Press "Enter" to skip to content

California Libertarians fight Prop ‘H’8

Earlier, we reported about the California Green Party’s efforts to fight Prop 8, which they and many others have called prop H 8 (hate). The California Libertarian Party has many members who are also working to overturn this proposition, and the party officially opposed its passage (see the front page of the October issue of California Freedom).

Last year, the executive committee of the California LP voted unanimously to send this letter to Governor Schwarzenegger, urging him to sign AB 43, which legalized gay marriage in the Golden State.

About Post Author

paulie

88 Comments

  1. Britt Britt May 20, 2009

    hey im a highschool student and we have to do reasearch on a political party…what exactly is the Libertarian party about?

  2. Catholic Trotskyist Catholic Trotskyist November 17, 2008

    Joseph, sorry I’ve been away, I have had to work on real life activities, and I had an Internet outage, but I will make that e-mail account sometime tonight. Perhaps we can run on your Libertine Party ticket and create a fusion with my Catholic Trotskyist Party ticket.

    I agree with you on your national security, Iraq and immigration platforms. Otherwise:

    Economy: Nationalize every corporation and business. No free markets.

    Education: Increase spending on education, to improve the public schools. Allow government scholarships to private colleges as it is now, but not private primary/secondary schools.

    Healthcare: Nationalize healthcare, implement socialized medicine.

    Foreign policy: Attempt to have the United Nations take over the entire world, combining all the assets of all the governments of the world into one world government, which will then end war, and give all necessary services including education, healthcare, infrastructure and police. Then no worries about immigration either. In the meantime, continue negotiations with all countries, decrease support for Israel. Weaken Department of Defense, create Department of Peace.

    Abortion: Work toward banning abortion whenever possible, but keep sentences light. Increase the general government support for organized religion, especially the Catholic church, for anti-abortion education programs, charity, education, and pro-family/anti-divorce, anti-gay marriage, and anti-cloning programs.

    Ethics: Maintain congressional and judicial probes at all times.

  3. Michael Seebeck Michael Seebeck November 17, 2008

    Beats me, but I found it and loved it.

    It went over big at the Riverside protest on Saturday, too!

  4. Michael Seebeck Michael Seebeck November 17, 2008

    And also thanks for the blog quote at #38. 😀

  5. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | November 17, 2008

    Great pic! I have had it (without text) on my site for years, and I love what you did with it.

    I used to know who drew the original graphic, but I forgot.

  6. Michael Seebeck Michael Seebeck November 17, 2008

    Thanks for posting my protest sign graphic, paulie!

  7. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 17, 2008

    Just going to attack the government on our site. instead of saying we’re going to cut cut cut all of these popular programs, attack the status quo.

    I’m the leader of the party. no convention on that, sorry

    return America to the values of the old west

  8. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 17, 2008

    It won’t be a party of hate and anger lol Cut government down in all levels, maximize the individual. A party not limited to certain things like the Libertarian Party.

    “democratic anarchism” so to speak

  9. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 17, 2008

    Hey Paulie,

    I registered Libertine Party.com

    Say hello to America’s newest political party.

  10. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 17, 2008

    :p lol

  11. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 17, 2008

    the world’s population will adjust accordingly and we’ll have a technological boom that makes the 19th century of discovery look like a trip to the liberty science center in contrast to the massive output of pure and unadulterated genius that will arise out of a true free market.

    yeah, baby!

  12. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 17, 2008

    Then everyone will be free. Free will. Voluntaryism. Self-rule. Choice. Individualism. That’s what it is all about

  13. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 17, 2008

    at the state level you try to eliminate as much as you can. it’s all about the individual. attack the state apparatus as much as you can. I’m no Ron Paul, it’s ok to compromise on the means, but not on the ends

  14. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 17, 2008

    the US government shouldn’t “privatize” a thing. It has no right to. That’s fascism. The government should just abandon all of its assets. “First come, first serve”

  15. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 17, 2008

    Then we should end the department of defense and only have voluntary military or leave defense to member-states.

  16. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 17, 2008

    Actually, I think the fed gov should be ideally be funded voluntarily by member-states or by funds raised proportionate to the populations of each member-state.

    though not the ideal, flat tax still beats the current federal income tax

  17. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 17, 2008

    CT, did you create your email yet?

