As another election approaches the issue of marriage equality and where various Republican candidates stand on the Defense of Marriage Act or a possible Constitutional amendment defining marriage is already starting to come up as special interest groups and the media try to force the debate towards divisive social issues.

In this debate, no one seems to be asking the fundamental question which underlies the entire gay marriage issue. Marriage is first and foremost a religious institution. It is a fundamental sacrament in most churches. Why does the government think it should be in the marriage business in the first place. What right do they have to dictate a matter of faith or to decide who can or can’t get married in the first place?

In all this talk about a Defense of Marriage Amendment our legislators seem to have missed the fact that we already have an amendment which defends marriage, the First Amendment. It clearly defends marriage as a sacrement of the church and declares it to be free from government interference when it says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

If my religion recognizes marriage as a sacrament and allows me to marry someone of the same gender, doesn’t the First Amendment clearly say that Congress has no right to prohibit that exercise of religion and that I am free to practice that sacrament? To tell my church what it can and cannot define as a marriage seems like a total violation of this separation of church and state. Marriage isn’t defined in the Constitution any more than Baptism or Confirmation is. The state doesn’t try to interfere in those rituals. Why should it interfere in marriage?

What we need here is not another amendment, but a clear decision from the Supreme Court declaring that the government has no jurisdiction over a religious institution like marriage. Then, if Congress wants to pass a law – it doesn’t even have to be a Constitutional Amendment – which defines what kind of living relationships people can have, they should go to it. Of course any such law would need to pass muster under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which would certainly rule out prohibiting same-sex relationships or polygamy or any other arrangement involving consenting adults.

Once you take marriage out of the arena of law and give it back to the church where it belongs, then any relationship between two people for the purposes of creating a household, combining assets and other activities like raising a family becomes a purely contractual relationship and falls under common law and the partnership laws of the individual states, all of which recognize the right of individuals to enter into binding contracts for extended periods of time and assign rights and legal status to those partnerships under the law, and anything can be written into a partnership contract, including shared control of assets and by extension presumably of children as well. Boilerplate partnership contracts could easily be developed which covered material possessions, powers of attorney, guardianship of children and every other concern and the local courthouse could have different versions available for different needs, so you wouldn’t have to pay for a lawyer.

Couples or members of a plural marriage or any other type of partnership could then file their contract at their local courthouse and that would be that. Or if they wanted, they could go to a church which sanctioned their particular form of marriage and have it recognized as a marriage under the laws of that church with a ceremony and everything. And make no mistake, there are plenty of churches willing to marry just about anyone to anyone else, and if there aren’t someone will certainly start one to fill the need.

This seems like a simple, clean solution to this divisive problem. It doesn’t violate the sacred institution of marriage – in fact it ends years of government violation of religious rights. It doesn’t add more useless junk to the Constitution or waste more time and money on pointless unconstitutional legislation. Finally, it allows consenting adults to live however they want so long as it harms no one else. Marriage protected and equal rights for all. What more could either side of this debate ask for? And if they aren’t satisfied with a solution like this, then let them tell us honestly what greater political agenda and moral values they’re really trying to force down our throats?

As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party, most of whom are known for bankrolling right-leaning candidates and causes.

Their behind-the-scenes financial support — about $1 million in donations, delivered in recent weeks to a new coalition of gay rights organizations — could alter the political calculus of Albany lawmakers, especially the Republican state senators in whose hands the fate of gay marriage rests.

The donors represent some of New York’s wealthiest and most politically active figures and include Paul E. Singer, a hedge fund manager and top-tier Republican donor, as well as two other financiers, Steven A. Cohen and Clifford S. Asness.

At the same time, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a billionaire businessman and philanthropist who has been a major contributor to Senate Republicans in New York, plans a significant push for same-sex marriage: giving at least $100,000 of his own money, hosting a fund-raiser at an Upper East Side town house, traveling to Albany to lobby lawmakers and giving a speech on the issue.

