Skip to main content

XStryker's seven best reasons for you to oppose SB 27

Check out XStryker's call for action at Delawareliberal to help defeat SB 27, the start of a Constitutional amendment to not only make gay marriage permanently illegal in Delaware, but also to outlaw civil unions.

Here are his seven points for calling legislators:

Make sure to say the following when you call:

Senate Bill 27 will PERMANENTLY OUTLAW CIVIL UNIONS.
1. Gay Marriage is already not legal in Delaware - this bill is REALLY about Civil Unions .

2. Major state employers like DuPont, AstraZeneca, and the big banks offer Domestic Partnership benefits. This bill sends the wrong message in the current economy and will give their employees an incentive to live (and shop) in New Jersey or Maryland (which recognize Domestic Partnerships).

3. This bill is bad for the economy - it will chase away entrepenuers

4. According to Gallup, 55% of Americans support Civil Unions, and Delaware is more socially progressive than the average state.

5. It would be very unfair and undemocratic if the legislature amended the constitution to ban something that a majority of Delawareans support.

6. If this amendment passes, Delaware will become the ONLY state in the Northeast to ban Civil Unions.


Remember, they will ask for your name and address, so act civilly and don’t curse.


I realize that people of good conscience can disagree on the issue of same-sex marriage (although I have never been shown a convincing, fact-based argument for opposing it), but it is a basic Libertarian tenet that personal contracts should not, as a general rule, be regulated by the State.

This is massive State intrusion into the private lives of Delaware citizens.

Make the phone calls that Xstryker recommends. I have and I will continue to do so.

Comments

Well, I don't read DL, so I guess I'll have to use my own gut.

I'm constructing my letter to Cloutier now, and will both e-mail and fax it today.

I don't do phone; that's Chainsaw's area.
Anonymous said…
Perhaps it's overly utopian of me, but I have strong objections to those arguments despite agreeing with the conclusions.

1 tactitly implies that banning gay marriage is acceptable.

2 and 3 are overly utilitarian. One could equally argue that we should ban civil unions since it would save employers money by not paying benefits.

4 and 5 suggest that it's just an issue of majority rules rather than an issue of rights. That may play with politicians, but I find it difficult to believe that many people would stop supporting equal rights if there was a 6% shift in public sentiment.

6 is just pointless. If it were the only state to outlaw slavery, that would be no reason to start permitting it.

If someone really believes that those are the seven (six?) best reasons to oppose criminalizing (certain) marriages/somewhat-similar-contracts-with-a-different-name, it seems to me that they're willing to lose the war for the sake of winning the battle.

By contrast, I have only one reason to oppose such a bill: it's morally wrong.

By all means, call in your opposition to the bill (since gradualism in practice is the best we'll ever see), but (assuming you have principles) have the integrity to make a principled stand.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...