When Civil Liberties Collide: Gay Marriage vs. Gambling in Maryland

Why is a national gay organization trying to block a vote on gambling?

The possibility of finally getting a victory in a public vote to recognize same-sex marriage has led to a rather odd outcome in Maryland. Gay activists are encouraging citizens to oppose a legislative vote to expand gambling in the state and keep it off the November ballot, away from the marriage vote.

Maryland will be voting in November whether to repeal same-sex marriage laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor earlier this year. So far polls show Maryland may be the first state where same-sex marriage recognition survives a public vote.

The governor is also pushing for a sixth casino in the state and to allow existing casinos to add table games along with the slots. The bill made it through the state Senate Friday and is currently being marked up in the state's House of Delegates. Voters would have to approve the final legislation in November.

Chris Geidner at Buzzfeed took note last week of a mailer the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's PAC sent out to Maryland voters. It asks them to show support for marriage equality by calling their state legislators to oppose placing the casino vote on the ballot:

"If the gaming bill is on the ballot, opponents are likely to spend millions identifying and turning out voters who don't like gambling … and who also don't like Marriage Equality! So all the 'no' votes on gaming could also be 'no' votes for us," the mailer states. "Numerous polls confirm this, and several bloggers and political pundits in Maryland have said the same thing."

Geidner contacted Task Force Communications Director Inga Sarda-Sorenson for a comment on the mailing. She responded, "The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund believes an uncluttered ballot is the best ballot, and provides for the best chance for securing marriage equality in Maryland."

To which, "Where the hell do you get off, lady?" seems to be the appropriate response. (A call to Sarda-Sorenson has not been returned as yet. That won't be one of the official questions if she calls.)

Of all the groups that would try to block somebody else's participation in the democratic process when it has nothing directly to do with them, we've got a gay group trying to knock a civil liberties vote off the ballot? Yeah, yeah, I know libertarians are fairly alone within the political spectrum as treating gambling as a liberty issue. But still, the idea that some people should have to wait for a vote on their issues until it's not inconvenient to others is a pretty damned rich argument from a gay rights organization. How are they going to respond now to conservatives saying that federal recognition of gay marriage isn't an important issue to tackle in light of the country's various economic and employment crises?

Geidner points out that the actual Maryland organization overseeing the pro-gay marriage campaign isn't exactly happy with the mailer:

The Marylanders for Marriage Equality campaign took issue with the mailer, with campaign manager Josh Levin telling BuzzFeed, "Turnout in heavily Democratic Maryland will be determined by the presidential race – not any other issue, including gambling should it be on the ballot. Opponents of the gambling expansion are clearly using the marriage issue for their own political gain. What's important here, however, is that we remain focused on expanding our 14-point lead and growing the momentum for marriage in Maryland."

Typically the biggest challenge to the development of casinos and expansions to gaming are not, as we've shown here on Reason, anti-gambling moralists, but competitors trying to use the system to cling to their market share. As Jonathan Capehart pointed out at The Washington Post, casinos spend millions trying to keep others off their turf. So did any of those five existing casinos help bankroll this mailer? (That actually will be one of the questions should Sarda-Sorenson call back.)

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

Yeah, yeah, I know libertarians are fairly alone within the political spectrum as treating gambling as a liberty issue.

I still can't believe state recognition of gay marriage is a libertian's issue. (The government piece of paper sanctioning your union as a right. What will they think of next?) No one is currently being locked up for same sex marrying. (I hope someone will link me to any case that proves me wrong.)

I think gay marriage activists aren't in it for civil liberties so much as for that marriage license as a symbol of cultural acceptance. That's why so many reject anything that even cosmetically separates same-sex from "traditional" marriage, like calling it a civil union.

[R C Dean]

I believe you are correct, Fist.

This isn't about legal equality so much as it is about social/state acceptance.

[T o n y]

What's your point? Activists are being disingenuous so they don't deserve legal equality?

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

What's your point? Activists are being disingenuous so they don't deserve legal equality?

Homosexuals already have legal equality - they can get screwed by agents of the state just as enthusiastically as they do with anyone else.

What they cannot do is put their partners as "dependents" in their 1040s. That's all.

[T o n y]

So why are you against them being able to?

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

So why are you against them being able to?

I would like to see them not HAVE to; I would like to see them keep what they produced in its entirety. But, why are you asking me that? You're the one that loves taxation! Why should they pay less taxes?

[johnl]

Or get their lovers through the INS. It's a big deal if you need it. Why do you think fags shouldn't get that?

[T o n y]

Arguably social acceptance is the underlying goal. Why is that wrong? Why is your case reasonable to make against gay marriage, but not for interracial marriage? Whether the underlying goal of minorities is legal equality (which should be a given) or social acceptance, they tend to go hand-in-hand and I fail to see why either is not a virtuous cause.

[Fist of Etiquette]

My case is mostly about whether it's a libertarian issue. Libertarians shouldn't encourage reliance on the state for validation of life choices, no matter how valid we personally think they are.

A marriage license is a contract with the state, one that is not a necessary component of any romantic connection.

Also, we're handing out privileges to select groups. Expanding the membership of a group is nice but it's still unfair to those on the outside looking in.

[Jersey Patriot]

Marriage is a legal contract. The state runs the legal system. The state cannot be separated from marriage any more than it can be separated from the negotiations of widget sales.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Jersey Patriot,

Marriage is a legal contract. The state runs the legal system.

You're equivocating, JP. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it must fall under the purview of the State. Nose picking is legal, so does that mean the State gets to tell me how far in I should go when picking my nose? Or when, or where?

[VG Zaytsev]

Marriage is a legal contract.

Actually, it's not.

Not at all, no matter how many people, including libertarians, share your misconception.

[T o n y]

All contracts are contracts with the state. Marriage is just one form, albeit infused with all sorts of tradition and precedent. I guess it's legitimate to argue that there should be no such thing as a marriage contract. But it shouldn't be contrary to any libertarian principles to say that given the existence of marriage contracts (which is probably an extremely durable existence), the state should not discriminate on access to them based on sexual orientation.

The argument that marriage contracts should be done away with is fit only for the armchair, and it doesn't have to conflict with the separate argument that, here in reality, gay couples should not be discriminated against by the state.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

All contracts are contracts with the state.

Thus spake the idiot.

I guess it's legitimate to argue that there should be no such thing as a marriage contract.

You're begging the question. Nobody is arguing that, you are simply assuming it because of your wooly belief that all contracts are with the State ergo any talk about privatizing contracts is ipso facto a call for abolition of all conracts.

[T o n y]

I tend not to take anarchism seriously, no.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

I tend not to take anarchism seriously, no.

Or reason, or logic, or sound thinking.

Yep, you're a well-rounded person, Tony. All-inclusive stupidity.

A contract is an agreement between two parties, not between one party and the State. Every time you agree with someone about an action to be performed, like when you ask a kid to mow your lawn for $25.00, you're making a contract. The kid didn't make a contract with the State, he made it with YOU. YOU didn't make a contract with the State, you made it with the KID.

[T o n y]

Okay you can have contracts without a state, but technically those are called "agreements." Is there a less trivial matter than a kid mowing your lawn that you would choose to enforce only as far as gentlemanliness will take you?

[Joe R.]

All contracts are contracts with the state.

That's as far as I bothered to read.

[T o n y]

A contract is by definition a thing that comes with the intention of legal responsibility. You cannot have a contract without enforcement, and while you can have enforcement without a state, you wouldn't like it (OM seems to think humanity's natural propensity toward good will and trust would generate orderly social behavior, if only the evil alien force government would get out of the way of our innate angelic natures).

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

A contract is by definition a thing that comes with the intention of legal responsibility.

"Legal responsibility" does not mean "contract with the State", Captain Equivocation.

You cannot have a contract without enforcement,

Yes, you can have a contract without enforcement.

OM seems to think humanity's natural propensity toward good will and trust would generate orderly social behavior,

And you believe that people are invariably evil and out to get you, right?

What do we call thosefolk that see enemies even inside the cookie jar? What is the clinical term... Hmmm?

I don't consider that all people are angels, Tony. What I do maintain in high regard is logic, and it is logical to assume that people will prefer to keep their agreements rather than break them, as reputation and good credit are important for them, as it would be for me.