    Economy – free markets

    Ethics & corruption – cut government bureaucracy

    National security – eliminate the dept. of homeland security

    Education – eliminate the department of education

    Health care – end federal mandates on states, leave the issue to states

    Taxes – cut, cut, cut, a flat tax would be an improvement to the corporate loop holes being gamed with the current system. there are also some other good ideas, but I’m not in favor of a national sales tax

    Iraq – leave it

    Social Security – eliminate it at the federal level

    Abortion – leave the issue to states, I’m pro-choice

    Immigration – leave the issue to states, I’m personally for open borders

    Where are you at, CT? 😀

  18. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | November 16, 2008

    And equality before the law should not be held hostage because of the immoral existence of the welfare state. In this regard, it is much like the immigration issue.

    Exactly.

  19. Catholic Trotskyist Catholic Trotskyist November 16, 2008

    Sorry Joseph for not responding, I had some important civic activities to attend to in the last few hours, and I will be gone for another few hours in order to attend Holy Catholic mass. I will be creating another e-mail account to strengthen my ananimity for the time being, and then we will exchange information.

  20. Steven Druckenmiller Steven Druckenmiller November 16, 2008

    Good idea in the long run, but we should have equality in the meantime.

    Yes, I agree. There is no reasonable basis for restricting licensees.

    And equality before the law should not be held hostage because of the immoral existence of the welfare state. In this regard, it is much like the immigration issue.

  21. Steven Druckenmiller Steven Druckenmiller November 16, 2008

    There you go; just get rid of the state, and everything would be perfect.

    Utopia is not possible. This is the touchstone of rational thinkers, especially as it pertains to government.

    The new owner of IPR should try to implement an “ignore” feature.

    No different than what you do now, which is just call everyone commie or socialist and completely ignore reason and nuance.

    There’s this nifty little thing on your keyboard called the “scroll” button…

  22. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | November 16, 2008

    Good idea in the long run, but we should have equality in the meantime.

  23. citizen1 citizen1 November 16, 2008

    Libertarians should focus on the real issue, eliminating the licensing of marriage. Marriage is not something that the state should have any say in.

  24. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    CT, shall be exchange numbers? Emails? Let’s do it! 🙂

  25. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | November 16, 2008

    There you go; just get rid of the state, and everything would be perfect.

    Not perfect, but I think it would be a lot better (although not immediately). However, in the meantime we have short term reality to deal with, so I agree with NO ON H8.

  26. George Dance George Dance November 16, 2008

    The balloting is done, and it appears that 52% of Californians believed in the lying hype put forth by the bigots who put forth this crock of a Proposition.
    So what now?

    REJECT THE FUCKING STATE, COMMIE.

    There you go; just get rid of the state, and everything would be perfect. Everyone would have the choice of subscribing to a defence agency that recognized SSM or one that did not, and whether a SS couple were married or not would depend on what property they were on and which type of agency the property owner subscribed to. No possibility of any political conflicts in that rosy scenario.

  27. G.E. G.E. November 16, 2008

    The new owner of IPR should try to implement an “ignore” feature.

  28. Steven Druckenmiller Steven Druckenmiller November 16, 2008

    REJECT THE FUCKING STATE, COMMIE.

    You’re like a child.

  29. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    We should run every four years even though I’m too young for POTUS in order to build popularity.

    How about that? 😉

  30. Catholic Trotskyist Catholic Trotskyist November 16, 2008

    We should probably form our own party, the Alliance for New Strategies, or something like that, but try to get the endorsement of the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, and the many socialist parties, and the Naderite parties, the Kucinich/Gravel Democrats, and the Ron Paul Republicans.

  31. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    Which party or parties? 😉

  32. Catholic Trotskyist Catholic Trotskyist November 16, 2008

    Good. The proud statist and the anti-statist confuse the moderate statist political establishment. With almost 30 years to prepare, we may even win.

  33. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    Sure, CT. Let’s do it.

  34. Catholic Trotskyist Catholic Trotskyist November 16, 2008

    Joseph, the lack of state/church power has failed time and time again. Your system would create even more bloodshed. On the other hand, I agree with you that nations are fictional. I want United Nations control over the world, with a one-world government.

