Phillies Salutes Advance of Liberty in California

From the Phillies 2008 campaign:

Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies today congratulated Californians on their latest step toward freedom, the legalization of gay marriage in California. “It is wonderful to hear that once again our Courts have defended our Constitutional rights,” Phillies said. “Once again, our courts have agreed that separate is not and cannot be equal. To to the people of California I say: Thank you for taking another step toward liberty and equality for all. To my civil-union supporting Democratic opponents I have a shorter message: Civil unions are major-party apartheid for GLBTQ people.

The California Supreme Court, ruling on In re Marriage Cases, today found that the California Constitution made clear: If gays and lesbians are allowed a status that is substantially the same as marriage, it may not be given a different name.

“The people of California could have avoided this long and expensive trial,” Phillies said, “but their spineless governor, loyal to the conservative philosophy of bigotry, vetoed bills establishing that marriage is for gay as well as straight adults.”

“Voters should remember that conservative bigotry can be bipartisan,” Phillies continued. “The bigoted Defense of Marriage Act was authored by a Republican and passed with bipartisan support. The trail from the terrorist Ku Klux Klan through White Citizens Council to its most recent successor, the Conservative Citizens Council, winds from the Democratic over to the Republican party.

“Americans should cheer the good news that conservative bigotry has been driven back. You can tell when bigotry is losing at the Federal level,” Phillies noted, “because conservative bigots start bleating about their Jim Crow ‘states rights’ doctrine. Patriotic Americans know the truth: States have no right to take away your liberties.

“The conservative philosophy of bigotry is a vast tapestry,” Phillies said, “but it is all woven from the same thread. No matter whether conservatives are bashing lesbians, banning internet gambling, or so shocked by the thought of a woman’s breast that they forbid women to breast-feed their hungry infants in public, they are practicing bigotry. Americans should see and reject the bigotry that lurks in the dark heart and soul of far too much conservative thinking.”

47 Responses to “Phillies Salutes Advance of Liberty in California”

  1. darolew Says:

    Phillies doesn’t like Barr, I think we get it.

  2. Fred Church Ortiz Says:

    “The California Supreme Court, ruling on In re Marriage Cases, today found that the California Constitution made clear”

    From what I’ve read of the ruling so far, it may in fact conflict with the California constitution regarding separation of powers and initiative laws. I’m not sure on that yet, though, only got to read about half the decision and dissents on my lunch break.

    “The people of California could have avoided this long and expensive trial,” Phillies said, “but their spineless governor, loyal to the conservative philosophy of bigotry, vetoed bills establishing that marriage is for gay as well as straight adults.”

    Actually, the people of California voted against gay marriage some years ago by a substantial margin. I think we’re supposed to know by June whether it’s coming up as a constitutional amendment this time around. Tough call whether it’ll happen again, but I’m hopeful that a gay marriage “surge” in the interim will cool some alarmist heads once the sky doesn’t fall, and make the potential mess of a new ban too tough a pill to swallow.

  3. Gene Trosper Says:

    Um….why thank the “people of California” when 61.4% of them voted in favor of preventing gay marriage (Proposition 22)?

  4. Trent Hill Says:

    So, Phillies wants to further entrench the idea that marriage is for the government to oversee,eh?

  5. kombayn Says:

    Phillies is retarded. Who is some fat professor to profess to my state what is right? In case he hadn’t notice only 1 other state supports this. Why would I want to force my beliefs down some resident in Nesbraska’s view that marriage isn’t between a man and a woman. I just think all gay couples should be allowed to have the tax incentives for being married even if it’s “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships”. The only thing I disagree with is why gay people want the word “marriage” they can get what they want through other names, stop being selfish and trying to force change. Change comes naturally.

  6. mdh Says:

    Change does not come naturally. It appears that way to outsiders, but on the inside, passionate individuals have been working very diligently to bring it about.

    To claim otherwise is an admission of outsider status, and that you are not working for change yourself.