The new donations represent roughly two-thirds of the same-sex marriage coalition’s fund-raising, making New York the rare state where a lobbying campaign in favor of legalizing gay unions is not being financed primarily by liberal donors and Democrats. The support is likely to jolt the traditional financial and political backers of gay rights causes, who now find themselves in the unfamiliar position of being outraised and outspent in New York.

The donations are financing an intensive campaign of television advertisements and grass-roots activism coordinated by New Yorkers United for Marriage, a group of same-sex marriage advocates. The campaign is aimed chiefly at persuading several members of the Senate Republican majority to join most Senate Democrats in backing same-sex marriage, which was defeated in the Senate in 2009. The State Assembly, controlled by Democrats, has repeatedly passed same-sex marriage bills.

The newly recruited donors argue that permitting same-sex marriage is consistent with conservative principles of personal liberty and small government.

“I’m a pretty straight-down-the-line small-government guy,” said Mr. Asness, who described himself as a libertarian who favored less government intrusion in both markets and personal affairs. Mr. Asness, a frequent Republican donor, has praised Tea Party activists on his blog and last year attended a conference of right-leaning donors held by Charles and David Koch, among the leading conservative philanthropists in the nation.

“This is an issue of basic freedom,” Mr. Asness said. Some of those involved have made what might be termed the pro-business argument for same-sex marriage, arguing that the legalization of same-sex marriage would help keep New York economically competitive.

One of the donors, Daniel S. Loeb, who has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican candidates for federal office in the last two years, said he hoped to make clear to Republicans that same-sex marriage had a broad coalition of support.

“I think it is important in particular for Republicans to know this is a bipartisan issue,” Mr. Loeb said. “If they’re Republican, they will not be abandoned by the party for supporting this. On the contrary, I think they will find that there is a whole new world of people who will support them on an ongoing basis if they support this cause.”

Mr. Cohen, who runs SAC Capital Advisers and has become increasingly active in Republican fund-raising, described his views simply: “We believe in social justice for all Americans.”

The involvement of Mr. Singer is the most striking, given his devotion to conservative candidates and philanthropy: He is chairman of the Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning research group, and one of the most generous Republican donors in the country. But he also has a personal stake in the issue: he has a gay son who married his partner in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal.

Mr. Singer is coordinating much of the Republican fund-raising for same-sex marriage in New York, according to people familiar with the matter, donating $425,000 of his own money and personally soliciting an additional $500,000 in donations. At the same time, he has hosted private meetings to make the case for legalizing gay weddings in New York to other conservatives.

Bill Smith, deputy executive director of the Gill Action Fund, a political organization that supports gay rights, called the contributions from Republican donors “a sea change.”

Some of the donors were recruited by Ken Mehlman, a contributor to the coalition and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, who has since announced that he is gay. Some of the new contributors have been active in national politics and presidential fund-raising, but are venturing into state politics for the first time. Their involvement offers Republicans in New York the prospect of help in next year’s legislative elections and a potential source of longer-term support for a party that has struggled to field well-financed candidates for statewide office in recent years.

Mr. Bloomberg, a Republican-turned-independent, is the most politically centrist of the donors. (He is not coordinating his efforts with the other contributors.)

The mayor has long supported same-sex marriage and spoke passionately about the subject in 2009, when the Legislature last tackled the topic. But his donations to state Republicans have occasionally stirred skepticism among gay rights advocates. And until now, the mayor has given little of his personal fortune to the cause — he made a $5,000 donation to the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group, in 2010.

This year, his involvement has deepened considerably. Aides to Mr. Bloomberg said he viewed the marriage issue in a larger context: Freedom, he argues, is New York’s “competitive advantage” and its brand, and he has become committed to vigorously defending it, as he did amid criticism of a proposed Islamic center near ground zero.

“At the core this very rational mayor is somebody who believes that government has no business in getting involved in, taking sides in or making value judgments about who you love,” said John Feinblatt, the mayor’s chief policy adviser.

On Tuesday, Mr. Bloomberg is scheduled to travel to Albany to lobby Republican lawmakers, and on May 25, he plans to hold a high-dollar fund-raiser, featuring the singer Rufus Wainwright, to raise money for the same-sex marriage cause at the Upper East Side headquarters of his foundation. The next day, Mr. Bloomberg plans to deliver a speech on the subject at the Cooper Union.

“This is the moment,” Mr. Feinblatt said of the mayor’s involvement. “If you want your beliefs to count and your voice to count, this is the time.”

(Source: Barbaro, Michael and Nicholas Confessore, “Donors to G.O.P. Are Backing Gay Marriage Push.” New York Times, May 13, 2011.)

Below: Former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman is involved in the effort.

Amidst the biggest mid-term shift in party political power since 1938, voters in several states approved propositions related to the Obamacare health law passed earlier this year.

Arizona and Oklahoma voters voted 55 percent and 65 percent, respectively, not to enact the individual mandate contained in the health care law. Seventy-one percent of Missouri voters endorsed an anti-mandate statewide constitutional amendment in August.

State legislatures in Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana and Virginia have all passed laws that would similarly stifle Obamacare by granting citizens freedom of choice in health care.

According to columnist Deroy Murdock, the Republican Party’s conquest of 19 previously Democrat state-representative chambers, 10 full legislatures, and 11 governorships gives state-level Republicans brand-new opportunities to hammer ObamaCare.

Additionally, Republican control of the most state-legislative seats since 1928 could spawn fresh anti-ObamaCare lawsuits beyond the 21 that states have filed. According to national exit polls, 48 percent of voters surveyed want Congress to repeal ObamaCare.

The Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) Board of Directors are excited and optimistic about the election results. The most exciting results for Republican Liberty Caucus members is electing two of our own members to Congress:

Dr. Rand Paul is Senator-elect from Kentucky. Justin Amash (pictured, right) is Representative-elect from Michigan’s Third Congressional District. Congratulations, Rand and Justin! RLC supporters have no doubt that these two champions of liberty will work vigorously to promote our vision of a free country in Congress.

The RLC is also pleased that Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, John Koster of Washington state, Chip Cravaack of Minnesota, and Steve Chabot of Ohio will join Dr. Ron Paul and our other pro-liberty Republican legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Joining Rand Paul in the Senate are RLC-endorsed Senate candidates Mike Lee of Utah and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Two RLC-endorsed candidates for Governor, Paul LePage of Maine and Nikki Haley of South Carolina, were elected. LePage and Haley come from very different backgrounds and from different parts of the country, but are united in their strong belief in the individual and faith in the free market system.

Other key RLC victories and races we are still watching are below.

Arkansas: State Rep. Mark Martin, a RLC endorsed candidate, won his bid for Secretary of State. He is the first statewide Republican elected official since former Gov. Mike Huckabee left office.

California: Despite losing on the RLC-endorsed Proposition 19 to legalize marijuana in California, the RLC’s positions on Prop. 27 (no to eliminate the state redistricting commission) and Prop. 21 (a vehicle license surcharge to fund state parks) were adopted. Additionally, the RLC’s positions on Prop. 20 and 26 were adopted. These propositions related to Congressional redistricting and the process to impose state/local fees. See the proposition results here and view the RLC’s positions on each of the proposals here.

Arizona: 55 percent of state voters supported an amendment to the state constitution disallowing the Obamacare individual mandate to take effect in Arizona. Voters also approved medical marijuana.

Colorado: Despite Ken Buck’s Senate loss, RLC-endorsed candidate Donald Beezley defeated an incumbent and is now an elected State Representative from Broomfield.

Idaho: RLC-endorsed candidate for Bonner County Commissioner in District 2, Mike Nielson, won election on a platform of transparency and balanced budgets. Nielsen said he was eager to start getting more detailed budget information on the county website and wants to get a head start on the 2012 spending plan, according to The Bonner County Daily Bee.

Indiana: Republican Liberty Caucus member Steve Davisson was elected State Representative in Southern Indiana’s 73rd district. Congratulations, Hoosiers!

Kentucky: In addition to Rand Paul’s victory, RLC-backed candidate Thomas Massie was elected Judge Executive in Lewis County.

