Bob Barr is changing yet another policy position in order to run for President.

Bob Barr’s marriage of convenience to the Libertarian Party gained him the group’s nomination for president and prompted the former Republican congressman to declare he will work to repeal one of his biggest legislative victories, the Defense of Marriage Act.

In his speech accepting the little party’s nomination in Denver last weekend, Barr roundly denounced the law he once championed.

Barr was the sponsor of the 1996 act that (1) says no state is required to give effect to or recognize a same-sex union law of another state, and (2) defines marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and declares “the word ’spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Barr’s reversal marks the repudiation of key conservative “family values” positions he once embraced. He also now favors legalizing “medical marijuana,” and his new party’s platform calls for repeal “of all laws creating ‘crimes’ without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.” He also opposes the 2001 Patriot Act he originally supported to expand intelligence-gathering powers in fighting terrorism.

Before the convention, Barr declared support for the California Supreme Court’s mid-May decision striking down state laws banning same-sex marriages.

The War on Drugs, The Patriot Act, and now The Defense of Marriage Act. Barr is showing he will change his long held beliefs for political gain.

Fred Thompson said Friday that he supports a constitutional amendment that would nullify the full faith and credit clause with regard to gay marriage.   “I don’t think that one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage and have another state be required to follow along,” Thompson told CNN’s John King in an interview Friday.  Unlike some of the other proposals, this is a federalist approach that would put the decision in the hands of state legislators.  This would probably be easier to pass than those proposals that would define marriage in the Constitution, giving a states’ rights argument to those who do not support a federal standard.  The main reason that this is an issue is that we have a bunch of judges who should have run for legislative office rather than accepting appointments to the bench, and Thompson’s statements on other judicial matters, such as Roe, suggest that he understands that to be the crux of the problem.

While  I find Thompson’s proposal favorable both to the status quo and to the constitutional definition of marriage, I don’t think marriage should be a legal matter.  Instead, I think it should be left solely to the pervue of religion.  If a church chooses to recognize same-sex marriages, they could do so and gay couples would be able to say that they are married.  At the same time, those not approving of same-sex marriage would not be expected to recognize any special status for that relationship.  In terms of legal arrangements, they could be made on an individual basis between two individuals and those two individuals and other parties.  For example, if an employer wants to provide benefits for a significant other, the employee and employer would work out an individual arrangement as to who is covered under a particular plan.  I’m sure Michael K will have some thoughts on how workable this would be, but I thought I’d throw it out there and see what discussion it generates.

Former NJ Governor Jim McGreevey to become Episcopal Priest.

South Carolina officially banned gay marriage Thursday as legislative leaders ratified a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November.

The state was among seven others that voted for similar bans on the ballot last year.

House Speaker Bobby Harrell and Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell met Thursday to ratify the act. The constitution now reads, “a marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”

It prevents the state and local governments from legalizing any sort of domestic union of gay couples or recognizing those made in other states.

Charlotte Observer

This is the way it should be done.  Each state should decide their own restrictions based on the will of the people in that state.  The Federal Marriage Amendment was nothing but a bate and hook for conservatives to come out and vote for Republicans.  The Feds knew it had no hope of passing.

Indoctrination begins at a young age.

This issue is going to be on the front burner for some time so thought it would be an interesting topic of conversation.

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican newspaper said on Tuesday that homosexuality risked “destabilizing people and society”, had no social or moral value and could never match the importance of the relationship between a man and a woman.

The remarks were contained in a long commentary published to accompany the official release of a long-awaited document that restricted the access of homosexual men to the Roman Catholic priesthood.

The article by Monsignor Tony Anatrella, a French Jesuit and psychologist, said homosexuality could not be considered an acceptable moral alternative to heterosexuality.

“During these past years, homosexuality has become a phenomenon that is always increasingly worrying and in many countries is considered a quality that is normal,” the article in L’Osservatore Romano said.

The article was specifically approved by the Vatican’s secretariat of state.

“It (homosexuality) does not represent a social value and even less so a moral virtue that could add to the civilization of sexuality,” Anatrella said. “It could even be seen as a destabilizing reality for people and for society.”

The Catholic Church, the article said, had a duty to reaffirm its position that homosexuality is “against conjugal life, the life of the family, and priestly life”.

“In no case is this form of sexuality a sexual alternative, or even less, a reality that is equivalent to that which is shared by a man and a woman engaged in matrimonial life,” the Italian-language article said.

“It (homosexuality) cannot be encouraged or even less so, supported with pastoral initiatives,” it said in an apparent reference to Catholic priests who administer to homosexuals without reminding them of the Church’s position against gay sex.

It said homosexuality was “a sexual tendency and not an identity” and repeated the Church’s stand against allowing gays to marry or to adopt children. It also called homosexuality “an incomplete and immature part of human sexuality”.

It repeated some themes in the Vatican document, and added a list of ways seminary directors could determine if a candidate for the priesthood had overcome homosexual tendencies or risked not being able to respect the Church rule of priestly celibacy.

