|
DYANA BAGBY
Friday, August 22, 2008
ATLANTA
—
Local
resident
Rob
Calhoun
and
his
husband,
Clay,
were
devastated
when
Congress
passed
the
Defense
of
Marriage
Act
in
1996,
the
same
year
Georgia
passed
its
own
law
against
gay
marriage.
“We
were
so
demoralized,”
Rob
Calhoun
said.
“But
we
were
also
shocked
the
community
didn’t
come
together
more
[to
oppose
it].
There
was
an
apathy
about
marriage
equality
in
the
mid-1990s.
Nothing
like
we
see
now.”
The
gay
rights
movement’s
increased
focus
on
marriage
isn’t
the
only
change
since
1996.
Bob
Barr
sponsored
the
Defense
of
Marriage
Act
when
he
served
in
Congress
as
a
Republican
representing
Georgia’s
7th
District.
Now
running
for
president
as
a
Libertarian,
Barr
advocates
repealing
part
of
the
law.
In
a
recent
interview,
Barr,
who
served
in
Congress
from
1995-2003,
delineated
between
two
sections
of
DOMA:
a
full
faith
and
credit
clause
that
protects
the
rights
of
each
state
to
implement
its
own
definition
of
marriage,
and
a
section
that
defines
marriage
as
only
between
one
man
and
one
woman
under
federal
law.
“This
[second
part]
was
intended
to
apply
to
federal
programs,
such
as
survivor
benefits,
Social
Security
[and
others],”
he
said.
Barr
said
it
is
the
second
part
of
DOMA
he
would
work
to
repeal
if
elected
president.
“Over
the
years
and
over
the
last
year
since
I’ve
been
more
active
in
the
Libertarian
Party,
I’ve
talked
with
a
number
of
individuals,
including
members
of
Outright
Libertarians
[a
gay
Libertarian
group],
and
have
come
to
view
the
second
part
as
having
been
used
as
a
club,
or
the
tail
wagging
the
dog,”
Barr
said.
“It
has
become
in
effect
a
national
definition
of
marriage.
This
is
not
what
I
intended.”
Barr
called
that
portion
of
DOMA
a
“mistake”
during
a
May
25
speech
to
the
Libertarian
Party’s
national
convention.
The
speech
is
currently
posted
on
YouTube.
“Let
me
tell
you
—
I
have
made
mistakes,”
Barr
said
in
the
speech.
“But
the
only
way
you
make
mistakes,
the
only
way
you
get
things
done,
is
by
getting
out
there,
in
the
arena….
“As
I
mentioned
to
you
all
last
night,
and
I
reiterate
here
today
—
standing
before
you,
looking
you
in
the
eye
—
the
Defense
of
Marriage
Act,
insofar
as
it
provided
the
federal
government
a
club
to
club
down
the
rights
of
law-abiding,
American
citizens,
has
been
abused,
misused
and
should
be
repealed.
And
I
will
work
to
repeal
that.”
The
speech
was
a
far
cry
from
what
Barr
said
during
congressional
hearings
on
DOMA
12
years
ago,
when
he
was
considered
one
of
the
most
rightwing,
anti-gay
Republicans
of
the
time.
“The
very
foundations
of
our
society
are
in
danger
of
being
burned.
The
flames
of
hedonism,
the
flames
of
narcissism,
the
flames
of
self-centered
morality
are
licking
at
the
very
foundations
of
our
society:
the
family
unit,”
Barr
said
then.
“We
all
must
stand
up
and
say
we
support
this.
Enough
is
enough.
We
must
maintain
a
moral
foundation,
an
ethical
foundation
for
our
families
and
ultimately
for
the
United
States
of
America.”
Let
states
decide
Barr
and
his
campaign
staff
declined
to
answer
follow-up
questions
about
the
legal
chaos
that
could
follow
if
the
part
of
DOMA
that
bans
federal
recognition
of
gay
marriages
was
repealed,
with
the
rest
of
the
law
still
intact.
Would
the
hundreds
of
federal
benefits
of
marriage
only
be
given
to
gay
couples
who
live
in
states
that
allow
gay
marriage,
forcing
gay
people
who
live
in
states
like
Georgia
to
move
to
Massachusetts
or
California
if
they
want
their
relationships
treated
equally
under
federal
law?
Barr
did
say
he
supports
allowing
a
gay
American
who
legally
weds
a
foreign
partner
to
bring
his
or
her
partner
into
the
U.S.
as
a
legal
family
member.
But
whether
the
federal
government
would
recognize
the
marriage
if
the
second
portion
of
DOMA
is
repealed
is
unclear.
“The
response
from
the
campaign
staff
is
we
won’t
answer
hypothetical
questions,”
said
Barr’s
campaign
manager,
Russell
Verney,
who
also
managed
Ross
Perot’s
presidential
campaign.
The
part
of
DOMA
Barr
still
supports
—
which
says
that
states
don’t
have
to
recognize
same-sex
marriages
performed
in
other
states
—
relates
to
the
Constitution’s
Full
Faith
and
Credit
Clause,
which
states
“full
faith
and
credit
shall
be
given
in
each
state
to
the
public
acts,
records,
and
judicial
proceedings
of
every
other
state.”
Gay
rights
advocates
have
argued
that
the
clause
means
states
should
have
to
recognize
same-sex
marriages
from
other
states.
But
Barrr
argued
that
Congress
has
the
authority
to
define
exactly
what
comes
under
the
clause.
“I
don’t
think
it’s
a
question
of
gay
marriage
or
non-gay
marriage.
The
states,
through
a
referendum
or
the
court
system,
should
decide
their
own
definition
[of
marriage],”
Barr
said.
“It
is
fundamental
and
appropriate
for
the
people
of
each
state
to
decide.”
‘Sincere’
change?
For
Rob
Calhoun,
that
stance
seems
too
problematic.
Having
to
go
state-by-state
to
get
same-sex
marriages
legalized
is
a
piecemeal
way
of
governing.
“It
sounds
like
that
would
be
complicated,”
he
said.
“The
government
needs
to
recognize
all
marriages
across
all
states.
But
that’s
what
the
right-wingers
fear.”
The
Calhouns,
who
live
in
Decatur,
legally
married
in
Provincetown,
Mass.,
in
2004,
still
reside
in
Georgia
because
...
|
 |