Maine: In addition to the victory of Paul LePage for Governor, RLC candidates for State Rep. and State Senate also found success. State House Challengers Michael McClellan, Ryan Harmon, Richard Malaby, Beth O’Connor, and Eleanor Espling (pictured, above left) — each endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus of Maine — won election. Additionally, former State Senator Lois Snowe-Mello won her old seat back and State Rep. Doug Thomas was elected to the State Senate. The RLC had a great day in Maine yesterday!

Maryland: Cindy Jones, a RLC member and delegate at our 2009 Convention in Florida, was elected to the St. Marys County Commission. Among all of the county commissioner races, Mrs. Jones had the largest margin of victory and the highest vote total. Four of the five Commission seats are now held by Republicans.

Michigan: RLC-endorsed candidate for State Senate Arlen Meekhof was elected to the post. Meekhof wants to repeal the Michigan Business Tax surcharge and bring jobs to the state.

Minnesota: Despite losing the Governors race narrowly, the RLC had its coalition of candidates elected to the State Senate and the State House. Kathy Lohmer (pictured, right), Andrea Kieffer, Doug Wardlow, Kurt Bills, and Sondra Erickson were elected to the House and Dave Brown and Dave Thompson were elected to the Senate. Former Minnesota RLC Secretary Norann Dillon narrowly lost in her race against an incumbent in a Democrat district. Congratulations to these new legislators and to the Minnesota RLC!

Missouri: In The Show Me State, RLC-endorsed candidate Paul Curtman was elected State Representative. He will represent parts of Jefferson, Franklin and St. Louis counties. Additionally, RLC-endorsed candidate Brian Nieves was elected to the State Senate. Two RLC-endorsed incumbent State Representatives, Tim Jones and Shane Schoeller, will be taking over leadership positions in the Missouri House of Representatives. The Missouri RLC is hosting its 2010 Convention on Saturday, November 13 in Springfield.

Montana: In Montana the RLC has an incumbent coalition in the State House and the entire slate of RLC-backed candidates was reelected. Additionally, former State Senator and longtime liberty advocate Jerry O’Neill was elected to the House of Representatives.

New Hampshire: Former Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire Chair Jim Forsythe was elected to the State Senate and State Rep. candidates Cameron DeJong and Andrew Manuse were elected to the State House. RLC Board member Paul Mirski was elected to the State House in Grafton as was former RLC Chair Dan McGuire in Merrimack. Longtime liberty activists Keith Murphy and Seth Cohn won election to the State House from Hillsborough and Merrimack, too. A full list of RLC victories from New Hampshire can be found here.

North Carolina: Republican Liberty Caucus-endorsed candidate Glen Bradley won election to the State House of Representatives. Congratulations to Glen and the North Carolina RLC!

Oklahoma: 65 percent of voters supported a ballot proposition to rebuke Obamacare by not allowing the individual mandate contained in the health care law to be enacted in the Sooner State.

South Carolina: RLC-backed candidate Curtis Loftis, who ousted the incumbent State Treasurer earlier this year in the primary, is now the State Treasurer-elect of The Palmetto State.

Uah: Two new RLC-endorsed candidates won election in Utah — Daniel Thatcher was elected to the State Senate and Ken Ivory won election to the State House. Ivory joins several other RLC incumbents in the House.

Texas: The Texas RLC helped elect two new State Representatives, Jason Isaac and David Simpson. Additionally, former Texas RLC Chairman Melissa Goodwin was elected Justice on the Third Court of Appeals. RLC Advisory Board member Jerry Patterson was re-elected State Land Commissioner. A full list of Texas results are available at our blog.

Wisconsin: In Wisconsin, a coalition of RLC-backed candidates for State House have won election for the first time. The slate includes: Andre Jacque from Green Bay, Jim Steineke from Appleton, Chris Kapenga from Delafield, Evan Wynn of Whitewater, Scott Krug of Black River Falls, Jeremy Thiesfeldt of Fond du Lac, and Roger Rivard of Rice Lake. Mr. Krug beat incumbent Marlin Schneider, who served in the legislature continuously since 1970. Congratulations to the Wisconsin RLC and Badger State voters!

Wyoming: Endorsed State Representative candidate Gerald Gay won election to the legislature for the first time.

These election results show not only the strength of the Tea Party, but also the disgust of average Americans with unresponsive, anti-liberty bureaucrats. The results also illustrate that liberty principles are popular and will make a comeback!

The battle has just begun, so thanks to all of our activists and candidates from across the country. Thanks especially to the state and national officers of the RLC who allow our organization to function.

The Republican Liberty Caucus is a grassroots coalition of liberty-loving Americans.

Won’t you join us in this critical battle to win hearts and minds for liberty and Constitutional restoration?

Several of our endorsed Republican Liberty Caucus candidates succeeded in their primaries last night.

Justin Amash (pictured), 30, a one-term State Representative, won the primary in Michigan’s 3rd District. He will likely be elected to Congress this fall considering how Republican the Grand Rapids district is. Amash will replace moderate Vernon Ehlers as a new voice for transparency and limited government.

In Missouri, RLC endorsed candidate Robyn Hamlin won her primary to become the Republican nominee against longtime Congressman Lacy Clay (D) in an urban St. Louis district. Unfortunately, the district is heavily Democrat.

RLC endorsed State Senate candidate Brian Nieves has defeated two opponents in his bid to win an open Senate seat in Missouri. Nieves has a long history of electoral success and was the immediate past Majority Whip in the Missouri House of Representatives. He will likely win this fall due to district demographics.

In Michigan, RLC endorsed candidate Arlan Meekhof, a current member of the Michigan legislature, defeated his opponent in a bid for State Senate. It is a Republican district so Meekhof will likely win this fall.

Other successful Missouri RLC endorsed candidates included incumbent State Representatives Tim W. Jones and Shane Schoeller. Additionally, Paul Curtman was unopposed in his bid to become State Representative in District 105.

Other successful Michigan candidates included Lori Levi (pictured), State Representative, District 21 and incumbent RLC legislator Bob Genetski, District 88.

Two other Michigan RLC candidates were unopposed in the primary: Bret Allen, State Representative, District 29 and Chase Ingersoll, State Representative, District 53.

A very important victory also occurred on Missouri’s ballot initiative, in which voters approved Proposition C. 71 percent of voters supported a law banning the government from forcing residents to buy health insurance. Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma have similar ballot initiatives that will appear later this fall on ballots in those states.

Congratulations to all of our RLC candidates and to Missouri voters for passing Proposition C.

At their July 25 meeting, the executive committee of the RLC of Florida made two official recommendations regarding Florida referenda that reiterate the group’s commitment to free markets, individual liberty and private property. The RLC officially recommended voters at large vote YES on Amendment 9 and NO on Amendment 4 in November.

Amendment 9, as known as the Healthcare Freedom Act, states that any law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any individual to participate in any health care system against their will. The Act specifies that individuals cannot be fined, penalized or imprisoned for not participating in a mandated health insurance program such as Obamacare. If approved by Floridians in November, Health Care Freedom will become a provision of the Florida Constitution.

That Amendment 9 is on the ballot at all is partly due to efforts of RLCers who lobbied for the bill and traveled to the state capitol and went door to door speaking to legislators on behalf of the measure. Political consultant John Hallman said the measure was on the edge of being dismissed without even a committee vote when an outpouring of support surrounding the crucial vote in March led to a 10-3 committee vote to send the bill to the floor of the Senate and eventually passage in both houses.

In this effort, the RLCFL worked closely with Sen. Cary Baker and Rep. Scott Plakon, the two chief sponsors of the amendment.

Unfortunately, even though the Amendment was approved by the legislature, lawsuits have been launched to keep the Healthcare Freedom Act off the ballot. However, the RLC strongly believes the decision should be made by citizens and not by the court.

The RLC executive committee also came out against Amendment 4, the so-called Hometown Democracy act, which would require public referenda on a wide range of land use decisions.

Leonard Gilroy, a senior policy analyst at the libertarian Reason Foundation, put it like this in a James Madison Institute Point of View: “Throwing landowners’ ability to develop their property to the whims of public opinion shaped by costly public relations campaigns embraces the ultimate tyranny of the majority over individual property rights.”

For the record, the RLC is dissatisfied with the status quo where the decision-making responsibility is largely shared by elected officials and urban planners. Citizen input comes through their participation in planning boards and there is recourse to appeals, but nonetheless property rights are routinely violated in the state of Florida.

However, Amendment 4 is a move in the wrong direction, adding an additional layer of bureaucracy and expense in exercising one’s property rights. In practice, where Amendment 4 style laws exist, the process is mired in litigation.

In 2005, the RLCFL played a significant role in the successful statewide referendum to protect property owners from the use of eminent domain for private purposes. See also here and here for more details of RLC efforts on the successful Kelo remedy amendment.

At the Sunday night meeting, the board also considered several endorsements of candidates and announcements of new endorsements can be expected in the coming weeks.

In a coordinated action the national board of the Republican Liberty Caucus and the California state chapter for the RLC have released press releases announcing endorsement of California’s Proposition 19 which would legalize marijuana for personal use while leaving taxing of sales of Marijuana up to local jurisdictions and the state legislature. This is a major initiative for individual liberty and could be the beginning of ending the drug war and violence on the border.

Polling has shown growing support for the ballot measure, which started with limited public awareness, but has been gathering endorsements from all quarters and is now showing over 50% support in many polls. RLC endorsee John Dennis who is challenging Nancy Pelosi for her congressional seat is quoted in the press releases and also supports Proposition 19.

Here is the National RLC’s press release:

Here is the California RLC’s press release:

And the California RLC’s resolution on Proposition 19:

California has drawn a lot of attention in the past because of its initiative and referendum system, which gets controversial issues on the ballot so that the voters of the state can make decisions their elected representatives are often afraid to take a position on. We’re going to see more fireworks this fall when Californians get to vote on Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.

There are some rules and restrictions, but basically the proposed bill does exactly what the title says. It would legalize marijuana, regulate its sale, and tax it heavily to help out with California’s near-terminal deficit situation. It would make California the first state in the nation to move beyond just permitting some access to medical marijuana to full-scale and potentially profitable legalization. The other obvious consequences, like a decline in organized crime and moving billions from the underground economy to the public economy, would naturally follow.

Polls in California are tracking the issue closely and show a gathering momentum for legalization, though support is currently trailing opposition 48% to 50% in the latest Reuters poll. That’s within the margin of error and up substantially from where support was only a few weeks ago.

Because it’s not an electoral slam-dunk, politicians are not exactly lining up to endorse Proposition 19. In fact, once and (possibly) future Governor Jerry Brown has gone out of his way to distance himself from the issue, not only not endorsing it, but making some ridiculous statements in opposition to it which have earned him some hostile coverage from the left. It seems likely that in the upcoming meeting of the California Democratic Party they will follow his lead and decide as a party not to endorse legalization as well. They’ll lose voters to the Greens and the Libertarians and Meg Whitman will benefit as a result, and maybe having a businesswoman in charge will help out the financially troubled state.

Of course, this situation does create an opportunity for anyone smart enough to take advantage of it. The proposition is growing in popularity and just hanging out there with no formal backing outside of the legalization activist community. Wouldn’t it be amazing if the California Republican Party—which has occasionally made some very radical and unexpected decisions—were to take a serious look at the state’s dire financial need and the potential benefits of legalization and decide to endorse Proposition 19?

This scenario was laid out in a recent diary on DailyKos, which more than a few Republicans I talked to read and took seriously. Some were shocked and others were excited. The article is sarcastic and intended to make fun of various Republican concerns, but it accidentally reads rather like a believable account of real events. It’s fashionable among Republicans to butt heads with the federal government right now, and going against the drug war and declaring a sovereign right to regulate marijuana and profit from taxes on it would be a brilliant example of the kind of independence which a lot of Republican activists are pushing for.

Republicans are supposed to be fiscal conservatives and in favor of individual liberty, entrepreneurs, and businesses. A measure like this, which would raise billions in tax revenue and create a huge new business sector and lots of legitimate jobs, is exactly what California needs desperately, and no one is offering them a better solution. Rationally, Republicans ought to jump at the idea. All they need to do is put aside the archaic idea that marijuana is somehow more immoral than other sins we currently tolerate — a stance which looks pretty hypocritical at a political fundraiser while you’re chugging martinis.