I like this article (I couldn’t find a version that didn’t require registration, and work beckons…sorry) because it looks like they didn’t even try to get quotes from conservatives. My guess is all the GOP consultants were out getting stoned or something.

Also, it looks like we got sucker punched in Connecticut.

And in older news, Doc Hastings, who represents the most beautiful congressional district in America is probably going to push for hearings against DeLay. This is a good thing in my opinion, because it allows for, say, Tom Tancredo to become Majority Leader.

I would classify the Conservative Party of New York State as struggling: to find issues, to find a constituency, and of course struggling to differentiate themselves effectively from the state Republican machine (RINOs).

The CPNYS has focused its energy on battles that it thinks it can win, such as the smoking ban, and then failing to make any dents. Despite clearly having the best candidate in last years Senate election against Chuck Schumer (link was originally to an article by Joe Sobran, but I am nothing if not contreversy averse) there was no hope of winning.

The last point is the most troubling. The Conservative Party was founded to give New Yorkers a place to stand against the totally indistinct state Democrat and Republican parties, toadies to leviathan as they were. These days however, they have become nothing but a rubber stamp to Governor George Pataki and State Senate Maj, Leader Joe Bruno (RINO-Troy). An absolutely egregious example of this arrived with the mail today, announcing that this years annual CPNYS gala would be headlined by none other than “The Architect”, Karl Rove.

To many conservatives, Karl Rove is a hero for getting President Bush elected, and growing the majority in both houses of Congress. I choose to remember him for forcing us to live with Arlen Specter. Rove’s behavior, and Bush’s for that matter, during the PA Senate primary last year was entirely shameful and inexcusable, and will form more of their legacy for the Republican Party than they may realize. In four years, when we look back and realized that nothing has changed with the Supreme Court, that nothing has changed with Social Security, that nothing has changed period, the reason will be Arlen Specter.

And conservatives are supposed to celebrate Karl Rove because….?

(Thanks to Michelle Malkin’s ‘blog for the picture!)

This article claims that “polyamory” is closer than we thought.

As of now, the state will recognize a marriage if it is between: 1 man and 1 woman, over the age of 18, not directly related.

But why do many people who support gay marriage deny polygamy? If something as trivial as *gender* should not be used to regulate who cannot be married, then why would something even more trivial, *number*. You say 2 men can get married. Why not 3? Why not 30?

Furthermore, there have been no civilizations in which children were raised with two mothers or two fathers, while polygamy has been used as a family unit. Doesn’t Osama have 62 children? Granted, our own civilization is struggling mighty hard with trying one mother and no father.

Anyway, by noticing the dearth of posts, it’s pretty clear that most of us here at SaveTheGOP don’t get too excited about the marriage issue. Let me know what y’all think.

Incase you haven’t heard, the ban on same sex marriage was found to be unconstitutional by a San Francisco County judge. Big surprise. Assuming this ruling stands upon appeal to the Supreme Court, California will likely follow Massachusetts in permitting homosexual marriage.

See Fox News for more.

It may have ruffled a few feathers, but it earned him the coveted Ig Nobel prize for biology awarded for improbable research…As he recounts in his seminal paper, The first case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard anas platyrhynchos, he was in his office in the Natuurmuseum Rotterdam, when he was alerted by a bang to the fact a bird had crashed into the glass facade of the building. “I went downstairs immediately to see if the window was damaged, and saw a drake mallard (anas platyrhynchos) lying motionless on its belly in the sand, two metres outside the facade. The unfortunate duck apparently had hit the building in full flight at a height of about three metres from the ground. Next to the obviously dead duck, another male mallard (in full adult plumage without any visible traces of moult) was present. He forcibly picked into the back, the base of the bill and mostly into the back of the head of the dead mallard for about two minutes, then mounted the corpse and started to copulate, with great force, almost continuously picking the side of the head. Rather startled, I watched this scene from close quarters behind the window until 19.10 hours during which time (75 minutes) I made some photographs and the mallard almost continuously copulated his dead congener.”

And people lambasted Rick Santorum for his slippery slope argument. This article is definitive proof that gay marriage won’t merely stop at polygamy and incest. It will quickly lead to unabated male-duck on dead-male-duck action, as it already has in Amsterdam, a nation that legalized gay marriage in 2001. No word yet as to whether the ducks are taking legal action to receive their dead partners’ universal healthcare coverage.

Nod to Andrew Sullivan for this quacktastic link.

According to Fox News with a Hat Tip to Red State, a New York judge has voided the ban on gay marriage in the state of New York. Are we surprised, no? As usual the GOP will likely roll over on this one.

A great article from the National Post (a canadian paper) on the gay marriage debate that is raging up in Canada , with a new push from polygamists to be able to marry in the People’s Republic of Canada.

Polygamists have not challenged the ban for the same reason people walk by an apparently abandoned car for days on end — until someone breaks one of its windows. The car is then vandalized and stripped within hours. Gay marriage is that broken window. Continuing vandalism will see marriage abolished altogether, exactly what radical gays, feminists and family law theorists wanted in the first place, and the reason why feminists disparage heterosexual, but support gay, marriage.

The entire article is available here and is a must read for people interested in the future of the gay marriage debate.