Libertarians endorse the “Approve” Referendum 71 position

The Libertarian Party of Washington has endorsed Referendum 71, which would extend domestic partnership rights. The party is encouraging it’s members to approve the referendum in November (?).

“The children of gay and lesbian couples are entitled to equal protection, as well. Discrimination against the gay and lesbian community is also discrimination against their children.” Rachel Hawkridge, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Washington says “It’s horrible that people discriminate against loving, adult couples, but to discriminate against their innocent children is deplorable. It’s inhumane.”

17 thoughts on “Libertarians endorse the “Approve” Referendum 71 position

  1. Morgan Brykein Post author

    Washington seems like a nice place. I’d like to move there some time within the next few years. I put the question mark there because I’m not entirely sure, if the referendum is in November or not.

  2. Richard Winger

    The Washington referendum is Nov. 3, 2009. People are already voting because all but one county in Washington state votes by all-mail ballot.

    There are lots of interesting elections on November 3, 2009. There are special US House elections in California and New York on that day. There is the statewide partisan judicial race in Pennsylvania that has a Libertarian on the ballot, in a race in which can vote for 4 candidates. There is the New Jersey gubernatorial election, which is the most interesting NJ gubernatorial election in my lifetime.

  3. Trent Hill

    Richard,

    I think the New York 23rd Congressional district race is the most interesting in recent history–though certainly the New Jersey Gubernatorial race is of interest too because of Daggett.
    Don’t forget the Virginia elections–though there arent any third partiers.

  4. Deran

    No, no. You wouldn’t like WA. Especially not west of the Cascades. This place has become inundated by technosoftic wealthy people who believe theya re entitled to what ever they want, and damn the working, middle and poor classes. It’s ghastly, if I weren’t poor and disabled I would have left long ago.

    Not to mention the “Top Two” election system that precludes non-major parties and independents.

  5. Don Lake, late at night

    Hate sunny climates, plz leave California and let the rest of us have more room and less traffic. And of course our politics, including alternative types, is as bad as any thing out side of KC and Chicago!

  6. Robert Capozzi

    Has/did Outright weigh in on this one?

    I seem to recall that Outrighters aren’t crazy about domestic partnership…they want gay marriage or nothing, if I recall.

  7. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    If you take the “or nothing” out, you’ve correctly stated Outright’s position.

    Support for same-sex marriage with equal status under law is Outright’s incremental position (they ultimately support the LP’s position of getting government out of the business of defining marriage entirely).

    Outright looks to be a lot closer to getting what it’s demanding than most of the timid “pragmatic” libertarians do. Six states, and more on the way.

  8. Brian Holtz

    Outright “getting what it’s demanding” here of course has precisely zero to do with Outright being non-timid.

    As I told the Platform Committee in 2007: With 53% of Americans favoring civil unions and 78% favoring gays in the military, [we should not] drop this winning issue for a few non-libertarian [i.e. social conservative] voters while we have yet to ever claim more than a tiny fraction of the 16% to 20% of libertarian-leaning voters.

    Your Libertarian Party was for a quarter-century non-timidly demanding personal secession and immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws. How was that working out for you, Tom? 🙂

    In fact, contra Bob, the Outright leadership has been vociferous in defending incremental reforms while still advocating ultimate principles — precisely the stance of “pragmatic” Libertarians. Outright Chair Rob Power has even explicitly complained when he has perceived that non-radical Libs might be balking at incrementalism on this one special topic — even as Rob balks at incrementalism on so many other issues that affect him less personally.

  9. robert capozzi

    I was just askin’ 😉

    Mostly I was curious if Outright had taken a specific position on DP in WA. Regardless of the outcome, it seems a big-time stretch to credit the LP or Outright with this development. I look forward to the day (should it come) that Ls are THAT influential! So, to say that this development validates either incrementalism or abolitionism seems wildly overstated.

    Still, I too want the Nonarchy Pod option 😉

  10. Rob Power

    Outright Libertarians is an extremely grassroots organization. We rely very heavily on our local activists to lead the charge on local issues. Had our national chairperson, yours truly, not been living in Massachusetts during its marriage battle, and living in California during Prop 8, we probably wouldn’t have been as vocal on those two local issues, instead concentrating on federal laws DADT and DOMA, which are pretty clear-cut as laws that all Libertarians would oppose.

    Surprisingly, the most vocal person in Outright’s leadership on the Washington and Maine campaigns is our Tennessee coordinator:

    http://tinyurl.com/ylk3apk

    BTW, I love the thinly veiled assertion that I’m not an incrementalist solely because I oppose adding more restrictions on abortion, an issue that affects me not one tiny bit personally. Still, I think eviscerating the Fourth Amendment for every single woman of child-bearing age is hardly incrementalist, especially when the law of the land is already closer to the Libertarian position of no government involvement in the issue. Incrementalist Libertarianism means that we have a far-less-than-Libertarian status quo, and we’re willing to accept incremental improvement. The request by Mr. Holtz to add more late-term restrictions to abortion moves us incrementally AWAY from the more Libertarian status quo, which is that there are few, if any, such restrictions now.

  11. Robert Capozzi

    rp, do I gather correctly that Outrighters — if not the organization — think passage of 71 is a step toward liberty? To your knowledge, is Ruth Bennett supporting it? I’ve been surprised that we’ve not heard from her on this, as I seem to recall she’s from WA.

    To be clear, I’ve not reviewed the referendum, but I’m highly predisposed to supporting DP legislation generally. It’s a great and important idea for the LP to take a lead on, on just about every level I can think of.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *