Press "Enter" to skip to content

News From Outright Libertarians

Emailed to

Outright’s Eight Point Guide To Why The Complete Repeal Of Prop 8 Is The Way Forward

SACRAMENTO — In its ongoing efforts to educate the public, Outright Libertarians and its partners released the following eight point guide to why complete Proposition 8 repeal is the right path forward for California and for Libertarians — and why the Domestic Partnership Initiative (DPI) is a path backwards for California and for Libertarians.

1. Repealing Proposition 8 brings tens of thousands of Californians out of legal limbo. Prop 8’s repeal has straight-forward consequences for anyone who gets married — they are married, no more, and no less. DPI, in contrast, puts millions of Californians into a legal limbo. DPI proponents have blind faith that courts, legislators, or a higher power will straighten out the tax, custody, medical, financial, and numerous other legal nightmares and ambiguities that DPI creates. DPI thrusts uncertainty on millions of Californians, even those who oppose DPI. In this recession, heaping financial uncertainty on millions of consumers is fiscally irresponsible. Libertarian principals oppose risking the well being of millions of California families, and that’s what DPI’s risky, ill-researched, misguided experiment does.

2. Family lawyers, tax policy experts, and researchers all agree: DPI increases married Californians’ federal tax burden. Repealing Proposition 8 doesn’t. DPI will annul the marriage of every married Californian. Those marriages will become “domestic partnerships” with no federal tax recognition. Under DPI, formerly married Californians will pay $130 billion per year in extra taxes. Proposition 8’s repeal carries no risk of raising taxes on anybody. Hiking taxes solely to appease the semantic yearnings of social conservatives is the opposite of Libertarian. In fact, it’s just plain wrong. The Secretary of State’s website says DPI “would have an unknown fiscal effect on state and local governments” while repealing Prop 8 “would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments. ” During this recession, “unknown fiscal effects” are the last thing Californians need.
3. DPI expands the role of government in the most intimate relationships of all Californians. DPI creates an entirely new licensing scheme imposed on all relationships. DPI offers all the negative aspects of marriage licensing, not to mention even fewer associated freedoms, and new hurdles and government restrictions on individuals. Proposition 8 repeal removes a state restriction imposed on the familial relationships of tens of thousands of Californians. Proposition 8 repeal is far more Libertarian in approach and effect.

4. Libertarians were key partners in opposing Proposition 8. Withdrawing from that coalition mid-stream dilutes the power of our principles, makes the Party appear unreliable, and calls into doubt the commitment of Libertarians to individual liberties. The core of Libertarianism is commitment to principles and fulfillment of obligations — abandoning our coalition partners is not only politically unwise, but anti-Libertarian.

5. Proposition 8’s repeal is a step towards privatizing marriage. DPI solidifies “marriage under another name” as the permanent domain of state government. Libertarians should not endorse any referendum that creates
an entirely new, heavy-handed government regime. We should be working to deconstruct those regimes and to maximize personal liberties.

6. DPI lacks a clear federal strategy. DPI was not carefully studied by the Libertarian Party of California’s leadership before they endorsed it. Proposition 8’s repeal has a clear and logical strategy for state and federal legislative and legal efforts. Proposition 8’s repeal has been extensively studied by family law experts and Libertarian research organizations. Libertarians across California and across America agree — Proposition 8’s repeal is the course of action that will advance society in a broadly Libertarian direction.

7. Domestic partnership is a failing and fading strategy. Equal Marriage treatment for all is the path of the future. Libertarians in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey and Washington state have successfully advanced equal treatment under the law by removing government restrictions on marriage. In Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts, they have been especially successful. In contrast, no effort like DPI has ever been successful. It replaces the marriage bureaucracy with an even riskier “domestic partnership” bureaucracy. Libertarians should not support losing strategies, especially when the strategy that has already won in state after state is more Libertarian than DPI.

