I hear that. Single-issue voting may be disparaged, but authoritarianism is an absolute anathema to me. I'm very left economically, but given a choice between a left-wing authoritarian who matches my economic ideology precisely and a moderate right-wing social liberal, I'd probably take the latter.

You just don't get to foist your fucking puritanical prejudices against sex on the rest of us - you don't get to put the "ickiness" or "blasphemy" or whatever the fuck you want to call it that you perceive in a loving relationship (or, hell, a purely lust-driven one) between two people of the same sex in the way of every person's right to the pursuit of happiness. You don't get to disregard science and parrot the same old lies about how cannabis is a societal menace so that I become a criminal for something which, you argue, only damages me; let alone the poor terminal cancer patient who ends up getting raided to protect everyone from the dangers of illegal drugs. You don't get to spout logical fallacies and have them taken as a sound argument. You don't get to lock me up for any amount of time you please in any kind of conditions you please because you call me a detainee instead of a prisoner.

Of course, the frustrating thing is that damn near every political party loves to be authoritarian, and why wouldn't they? They are the authority, after all. Rare is the politician that will sign away power, and when you need a majority to do such a thing, it will simply never happen. The only advancement we see is when it is calculated to not be a cost to the government - okay, letting gay people get married probably won't cause any kind of impact on a heterosexual average politician so it's not that hard to fall in line with either what you think is right or what you think the public wants, but giving up the power of arbitrary arrest?