You on the other hand think that people require the heavy hand of a government to act civilized. If the people you surround yourself with have to have government on top of them to make them behave unlike the beasts, then I pitty you. I prefer to surround myself with people that act with civility as a matter of principle and not out of fear of punishment.

[T o n y]

And you believe that people are invariably evil and out to get you, right?

Not all. Just some.

it is logical to assume that people will prefer to keep their agreements rather than break them, as reputation and good credit are important for them

What's logical about that? Reputation is important but not all-important. Greed can overcome it. If you want to tell people they don't get legal enforcement of contracts, just gentleman's agreements, why don't you tell businesses and corporations to go first?

I prefer to surround myself with people that act with civility as a matter of principle and not out of fear of punishment.

As do I. But we don't always get that do we? Your position here is absurd, and not any different from what I said, that you think reliance purely on gentleman's agreements is sufficient to create a just society.

Your outlook's flaw is in seeing government as an alien force, corrupting people's natural propensity toward cooperation. You fail to see that government, at least in the post-Enlightenment sense, is the manner by which people cooperate on large scales. Freedom includes the freedom to institute social order, as long as it's done democratically. That government seems to be the dominant means of doing so suggests that people find it a useful one.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

Not all. Just some.

Ohhhh, what a way to back-peddal!

"OM seems to think humanity's natural propensity toward good will and trust would generate orderly social behavior,"

So I guess "HUMANITY" means "some" when it suits your sense of expediency. I wonder who the complement to the 'some' are - maybe not human?

Reputation is important but not all-important.

That would be your opinion. It may not be important to you.

Greed can overcome it.

Oh, I am a very greedy person, which is why I keep my reputation in very high regard - otherwise, I obtain less in trade. See how greed and reputation can go hand-in-hand?

You confuse short-sightedness and expediency with "greed." Those two are the staples of politicians, cheats and socialists, but not of the truly greedy.

If you want to tell people they don't get legal enforcement of contracts,

Even kids know this is not true. They know that other kids that break their word are to be shunned and avoided - no enforcement required.

why don't you tell businesses and corporations to go first?

They're already doing it. Millions of times a day. Purchase orders are fulfilled by sellers and paid by buyers all the time, little enforcement required.

The fact is, you are totally oblivious to this, but that ain't my problem - it's yours.

[Calidissident]

Tony, you're being very disingenuous if you're implying that a marriage license is just another standard contract. The state determines the terms of the contract, who can make the contract, how it is dissolved, etc. You can eliminate marriage licenses, and still have privately-made marriage contracts enforced by the state

[T o n y]

Valid point--and if I were daydreaming about a perfect society I probably would have a more modern conception of a marriage contract, making it much more like a common contract. And perhaps it's unfair to say that the idea of marriage can't radically change in a short time. So I'm all for liberalization of marriage.

As a significant next step to that end, let's extend current laws equally so that the 14th Amendment's requirement is satisfied.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

and if I were daydreaming about a perfect society I probably would have a more modern conception of a marriage contract,

You've BEEN dreaming of a perfect society, Tony: You believe the State makes man virtuous.

I believe in a HUMAN society, with all its imperfections but also all its beauty. I believe in man. You are afraid of man. There's a clinical term for people who see enemies everywhere, you know . . .

[T o n y]

I don't believe the state makes man virtuous. I think it prevents him from killing me and taking my stuff, among other things. You may prefer roving gangs of illegitimate enforcers of personal whims. I prefer a democratic state.

[VG Zaytsev]

All contracts are contracts with the state.

Nope.

Contracts are transactional agreements between two voluntary parties.

The only legitimate role for the state is to enforce the breech clauses of the agreement.

[Brandybuck]

As long as we have a state, and that state is involved in certain issues, then gay marriage is indeed a state issue. There are tax issues involved, and while it would be nice if everyone was treated identically regardless of marital status, that's not the world we live in. There are visitation rights in hospitals, and since many hospitals are state or quasi-state institutions, gay marriage is a factor. Ditto for inheritance.

In the current reality we live in, the state has a role in recognizing who is and isn't married. It may not be the ideal, but is the hand we were dealt.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Brandybuck,

As long as we have a state, and that state is involved in certain issues, then gay marriage is indeed a state issue.

You must be joking. I have it in good experience that, as long as you have a competent wedding coordinator and a good venue, your marriage can be as gay and enjoyable without the state than with it.

[VG Zaytsev]

But that's not a "marriage". It may be a committed loving relationship but it's not a marriage unless the state says it is. Because a marriage isn't a contract, it's a set of privileges and obligations that the state enforces on two people that petition the state for that status.

There is literally, nothing private about it.

[Old Mexican]

Re: VG Zaytsev,

But that's not a "marriage".

Of course it is! It is a very gay and enjoyable, happy marriage! I mean, are you invited to only gloomy marriages?

[And you don't seem to have a sense of humor, V. I am using the word "gay" by its traditional meaning.]

[Brandybuck]

Okay smartass, if you don't need the state, then why is gay marriage even an issue? Why don't homosexuals just go out and get married? I'll tell you why, it's because you cannot get married without the state IN OUR CURRENT SOCIETY!

[thom]

From a very practical perspective it is a libertarian issue. Sure, it would be wonderful if the state got their noses out of marriage, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. Since that's not going to happen, people should not have to tolerate the current scheme which discriminates against some people by excluding them from special rights which are handed out freely to others.

[The Hammer]

The government cannot force social acceptance, Tony.

[T o n y]

You're right. Only time does that. As Max Planck says about acceptance of science:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

The same can be said of social attitudes toward minorities. Government can't do anything about those attitudes except sit around and wait for the old bigots to die off.

As I said, social acceptance and legal reform go along with each other, and for the purposes of this debate, which comes first doesn't interest me.

What's troubling to me is that you guys seem to imply that you question whether social acceptance of gays as equals is a good thing.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

You're right. Only time does that. As Max Planck says about acceptance of science

You DO realize that Planck was making that statement with tongue squarely in cheek, don't you? Knowledge that requires the oder generation to die off is NOT knowledge, it is simply a FAD.

As I said, social acceptance and legal reform go along with each other

You seem to think that the later pushes the former. Actually, the opposite is the truth, if you take into consideration such events like the repeal of Prohibition, or how Blue Code laws are forgotten and allowed to wither into oblivion.

Forced integration has made schools more SEGREGATED in places where they used to be LESS segregated. The ADA has brought a much LOWER employment rate for handicapped people, not more. Legal "reform" that imposes a behavior on people only serves to marginalize the very folk it tries to help.

[T o n y]

You DO realize that Planck was making that statement with tongue squarely in cheek, don't you?

Kuhn must have missed Planck's sarcasm. At any rate it's a sensible notion.

Knowledge that requires the oder generation to die off is NOT knowledge, it is simply a FAD.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Scientific facts are scientific facts. Social acceptance of them tends to come with time.

You seem to think that the later pushes the former.

No I explicitly said I don't care which causes which.

Forced integration has made schools more SEGREGATED in places where they used to be LESS segregated. The ADA has brought a much LOWER employment rate for handicapped people, not more.

Sigh. Citations?

Legal "reform" that imposes a behavior on people only serves to marginalize the very folk it tries to help.

Maybe, but I thought we were talking about legal marriage equality. What's being imposed on whom?

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

At any rate it's a sensible notion.

The king of the absurd calls something "sensible". I call it "pink," just to keep with the Da-Da theme.

Scientific facts are scientific facts.

So much for Planck's comment.

Sigh. Citations?

Your wish is my command

but I thought we were talking about legal marriage equality. What's being imposed on whom?

For starters, the idea that only the State decides what is a marriage. As you can see, it settles things for no one except ardent statists and bigots.

[darius404]

I'm sure opponents of interracial marriage felt much the same way, Fist.

[Marshall Gill]

I'm sure opponents of interracial marriage felt much the same way.

Until Loving vs Virginia, I believe, interracial marriage could be criminalized. Until Lawrence vs Texas, homosexuality could be criminalized. In both instances the State attempted to deny negative rights. Since both were overturned, no negative rights have been denied. The current push for gay marriage is about government recognition and positive rights, neither of which are libertarian positions.

"Fairness" supplied by the force of the State is a Leftist position, not a Libertarian one.

[Brandybuck]

It is indeed about government recognition. That doesn't make it a positive right though. No one is being forced to be married, no one is being forced to provide the marriage, no one is being forced to pay for it. It is merely giving this couple the same rights as that couple.