8. Prominent Libertarians from around California — and around the country — agree that a Prop 8 repeal is the way to go:

* Ed Clark was the Libertarian Party’s most successful presidential candidate. A prominent California Libertarian and keynote speaker at several recent LP California events, his position on the DPI and Proposition 8 is clear: “I support the outright repeal of Proposition 8. California doesn’t need the Domestic Partnership Initiative which will raise taxes on many Californians, create a new bureaucracy and is much less likely to be approved by the voters than is the repeal of Proposition 8.”

* A well-known activist and former candidate for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination, Massachusetts Libertarian Party Treasurer George Phillies, writes: “Massachusetts has had equal marriage rights for years and years. Massachusetts residents have seen the truth: Equality means happiness for fellow Americans. There are no bad consequences. Last year, our state legislature voted on repealing marriage rights. Gay marriage opponents couldn’t get a quarter of the votes.”

* “The strategy behind the DPI has been ‘fire, aim, ready!'” said Rob Power, National Chair of Outright Libertarians. “The embrace of a risky, tax-hiking social engineering ‘solution’ to the marriage question — without doing any significant research beforehand — was a mistake. I am certain that at the upcoming Libertarian Party of California state convention the delegates will vote to recommit the Party to the Libertarian goal of eliminating Proposition 8, and at the same time vote to discard support for any competing initiatives. Then we can get back to continuing our efforts to reduce the heavy hand of the state bureaucracy in all of our affairs.”

About Outright Libertarians

Outright Libertarians is the leading lobby of LGBTQ Libertarians and their supporters within the Libertarian Party.

Comments and requests for information are welcomed by Outright’s Chair, Rob Power, at

About Post Author


  1. Brian Holtz Brian Holtz April 26, 2009

    Rob Power: “I am certain that at the upcoming Libertarian Party of California state convention the delegates will vote to recommit the Party to the Libertarian goal of eliminating Proposition 8, and at the same time vote to discard support for any competing initiatives.”

  2. Michael Seebeck Michael Seebeck April 16, 2009

    BTW, it’s not requisite on me to prove your tax allegations wrong. It is requisite on you to prove your tax allegations are right. You have not done so, and I doubt you can.

  3. Michael Seebeck Michael Seebeck April 16, 2009

    Earth to Wallace: You still claim $130B, and you still don’t cite the source for that number. You could have pulled it out the Fed’s printing press (thin air) or some other nether region for all we know. CITE YOUR SOURCES.

    In the absence of your citation, the number could be $1, $130B, or $1T. It makes no difference.

    And 37 cents is not $10B, not by 10^12 orders of magnitude and a factor of 3, anyway. Never argue math with a person with a Math degree. You will never win.

    And the conjecture of a tax increase is just that–conjecture. I wrote the IRS and asked for a written ruling of declaration. Have you?

    IOW, you spout nonsense and call it fact. I call the nonsense bullshit and then do what you should have done, which is get the facts.

  4. Brian Holtz Brian Holtz April 16, 2009

    DPI repeals Prop 8 — but Outright doesn’t want you to know this and never dares admit it in any of their official statements. Meanwhile, LPCA opposition to Prop 8 remains on the record at:

    Of those three consecutive California Freedom issues, the first two featured Prop 8 opposition on the front page. See also Google’s cache of’s massive list of organizations against Prop 8: LPCA is on the list, but Outright Libertarians isn’t.

    Draw your own conclusions indeed, because the picture Outright draws remains deceptively incomplete.

    P.S. Outright’s California coordinator, Angela Keaton, wrote last year about DOMA: “I don’t really give a damn either way — the proper libertarian position is no state sanction for anyone”.

  5. Allan Wallace Allan Wallace April 16, 2009

    LPC support for No onProp 8 AND Repeal of Prop 8 –
    Link on website: NO
    Article on website: NO
    Press Release: NO
    Leadership Public statements of support: NO

    LPC support for DPI –
    Link on website: YES
    Article on website: YES
    Press Release: YES
    Leadership Public statements of support: YES

    Everyone, draw your own conclusions.