  7. citizen1 Says:

    The government should have nothing to say about marriage. Marriage is a religious institution that the government has stolen. The first marriages in thr US to be licensed were between ‘free’ blacks and whites. Ourv founders did not have marriage licenses were need to due away with the idea that we need the governments permision to marry (and a whole host of other things). If a church will marry two people then they can participate in the religious institution of marriage.

  8. Brian Miller Says:

    The government should have nothing to say about marriage. Marriage is a religious institution that the government has stolen.

    I agree with that, but two things here.

    1) This argument only seems to pop up when discussing same-sex marriages. I am not personally aware of any “get the government out of marriage” activists outside of the Libertarian queer community.

    2) Most of the politicians and candidates who advocate this position have marriage licenses. Why do they think a marriage license is acceptable to them, but not to others? Makes you think, doesn’t it?

    And bravo to Dr. Phillies for this excellent press release.

  9. Karsten Says:

    It’s only hot when lesbians marry.

  10. citizen1 Says:

    Brian,
    I did not realize that I was part of the libertarian queer comunity. In fact I believe that homosexuality is a sin. There are many other sins that I do not think the goverment should have any thing to say about either. I do not however think that it is the governments place to regulate marriage.

  11. disinter Says:

    Great. So when is Phillies (and the Outright Liber-Nazis) going to take the libertarian stance and condemn the government’s role in marriage?

  12. Hugh Jass Says:

    You know that its gotten bad when Constitutionalists like Hill and Knibbs express more libertarian views on marriage than one of our presidential candidates. Not only should Phillies be condemning this verdict for further entrenching government’s role in a religious institution, but he should also be condemning it for allowing unelected activist judges to take a shortcut around the California Constitution and simply declare marriage to be a government institution that gays are a part of. It seems to be simply beyond Phillies that the ideas of marital socialism and ‘the ends justify the means’ are not libertarian ideas.

  13. Hugh Jass Says:

    Also, with regards to Jim Crow, I’m taking it Phillies is implicitly supporting the terrible Civil Rights Act, which basically substituted state discrimination with federal thought crimes.

  14. Brian Miller Says:

    It’s interesting to note that many posters here seem to think that we can “grow the LP” by defending Jim Crow laws and government programs that target censured groups.

    I tend to think that we should embrace rulings and laws that destroy the power of state, local, and federal governments to use their powers to marginalize anybody—and hail any incremental improvements that move us closer to liberty.

    I think such positions will win us a lot more support in the general population than the “angry Republican guy” positions of “Hugh” and Mike Nelson.

  15. disinter Says:

    I tend to think that we should embrace rulings and laws that destroy the power of state, local, and federal governments to use their powers to marginalize anybody

    You are so full of shit. You are constantly advocating government forced “equality” via marriage licenses for gays.

  16. Mr. AV Says:

    I’ll agree that judges do not create laws. This was completely wrong. I have nothing against gay marriage, but to undermine what the people of California has said (don’t know how many years ago) is akin to robbery. I don’t mind if a judge were to express dislike for the law he/she has to enforce, but that judge can’t overturn it.

    I’d prefer also that government get out of marriage altogether. I feel it would let the gay marriage issue resolve itself in the best way possible. As it stands now with government interference, there are only two options that I see. Both options would undermine liberty. Either ban it and deny homosexuals their right to pursue happiness or legalize it to the point where churches would be forced to marry those they object to. No matter what side the government is on, people will be robbed of their rights one way or another.

  17. disinter Says:

    This was completely wrong.

    In the sense that the court gave the state more power to discriminate, I agree.

    but to undermine what the people of California has said (don’t know how many years ago) is akin to robbery.

    No, that is the duty of the court - to defend constitutional rights from the tyranny of democracy.

    but that judge can’t overturn it.

    Courts can and should over-turn unconstitutional laws.

  18. disinter Says:

    legalize it to the point where churches would be forced to marry those they object to.

    Why should churches be forced to marry anyone? Who says you have to get married by a church?

  19. Andy Says:

    “1) This argument only seems to pop up when discussing same-sex marriages. I am not personally aware of any “get the government out of marriage” activists outside of the Libertarian queer community.”

    This is not true. I know and know of people who are married without state marriage licenses.

  20. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Please go read the ruling. The Court did not create ANY laws. It invalidated two sections of California Family Code, Sections 300 and 308.5 (the latter being Prop. 22) as being unconstitutional (state, not federal!), specifically three ways: discrimination on sexual orientation basis, privacy rights, and equal protection of the laws.

    The Court ruled entirely on California laws and California Constitution sections. It is well-settled law that a citizen initiative cannot violate a state’s constitution.

    Please also see http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/15/barr-reacts-to-california-supreme-court-decision/#comment-608005

  21. Jake Featherston Says:

    I think such positions will win us a lot more support in the general population than the “angry Republican guy” positions of “Hugh” and Mike Nelson.

    Mike Nelson?

    We have movie sign!

  22. Jake Featherston Says:

    Marriages should merely be recorded by the state, not licensed.

    With that said, the concept of state-sanctioned homosexual “marriage” is a ridiculous, innately self-contradictory abomination! Marriage is the uniquely heterosexual institution, and can only be thus, else it ceases to be marriage at all. The institution of marriage has become state-sanctioned by virtue of its beneficial role in society. There is no advantage to society which is afforded by people of the same sex coupling within their unified household. People should be able to do what they want with their lives, yet two men should no more be able to get a marriage license than someone should be able to license their pet elephant as a “dog.”

    Homosexuals already have full, legal equality in this society. Abolishing the institution of marriage, and erecting a new, sex-neutral institution in its place, and calling it “marriage,” has nothing to do with equality.

    At least now I have my next blog topic….

  23. Jake Featherston Says:

    I don’t mind if a judge were to express dislike for the law he/she has to enforce, but that judge can’t overturn it.

    The principle of judicial review is a settled issue in this country, and has been since Marbury vs Madison, during the administration of Thomas Jefferson (our 3rd President). If a state’s statutory law is in violation of its state constitution (or likewise, if a Federal statute is in violation of the Federal Constitution), it is entirely necessary and proper for a judge, or panel of judges, to strike it down. Otherwise, there would be no obstacle to unconstitutional laws, and we might as well not even bother to have the U.S. Constitution anymore. Without judicial review, this country becomes a tyrannical dictatorship-of-the-legislature.

    The mere fact some (many) individual examples of judicial review are terrible does not discredit the concept. We need better judges.

  24. NAMBLA FOR MARY '08 Says:

    We’re next!

  25. Susan Hogarth Says:

    The institution of marriage has become state-sanctioned by virtue of its beneficial role in society. There is no advantage to society which is afforded by people of the same sex coupling within their unified household.

    Who died and made you arbiter of what provides ‘advantage to society’? Fuck state sanctions.

    I am not personally aware of any “get the government out of marriage” activists outside of the Libertarian queer community.

    In my case at least it’s a pick-your-battles thing. I got a state marriage license (mostly through inertia and lack of thinking it through), but would burn it publicly in a second if North Carolina tried passing any stupid-ass one-man-one-woman definition such as that preferred by Bob Barr.

    Hell, I may burn it anyway (if I could find it). At the convention, in front of Barr. Wrapped in an American flag. Sweetened with MH. Laced with cocaine.

  26. Susan Hogarth - vodka drinker Says:

    Sweetened with MH.

    Whoops. Meant MJ. Even my irony is going wonky today. sigh.

  27. Stefan Says:

    Susan: It seems like there is a “war on Barr” now… wow, you really seem to hate him now.
    With Phillies’ reaction also there seems to be a new states right issue evolving, with perhaps the more conservative Libertarians favoring it, and the more liberal libertarians against it.
    The baby is simply been thrown out witht eh bathwater re. states rights and the Jim Crow laws. Ask yourself, would the South’s states right - without slavery - there would not have been less central government power and lead to more liberty than currently and over the past few dacades?

    “I got a state marriage license (mostly through inertia and lack of thinking it through), but would burn it publicly in a second if North Carolina tried passing any stupid-ass one-man-one-woman definition such as that preferred by Bob Barr”.

    So are you interested in marrying another man or woman? (Maybe you are tired of your husband and would like to marry a woman?)You have problems with the one man - one woman definition. By what should it be replaced then. If it is to be totally scrapped, this would mean the FLDS and multiple wives (or men, who the woman that prefers that) would be totally allowed…. are we going back a century or more?

  28. Clark Says:

    ...i recently overheard a local republican richardhead complaining, “..what those fags really want are tax breaks and health care bennies!..”

    ...i know for a fact this fat republican’s fat republican wife works for the state DEP as he’s bragged heavily about the ‘health-care bennie$’ he gets for himself and his hideous brood..(one of them severely wounded their neighbor’s cat with what his fat, drunken, lazy, republican father termed ‘a toy spear’)

    ..i thought to myself, “..!of course they want the bennie$!...they’re no different than you, you fat, republican fuck!..”

    ...it seems just about every ‘political issue’ boils down to ‘money,’ doesn’t it?..and so it would seem that if you republicrats are ignorant of ‘the money thing’—and i fear most of you are—you are truly ignorant as to most ‘political issues’.. ;o)

  29. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Susan: It seems like there is a “war on Barr” now… wow, you really seem to hate him now.

    I don’t hate Barr. But I don’t favor him for the nomination, and I want my fellow delegates to examine him closely and ask him some tough questions before they vote for him. Questions like these:

    http://www.colliething.com/2008/05/open-letter-to-bob-barr-some-questions.html

    Barr jumped into the race late, so we have a very short time to scrutinize him as a candidate. No doubt that was the plan.

    I do not think he is the best candidate for the LP, but I do think he is positioned well enough to be a threat to the candidate I do think is best (Mary Ruwart), so naturally I will be offering up all possible support for my argument.

    Re: federalism (which I think is a confusing term, as it seems to be used in two opposite ways): I definitely prefer a confederation of states to the current empire system. However I see this argument as a distraction from the essential message of libertarianism. We are about freedom for individuals, not rights for states.

    So are you interested in marrying another man or woman? (Maybe you are tired of your husband and would like to marry a woman?)

    No. Where did that come from?

    You have problems with the one man - one woman definition.

    Not particularly. I have problems with the government defining marriage - in any way.

    By what should it be replaced then.

    Nothing. If the government feels the need to keep tabs on marriages (for tax purposes or whatever), it should accept any person’s declaration of marriage and just live with it.

    If it is to be totally scrapped, this would mean the FLDS and multiple wives (or men, who the woman that prefers that) would be totally allowed….

    Yes, it would mean that.

    Ask yourself what would happen if the majority of Americans were polygamous, and you wanted only one partner. Ask yourself how you’d feel if your marriage was illegal.

    are we going back a century or more?

    That would be going ahead - to freedom of choice and a reduction of government’s power over the individual.

  30. SovereignMN Says:

    Man I hope Phillies wins the LP nomination.

  31. George Phillies Says:

    *# SovereignMN Says:
    May 16th, 2008 at 8:29 am

    Man I hope Phillies wins the LP nomination.*

    I’m trying. My friends are trying. Your support would be most welcome.

    Please contact me at [email protected] if you would like to be supportive.

  32. Stefan Says:

    Dear Susan:
    Thank you for your elaborate response.
    Yes, I know you don’t hate Barr, was just overreacting intentionally in reaction to your quite provocative remarks..if you know what I mean.
    Of course I was kidding about the additional marriage thing…. I do think the govt. probably formulated the bipartisan accepted bill so to not open the way for polygamy. The factical situation is that even the Mormons have outlawad polygamy a hundred years ago, and worldwide only (some) Muslim countries do
    have that.
    Well, one could theorize unendlessly about what how things would have been if this or that was different in the past. I think we have to go from the factical position and not go into anarchy. Do you feel there is any desire to enable polygamy and that it is an election theme?

    I do think logically more autonomy to the states and less power to the federal government would enable more freedom fro the individual as well. For instance the state of California decided to allow medical marijuana, but the federal government overrides it. If states rights (a conservative-libertarian principle) were allowed. the state of California would have been allowed to legalize medical marijuana, which individuals like Steve Kubby would certainly have welcomed! Capito?

    Now, I do think there is not one single definition of libertarianism. People can often use their own understanding as THE standard of libertarianism, and the others who do not fit into it, are not. I have heard some Libetrarians say the LP are atheists, is this a representative position of the LP? and does it then by implication suggest religious people cannot be liberarian? The best would be to take the basic constitutional principle as your basic definition. There are anarchists in the LP also, but this does not mean the LP has this principals. I am sure any anarchist would see any law or any person believing in certain laws as not being libertarian…

    Of course Barr would be under higher scrutiny, but people should also remember that apart from Barr and Gravel, no candidate ever stood in political office and one has thus no record on them. And anyone can also change positions in the course of politics in the light of more insights etc.

    What is your position on Root? Between Barr and Root, which one do you “detest” the least?
    Everybody has his/her list of preferred candidates, there may be some who are undecided. I think eveybody should also study as and consider the positions of other candidates they do not like this week, so as to be prepared. Interviews,
    blogs etc, could provide more info on the candidate.
    Listen to this FebruaRY BLOGRADIO on Steve Kubby on Barr (who has met him in person and asked basic question , you will find that some of your questions are answered:
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/SteveKubbyShow/2008/02/22/Leading-from-the-Front-Lines

    Personally I think Barr and Ruwart could be the ideal team to unify the party, satisfy the most and be the most effective and with the widest appeal.

  33. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Do you feel there is any desire to enable polygamy and that it is an election theme?

    No, and no.

    I do think logically more autonomy to the states and less power to the federal government would enable more freedom fro the individual as well.

    Yes. The thing is this: the next president of the US is not going to be a Libertarian. So we have to decide what we want to tell the people who do listen to us is the goal. Is it ‘more freedom’ or ‘freedom’? I know what my answer is.

    Now, I do think there is not one single definition of libertarianism.

    I agree.

    People can often use their own understanding as THE standard of libertarianism, and the others who do not fit into it, are not.

    Of course. It’s natural for people to think they are right until they are demonstrated to be wrong (and sometimes well after, alas).

    The best would be to take the basic constitutional principle as your basic definition.

    Obviously, I disagree. Well, actually, I’m not even sure what you mean by ‘basic constitutional principle’.

    There are anarchists in the LP also, but this does not mean the LP has this principals. I am sure any anarchist would see any law or any person believing in certain laws as not being libertarian…

    I don’t think you understand libertarian anarchism particularly well. But setting that aside, the LP’s Membership Form has one requirement - that you sign this certification:

    https://www.lp.org/members/newmember.shtml

    “To validate my membership, I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”

    That doesn’t say anything about constitutionalism. You can argue that such a certification not be used (and people do, of course), but that is the current structure of the LP.

    What is your position on Root? Between Barr and Root, which one do you “detest” the least?

    I don’t tend to rank candidates by which one is least preferable. If I did that, I’d be racking my brains over Obama/McCain.

    I think eveybody should also study as and consider the positions of other candidates they do not like this week, so as to be prepared.

    We are certainly in agreement there.

  34. Austrian Economist Says:

    PHILLIES

    He’s got some fight and gumption in him! Well said, George.

    “because conservative bigots start bleating about their Jim Crow ‘states rights’ doctrine. Patriotic Americans know the truth: States have no right to take away your liberties.

    I’d love to see him 1 on 1 against Barr in a debate.

  35. Brian Miller Says:

    I know and know of people who are married without state marriage licenses.

    They are the exception, not the rule.

    Ron Paul and various other well-known Republican politicians who often take the “let’s get marriage out of the government’s purview” argument all have marriage licenses. Gay people are just asking to be treated the same as Ron Paul, and his response is “I’m principled enough to oppose you getting a license—and self-interested enough to grow government power by getting one for myself.”

    I’d love to see him 1 on 1 against Barr in a debate.

    Reason Magazine is holding a debate that is excluding Dr. Phillies, despite the fact that he’s raised more money than any other candidate and has built up a considerable campaign infrastructure.

    If we want to see Dr. Phillies in a debate of Libertarian candidates, we should write Reason Magazine and ask them why they’re excluding a number of top-tier candidates from their debate.

  36. Brian Miller Says:

    Well, actually, I’m not even sure what you mean by ‘basic constitutional principle’.

    This turn of phrase, in my experience, usually means “my interpretation of the constitution, which ignores the bits that I don’t like.” ;)

  37. Stefan Says:

    “He’s got some fight and gumption in him! Well said, George.

    “because conservative bigots start bleating about their Jim Crow ‘states rights’ doctrine. Patriotic Americans know the truth: States have no right to take away your liberties.

    I’d love to see him 1 on 1 against Barr in a debate”.

    Indeed! Phillies is de facto also taking on most countries of the world with the exception of Belgium, South Africa, Canada, Spain etc. and 48 of the 50 states with regard to his interpretation/understanding. Good luck Dr. Phillies persuading most African and Asian countries especially.
    Also: is he also going to enforce churches etc. to allow this, otherwise it would be seen as “discrimination” and “withholding of civil liberties”in this radical understanding. Note that most West European countries accept civil unions for homosexual partners, not marriages, like in France, which is a social quite liberal society with a radical divide between church and state.

    Note: I take more the democratic position of the majority in the world.

  38. Stefan Says:

    “Reason Magazine is holding a debate that is excluding Dr. Phillies, despite the fact that he’s raised more money”.

    If so, then the LP has it all wrong on their website. Note: I think Dr. Phillies was referring to 100 k of his own money that would be available. This does not count as “money raised” unless he/you want to use a “Romney-speak”... check out
    newsmeat dot com It does not seem as if he has so many donors…I accept that the info is not 100% up to date.

  39. Stefan Says:

    Susan:
    “Is it ‘more freedom’ or ‘freedom’? I know what my answer is”

    I also know what your answer is and would not agree. MY answer would be “more freedom”. A person does still have freedom, freedom to vote, etc etc. you cannot so there is NO freedom or liberty at all, unless you are an anarchist.
    It is the first time I heard about the term “libertarian anarchism”. I know about “anarcho-capitalism”.
    Question: is their one country in the world that was or is an example of successful “libertarian anarchism”?
    On the other hand can refer to a few countries that are very much liberianism, like Switzerland, Hong Kong (in any case earlier) etc. In HK there was and is no “democracy”, but it is one of the economic most free countries in the world.

    Now I do not know much about Ayn Rand. DO you follow her? I have read Kant, Hegel, Nietsche, Heidegger, Gadamer etc. and follow more the European philosopical tradition. I read somewhere that Rand did not even really study Kant, whom she criticized.

    Well, I was referring to the COnstitution, as such. This is the document every congress member, senator, and president should swear to uphold, and NOT their party platform. SO the constitution takes preference. It is not a perfect document, and can be amended, but a very good starting point, libertarian document.

  40. Stefan Says:

    Oh, I was referring to the Lp candidates. Indeed, 100% agree, I still cannot figure out which is the worst evil, Obama (Obombama) or McCain (McBush) and “raking my brain” as you formulate to descriptively.

    I do think the LP should unite next weekend and it is something for consideration that the candidates that do not make it for the nomination for presidential or VP candidate, should strongly consider running for congress and concentrate. They already javbe raised some money and have some profile and in a 4 party race or even 3 party with very hard work, it may be just possible to get at least one LP member elected to congress. Would that not be a breakthrough?

  41. George Phillies Says:

    Stefan,

    The LP.org web site is being willfully dishonest. I specifically warned them about the issue, and they refused to correct the record.

    Romney’s money spent as well as the other kind. Unfortunately for him, every time he heard Obama say ‘change’ he thought it was a reference to his stands on his issues.

    Here is a link to Tamara Johnson’s web site and the full analysis
    http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/comparison-of-fec-candidate-reports/

    However, here are the numbers she generated for fundraising:

    Mike Jingozian
    Others $ 13,090
    Total $228,525

    George Phillies
    Others $ 16,727
    Total $198,254

    Wayne Allyn Root
    Others $ 34,409
    Total $ 59,410

    Christine Smith
    Others $ 16,244
    Total $ 16,244

    Steve Kubby
    Others $ 16,219 (inferred from previous filings))
    Total $ 16,219

    Mary Ruwart
    Others $ 5,655
    Total $ 10,655

    Bob Barr
    Others $ 0
    Total $ 0

    Mike Gravel
    Others $447,880
    Total $521,396

    Daniel Imperato:

    Imperato filing appears to have a corrupted computer file. His most recent report claims his receipts for the quarter ($39,574) are larger than his total receipts for the cycle ($12,500), which is impossible.

  42. Hugh Jass Says:

    It’s interesting to note that many posters here seem to think that we can “grow the LP” by defending Jim Crow laws and government programs that target censured groups.

    I never defended Jim Crow laws. I was saying that Phillies is using a bad libertarian example since they were essentially replaced by the even more totalitarian federal “Civil Rights Act”.

    I tend to think that we should embrace rulings and laws that destroy the power of state, local, and federal governments to use their powers to marginalize anybody—and hail any incremental improvements that move us closer to liberty.

    I think such positions will win us a lot more support in the general population than the “angry Republican guy” positions of “Hugh” and Mike Nelson.

    But this ruling didn’t destroy the power of state, local, and federal governments to marginalize everybody; it simply replaced gay people seeking “marriage” with private churches who disapprove of “gay marriage”. This doesn’t move us closer to liberty, because it simply mandates that all gay couples register with the state government, and that unelected judges maintain the power to overrule the wills of the people. Libertarians should be working to abolish unconstitutional marriage licensing, and allow all couples to freely marry. It seems sad that no Libertarian candidate thus far wishes to express these views.

  43. disinter Says:

    This doesn’t move us closer to liberty, because it simply mandates that all gay couples register with the state government, and that unelected judges maintain the power to overrule the wills of the people. Libertarians should be working to abolish unconstitutional marriage licensing, and allow all couples to freely marry.

    Exactly. Don’t tell that to the Outright Liber-Nazis though, they don’t comprehend.

  44. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Someone needs to tell the complainers that the way to eliminate the requirements is to eliminate the need for them in the first place in the minds of the statists, and this ruling did just that.

    Oh, wait, I’ve been saying that all day and they don’t listen.

  45. Stefan Says:

    Thank you Dr. Phillies, I understand about LP’s site info and thank you for the professional and exact outline. You are a true professional and very organized and exact and deserve a high role with the LP, also through your solid work through decades. Do you get enough recognition? Most probably not…

    The LP’s site should also IMHO be revamped and improved, especially with this specific election year, as many people new to the LP may well have a look and the impression provided is also important.

    Personally, I think they should take some initiative and construct websites for money bombs for not only the presidential nominees, but also to promote and fund the respective LP candidates for state senate, congress and senate and invite the candidates to co-ordinate and help them with their campaign (brainstorming, ideas etc.). I know the nominees and some candidates will campaign, but they need extra help or can share from previous experience.
    Good luck with the rest of your campaign! The dailyliberty website is also a good idea, hope the young people can promote it further.

  46. disinter Says:

    So, Phillies wants to further entrench the idea that marriage is for the government to oversee,eh?

    Basically, yes.

  47. George Phillies Says:

    Stefan,

    You are most entirely welcome.

    Let me again urge people interested in what Federal campaigns and PACS spend go to the original source http://www.FEC.GOV . Go to the left column, the top entry that pushes out a rightgoing side bar.

    “Electronic filings” gets you both readable pages and a downloadable that can be read by Microsoft Excel and others.

    The paper filings, miscellaneous filings, and copies of the FEC inquiries are in the adjoining link.

    Best,

    George

Leave a Reply