[VG Zaytsev]

But parties not part of the marriage are obligated to treat married partners differently than cohabitating couples.

[Brandybuck]

I think you will find the every instance of obligation to treat reat married partners differently than cohabitating couples involves state coercion.

You are presenting a catch-22. You cannot argue that the state must forbid certain marriages because certain legal privileges are provided to married couples. The problem is not the marriage the problem is the privileges! It would be like arguing a black man cannot marry a white woman because it would then allow him to sit in the front of the bus with his wife!

[darius404]

So if interracial marriage wasn't criminalized, it would be ok to outlaw it?

[VG Zaytsev]

I think gay marriage activists aren't in it for civil liberties so much as for that marriage license as a symbol of cultural acceptance.

That and goodies from the government.

[thom]

Well, they're taxed at the same rates as everybody else. It's not unreasonable that they would demand the same access to the things that those taxes are used on. If we prohibited gays access to the public roadways or police and fire service, nobody would even be arguing that libertarian issues are not involved. Yet prohibit them from the benefits of marriage and apparently nobody sees an issue with it.

[RFID]

I guess we can add Reason journalists to the long list of people that think Delaware and Maryland are the same state?

[Scott S.]

Oh goddammit

[Scott S.]

That never happened. You saw nothing. Here, have some free alcohol.

[darius404]

But I don't drink!

[Almanian 1]

+100 bottles of beer on the wall

[The Hammer]

There is no Delaware.

[Stormy Dragon]

Given the divorce rate, doesn't gay marriage count as an expansion of gambling in an of itself?

[Almanian 1]

I'll give you [roughly] 50/50 odds on this...

[Almanian 1]

Would it be inappropriate of me to note how fucking GAY it is of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's PAC to oppose the gambling? Would it?

[R C Dean]

They are simply willing to break the egg of gambling to get the omelette of marriage, that is all.

Unfortunately, the socontards (who dearly love the imprimatur of state acceptance of their marriages) managed to conspire with the gay marriage activists to keep civil unions for all off the table. That would have been true (and bare) legal equality (which neither wanted).

There really is no analogy to interracial marriage, BTW, as nothing but full marriage was ever on the table. With gay marriage, there was an alternative, even one that was state-sanctioned. But it was never acceptable to the activists, who want more than legal equality. They want social/cultural acceptance.

Which is fine, but using the courts and (who knows? someday they may win a vote) as the hammer for achieving social/cultural uniformity is not something libertarians should be happy with. That's where I get a little itchy on this topic. And I gots no problem with gay people doing what they want, with who they want.

[Jersey Patriot]

Exactly, they had a separate but equal institution.

[R C Dean]

Exactly, they had a separate but equal institution.

Predictably, Jersey Patriot misses my point, as does darius.

I was referring to civil unions for all. No separate but equal there.

Which none of the activists wanted.

[darius404]

Yeah, I'd be open for a push to civil unions for everyone, instead of marriage. However, that's just about as likely right now as abolishing marriage entirely. And if under the civil union scheme, marriage still exist but only for opposite sex couples, you still have many of the same issues.

[darius404]

So it would be okay to outlaw interracial marriage as long as "civil unions" were allowed for interracial couples? If not, how is that idea any different from the idea about nondiscrimination toward gay couples?

[Marshall Gill]

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

The point is not about "outlawing" anything. Indeed, the government does not outlaw gay marriage. The point is that the government has no business providing benefits to anyone. The only thing to be outlawed is giving people who call themselves "married" government benefits. The correct course it to allow individuals to enter into any contract that they wish and for the government to stay out of the way.

[darius404]

Except it doesn't work that way right now. RIGHT NOW, we have a government institution of marriage that, depending on the state, discriminates on the basis of sex. I would greatly prefer that government get out of the marriage business entirely, but AS LONG AS IT ISN'T, it shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on sex any more than it should be allowed to discriminate based on race. Who's being obtuse now?

[Old Mexican]

It asks them to show support for marriage quality [sic] by calling their state legislators to oppose placing the casino vote on the ballot

Should be "equality".

Oh, and let me know where to mail you my bill for the proofreading. Thanks!!

