Voting Tips For LoneStar Libertoids

Tim Cavanaugh | November 8, 2005

Liberty-lovin' Texan Bruce A. Standlee follows up my California LP voting advice with endorsements from the Lone Star State Libertarian Party. The statewide party urges No votes on Propositions 1, 2, and 9, while the Travis County party goes into more detail:

Amendment Proposition 1: AGAINST
Amendment Proposition 2: AGAINST - "Defense of Marriage"
Amendment Amendment Proposition 3: AGAINST
Amendment Proposition 4: (no position)
Amendment Proposition 5: (no position)
Amendment Proposition 6: (no position)
Amendment Proposition 7: FOR
Amendment Proposition 8: FOR
Amendment Proposition 9: AGAINST

If, like me, you don't understand most of these initiatives, here's a list with descriptions.

Comments

|11.8.05 @ 6:01PM|#

Can someone with a stronger understanding of legal gobbledygook explain why the LP is "no op" on Prop 5 & "Yes" on Prop 7 ? I'd have guessed Yes on Prop 5 and No on Prop 7, on first principles.

|11.8.05 @ 6:19PM|#

Is it me or is there really a need to tell Libertarians how to vote?

|11.8.05 @ 6:23PM|#

The wording of proposition 2 certainly implies there will no longer be ANY marriage in texas, regardless of sex. I know that's not the legislative intent, but it's unambiguous that it "prohibit[s] this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Thus, state-sanctioned marriage will be a thing of the past. Good, the government shouldn't be involved in marriage anyway. It's a matter of contract law for consenting adults.

|11.8.05 @ 6:28PM|#

I don't mean to make fun of Texas, but are the ballot choices really "fer" or against?

...and does the Defense of Marriage act make any allowance for all the Texans with barnyard...

We're all tryin' to be civil now, right? Nevermind.

|11.8.05 @ 6:29PM|#

I say, we will have no more marriages: those that are married already, all but one, shall live; the rest shall keep as they are.

Ron Hardin|11.8.05 @ 6:35PM|#

A healthy debate is taking place in Ohio http://home.att.net/~rhhardin2/nationaldebate01.jpg

Mock it if you want, but I took the pic because both signs were there, the 2nd person having left the 1st's sign.

|11.8.05 @ 6:46PM|#

Ron Hardin,

I would have said the yes sign was more effective, 'cause at least it tells why to vote yes--it's to reform Ohio.

...but then they went and put the flag of Puerto Rico on the sign; I don't know why. ...Are there a lot of Puerto Rican immigrants in Ohio?

|11.8.05 @ 7:51PM|#

*sigh* Hello!!! Lonestar state! Let's try again, but correctly this time:

Amendment Proposition 1: Again' it
Amendment Proposition 2: Again' it- "Defense of Marriage"
Amendment Amendment Proposition 3: Again' it
Amendment Proposition 4: no count
Amendment Proposition 5: no count
Amendment Proposition 6: no count
Amendment Proposition 7: Fer it
Amendment Proposition 8: Fer it
Amendment Proposition 9: Again' it

|11.8.05 @ 8:14PM|#

Speaking of those Reform Ohio signs, I wonder if the red/blue contrast was deliberate.

As far as I can tell, based on commercials, issues 2,3,4 & 5 will either Reform Ohio, which is self-evidently a good thing, or it's a bunch of big city outside agitators causing trouble again.

I hope Jerry Springer runs for govenor in 2006! Ohio can't get much worse.

|11.8.05 @ 8:25PM|#

All these propositions, but whom is getting laid?
smacky and other inquiring minds want to know.

And Brian, don't besmirch Jerry Springer like that. He is a wonderful human being. The only difference between him and many Reasonoids is that he is on the edge of electability... like those Johnny Carson skits: The Edge of Wetness.

|11.8.05 @ 9:15PM|#

I voted, so I accomplished infinitesimally more political change than I have by...er, posting this, I guess.

|11.8.05 @ 9:18PM|#

Didn't mean to dis Jerry. He's a talented entrepreneur and in touch with the common man. Kind of like another great buckeye, Larry Flint. He would probably be a big improvement over the guys we've got now. Or at least we'd have divided government. This one-party state thing is a fiasco.

|11.8.05 @ 9:25PM|#

I'd just like to point out that I exempt Eric the .5b from everything I've ever said bad about Texas or people from Texas.

He doesn't seem like much of a Cowboy's fan anyway, and if he is, well, then maybe not all of 'em are as bad as I've heard.

...But I still don't like President Johnson--blech!

DaveInBigD|11.8.05 @ 9:53PM|#

Fer all y'all Yankees makin' fun of us Texins, I would just like to point out which state it was that sends Ron Paul to Washington.

:-P

But yeah, we've got a lot to answer for otherwise.

I voted against all the amendments (although I might have made some exceptions) because none of these should be constitutional matters. The constitution should not be the forum for specific land disputes in specific counties. My idea is that they should all fail, so Texas is forced to go back to the gorram drawing board and come up with a constitution that makes some sense.

DaveInBigD|11.8.05 @ 9:57PM|#

That and screw those reactionary asshats (with godawful language skills, see local coverage for details) who are so frickin scared of two guys arguing over who wears the tux in the wedding photos.

|11.8.05 @ 11:08PM|#

Do texans really use the term "yankees"?

|11.8.05 @ 11:14PM|#

Wow. I knew Prop 2 would win, but a 3-1 margin? For some reason I thought my Homo peeps would put up a better fight than they did.

What does that say about Texas? Nothing, other than you can make just about anything into a state Constitutional Amendment. Everything's bigger in Texas.

|11.8.05 @ 11:26PM|#

The wording of the second part of Prop 2 is very strange. It seems to preclude recognizing any form of marriage at all within the state of Texas.

|11.8.05 @ 11:37PM|#

Do texans really use the term "yankees"?

No, 'cause they were only in the brawl for about 15 minutes.

...shucks, I wasn't gonna say anything about Texas anymore!

|11.8.05 @ 11:49PM|#

Gah!!

Well this is one ex-pat who wishes he was near a voting booth right now.

|11.9.05 @ 1:23AM|#

Do texans really use the term "yankees"?

Rarely with any seriousness. The last time I remember anyone saying it was after getting off a phone conference with some NorthEasterners who were weirdly curt, snappish, and came across downright hostile, despite being completely happy with my (and my company's) work. My boss just shook his head. "Yankees can be hard to talk to."

|11.9.05 @ 2:35AM|#

Well, it looks like Ah-nuld's plans have failed. Pity, I was hoping the teacher tenure thing would at least pass, but it looks like Colllyfornya is still bought and sold by the unions:

http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm

Bruce|11.9.05 @ 11:09AM|#

Well, marriage is no longer recognized here in Texas. About time.