  6. Brian Holtz Brian Holtz April 16, 2009

    It’s an outright lie to say that the LP/LPCA has “withdrawn support” for repealing Prop 8.

    I’m pushing the LP to the Right? I’m a militant atheist (published at who defends Roe v. Wade and criticizes the LP for not being green enough. I made the motion demanding the LPCA support No-on-8 with its web site and email distribution list, and in Vegas I was the one who tracked down the Outright leaders in another room and asked them to review the gay-rights language I added to the draft LP platform. (They liked it.) I publicly oppose all regulations and bans on gambling, suicide, substance use, pornography, gay marriage, polyamory, sexual practices, sexual commerce, reproductive commerce, cloning, etc. I’m a free-market liberal who never calls himself “conservative”, and the web site for all my campaigns has been Calling me right-wing would be too stupid to even be classified as a lie.

  7. Allan Wallace Allan Wallace April 16, 2009


    Perhaps I am as you suggest “in the wrong political party”, but not because I have changed, but because the party has Lurched Right in recent years.

    When centrist Libertarians controlled the LP there were complaints from both wings, but at least they were able to maintain the party’s philosophical integrity.

    Now that Right wing libertarians have control of the LNC and some of the largest states in the LP, the party is moving so far right that it is leaving a growing number of libertarians behind.

    And you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    Of Course, the LP looks stupid when it withdraws from support for something that can pass and will enhance a Libertarian short-term goal, in favor of something that cannot pass and fakes leading to a Libertarian long-term goal.

  8. Allan Wallace Allan Wallace April 16, 2009

    I’ll make it simple Seebeck:

    Hard number – exact figure like $12.37
    Estimate – ball park number like $12

    NO ONE can know any exact figures about future events. We are and always have been talking about Estimates, but you already knew that. We NEVER represented the figures we used as anything but estimates. No reasonable person could think otherwise.

    When one year and two year figures are close (considering 2x the one year figure), that is good enough for an estimate.

    By the way, we did state that the one year figure was “up to $130 Billion”. I doubt that if we had stated “about $125 Billion” it would have changed your tactic of trying to muddy the water around the figures.

    And one more thing, even if the figures were over-estimates, that would not change the fact that at least for a time currently married Californians’ taxes would go UP and that indirect taxes might never go away. And YOU nor anyone else have ever given a plausible sequence of events that proves that false.

  9. Tomcat Tomcat April 16, 2009

    In all fairness, I believe the number was $130 billion ANNUALLY, which is $260 billion over two years…which is what I believe the point was.

    Of course, I could easily be the one confused here.

  10. Michael Seebeck Michael Seebeck April 16, 2009

    Hey, Miller, checked out my Facebook page, with the proof of where I was AT multiple No on 8 rallies all over the Inland Empire both before and after the election, supporting the effort and plugging the party? No? Were you in my car with my wife and kid, canvassing precincts on election day in a public display of No on 8? No? Oh yeah, that doesn’t fit your preconceived notion of what happened. A lot of LP members in CA did a lot on the No on 8 campaign, and just because YOU in you PA world 2600 miles away didn’t see it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It’s a big state. And just because the top-levels didn’t see things, doesn’t mean they weren’t done, either. and just because they weren’t done the way YOU wanted them done doesn’t mean things weren’t done either. Nice try. FAIL.

    BTW, for those like Miller who are math-impaired, allow the guy with the Math here degree (that’s me) to remind you that $250B DOES NOT EQUAL $130B. Being off by 58% does not qualify as accurate. Even if it is over two years, you’re still off by $10B. That’s 10^10 greenbacks, Brian–a lot of scratch–roughly 90% of entire budget of the state of Colorado. Your numbers are off by an entire state, and you criticize ME? Please.

    And just because YOU claim the number doesn’t make it valid. You STILL haven’t cited where that number came from or how it was arrived at. You just keep throwing it out there in that press release without citing where IT got it from. In engineering, we call that a WAG. In politics we call that a line. In accounting it’s called cooking the books.

    In my analyses, I ALWAYS cite my sources. You don’t. That undermines your credibility. Have you ever read ANY of my bill or ballot analyses? Doubt it.

    And I’m still waiting for you to respond to my challenge, too, Miller. Put up or shut up.

    One last thing. You bitch and moan at me about the LPCA ExComm not doing anything. Well, guess what, let me repeat: I’M NOT ON THE EXCOMM! So quit bitching at me over actions I have no control over.

  11. Brian Holtz Brian Holtz April 16, 2009

    Rob, you need to make up your mind: are we DPI supporters “pandering to the religious right” and their attempts to monopolize marriage, or are we antagonizing them by realizing their worst fears about the alleged assault on marriage? Pick one lie and stick to it.

    Brian, do you know who made the motion to have the LPCA put the No-on-8 logo on its front page and use its email contact list to mobilize our troops? Me.

    Becky has it exactly right — Rob et al. don’t want the government-marriage club renamed just when they’re finally about to get inside and spike the football. Fear-mongering over imaginary tax burdens — that are a risk to me and my wife, not to Rob and his husband — are just a red herring. If federal rules already recognized domestic partnership as marriage, would Rob then support this step on the road taking marriage from sacrament to contract?

    Allan, the LP supports lots of things that have “no chance in hell” of being on a ballot this year, let alone passing. If you think that makes the LP “stupid”, then you’re in the wrong party.

    It’s simply inane to say that supporting DPI “tells gays and lesbians that their equal rights under the law means NOTHING to the LP”. Rob, I dare you to include this quote from Allan in your handout in Visalia.

    Please explain how “DPI greatly extends the role of government into Domestic Partnerships”. Section 297 of the California Family Code already says: “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”

  12. Allan Wallace Allan Wallace April 16, 2009

    To Becky….
    Nice Ransberger Pivot.

    FACT: The DPI, IF it could get on the ballot, IF it could pass, does NOT get “the government out of the marriage business altogether” as you stated repeatedly. It in fact extends the marriage-like role of government into non-marriage relationships.

    DPI attempts to extend all government “entitlements” to Domestic Partnerships. It may take a couple of years to port all those government goodies from marriage to DPs, but they would eventually get it done. How libertarian is that?

    You are also dead wrong in your assertion that marriage is ONLY a spiritual matter. Marriage in some form predates organized religion and governments. The interpersonal relationship now known as marriage has been around since the dawn of man. Marriage is born out of the natural human urge to couple.

    You might be right about SOME gays and lesbians not wanting to be shut out of your “exclusive club”. But, for the vast majority of gays and lesbians and certainly all of Outright Libertarians, it is not about the taxes.
    – It is about being able to see your partner in the hospital when her family disagrees with your relationship.
    – It is about being able to stay in the home you built together when one partner dies, and not being forced to sell by the family who easily and successfully contested the will.
    – It is about falling in love with a foreign national working or going to school here and being forced to move to that other country to stay together.
    – It is about the hundreds of things that any long-term, committed couple should be able to expect, but are denied to gay couples because they are denied marriage.

    Your comments trivialize our emotions, and demean our attempts to gain equality under the law. And, I’m sick of this kind of attitude, and HUGELY disappointed when it comes from Libertarians.

  13. Brian Miller Brian Miller April 16, 2009

    to rebut the idea that Outright was on the anti-Prop 8 team and the LPCA is not, check this link for who’s listed and who’s not:

    You fail to mention that the only members of the LPC (and LP national) who did anything about Prop 8 in California were Outright board members Rob Power, Angela Keaton, and Beau Cain.

    Two of those three are no longer actively involved with the LPC or LP national.

    You, Mr. Holtz, and Mr. Takenaga did absolutely nothing, other than attempt a cheap photo op during the last days of the No On 8 campaign — only to be surprised when you guys found Ms. Keaton, then an LNC member, at the phone bank.

    Outright was contacted by annoyed “partners” of the LPC asking “where are the Libertarians,” and why the Libertarian Party of California refused to provide material support, so we had to step in and get the job done.

    In fact, your board even refused to put a link on the LPC’s home page supporting the cause and your state party chair stated that he wanted No On 8 to pay the LPC before he would do so.

    Party of principle? Maybe in other states.

  14. Brian Miller Brian Miller April 16, 2009

    And we’re still waiting for you to actually cite your $130B figures. Or is it $250B? Do you really know at all?

    Goodness. With an innumerate mooncalf like Mr. Seebeck as “legislative analyst” providing “analysis” to the board, it’s becoming clear why the Libertarian Party of California might have mistakenly decided to vote for this bill.

    Those with reading comprehension skills understand that the original Outright press release on DPI, when it said, “LP of California Endorses Quarter-Trillion Dollar Federal Tax Hike: Domestic Partnership Initiative Would Increase Californians’ Federal Income Taxes By Up To $130 Billion Annually Over The Next Two Years.”

    Seriously, you’re going to claim that a quarter trillion over two years and 130 billion a year are contradictory? And you’re the guy the LPC
    relies on to understand legislation? No wonder they endorsed DPI!

  15. Michael Seebeck Michael Seebeck April 16, 2009

    Rob, nobody is attacking Ed Clark. For you to even make that claim is to erect a straw man. All you do here is make an argument to celebrity. Big deal. Ed hasn’t asked me to read the analyses of the initiatives, and you haven’t either. In fact, outside of a few people on the ExComm, excluding you, few have.

    Maybe when you simply ask the Legislative Analyst for the actual analyses of BOTH initiatives then read them, maybe then you’ll actually understand.

    One can easily disagree with a person without attacking the person. That difference appears to be lost on you. I disagree with Ed because I think he is not totally informed on the issue, as I do with you.

    And we’re still waiting for you to actually cite your $130B figures. Or is it $250B? Do you really know at all?

    You still don’t see the obvious flaws in the Prop 8 repeal initiative, either. You probably won’t see them until the ruling comes down on Prop 8 itself if my ruling prediction is correct. I’ve got a 1 in 5 shot at it, and I’m willing to wait and see. The repeal Prop 8 folks weren’t (that’s a hint to one of the flaws).

    Brian’s rebuttal is spot-on.

    BTW, to rebut the idea that Outright was on the anti-Prop 8 team and the LPCA is not, check this link for who’s listed and who’s not:

  16. Becky Becky April 16, 2009

    I strongly oppose Proposition 8, because the California Supreme Court ruling in favor of same sex marriage was a great movement in the right direction–but it is less than the ideal–which is getting the government out of the marriage business entirely.

    The DPI- does just that. The state would issue a domestic partnership license and then, if they wished, the couple could take it to a Wiccan Coven, a Mormon Temple or whatever, and get it sanctified as a marriage.

    That is almost perfect from a libertarian perspective (though perfection would be not even requiring the license–making it an ordinary private contract), and I do not see how any of the arguments by Outright Libertarians can rebut that.

    I think the problem is that gays and lesbians feel they are starting to be admitted to the exclusive club–and DPI would throw them them out. The reality is that DPI would shut the club down–as it should be. The distinction, which many can not seem to get through their head between the civil aspects or marriage and it as a religious institution would be clear.

    Then there is the entitlement problem. The left wants the governmental benefits of marriage. In reality all benefits and penalties on persons based upon their marital status should just be abolished.

    Whether to overturn Proposition 8 or supporting DPI is a false choice–libertarians have an ideological duty to do both.

