalf of individuals against their state governments. This is akin to a serial killer saving a damsel from a purse snatcher in order that he may butcher her in satanic ritual.

    And state marriage is not a right, but a privilege. And all state privileges should be abolished.

    Gravel is a centralist, not a libertarian, and a PC “values” libertine, not a live-and-let-live individualist.

  42. disinter Says:

    including the waiter and hired help

    Aren’t waiters hired help? Or has California answered your prayers and completely turned communist?

  43. matt Says:

    Drama-fight aside, GE wins the thread at 4:38.

    I think there are plenty of organizations out there that can handle marriage other than the state. Religion and marriage have had a long and successful history together, and our secularist/non-theist friends are free to do the same thing with any of their organizations if they wish to.

    Marriage is inherently social, and the government doesn’t have the right to steer society. There are plenty of voluntary groups and associations that are far more suited to the task.

  44. Michael Seebeck Says:

    You need to go read the CA ruling and compare it to what MA put out. CA went into great detail on the issue and along the way completely debunked all the whacko arguments against it. If this gets appealed to SCOTUS (and it will), I think that Court will either deny cert or uphold the ruling themselves, because the CA majority opinion is almost completely airtight.

    LPCA press release is forthcoming, today most likely, praising the ruling and as usual calling for government to GTFO of marriage.

  45. disinter Says:

    LPCA press release is forthcoming, today most likely, praising the ruling and as usual calling for government to GTFO of marriage.

    Umm, they already released one endorsing government intervention (the Outright Liber-Nazi view):

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/california-libertarians-say-todays-supreme-court-decision-on-same-sex-marriage-is-a-step-in-the-right-direction/

  46. Hugh Jass Says:

    “I’m aware of only one organization that is actively working for getting government out of the marriage business, and that organization is Outright Libertarians. We merely take an incremental approach, rather than an unrealistic “all at once” approach.

    I am not familiar with any seriously funded or operated caucus to get government out of the marriage business in one fell swoop. And I doubt that such a caucus would receive any real support, funding, time, or other resources from those who use “get the government out of marriage” as a fallback position.

    The absence of such an organization from the political scene, despite the supposed popularity of the concept, tells me that the concept is a rhetorical trick and not a real belief.

    The logic is pretty much undebatable.”

    Gradualism doesn’t make sense, though. “If enough water and sunlight are enough to make a tree grow, then drought and darkness can make it shrink back to a seed.” So, I can continue my argument, what benefits do you expect will come from a state-sanctioned marriage that couldn’t come from simply being an unlicensed couple?

  47. Michael Seebeck Says:

    disinter, take your personal animus elsewhere.

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/california-libertarians-say-todays-supreme-court-decision-on-same-sex-marriage-is-a-step-in-the-right-direction/#comment-608851

  48. disinter Says:

    Huge Ass correctly points out:

    “This doesn’t move us closer to liberty, because it simply mandates that all gay couples register with the state government, and that unelected judges maintain the power to overrule the wills of the people. Libertarians should be working to abolish unconstitutional marriage licensing, and allow all couples to freely marry.”

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/15/phillies-salutes-advance-of-liberty-in-california/#comment-608831

  49. Michael Seebeck Says:

    disinter, HugeAss didn’t read the ruling, either. Obviously, neither did you.

  50. disinter Says:

    Seedick - are you saying that gay couples will not have to register with the government (get permission) to get married? Are you saying such licensing is constitutional or even libertarian?

  51. Michael Seebeck Says:

    No, dysentery, I am not. And I can namecall with the best of them, so quit while you’re behind.

    What I am saying is that removing the prohibition on the licensing is a necessary step in removing the licensing. Removing the prohibition levels the playing field and make sit that much easier to argue for removing the licensing altogether with the claim that since everybody does it, it’s not needed. When some can’t get it, as before, then that argument doesn’t work since the statist quo antes claim that it is needed to keep what they consider to be “undesirables” out of their little club. You open up the membership in teh club to all in order to remove the membership requirement altogether.

    Too bad you don;t seem to understand political tactics. It has a lot to do with why you were removed from OL.

  52. disinter Says:

    It has a lot to do with why you were removed from OL.

    Seedick, how could someone be removed from something they didn’t try, or have any interest to, stay in.

    Your red herring doesn’t even make sense.

  53. Jonathan Says:

    You can tell Disinter comes from a broken home, there was no one there to wash his mouth with soap

  54. disinter Says:

    No, dysentery, I am not.

    Let me try to help your feeble attempt to understand:

    Huge Ass and I explain to you that this expansion of state power you so eagerly label a victory is, in fact, unconstitutional and unlibertarian. You then cry that we haven’t read the ruling. I then ask you if you are saying the ruling doesn’t require gay couples to get permission from the govt to get married, if it is constitutional and if it is libertarian. You then cry that more government is necessary to get less government.

    Are you really too stupid to realize the flaw in your thinking?

  55. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Sorry, disinteresting, you don’t seem to get it: laws were repealed and freedom of choice was expanded with the ruling. Government restrictions on freedom of choice were rolled back. How you can claim the opposite is an exercise in warped logic that only a Democrat or Republican could come up with. That’s pretty obvious to everyone here except you and HugeAss, since you and him are the only ones complaining about the court upholding the state constitution. I guess you liked it the other way?

    The only stupid one here is you. You don’t seem to grasp that common-law marriage was also just opened up for same-sex couples as well. No license needed. You got so obsessed with marriage licenses you forgot the alternative got expanded as well.

    And you call me stupid? Make fun, buddy.

  56. disinter Says:

    Seedick - Are you saying such licensing is constitutional or even libertarian?

    Your really should go back to the the Republicrats where you belong - and take the Outright Liber-Nazis with you.

  57. disinter Says:

    This is how a direct democracy could work instead of turning into mob rule.

    No, that is how a Republic would work. If we still had one.

  58. disinter Says:

    That’s pretty obvious to everyone here except you and HugeAss, since you and him are the only ones complaining

    Ever learn to read?

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/gravel-statement-on-california-supreme-court-ruling/#comment-608801

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/gravel-statement-on-california-supreme-court-ruling/#comment-608770

  59. disinter Says:

    More:

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/15/phillies-salutes-advance-of-liberty-in-california/#comment-607793

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/15/phillies-salutes-advance-of-liberty-in-california/#comment-607826

  60. disinter Says:

    If you are still haven’t trouble finding others that are against more government intervention, I will gladly provide more.

  61. Gary Baumgarten Says:

    Mike Gravel will be my guest on News Talk Online on Paltalk.com at 5 PM New York time Friday June 20.

    Go to my blog, www.garybaumgarten.com to click on the link to join in the conversation to listen or talk to Gravel.

Leave a Reply