As it stands right now the issue is up to the fickle voters and how much interest groups on both sides can influence the public (I wonder if the drug cartels have a PAC?). But if the Republican party stepped in with even a lukewarm endorsement it would shake California politics up and probably give them an unprecedented sweep in the general election. Voters from the left would cross over in droves and all the Republican party would have to do is make sure the also held on to their core constituents.

All they have to do to keep Republicans on board is make the argument on the grounds of states’ rights, individual liberty, and fiscal responsibility. I’ve made that argument with some of the most traditional Republicans I know and won over more than a few converts. If your mind is at all open it’s hard to reject the logic behind legalizing marijuana as an alternative to raising taxes. If it also means thumbing your noses at the feds then in the current environment it’s a real winner.

The California GOP doesn’t have to be this creative. They can stay in their safe little box and probably do respectably in the fall. It won’t be all that hard to beat Governor Moonbeam again. But in other states Republicans are anticipating extraordinary victories. A cautious strategy will leave California far behind other state Republican parties in the gains they rack up. Seizing the initiative and endorsing Proposition 19 would drive them to such a dominant victory over the Democrats that they would make history and leave every other state party green with envy.

Desperate times call for desperate measures and setting timidity aside. Why not be bold? Why not be defiant? Why not strike a blow for liberty?

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Illinois has announced the endorsement of the Put-Back Amendment, a citizen-driven initiative to amend the Constitution of the State of Illinois to enact badly needed reforms to the state legislature.

Bruno Behrend, state chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Illinois, said the following in endorsing the Put-Back Amendment, “The culture of corruption and dysfunction plaguing Illinois starts in the State Legislature. It is a part-time job that politicians made into a lifetime career. Term limits and ending gerrymandering, as well as the other reforms, will help return the legislature to being accountable to the voters.”

Illinois RLC vice-chairman John Bambenek is the principal author of the amendment. He announced that he was “delighted to have the support of the Republican Liberty Caucus in championing these badly needed reforms such as term limits. The Republican Liberty Caucus has always functioned as an ‘outsider’ organization in the Republican Party pushing the establishment towards reform and the will of the people and with this endorsement they continue this proud tradition.”

Getting the amendment on the ballot requires 500,000 signatures  to be filed by May 2nd, 2010. The Republican Liberty Caucus of Illinois will be helping to gather those signatures.

The amendment would implement essential reforms to clean up state government, including:

• Term Limits
• Seven-Day Public Viewing of All Legislation
• End Gerrymandering
• Equal Ballot Access
• Unicameral Legislature with 3-Member Districts

Dave Nalle, National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus congratulated the Illinois chapter for launching this effort and observed that “this shows how liberty activists can take the initiative to work for more open and more honest government in their states. If this can succeed in the home state of some of our most corrupt politicians it will send a message to the back-room deal makers and influence peddlers nationwide that their days are numbered.”

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Illinois is one of the newest chartered affiliates of the nationwide organization which promotes limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty within the Republican Party. The RLC is a rapidly growing voice for a grassroots network of American citizens who champion our country’s Founding Principles.

You can see the full text of the Put-Back Amendment at PutBackAmendment.com and get more information on the Republican Liberty Caucus of Illinois at www.rlcil.og. For more information, and to schedule interviews with Mr. Behrend or Mr. Bambenek contact them at (217) 493-0760 or jcb@putbackamendment.com.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Rand Paul, and Peter Schiff discussed why it is important for those liberty-lovers hoping to succeed electorally to run in one of the major parties.

“The issues are more important than the labels,” said Rand Paul, a candidate for U.S. Senate in Kentucky, running for an open seat and facing Republican establishment candidate Trey Grayson in the primary. “You vote for the party when the party is correct,” he declared. Napolitano outlined how third parties cannot succeed due to the major parties, while Schiff explained that were he to run against Chris Dodd, he would run as a Republican.