[Christina]

If I were God-Empress, marriage would be a strictly religious term. The state would merely sanction civil unions of fixed length that may be renewed indefinitely.

[The Hammer]

Really? God-Empress and that's the best you could do?

[Stormy Dragon]

Also, isn't kind of pointless to separate church and state if the god and the emperor are gonna be the same person anyways?

[Christina]

Probably. But like all monarchs I would be a capricious and arbitrary ruler. It's the nature of the job.

[Christina]

On marriage? What are you looking for? Oh, I got it: David Tutera and/or his minions plan all weddings, thus ending the scourge of tacky weddings.

Yeah, I know, that creates a positive right. But surely we can all agree that no one, and I mean no one, deserves to have to go to a wedding with a cash bar.

[T o n y]

If I were God-Empress

Thank you for being explicit about this qualification--I think this phrase is understood to precede every libertarian utterance. It seems we can't discuss increasing freedom in the real world until we've thoroughly intellectually frolicked through various fantasy worlds.

[The Hammer]

You never want to increase freedom in the real world, Tony. You just want to enslave certain people to serve certain others. You are well-steeped in doublethink, though.

[T o n y]

I don't want to enslave anybody. In a libertarian-controlled world, how long, I wonder, would actual slaves have to wait for freedom while libertarians debate whether Martians should be able to get abortions?

[Christina]

Oh, darling T o n y, the use of God-Empress is an acknowledgement of reality, not fantasy. I know that forcing everyone else to bend to my will is an absurd notion, so I highlight it by assuming the most extreme embodiment of force there is. Leftists, like you, don't see that irony because they really want that power.

[T o n y]

I don't want it, and I don't assume it's ever going to be part of the equation, which is why I concern myself with current, often idiosyncratic policy debates rather than fantasizing about utopias, and support incremental changes by legitimized means even if they don't conform to a utopian first principle.

[Christina]

Just because I have identified an ideal outcome doesn't preclude me from dealing with the current situation on an incremental basis. I'm so "incremental" in my approach I don't even go to protests. My activism consists of voting, writing to my elected officials, and persuading people I know to be libertarian.

Silly me, I thought a REASON comment section might be a good place to float my ideal, since the bothersome conservatives and liberals who don't understand liberty don't congregate here. It seems I was wrong.

[T o n y]

Libertarians don't understand liberty. They don't even define it. It's just a code word for unfettered corporate power and minimal rights for the little people. But that's only if you pay attention to the outcomes of their policy positions.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

Libertarians don't understand liberty.

Oh, don't tell me: Liberty is Slavery. Right?

They don't even define it.

Liberty is the power we have over ourselves.

How's that? Try to deny it. Try it, Tony, c'mon - say "I don't have power over my own self."

C'mon, say it!

It's just a code word for unfettered corporate power and minimal rights for the little people.

That's what we have under Obama, and what we had since Wilson. You really think for libertarians, liberty means fascism?

You're a moron.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Christina,

If I were God-Emperor, I would not marry my sister - let's get that out of the way first.

Ok, I would simply send all bureaucrats in the 3rd Ark towards space, along with the phone sanitizers and personal trainers. That will bring prosperity to the world.

And I would allow people to make contracts, allow tehm to call them "marriage" contracts if they so wished, and even give them a few pointers on where to find great places for a honeymoon as long as they promise not to sunbathe "European Style", unless they want to invoke my wrath.

[wef]

Until gay polyandry is not only legal but embraced and celebrated, this country will remain a civil rights hell hole.

(Now, what was the question again?)

[Eduard van Haalen]

There should be a drinking game for every time someone mentions interracial marriage.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

I don't believe the state makes man virtuous.

That runs counter what you have alleged so far: that the State is the keeper of civilization. That means, the State keeps men virtuous.

I think it prevents him from killing me and taking my stuff,

Well, you have to agree that it doesn't do it very well, or does it?

You may prefer roving gangs of illegitimate enforcers of personal whims.

No, I don't. I call those roving bands of illegitimate enforcers "cops."

I prefer a democratic state.

You can't get more democratic than this, the safest place in the world.

[thom]

Thanks for this. As a Marylander who supports gay rights (and considers them to be more important as a liberty issue than the legality of casino gambling) I will be contacting my delegates today to urge them to oppose the gaming legislation.