NEWS RELEASE: Libertarian Party of California Backs Domestic Partnership Initiative

The following is a direct reponse to the email, copied below, sent by Rob Power to these same distribution lists.

The Truth of Ali Shams' Statements

The LPC ExCom is now in a panic, because they're realizing that they
didn't do their homework before voting to endorse this initiative, so
now I'm the target.

Well, I just got news of two different LP luminaries who support
Outright's position, and those quotes will be a second press release.
But the first one is already written and will be out first thing
Monday. And we'll follow it with another, and another, and another,
until the LPC ExCom acquires the good sense to vote to reconsider and
rescind its endorsement of this remarkably anti-Libertarian initiative.

Rob

P.S. I'm not calling Ali Shams or anyone on the LPC ExCom a liar. But
they are wrong, and the statements they've made are simply factually
false. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that their
misstatements are unintentional. But on their side, they have a pre-law
college undergrad, and on our side, we have a past Libertarian candidate
for Attorney General and currently practicing Family Law Attorney. As
well as GLAD, and ACLU, two former LP Presidential candidates,
leadership in centrist and radical LP caucuses, twelve years of
Outright's own experience with this issue, and a Partridge in a Pear
Tree... :slight_smile:

Richard Newell wrote:

The LPC ExCom is now in a panic, because they're realizing that they didn't do their homework before voting to endorse this initiative, so now I'm the target.

Well, I just got news of two different LP luminaries who support Outright's position, and those quotes will be a second press release. But the first one is already written and will be out first thing Monday. And we'll follow it with another, and another, and another, until the LPC ExCom acquires the good sense to vote to reconsider and rescind its endorsement of this remarkably anti-Libertarian initiative.

Rob

P.S. I'm not calling Ali Shams or anyone on the LPC ExCom a liar. But they are wrong, and the statements they've made are simply factually false. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that their misstatements are unintentional. But on their side, they have a pre-law college undergrad, and on our side, we have a past Libertarian candidate for Attorney General and currently practicing Family Law Attorney. As well as GLAD, and ACLU, two former LP Presidential candidates, leadership in centrist and radical LP caucuses, twelve years of Outright's own experience with this issue, and a Partridge in a Pear Tree... :slight_smile:

Richard Newell wrote:

Dear All;

The write ups and url below is from the California
State Secretary of States web site on the two
contending marriage propositions.

Before anymore he said they said I said occurs
please read the propositions - both of them -
and form your own opinion about them.

The members of the Ex Com presumably read
the language of the proposition as proposed
and approved for circulation for signatures as
written by Ali Shams and Kaelan Housewright.

I can not state for a fact if the Ex Com members
all read the proposition before voting or based
their vote on a synopsis or what. The fact
remains the LPC is on the record in support
of the ballot proposition by a supra majority.

Each of us has the right to vote on the proposition
if it gets on the ballot based on our personal
decison making process and whether or not the
LPC Ex Com vote carries any weight.

Rather than have the ethernet filled by I said he
said they said make your own personal decision
in the voting booth if that ballot proposition is
there to make the choice.

This whole thing a of marriage and civil unions
is what has come about because the legislature
took it upon themselves to dictate and mandate
through fiat legislation getting the State of California
into the marriage business because they could
charge a fee to people to get the States
permission to have a union of their lives.

The true proposition should be to totally ban the
State of California from having anything to do
with the marriage business in anyway shape
means manner or form. Get the state out
of the marriage business.

This is what happens when the State is allowed
by the sheeple to run amok trampling on personal
decisions and imposing morality by fiat legislation.
This of course applies to all the other state manadated
decisions in all the other areas of our lives we are
faced with daily.

I can let Lysander Spooner say it because he says it best:

"It is the assumption by one man, or body of men,
of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights,
all the natural liberty of all other men; to make
all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate
to all other men what they may, and may not,
do; what they may, and may not, have; what
they may, and may not, be."

Truer words were never spoken.

Ron Getty
Vice Chair
Chair Initiatives Committee

SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno

This is the Secretary of State website for all the other mesures in circulation which should make any Libertarian shudder as to the increases in taxes and son being proposed plus the elimination of the 2/3's requirement. Increases in taxes and so and so on.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#circ

1356. (09-0003)
Substitutes Domestic Partnership for Marriage in California Law. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Summary Date: 03/09/09 Circulation Deadline: 08/06/09 Signatures Required: 694,354
Proponents: Kaelan Housewright and Ali Shams (818) 472-0982
Replaces the term "marriage" with the term "domestic partnership" throughout California law, but preserves the rights provided in marriage. Applies equally to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation. Repeals the provision in California's Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: This measure would have an unknown fiscal effect on state and local governments. (09-0003.) (Full Text)
1357. (09-0002, Amdt. #1S)
Reinstates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 03/19/09 Circulation Deadline: 08/17/09 Signatures Required: 694,354
Proponent: Charles Lowe (800) 778-2998
Repeals the current provision in California's Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Provides that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to modify or change the curriculum in any school. Clarifies that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to mandate or require clergy of any church to perform a service or duty inconsistent with his or her faith. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments. (09-0002.) (Full Text)

The Outright Libertarians press release responding to the LPC
endorsement of the Domestic Partnership Initiative has been submitted to
the wire service, but the text of it is available here:

http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2009/03/for-immediate-release-lp-of-california.html

BTW, this line from our Northern California Vice-Chair is of particular
concern to me:

> Mr. Power should be careful how wide a brush he uses to smear people.
> He was out-voted by a roll call vote of ten to three, all members of
> the state party leadership he disdains.

This whole "whatever the majority votes to do must be correct" mentality
seems odd in a Libertarian organization, does it not?

Rob

The Outright Libertarians press release responding to the LPC endorsement of the Domestic Partnership Initiative has been submitted to the wire service, but the text of it is available here:

http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2009/03/for-immediate-release-lp-of-california.html

BTW, this line from our Northern California Vice-Chair is of particular concern to me:

> Mr. Power should be careful how wide a brush he uses to smear people.
> He was out-voted by a roll call vote of ten to three, all members of
> the state party leadership he disdains.

This whole "whatever the majority votes to do must be correct" mentality seems odd in a Libertarian organization, does it not?

Rob