Anarchy Without Bombs

Cooperation Without Coercion

IF ONLY: California’s Proposition 8

In California, the passage last week of a proposition to permanently ban same sex marriage until enough older opponents die off for the ban to be permanently lifted by another proposition has resulted in major protests throughout the state directed at the Mormon Church, the largest financial contributor to the campaign.  In their defense, a spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints held a brief press conference today.

“We do not see this as discrimination, but as a critical moral issue.  It would be hypocritical of us not to act in accordance with the teachings of our Church: marriage is intended to be a holy sacrament between one man and … um … never mind.”


Written by Less

November 12, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Posted in Humor

Tagged with

15 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. So, in other words, you SUPPORT the religious bigots who attack old women and parade into church buildings and disrupt services and mock people’s faith. As you yourself do. Where is your condemnation of threats of firebombing and murder made by the anti-Prop 8 agitators? And you consider yourself a libertarian? Give me a break.


    November 13, 2008 at 8:05 am

  2. Wow, Sam says really missed the point. what he trailed off to is “one man and countless wives some under 18.” The point was not to slam Mormons, but to point out that there are varying viewpoints of morality. Just as many folks find polygamy as reprehensible as same sex marriage (and I’m sure you will find those that find a marriage between man and woman is undesirable). He was, I believe, trying to point out the hypocrisy of Mormon reactions.

    The irony of Mormons attacking a fringe group is not lost on me, so the humor of the short article is not lost on me.

    Sam says’ knee-jerk response is more that of evangelical right than libertarian. Open the mind.


    November 13, 2008 at 9:30 am

  3. @Sam

    Besides humor, my point is that peaceful Mormon marital practices were suppressed by law, and the LDS Church is now a party to the same type of suppression.

    I’m not at all sure where the other claims in your post were either made or implied.


    November 13, 2008 at 2:18 pm

  4. @Ken

    Thanks. I don’t want to analyze a joke to death, but do want to add that there are legitimate issues of when someone has the capacity to consent. How a society (whether the laws are manufactured by common law or legislation) interprets the “agreement” of a child (especially one who doesn’t have the ability to comprehend the meaning of sexual relations) is an extremely important question of its own, which I hope to address in detail after elaborating on how law arises in a free society.

    My quip was in the spirit of Mrs. Romney, who liked to note in speeches that one thing that differentiated her husband from the other major candidates for the Repubilcan nomination was that he had only one wife.


    November 13, 2008 at 2:26 pm

  5. as a Libertarian, i would condemn threats of firebombing, old-lady-bashing, cross-burning, SWAT-style pet-shooting, Prop-8 and all other such aggressive violations of consensual contract and individual liberty.

    re: it just being a matter of waiting for the older generation to die off for liberty to flourish, i began that countdown in the 70’s only to find they keep making more – not only that but they seem even more rabidly anal than their parents, if that’s even possible.

    the notion of “young conservatives” seemed like an oxymoron to me too, but it seems there’s a factory somewhere that keeps churning them out just when you think the social repression must surely be nearing its natural end. its appeal is beyond me but it’s very real and very, well… fucked up..

    susan 28

    November 13, 2008 at 7:49 pm

  6. @ Susan

    I see more progress than you: heaven knows I want to snap my fingers and get to the future (without aging, of course), but when I entered Cal in 1974, consensual relations between two adult men in Berkeley was a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment. Today, you and I are disappointed about marriage equality being defeated by a 52-48 vote. That’s enormous progress.

    Proposition 8 will be repealed within 5 years. It isn’t that ALL older people are against same sex marriage equality (my 83-year-old Republican mother voted against Prop 8), nor are ALL young people in favor of it (39% of under 30s voted for it, just as 39% of over 65s voted against it: for that matter, 36% of Mormons opposed the law). But the differences are dramatic, and same sex marriage equality is ALREADY supported by the majority of Californians: it’s just that older people vote in significantly higher percentages.

    Okay, bet: if Prop 8 is repealed within 5 years, you do another of your wonderful lyric rewrites (see for an example of her handiwork, folks) to celebrate the event to the tune of You’ve Come A Long Way Baby. November 13, 2013 arrives with unequal coupling laws still in place, and I’ll do a rewrite to the tune of It Takes A Nation of Millions To Hold Us Back. Bet?


