From: CCan2@aol.com
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 10:04:57 EST
Subject: Send a message on election day
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Given that Republican gubernatorial candidate Len Munsil is going to lose by a wide margin to the Democratic incumbent, it's an ideal time to send a message to the political establishment by voting for the Libertarian candidate, Barry Hess.  Many people agree with the libertarian philosophy that people should be allowed to live like they want as long as they don't harm anyone else, but they consider a vote for a Libertarian candidate as a wasted vote that takes votes away from Republicans, because Libertarians have little chance of winning.  Since the Republican is going to lose anyway, the argument doesn't hold.  Besides, Hess is the best candidate and the only one who would change the status quo.  

Regards,

Becky Fenger writes:

While we are on the subject of suggestions, how about this one: All voters who oppose Gov. Janet Napolitano should vote for Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Barry Hess. I see no way that Len Munsil can close the gap, especially with moderate Republican women voting for Janet on the basis of their ovaries. That way, if Hess gets five percent of the vote, Libertarians will automatically be qualified for the ballot next cycle and save them lots of labor. Besides, anyone who has seen Hess in the debates would have to say he won the rounds.

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.

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.