Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [FSP] Digest Number 233

Expand Messages
  • Jason P Sorens
    ... In fairness, there is a libertarian case for opposing civil unions and any gov t recognition of marriage arrangements (straight or homosexual); however,
    Message 1 of 7 , Aug 30, 2002
      On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Philip Boncer wrote:

      > Unfortunately for our prospects of cooperation there, the "Civil Union" law
      > was in fact a good thing. One of the few really good things the socialists
      > have done there. (Note an old saying: An idea is not responsible for the
      > people who believe in it.) If that is the issue that really has motivated
      > the "Take Back Vermont" movement, then the movement is based in the dark
      > judgemental legislation-of-morality side of conservatism and will not
      > necessarily be of value to us.

      In fairness, there is a libertarian case for opposing civil unions and any
      gov't recognition of marriage arrangements (straight or homosexual);
      however, your characterization of the civil unions law makes it seem not
      terrible by any standard. However, more importantly for state comparison
      purposes, very few people in America do support gay marriage in any form,
      so it's not surprising that many Vermonters would oppose it. We would
      like find just as much opposition to this proposal in any other state,
      except Hawaii.

      ________________________________________________________________________

      Jason P Sorens---jason.sorens@...---http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35

      http://www.freestateproject.org - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
    • Peter Saint-Andre
      ... I think it might be valuable to factor in projections for population growth. If a state makes the cut now but is projected to grow by 30% by the time the
      Message 2 of 7 , Aug 30, 2002
        > Anyway, here's what the Research Committee is now considering:
        >
        > "All states under 1.5 million population at the time of the membership
        > vote will be included on the ballot, excepting Hawaii and Rhode Island,
        > which are eliminated outright for their socialistic tendencies."
        >
        > 10 states currently make it past this standard: AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD,
        > ME, VT, NH, DE. Any further reduction would be foresworn unless there's a
        > huge groundswell of support for it and zero opposition.

        I think it might be valuable to factor in projections for population
        growth. If a state makes the cut now but is projected to grow by 30% by
        the time the move will be complete, that might threaten the FSP's power to
        influence policies there. "Solitar" posted some demographic projections on
        the forum site and they seemed quite useful to me, although IIRC they were
        for the year 2020 (2010 might be more important for us).

        Peter
      • Mary Lou Seymour
        That s what I was thinking... although of course I m in favor of abolishing marriage laws altogether, if there are state marriage laws, obviously same sex
        Message 3 of 7 , Aug 30, 2002
          That's what I was thinking... although of course I'm in favor of abolishing
          marriage laws altogether, if there are state marriage laws, obviously same
          sex couples should be allowed to utilize them. Sounds like those "outside
          agitators" are more "our kind of people" than the outraged old time
          residents...


          > Unfortunately for our prospects of cooperation there, the "Civil
          > Union" law was in fact a good thing. One of the few really good
          > things the socialists have done there. (Note an old saying: An idea
          > is not responsible for the people who believe in it.) If that is the
          > issue that really has motivated the "Take Back Vermont" movement, then
          > the movement is based in the dark judgemental legislation-of-morality
          > side of conservatism and will not necessarily be of value to us. They
          > are not likely to cotton to our ideas about drug decriminalization or
          > genuine separation of church and state, either.
          >
          > The "Civil Union" law established that homosexual couples could
          > register a civil union with the state which has the same legal status
          > as marriage with regard to property, inheritance, medical matters, and
          > so on. It is legally valid only in Vermont; it specifically exempts
          > other states from having to recognize its validity. Several of my
          > friends have traveled there (from California) to have it performed
          > just for the symbolic value. It harms no one, but it causes agitation
          > in those who just cannot accept the idea that other people ought to
          > have the freedom to live differently. As we've said before, the state
          > really shouldn't be involved in this issue, but to the very great
          > extent that it currently is, equal treatment of gay people in the eyes
          > of the state is progress toward freedom. Those who oppose recognition
          > of gay marriage in any form will likely be just as opposed to our
          > concept of the state legally recognizing as a valid contract any
          > family structure that is signed to by all competent adults, as it
          > would "open the door to all sorts of pernicious and immoral
          > arrangements", etc. etc. This is also one of my (few) worries about
          > Idaho, as the Mormons have been politically active in several states
          > in promoting and funding the passage of laws opposing any official
          > recognition of gay family structures, which amounts to intentional
          > institutionalization of state-sponsored bigotry to conform to a
          > particular religious viewpoint. That's a bad thing.
          >
          > PhilB
          >
          > P.S. I saw a very funny bumper sticker the other day. It said:
          > ANOTHER WHINER
          > FOR WORLD PEACE
          >
          > > chuck wrote:
          > ... and everyone I encountered expressed strong conservative views.
          > After a While I started asking about why they have such an apparently
          > liberal political scene. The answer; "Outsiders". Virtually everyone
          > I met was upset that the liberals had hijacked thier state. Especially
          > onerous was the "Civil Union" law pushed through by gay activists from
          > out of state. They are all concentrated in Chittenden County
          > (Burlington area) and are rapidly turning the county into mini Mass.
          > Rural Vermont is a completely different story. Two years ago "Take
          > Back Vermont" signs were ubiquitous; they were on every barn,
          > everywhere though they are less obvious now.
          > It appears to me that FSP would work there but once Vermonters
          > realized
          > what we were up to they might resent an organized move to "Hijack the
          > state" (Probably true of any state). Another thing to consider with
          > small states like these is that we don't want to turn our chosen state
          > into a political battleground. What FSP is proposing is essentially
          > what the libs have done in Vermont, though primarily through campaign
          > contributions. Make no mistake - money buys political office. Don't
          > forget that and remember the importance of the New Hampshire primary
          > in the presidential elections.
          > They are VERY independent folks in rural Vermont, very conservative.
          > I
          > like them.
          >
          > > Mary Lou Seymour wrote:
          > I wonder on what basis their objection was to the "Civil Union" law.
          > (which I'm not familar with)
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
          > http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/XgSolB/TM
          > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~
          > ->
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
        • Jason P Sorens
          ... Yeah, they were rather distant projections. We should have a better idea whether a state is growing too fast a year from now. Of the 10 states I listed,
          Message 4 of 7 , Aug 30, 2002
            On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

            > I think it might be valuable to factor in projections for population
            > growth. If a state makes the cut now but is projected to grow by 30% by
            > the time the move will be complete, that might threaten the FSP's power to
            > influence policies there. "Solitar" posted some demographic projections on
            > the forum site and they seemed quite useful to me, although IIRC they were
            > for the year 2020 (2010 might be more important for us).

            Yeah, they were rather distant projections. We should have a better idea
            whether a state is growing too fast a year from now. Of the 10 states I
            listed, Idaho is the fastest-growing one.

            ________________________________________________________________________

            Jason P Sorens---jason.sorens@...---http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35

            http://www.freestateproject.org - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.