    November 13, 2008 at 9:36 pm

  7. This gay anarchist is very glad to see that gays do not have to beg the state to get married in CA. Let’s hope it stays that way.


    November 14, 2008 at 9:43 pm

  8. @ disinter

    I’m pretty sure that gay marriage was optional, not mandatory. It is a step in the direction of liberty to give people an option that has the effect of reducing their taxes and strengthening their private property protection.


    November 14, 2008 at 10:40 pm

  9. Less: Bet!!

    i think you’re right though, and might not even have to wait for repeal, i’ve already read the case against it and it looks pretty tight, see this article for details

    some pretty savvy operators working our side of the aisle from the looks of it, the battle’s definitely in good hands..

    susan 28

    November 15, 2008 at 7:52 pm

  10. As much as I agree with the fact that marriage is about a union of one woman and one man for life, the real problem is that the state is involved with matters of “marriage” to begin with. The state will make more problems regulating in matters that are properly out of its scope. Having homosexual marriage in law is obnoxious and forcing it down people’s throat that find it abhorrent. But, Prop. 8 is just as problematic. Therefore, again, the libertarian answer is the way to go. Get the government out of the question of marriage as much as possible, if not totally. And, as wrong as it is, if two men or two women want to join themselves and call it marriage or if a Mormon want to marry a bunch of wives, let them; it is their business and their lives. Just as long as it isn’t shoved down people’s throat to accept it as it would be if enshrined in law.


    November 18, 2008 at 11:10 am

  11. @ Andy

    You’re right that the actual position of someone advocating a totally free society is for no government involvement in the question at all. It is often difficult to determine whether an initiative or law goes in the direction of liberty or in the direction of tyranny. Since marriage is optional and the legal involvement of the government is primarily to reduce the taxes and strengthen the property rights protection of those who choose to marry, it seems to me to be clearly a step in the right direction to allow more people to choose that option, but what I want is for the government to simply get out of the marriage question entirely. And every other question, of course. 😉


    November 18, 2008 at 2:11 pm

  12. I think for federal purposes, the concept of a religious marraige and a civil right should be divorced from each other so to speak. Civil unions should be mere contractual formalities no different than a business partnership. As for tax and entitlement, military & dependent etc. purposes the federal government should defer to the states on what their qualification for civil unions are.

    Marraiges can remain the realm of the spiritual up to each particular denomination. Thereby religious interpretations and definitions of marriage are removed from political discourse and religious organizations do not risk law suits for refusing to perform a “marriage” that does not comport to their ecclesiastical beliefs. Individuals and groups therefore should be free to recognize and/or provide services for civil unions and/or marraiges as they see fit. If a company only wishes to provide benefits to a married man and woman holding a civil union that’s their decision not the governments.

    Christopher Wiseman

    November 21, 2008 at 12:12 pm

  13. This gay anarchist is very glad to see that gays do not have to beg the state to get married in CA. Let’s hope it stays that way.


    May 28, 2009 at 8:39 am

  14. @PB
    Gee, you sound just like disinter, and my reply to him still applies. See above.

    The question that must be asked is whether we should support or oppose measures that reduce aggression but don’t eliminate it. I believe we should support them, while still supporting the elimination of all aggression, and that it is consistent to support halfway measures in our direction. I also accept that there might be times when that might delay total victory, but I don’t think this is one of them.

    Another case of this sort is likely to come up soon: there will be proposals to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana sales. People are rotting in prison right now while others are killed in drug law related violence, and it strikes me that this is a major step in the right direction, but it is undoubtedly true that taxing and regulating marijuana sales is wrong, and that leaving only one drug while leaving other drugs illegal is wrong.

    So, what’s your view?


    May 28, 2009 at 1:45 pm

  15. Legal Marijuana. Because of it’s obnoxious aroma would it be asking too much to require location use. Like cigarettes? Else what’s to protect me from secondary exposure.


    May 30, 2009 at 11:41 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: