From the Archives: Libertarians praise Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling in DOMA case

Libertarians praise Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling in DOMA case
June 27, 2013 4:01 PM MST

In separate news releases distributed on June 26, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Windsor v. United States, which overturned Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, the national Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party of Virginia both praised the Court's ruling.

Geoffrey J. Neale, chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, called the DOMA decision "a landmark victory for personal freedom."

The Democratic and Republican politicians who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, he said, and who "let stand government intrusion into the private contracts and choices of consenting adults will be remembered for their inhumanity on this issue."

The national party's press release quoted the Libertarian Party platform, which says that "sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws."

Two candidates for the Virginia House of Delegates were quoted in the LPVA's news release, which was distributed by email. Both said they will work to repeal Virginia's constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage.

Arlington-based tax attorney Lindsey Bolton, who is running for the 47th House district seat now held by Democrat Patrick Hope, said that when she is elected she will “introduce a resolution that the Commonwealth's role regarding marriage is merely to respect and uphold a contract."

Liberty University alumnus Jonathan Parrish, who is seeking to unseat Republican Delegate T. Scott Garrett in the 23rd House district, said “it is nice to finally see a decision being made that ensure same sex couples will have access to the same benefits that straight couples do. As they pay the same taxes, this decision is long overdue.”

Earlier this week, Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian nominee for governor, released a campaign video stating his intention to "fight for marriage equality" in the Old Dominion.

“By protecting personal and economic freedom," Sarvis said on June 26 while announcing he had qualified for the November general election ballot, "we can make Virginia the envy of the world, with a growing economy that adds jobs and raises incomes, and a system of laws providing equality and justice for all. So let's buck the two-party system, bring people together, and build a Virginia that's open-minded and open for business.”

Publisher's note: This article is part of a series to mark June as Gay Pride Month. It was originally published on Examiner.com on June 27, 2013. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Senate candidate E.W. Jackson defends anti-gay stance as ‘fundamental’

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on April 29, 2012. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Senate candidate E.W. Jackson defends anti-gay stance as ‘fundamental’
April 29, 2012 7:26 PM MST

In a previous interview on Examiner.com, which he featured on his campaign Twitter feed, Virginia Senate candidate E.W. Jackson said that he thinks “we maximize individual freedom [and] we let people make their own choices, where those choices don’t impinge on the life, the liberty, or the property of others,” adding that under those conditions, “we’re going to always be a better country for it. We persuade people of what is right and decent and good and moral; we don’t try to force it on them.”

Jackson was one of the participants in a debate on April 28 in Roanoke sponsored by the Republican Party of Virginia. He and other GOP primary candidates George Allen, Bob Marshall, and Jamie Radtke answered questions about policy topics from a panel of political activists.

‘Fundamental rights’
After the debate, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner asked Jackson to restate his position on government non-interference in the moral lives of citizens.

“Where life is concerned, where property rights are concerned, in other words, when the fundamental rights of other citizens are concerned,” Jackson said, “I think government certainly has a role and our constitution indicates it’s supposed to secure those rights for other citizens.”

He added, however, that “if that’s not what’s at stake, then yes, I tend to believe that we are better off when we are freer to make our own decisions and to chart the course of our own lives without the government telling us what we should and should not do and, frankly, I think most Americans feel that way, given the overreach of this government.”

Not a libertarian

To follow up, Jackson was asked how that position is consistent with his stated policy stance on prohibiting same-sex marriage and supporting the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

“For me,” he replied, “the issue of marriage is a fundamental issue. It’s a fundamental moral and spiritual issue and I don’t think that the state should be sanctioning marriage between other than a man and a woman.”

Jackson conceded that he would not call himself a libertarian and added that “I don’t know that libertarians would call me a libertarian,” but that what he had said previously is that “libertarians like me because they know I lean very strongly into keeping government out of the lives of people.”

With regard to gay marriage, he added, “you’ve got to remember, what is really happening there is that people who want homosexual marriage are inviting the government to put its imprimatur on what they want to do and to change 6,000 years of human history and 200 years of American policy. So in my view, they’re the ones who are trying to use the government to intrude upon those of us who believe that marriage as it is is just fine.”

‘Affecting our culture’
The next question was how Jackson would be affected if the gay couple next door were to get married.

“I’m talking about it affecting society, affecting our culture in the long term,” he answered.

“I would turn the question around and say, if you’re going to upend 6,000 years of human history, it is incumbent upon you to prove to me that somehow we’re going to be better off with that.”

Asked whether “gay people and abortion” are the only exceptions to his general view that the government should not interfere in citizens’ private lives, Jackson replied:

“Well, I don’t know that I would limit it, as you put it, ‘gay people and abortion.’ I think it would have to be something you’d have to look at on a case by case basis. Look, you have to remember something. We’re called to represent the constitution, to represent the people of the United States. We’re also called to represent our own consciences.”

Podcast available
A complete audio recording of this interview with E.W. Jackson is available as a Bearing Drift podcast.