    But, they also have an obligation to recognize that DPI is the closer to the ideal of getting the state out of the marriage business:

  17. Rob Power Rob Power April 15, 2009

    Thanks, Gene, for that observation.

    For years, we’ve been fighting the conservatives’ claim that we’re threatening traditional marriage. And now that we’ve basically won that argument, allaying the fears of voters in that regard, along comes DPI to reinforce that fear.

    I hope that Newell, Seebeck, Holtz, Collier, Starr, and the other critics of Outright Libertarians read carefully Ed Clark’s analysis of the situation. It’s one thing for them to attack Outright for being “single issue,” but it’s quite another thing for them to attack Ed Clark, who is not only the LP’s most successful Presidential candidate ever, but also has single-handedly raised more money in the last year for the LPC than any other individual.

    It takes quite a bit of contortion to stick one’s foot in one’s mouth, and then shoot oneself in that same foot. But the LPC Leadership is somehow managing to do just that.

    Hopefully, they’ll realize that the Consent Calendar resolution I submitted, which reiterates the LPC’s commitment to repealing Prop 8 and opposes any competing initiatives, is the fastest way out of this mess. The text of that Consent Calendar resolution is available at the top of “News and Views” at

  18. Gene Berkman Gene Berkman April 15, 2009

    My bookshop serves as Libertarian HQ in Riverside, and I meet the public or get phone calls about Libertarian stands on issues on a regular basis. From this as well as news reports, I can tell you that the most common objection people make to same sex marriage is that they feel it threatens their own marriage.

    Proposing to abolish marriage altogether as a legal category is guaranteed to make these people feel that their fears were justified.

    Proposing to abolish marriage as a legal category poses a clear threat to the progress of the movement for non-discriminatory marriage.

  19. Allan Wallace Allan Wallace April 15, 2009

    MDH, you are right, DPI could cause that kind of backlash.

    But, Outright Libertarians have been claiming all along that supporting Marriage Equality for gays and lesbians could cause just that kind of backlash, one that could be beneficial to the LPs ultimate, long-term goal.

    If one backlash is possible, then they both are.

  20. Allan Wallace Allan Wallace April 15, 2009

    I have to give it to Mr Holtz, he can spin some of the most boring, long-winded, and irrelevant responses of anyone I know.

    Here is the short of it:

    – DPI has no “chance in hell” of even getting on the ballot? Then supporting it makes the LP look stupid.

    -Of Course DPI would repeal Prop 8, but if the Repeal of Prop 8 can get on the ballot and has a chance of winning, supporting DPI that can’t is the same as telling gays and lesbians that their equal rights under the law means NOTHING to the LP.

    -About DPI being “republican”… the creators of the proposal are admittedly republicans. Besides it feeds into republican rhetoric and fears. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.

    -Yes, principles never change. But, Libertarians have short term and long range goals that BOTH adhere to those principles. The Repeal of Prop 8 is a short term goal possible within two years, DPI is a long term, pie-in-the-sky goal that cannot be reached in my lifetime.

    -The tax consequences of DPI was only one of many things wrong with DPI! But since you emphasize it, even if they can overturn DOMA quickly, it is only one hurtle that they would need to overcome. There are other methods of taxation that would result in a significant tax increases on formerly married straight Californians.

    -Outright claims that DPI changes “marriage” to “domestic partner” and would result in the loss of at least some of the perks of marriage. You claim that this is “simply false”. If you are right, then the LPC looks simply foolish for supporting such an UN-Libertarian initiative.

    -DPI greatly extends the role of government into Domestic Partnerships.

    When visible support for the Repeal of Prop 8 is non-existant, and support is Loud and Strong for DPI (an admittedly impossible-to-pass measure that fakes being a long-term Libertarian goal) then you cannot claim to still support the Repeal of Prop 8 and you cannot get away from the fact that you have made the LPCa look fickle and foolish in the eyes of the GLBT community and many libertarians who support equality under the law.