    Failing that, let’s run a presidential campaign together in 2036.
    Libertarian Joseph/Catholic Trotskyist for 2036. I’d even agree to be the running mate. Our campaign would be a constant argument, and would be very entertaining. It would be more successful than any other effort, and more noteworthy.

  35. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | November 16, 2008

    Trent,

    I warned you. Now you’re in the doghouse.

  36. Trent Hill Trent Hill November 16, 2008

    “Trent, intolerant of my views…. which, ironically, you claim are your own, yet you attack me lol.”

    1.) That wouldnt make me a bigot.
    2.) Your views are boilerplates that you dont even understand
    3.) Your views are not consistent
    4.) Iv said very little abot your views, it is your senseless insults that im intolerant of.

  37. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    CT, the state has failed time and time again. You are a bloodthirsty bastard.

    Trent, intolerant of my views…. which, ironically, you claim are your own, yet you attack me lol.

  38. Trent Hill Trent Hill November 16, 2008

    “And you’re an intolerant bigot, Trent.”

    Oh? Tell me about it. I’d love to hear how you came to this conclusion.

  39. Catholic Trotskyist Catholic Trotskyist November 16, 2008

    Yes, I am a proud statist, because the state and the church are necessary to socialize the population. The way in which it should be done is the key disagreement among non-libertarians.

    God bless the state, God bless the chucrch, God bless the Federal Reserve, and God bless Proposition 8.
    Glory to God in the highest, and peace to God’s people on Earth, amen.

  40. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    And you’re an intolerant bigot, Trent.

    CT, hush.

    The key to world civilization is the end of statist tyranny. Trent is a statist, and so are you.

  41. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | November 16, 2008

    Trent,

    I swear – if you respond to LJ again, you’re sleeping on the couch tonight. You can use the big nazi flag in the den to cover up if it gets too cold. We won’t need it until the universal health care march next week, so there’s plenty of time to get it cleaned.

  42. Catholic Trotskyist Catholic Trotskyist November 16, 2008

    No, Trent is not a fascist. And you got my ideology wrong because you said it is wacked out, when it is really the key to world civilization.

  43. G.E. G.E. November 16, 2008

    The balloting is done, and it appears that 52% of Californians believed in the lying hype put forth by the bigots who put forth this crock of a Proposition.

    So what now?

    REJECT THE FUCKING STATE, COMMIE.

  44. Trent Hill Trent Hill November 16, 2008

    Dude, you dont know ANYTIHNG about me. I consider Mencken, Nock, and S. Andrew Swann as my dominant ideological influences.

    You claim to have been around IPR for a long time and yet you know LESS about me (or any of the writers) than any other commenter here. You are not a thoughtful libertarian, you are a libertine idiot.

  45. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    Truth hurts, Trent. fascist

  46. Trent Hill Trent Hill November 16, 2008

    My apologies to Andy–he is now 2nd on my “if banning existed at IPR” list.

  47. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | November 16, 2008

    “Democracy” is preferable to judicial tyranny.

    Judicial review is an important check and balance on democracy.

    http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/11/on-proposition-8.html

    The balloting is done, and it appears that 52% of Californians believed in the lying hype put forth by the bigots who put forth this crock of a Proposition.

    So what now?

    Three lawsuits have already been filed with the California State Supreme Court to block it from being implemented. They claim that Prop H8 actually made a far-reaching amendment to the state constitution that requires approval by 2/3 of the state legislature, which was not done, and therefore is invalid.

    While that may be true, here’s better courses to take.

    First, the state course.

    The wording of Prop 8, which only defines marriage in California as being valid between a man and a woman, has many state constitutional problems. First, it invalidates all same-gender marriages made between June 17th and November 5th, which by definition is an ex post facto law, which violates Article 1 Section 9 of the state constitution:

    “A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed.”

    An ex post facto law is one that has retroactive force. Prop 8 attempts to undo what was legally done. The Attorney General is trying to avoid this by saying that the state will honor those marriages, some 16,000 in all, but he can’t dodge the plain wording. Second, the ruling by the state Supreme Court is not in any sense overturned by Prop 8. The ruling was that Prop 22 was unconstitutional because it denied equal protection under the laws as specified in Article 1 Section 7-a:

    “A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;”

    Well, guess what, Prop 8 still does exactly that! It does NOTHING to overturn the state Supreme Court ruling. All it really does is create a constitutional conflict. The current equal protection clause says that same-gender couples can marry. Prop 8, which would become Article 1 Section 7.5 if enacted, would contradict that, but IT DOES NOT say that it is an exception to Section 7!:

    “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

    And that exception is REQUIRED by Article I1 Section 26:

    “The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.”

    Because no exception was made in Prop 8, section 26 is applied, meaning that Section 7-a remains fully intact, and the ruling by the state Supreme Court along those lines also stands. To resolve the conflict, Prop 8 must go.

    So, in this case, opponents of Prop 8 have two strong arguments at the state level to toss Prop 8.

    Second, the federal course.

    In Colorado in 1992 voters enacted a state constitutional known as Amendment 2. It was an amendment to the state Constitution to prohibit all governments in Colorado from enacting laws or rules that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The case found its way to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled, in Romer v. Evans, that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibited such an amendment, and that homosexuals were considered a suspect class for discrimination, and more specifically that class-based legislation aimed at homosexuals was unconstitutional. That suspect classification was used as a foundation for the landmark Lawrence v. Texas ruling in 2003. Also, since the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights against the states, Romer applies to Prop 8 and is therefore unconstitutional. Also applicable is the landmark Loving v. Virginia, where the rejection of Virginia’s claim of equal denial of rights for both whites and blacks to marry each other is analogous to what the California Supreme Court ruled here. Even Planned Parenthood v. Casey addressed the issue:

    “It is settled now, as it was when the Court heard arguments in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a State’s right to interfere with a person’s most basic decisions about family and parenthood,”

    To say that marriage is not included in those most basic decisions about family would be ludicrous on its face.

    And Lawrence itself gives the statements that make it a landmark and directly applies here, in its holdings:

    “Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life.”

    Marriage is definitely such private conduct, and denial of the right to wed is definitely government intervention.

    If the lawsuits go the federal route, this is the way to argue it.

    Third, the state amendment route.

    If the bigots can do it, so can we.

  48. G.E. G.E. November 16, 2008

    There is? Surely you are not a government democracy proponent?

    “Democracy” is preferable to judicial tyranny.

  49. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    I’m a liar because I got your ideology wrong? Or what?

    Right.

    That’s funny since I don’t recall ever talking about your whacked out ideology on these here boards.

    Doesn’t this fact hereby make you a liar? 🙂

  50. Catholic Trotskyist Catholic Trotskyist November 16, 2008

    Yes, Libertarian Joseph is definitely a liar. He got my ideology wrong too.

  51. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    What’s up with your nazi propaganda posters of jews, Paulie? Are you a neo-nazi?

  52. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | November 16, 2008

    assume you’re either a liar, or a moron. Perhaps both.

    Yes. So you should stop feeding him responses.

  53. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    Trent, know what? Been around where? I just told you that there is not much info about you on this site, are you THAT dense?

    Consistent? Paulie is inconsistent. He defended GP policies of universal healthcare and direct democracy on other articles!

    Why is a man that inconsistent caucusing with the Radicals in the LP? hmm

  54. Trent Hill Trent Hill November 16, 2008

    LJ,

    Again–you show you know nothing of me. Me and Paulie disagree on MANY MANY MANY issues. But I respect Paulie because he’s a consistent advocate of liberty, and an agreeable person.
    I do not talk about myself in my articles because they arent ABOUT me. But many commenters here know my ideology. If you’ve been around as long as you claim–you’d know. You dont, so ill assume you’re either a liar, or a moron. Perhaps both.

  55. Catholic Trotskyist Catholic Trotskyist November 16, 2008

    I must also update you on my negotations with Daniel Imperato to buy this website and turn it into a major Catholic voice for international liberation. As of yet there has been no response, but I expect there may be at some point.

  56. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    Trent, are you and Paulie bf and bf? lol. Ha. Anyway, I’m not new to this site, I’ve been lurking IPR and TPW for a long time. I used to post on TPW.

    How would I know more about you through the articles? You never talk about yourself in them.

  57. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | November 16, 2008

    I do you moron. Im friends with people in both the Radical and Reform Caucuses. You are VERY new to this site and know nothing about me–you might as well give up.

    Trent. You already know he’s a troll. Responding to trolls=feeding.

  58. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | November 16, 2008

    There’s a difference between voting NO and then seeking to overturn it via the courts afterwards.

    There is? Surely you are not a government democracy proponent?

    If prop H8 was wrong before the vote, did the vote make it right?

  59. Trent Hill Trent Hill November 16, 2008

    “Why would he want to? They’re mostly statist aholes.”

    I disagree with that. But then again, im not an anarchist.

  60. Trent Hill Trent Hill November 16, 2008

    I do you moron. Im friends with people in both the Radical and Reform Caucuses. You are VERY new to this site and know nothing about me–you might as well give up.

  61. G.E. G.E. November 16, 2008

    Why don’t you know many people in the LP?

    Why would he want to? They’re mostly statist aholes.

  62. Catholic Trotskyist Catholic Trotskyist November 16, 2008

    I will side with my fellow alleged troll Libertarian Joseph on this one. The state licensing system needs to go, and until then, the gays must have equal rights. However, I am still glad about the passage of Proposition 8 because God has blessed it in order to have the peoples voice heard who still believe in the nuclear family and the supremacy of God on earth.

  63. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    Why don’t you know many people in the LP?

  64. G.E. G.E. November 16, 2008

    There’s a difference between voting NO and then seeking to overturn it via the courts afterwards. Also, there’s a big difference between voting NO on repealing gay state marriage, and advocating that it’s a “civil right” before its implemented.

  65. Trent Hill Trent Hill November 16, 2008

    Again, you dont know me in the slightest. I criticize the CP heavily on a number of issues, including gambling, gay marriage, pornography, and protectionism.

    As for me being the CP correspondant. I still report on the CP because I still know many people IN the CP.

    Are you done casting darts in the dark?

  66. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    I know you always defend the CP and I know you’re the “CP correspondent”

  67. Trent Hill Trent Hill November 16, 2008

    “Then why are you a CP member?”

    Im not. =)

    And even when I was, I was a free-trader. Again,you know nothing about me.

  68. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | November 16, 2008

    Disgraceful.

    What is? I thought you said you would vote no on 8. Or were you referring to something else?

  69. G.E. G.E. November 16, 2008

    Disgraceful.

  70. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    ha #14 was very relevant to this article.

  71. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    Blow me, paulie boy.

  72. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    Then why are you a CP member?

  73. Trent Hill Trent Hill November 16, 2008

    HAHAHHA.

    You know NOTHING about me. Im a Misesian free-marketeer.

  74. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    Trent, you are a total protectionist.

  75. Trent Hill Trent Hill November 16, 2008

    LJ,

    You are a total troll.

  76. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | November 16, 2008

    Quick clarification: I don’t necessarily oppose (or support) democracy involuntary institutions. I do oppose coercive monopoly government with any governing structure, including democracy.

    Oops, big typo:

    in voluntary, not involuntary.

    I do, necessarily, oppose involuntary…

  77. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    You were voicing support for DD on another article, no? ha.

    Troll? Yeah, that’s what you call all true libertarians that call you out for the phony that you are.

  78. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | November 16, 2008

    Quick clarification: I don’t necessarily oppose (or support) democracy involuntary institutions. I do oppose coercive monopoly government with any governing structure, including democracy.

  79. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | November 16, 2008

    For anyone reading who is not aware that LJ is a troll, and/or is not familiar with my views, I oppose democracy, whether direct or indirect.

  80. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    Just Paulie is for direct-democracy.

  81. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | November 16, 2008

    Another “pro-liberty/pro-democracy” party that doesn’t want to accept the will of the people.

    Where did you get the idea that the Libertarians are a pro-democracy party?

  82. Jimmy Clifton Jimmy Clifton November 16, 2008

    Another “pro-liberty/pro-democracy” party that doesn’t want to accept the will of the people.

  83. Libertarian Joseph Libertarian Joseph November 16, 2008

    Not a big issue for me… but gays should be allowed to marry as long as we have this retarded state licensing system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

three × 5 =