Barry Hess sets record straight on Prop 107
Update: What’s he talking about with the private sector again? I change my mind.
Libertarian Gubernatorial candidate Barry Hess just released two blog posts (1 | 2) concerning Proposition 107.
I am a Christian and I cannot support the proposition precisely because I am. I have to stand by doing the ‘right’ thing and I refuse to allow Caesar (Government–Man’s Law) to have anything to do with God’s holy institution. By allowing government to be the judge and to set down the ‘rules’ regarding inter-personal relationships, you end up removing God himself. If the non-believers who came up with this atrocious proposal were actually Christian and respecters of God’s law–they would instead have proposed that we end government licensure of marriage altogether. I don’t believe the authors were actually Christians, I believe they are doing the work of the Enemy. This amendment could only be forwarded by people who simply want to force their will into the private lives of others. While I confess that I do not understand or support the whole ‘gay’ thing this is aimed at, I will not sully my holy God by kidding myself into thinking He wants the corruption of government involved in what is His alone.
Therefore, as a true Christian who knows that God’s a big guy who can and will take care of what’s his–I have to refuse any support what-so-ever. I support holy marriage, not state marriage.
Any concerns as to inheritance or benefits can be remedied through private contract or negotiation. I am ashamed of those who would call themselves Christians and then forward this misguided power grab supposedly in His holy name. I will not stand for an Arizona Taliban telling me who, or under what conditions my children might be joined in holy matrimony–I’ll defer instead to God’s holy word.
Spirituality and religion has always played an important and vital role in American history, but not in the formation of its laws or the governance of its People.
and…
Prop. 107, among its many components, would cancel existing and prevent future domestic partnership benefits offered by private sector employers. This is a violation of the fundamental rights of private property, freedom of association and is an unwarranted intrusion of government into the private contracts between employers and employees. The government has neither the right nor authority to regulate these benefits in the private sector.
Prop. 107 is promoted as “protecting” the sanctity and tradition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Their argument is flawed and addressed in our Prop. 107 (argument 1). Other groups protest 107 for removing current and prohibiting future domestic partnership benefits for employees of the State and its political subdivisions. Their argument is also flawed but is irrelevant to this discussion. It is within the rights of the people to determine what their government does. [emphasis added]
Thanks, Barry, for making the debate reasoned again. You have my yes for Governor and my no on 107.
Might I add that he won every single debate by a long shot?
The libertarian view of government apparently honors God by ignoring His law concerning marriage and homosexuality and by ditching derived authority clearly established in Romans 13 (and elsewhere). At least that is what Hess is suggesting in regard to marriage.
Hess also asserts that those with whom he disagrees with concerning Prop. 107 are “nonchristians” and “Taliban”. An audacious ad hominem attack, devoid of charity, designed to illegitimately strengthen his position.
I’d like to see Hess actually use God’s Word rather than his own personal beliefs concerning the Almighty to justify his self-proclaimed Christian positions. Perhaps he could begin by exegeting 2 Kin. 23.
I’m glad you picked up on the problems with Hess’ claim concerning the private sector.
Comment by tim — November 2, 2006 @ 3:18 pm