  21. mdh mdh April 15, 2009

    One important factor is being overlooked here. If DPI were to pass and indeed cause a large tax burden increase for married couples in California, perhaps that would lead to an outcry by those hardest hit against government interference in marriage. This could be an interesting side-effect, and that backlash could even end up working to our advantage overall.

  22. Brian Holtz Brian Holtz April 15, 2009

    DPI completely repeals Prop 8, but Rob doesn’t want you to know that. DPI is nothing more than repeal of Prop 8 plus renaming “marriage” to “domestic partnership” throughout California law. If DPI miraculously gets on the ballot alongside straightforward repeal of Prop 8, then people can vote for both, and whichever gets a larger majority becomes law. Simple Prop 8 repeal would likely get more votes than DPI, but it would be a Good Thing if separation of marriage and state were part of the debate.

    Rob claims that Republicans are behind the DPI, but when asked for evidence he quotes one anonymous (and innocuous) Facebook comment and claimed last month that the LA Times was about to “break” the story. I’m still waiting for that evidence. In the meantime, what this comes down to is a set of questions for your political intuitions:

    * Do you think DPI is a Republican/conservative conspiracy?
    * Do you think DPI has any chance in hell of getting the 700K signatures needed to get on the ballot?
    * Do you think that DPI somehow getting on the ballot would delay Prop 8 repeal?
    * Do you think that the Obama/Pelosi regime would let DPI passage cost married Californians hundreds of billions in lost tax advantage?
    * Do you fear (rather than welcome) a hypothetical game of chicken between DOMA and millions of married Californians?
    * Do you think “marriage” is a label that the LP should try to help win back from the religious right using electoral politics, instead of having the LP advocate for government neutrality in the culture war?

    Rob apparently answers a confident “yes” to each of these questions, but my answers for now are all still provisionally “no”. If Rob ever does come up with evidence that DPI is a conservative conspiracy, then I will move to reconsider our endorsement.

    1. Libertarian principles don’t change with the business cycle. The LP’s goal here is for the government to treat marriage like it treats baptism, and DPI is arguably a step toward that goal.

    2. In a game of chicken between DOMA and millions of married California taxpayers, I wouldn’t want to be riding with DOMA. If in a fit of political suicide Obama’s IRS took federal tax advantages away from those millions, federal rules would probably be rewritten to restore the status quo ante faster than you can say “AIG bonus”.

    It’s simply mendacious to say that Libertarian endorsers of DPI support raising taxes, let alone doing so “solely to appease the semantic yearnings of social conservatives”. The LP’s job isn’t to help win a culture war over the M-word. The LP’s job is to stop social conservatives from legislating their morality. Making marriage less like a sacrament and more like a contract is a step in that direction.

    3. The first three sentences of paragraph 3 are simply false, and the other two try to pretend that DPI does not repeal Prop 8.

    4. Paragraph 4 assumes mendaciously and without evidence that the LP has “withdrawn” from opposing Prop 8.

    5. Renaming marriage to domestic partnership does not “solidify” anything, let alone “creates
    an entirely new, heavy-handed government regime”. It’s simply a step toward making government’s recognition of pair-bonding less like a sacrament and more like a contract.

    6. What Rob still doesn’t want you to know is that DPI is nothing more than Prop 8 repeal plus a search-and-replace on the “M” word. See (2) above.

    7. Apples and oranges. Domestic partnership as a separate-but-equal version of marriage is indeed a bad idea. That’s not what DPI is. Rob implies that renaming marriage has been tried before, but doesn’t say where — probably because it hasn’t been tried anywhere in America before.

    8. Again, DPI _does_ repeal Prop 8. Last month, Rob promised evidence of the Republican conspiracy behind DPI and still hasn’t delivered. Will he have the evidence in time for the LPCA convention, less than two weeks away?

Comments are closed.