Likely voters oppose marriage initiative

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 7/18/8

[Carry_Okie]

How is your right to live in a community of straight people being violated?

If I must accept gay people in my straight community then my right of free association has been violated.

If you want to start your own little private club that doesn’t allow gay members, that’s your right.

No, I want my little private State, which I used to have before an activist SCOTUS decided to shove 14th Amendment "selective incorporation" down my throat. Maryland could be Catholic, Pennsylvania could be Quaker, the northeast was Protestant and all was fine with the world because those communities were FREE and AT LIBERTY to pass laws that respected the values of their communities. Those communities were moderated by natural law competition, as I stated in my very first post to you, a concept that you clearly do not understand. Natural law competition means that my community is at LIBERTY to fail by its exclusive nature, just as your libertine community would succeed (which isn't what would happen sirrah). That is what the Constitution guaranteed when it limited only the Congress to laws respecting an establishment of religion. This is why you "libertarians" would enforce a secular uniformity because you haven't a clue what liberty is or where it originates and don't want the public to find out that such "freedoms" as licentious behavior don't work, even in private. The people who are pushing that idea know it.

You hate that kind of FREEDOM. Got it? And yes, I trapped you into this.

You don’t have to associate with anybody you don’t want to. I’ve never said anything to the contrary.

Your admitted cluelessness becomes you. You have bought an ephemeral dream of a libertarian society where people supposedly respect each other's values to live as they please. Such cannot exist because there are always externalities to individual behavior that infringe the opportunities of others to live as they please. If I want to live in a town where people don't boff each other in the park, it can't be a place where people do. Thus, it is essential to liberty that people have the freedom to assemble in communities that respect their preferences while excluding those who choose not to abide by their social contract, an idea you find repugnant. I am perfectly happy with nudies running buggering on the sidewalk in a San Fransicko as long as they leave me the option of living in a city where people would be expelled even for private homosexuality. The simple fact is that private behavior ends up manifesting in public.

This is Liberty 101, kiddo.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

You can have whoever you want in a private community. I think it's very questionable that a state can ban homosexuals from living with it's borders, but let's say it could. If this amendment fails to pass, that says that a majority of Californians are not in favor of banning gay marriage, suggesting a gay-friendly consensus. You live in California by choice, so if you're that uncomfortable, you can move.

[Antoninus]

I think you need to read what I said more carefully. I said that society will define morals, not government.

Liberaltarians have a fundamental disconnect when it comes to understanding who society is versus who the government is. We are the government--at least, we're supposed to be. The morals of the government are supposed to reflect the morals of society. If you're saying that our society is immoral, therefore we'll have immoral government, I would agree with you. But I wouldn't for a second say that this is a *good* thing or that we shouldn't fight against it with every last ounce of strength.

Your attitude seems to be one of surrender. "I can't stop it, so why bother trying?" Worse, you're trying to convince others to be similarly apathetic.

Personally, I think that attitude stinks.

I may or may not read your agitprop later; I’m at work right now, so I may not want to open something with “graphic contents”.

Don't read it. I wouldn't want to shake you out of your apathy.

[Antoninus]

Your admitted cluelessness becomes you. You have bought an ephemeral dream of a libertarian society where people supposedly respect each other's values to live as they please. Such cannot exist because there are always externalities to individual behavior that infringe the opportunities of others to live as they please. If I want to live in a town where people don't boff each other in the park, it can't be a place where people do. Thus, it is essential to liberty that people have the freedom to assemble in communities that respect their preferences while excluding those who choose not to abide by their social contract, an idea you find repugnant. I am perfectly happy with nudies running buggering on the sidewalk in a San Fransicko as long as they leave me the option of living in a city where people would be expelled even for private homosexuality. The simple fact is that private behavior ends up manifesting in public.

Ouch. Spot on, Carry.

Liberaltarianism only seems like a legitimate ideology in a society where people don't commonly cr@p on each other's front lawn. Ironically, as soon as such a system is implemented, there would be nothing to stop people from cr@pping on someone else's front lawn. And the behavior would proliferate.

I'd be pefectly content to see a state like Vermont or New Hampshire turn into Libertaristan. Then we could watch the abysmal failure of that ideology in action and not have to listen to these pathetic ninnies anymore.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Morality is defined by society, and government is also controlled by society. That's why in most cases, government policy reflects majority opinion. For example, nearly everybody is against murder, so that's banned without question. Issues like homosexuality are not defined by such an overwhelming, exact public opinion. That's why they become controversial.

Yes, you can pass laws banning gay marriage or sodomy or whatever else, but that also leaves open the power for people to pass laws sanctioning it. If the voters of California approve of gay marriage, then who are you to trample upon their right to do so?

On personal, family, and religious issues like this, there will likely never be a public consensus. If government didn't insist on getting involved where it doesn't belong (health care, education, etc.) it would be irrelevant. Government policy in areas like this will always be highly controversial and leave a substantial portion of the population angry. I don't see a need for government to set family policy in the first place, so let's do the smart thing and keep the government out.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Some states are already pretty libertarian, and they seem to be doing just fine. New Hampshire, Montana, and Nevada come to mind.

[Antoninus]

Morality is defined by society.

Wrong. A society is either moral or it is immoral according to Natural Law. It defines nothing on its own.

Moral relativism is the downfall of libertinarian ideology.

On personal, family, and religious issues like this, there will likely never be a public consensus.

Pure poppycock. There used to be a strong public consensus on most moral issues until the crypto-marxists took over the courts in the 1960s. Now we have a gigantic mess. Some of us are trying to contain and turn back the mess. Others like to wallow in the mess just fine and though they claim to be "personally opposed" won't lift a finger to help clean it up.

