Post by RS Davis on Jul 19, 2004 1:55:24 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]===================================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: www.LP.org
===================================
For release: July 15, 2004
===================================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008
===================================
[/glow]
Badnarik applauds Senate rejection
of GOP-led measure to ban gay marriage
WASHINGTON, DC -- The Senate did the right thing on Wednesday by rejecting a proposal to ban gay marriage, says Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, because the government has no business further interfering in what should be a purely religious or civil ceremony.
"When two people say 'I do,' the government has no business saying: 'Oh no you don't!'" Badnarik says. "Politicians don't get to decide whose baby can get baptized, who can receive Holy Communion or who can get bar mitzvahed -- and they shouldn't get to decide who gets married, either."
The measure to allow a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage, supported by President Bush and most Republicans, failed in the U.S. Senate, getting just 48 of the 60 necessary votes.
The drive to amend the Constitution -- and thereby override state court rulings allowing gay marriage -- was sparked by a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that said gay couples have a right to wed.
Libertarians applaud the Senate vote because decisions about marriage are far too important to be left in the hands of the government.
"Marriage should be decided by individuals or by churches and other voluntary, civil organizations -- and certainly not by politicians posturing for votes in an election year," Badnarik says. "The institution of marriage is a building block of a civilized society, which is exactly why we have to keep the destructive hand of government away from it."
Government involvement in marriage had an ugly beginning, Badnarik noted.
"The only reason that marriage licenses even exist is that state and local governments once mandated them as a way to enforce laws against interracial marriage," he said. "In other times and places, marriage licenses were denied to interracial or other politically incorrect couples, just as they can be denied to gay couples today."
As long as any governmental group -- federal, state or local -- controls marriage, controversy will erupt, Badnarik pointed out, because politicians will always have something to gain by favoring one group over another.
The Libertarian solution: Turn decisions on marriage over to "a higher authority" -- namely, churches, other voluntary organizations and individuals.
"Just as the Catholic Church has historically disdained divorce among its congregation, so too will some religious groups refuse to bless gay unions," he said.
"Both those who support and those who condemn gay marriage will be free to practice their beliefs and persuade others to their way of thinking.
Each individual will be free to choose. Isn't that what America's all about?"
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: www.LP.org
===================================
For release: July 15, 2004
===================================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008
===================================
[/glow]
Badnarik applauds Senate rejection
of GOP-led measure to ban gay marriage
WASHINGTON, DC -- The Senate did the right thing on Wednesday by rejecting a proposal to ban gay marriage, says Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, because the government has no business further interfering in what should be a purely religious or civil ceremony.
"When two people say 'I do,' the government has no business saying: 'Oh no you don't!'" Badnarik says. "Politicians don't get to decide whose baby can get baptized, who can receive Holy Communion or who can get bar mitzvahed -- and they shouldn't get to decide who gets married, either."
The measure to allow a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage, supported by President Bush and most Republicans, failed in the U.S. Senate, getting just 48 of the 60 necessary votes.
The drive to amend the Constitution -- and thereby override state court rulings allowing gay marriage -- was sparked by a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that said gay couples have a right to wed.
Libertarians applaud the Senate vote because decisions about marriage are far too important to be left in the hands of the government.
"Marriage should be decided by individuals or by churches and other voluntary, civil organizations -- and certainly not by politicians posturing for votes in an election year," Badnarik says. "The institution of marriage is a building block of a civilized society, which is exactly why we have to keep the destructive hand of government away from it."
Government involvement in marriage had an ugly beginning, Badnarik noted.
"The only reason that marriage licenses even exist is that state and local governments once mandated them as a way to enforce laws against interracial marriage," he said. "In other times and places, marriage licenses were denied to interracial or other politically incorrect couples, just as they can be denied to gay couples today."
As long as any governmental group -- federal, state or local -- controls marriage, controversy will erupt, Badnarik pointed out, because politicians will always have something to gain by favoring one group over another.
The Libertarian solution: Turn decisions on marriage over to "a higher authority" -- namely, churches, other voluntary organizations and individuals.
"Just as the Catholic Church has historically disdained divorce among its congregation, so too will some religious groups refuse to bless gay unions," he said.
"Both those who support and those who condemn gay marriage will be free to practice their beliefs and persuade others to their way of thinking.
Each individual will be free to choose. Isn't that what America's all about?"