[GSWarrior]

Wonder how many here applauded when the California medical marijuana initiative was overturned by the courts.

[Antoninus]

Some states are already pretty libertarian, and they seem to be doing just fine. New Hampshire, Montana, and Nevada come to mind.

Really? Have any of those legalized drugs, euthanasia, allowed for butt-sex fake marriage, and eliminated the age of consent? Let me know when they do and we'll see how fast they destroy themselves.

The poster child for the Liberaltarian state is the Netherlands. Where do you think that state will be in 10, 20, 50 years?

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

You can be a moral absolutist, but you can’t expect everybody else to be, not to mention that another moral absolutist may see things differently. In your eyes, by your definition, I suppose that this is an immoral society. Do you really think government is the appropriate tool for changing this?

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I'm sure the drug warriors were happy. There are a decent number of people who oppose the drug war here, and I'd be surprised if any of them also fell into the category of trying to use government to enforce sexual morality. If so, they're very inconsistent.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Obviously none are pure libertarian, but they have strong tendencies. All are very low tax; no income tax in Nevada, no sales tax in Montana, and neither in New Hampshire. All have small, part-time state legislatures. All are very pro-gun. Nevada is the one state where prostitution is legal.

The general attitude in those states is to take responsibility for yourself; no helmet law in New Hampshire, no law against open containers of alcohol in a vehicle in Montana. These are just a few well-known examples.

The Netherlands is not libertarian at all. They're much closer to socialist. They're not a low-tax, small-government, minimal regulation, pro-gun country at ALL.

[AFPhys]

I wager anything that this poll is much more “opposed” than the other polls, including November’s.

[mngran2]

Imagine being a Christian restaurant owner and offering a valentine's day discount to couples. Think you'll be permitted to exclude gays? Not a chance.

Imagine being a Christian restaurant owner and offering a Christmas day discount to patrons. Think you'll be permitted to exclude Jews? Not a chance.

[Aunt Polgara]

The Field Poll is notorious for always tracking “left”.

[fr_freak]

If this fails to pass, I’m sure you’ll see some “conservatives” wanting to overturn the will of the voters, the very thing they’re angry at the California Supreme Court for.

Exactly what in the hell are you talking about? Do you even know the history of this fight? I'm going to assume you don't and explain it to you.

Californians passed, by referendum, a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman several years back which, predictably, was overturned by the state Supreme Court as being unconstitutional (state constitution). I defy you to find any language in the California state constitution that justifies that decision. The state Supreme Court willfully misinterpreted the state constitution in order to thwart the will of the people.

Conservatives, ever pointlessly determined to play by the rules even when the other side won't, have gotten the signatures necessary to put the constitutional amendment on the ballot in order to combat this usurpation by the court. My opinion is that if the state Supreme Court can ignore the constitution as it is now, they can just as easily ignore this amendment, and so a better solution would be to run the justices out of the state on a rail, but, as I said, conservatives are still clinging to the false belief that we are still a country of constitutional laws.

This amendment is absolutely unnecessary, as it is only the whim of a few justices, rather than law, which allows gay marriage here, but if it fails to pass, that does not mean that we should simply roll over and accept the blatant dictatorial actions of the Court, just because enough Californians have been brainwashed. Quite frankly, even if a majority of Californians now support gay marriage (which I doubt) that still doesn't mean they get to subvert our system of laws in order to implement it.

To sum up, when one side throws the laws out, it is not a reasonable position to blame the other side for being outraged, and fighting it.

[puroresu]

Are you arguing for or against elevating homosexuality above the rights of religious Americans?

[fwdude]

Puroresu:
You don't even need to look north to Canada to find Marxist oppression of even nominal Christian beliefs in action or free speech. Massachusetts is an experiment gone terribly wrong, despite the assertions of home-activist that keep saying "the sky hasn't fallen" since that government bestowed full marriage rights on fake marriage. I guess it depends on who you ask. Catholic Charities is an example of oppression by this new militant liberalism. And the drumbeat already follows in California only after a month of legal homo "marriage" there - San Francisco has officially, unanimously condemned Catholic Charities and the Catholic Church for being Catholic. Although the pronouncement doesn't carry the weight of law (yet), one can easily follow this progression to its logical conclusion.

[Carry_Okie]

can have whoever you want in a private community.

And there you have it, our "libertarian" tyrant is willing to tolerate conservative communities only if they are confined within a "private" community. The problem with that belief is what happens when it comes time to enforce the contract and the police powers of the almighty government trump the unalienable right of free association.

I think it's very questionable that a state can ban homosexuals from living with it's borders, but let's say it could.

Weeell sonny it happens to be a historical fact until the Supreme Court banned sodomy laws in Texas on bogus 14th Amendment grounds, but don't let that trouble your hurting head.

If this amendment fails to pass, that says that a majority of Californians are not in favor of banning gay marriage, suggesting a gay-friendly consensus. You live in California by choice, so if you're that uncomfortable, you can move.

You are even incapable of recognizing a hypothetical case! Well here's the facts: I grew up in San Francisco and live in the lesbian capital of the West Coast: Santa Cruz. So I obviously made that choice a long time ago.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I am aware of the history. I know that judges overturned a law passed by referendum. I just wonder what the reaction will be like of those who look to the referendum as a solution if it fails. Then the will of the voters will say that gay marriage is okay. I personally don’t think it’s an appropriate for government to get involved in the issue in the first place.