Friday, October 27, 2006

Democrats Are Not Your Friends, Episode # 6,321

Non-partisan libertarian law/culture blogger KipEsquire has noted that Jim Corzine, New Jersey's Democratic governor, has predictably opted for the "less than equal option" for New Jersey's gays in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling:

Gov. Jon S. Corzine told legislative leaders on Thursday that he would prefer that New Jersey enact a civil unions law for gay couples rather than allow them to marry.

That prompted attacks from the state's leading gay-rights advocate, who said Mr. Corzine expressed support for same-sex marriage to a gay audience two weeks ago and had repeatedly done so during his 2000 primary campaign for the United States Senate.

Now, we all know how to tell when an old-party politician is lying -- just check to see if his lips are moving -- but considering that Corzine has a court order which provides legitimacy to full marriage equality, and lives in a state where a majority of voters support marriage equality, his position is absolutely craven. Kip is absolutely right to be disgusted by this -- in fact, all gay people should be.
more . . .

If Democrats cannot be counted on to deliver equality under the law in states where they have a mandate from the highest court in the jurisdiction -- and a clear majority favoring equality -- what good are they in states where the human rights of gays are still viewed as privileges which can be revoked by a simple majority vote?

Kip advances this theory:
As for voters, being a gay Democrat is not much better than being a gay Republican. The proper course of action for a gay is to be a registered Independent, hopefully with small-l libertarian views.

The best way to combat the two-party system -- and its double-edged "vicious Republicans / hypocritical Democrats" sword is simply by not being a part of it. A pox on both their houses.
Well, we're partisan Libertarian party members, so we'd suggest involvement in the Libertarian party, but regardless of your political affiliation, we suggest you take a look at which party is fighting for your rights.

While Corzine cannot bother to make good on his promise to support gay marriage in New Jersey -- an easy, low-risk proposition -- Libertarians are fighting in Wisconsin, Washington state, and other battlegrounds for your constitutional rights and equality under the law.

Top notch Libertarian Party candidates such as Bruce Guthrie, Ed Thompson, Carla Howell, and hundreds of others, have taken the fight to Democrats and Republicans in the past -- and many more deserve your support today. Outright Libertarians will continue to blog about these candidates over the next several weeks up to election day.

If you're a gay voter fed up with the old-party duopoly, you can send a strong message by standing by the party which stands by you -- the Libertarian Party.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

New Jersey's Not-Quite-Equal Ruling

So New Jersey's high court has ruled that gays cannot be deprived of the "rights of marriage." Of course, they've also said that a "separate but equal" regime is perfectly OK, with government doing the legal equivalent of setting up a "gays only" water fountain and "straights only" water fountain in every area where the state regulates life today.

Everyone's a winner, and everyone's a loser, as a result.

Anti-gay forces, predictably, are outraged by the notion that gays have any rights at all. But they can console themselves in the likely fact that the NJ state legislature will not simply "open up" marriage, but will instead settle for a "civil unions" type of sorta-marriage.

Pro-gay people hoping for full marriage equality are disappointed that a "liberal" Democratic court would seek to create a remedy reminiscent of the segregation policies of Alabama in the 1960s. But they can console themselves in the knowledge that it's at least an acknowledgement of injustice and a partial remedy to a pernicious problem.

Last, but not least, Libertarians are upbeat that gays are recognized, but also mindful of the massive new bureaucracy and growth in government creating an entirely separate regime for "sorta-marriages" will create. But we can console ourselves in the knowledge that getting government out of the "moral legislation" and the marriage businesses altogether is the best solution to the gay marriage debate -- and that in a generation's time, it will probably be our approach which carries the day in American politics.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

More Libertarian Candidates

We goofed. When we wrote our bylaws several years ago, we made our candidate endorsement process too slow and bureaucratic. And on top of that, this year we started the process too late to compensate for that bureaucracy.

We'll fix the bylaws at our Spring 2007 annual meeting, in plenty of time for our 2008 endorsements. But in the meantime, there were several 2006 candidates who were not nominated in time but would likely have been endorsed (IMHO) by Outright Libertarians under an improved process. Here are some of those candidates, with links to their websites. Remember that these are not campaigns officially endorsed by the membership of Outright Libertarians, but rather campaigns I personally think may be of interest to you. Please read their websites and decide for yourselves if they deserve your support:
And be sure to see the list of five candidates the membership did endorse in this blog entry.

As a final reminder, the Libertarian Party's platform calls for full equality for LGBT people, including marriage, adoption, and military service. While a small number of candidates do not follow the platform on LGBT issues, these same candidates are likely to not follow the platform on other issues such as immigration and taxes, either. But most Libertarian candidates support the platform and endorse full LGBT equality. So, when in doubt, vote Libertarian!

Friday, October 20, 2006

The LP platform works. Period.

We keep being told that Libertarian candidates who run on the LP platform are put at a disadvantage, and that this justifies gutting our platform in order to win.

Well, in his televised debate with the major party candidates, Washington Libertarian Senate candidate Bruce Guthrie stuck to our platform and won the debate. Way to go, Bruce!

Being a principled Libertarian helps one's campaign. It doesn't hurt it. So, lets tell the few Libertarian candidates who prefer to scapegoat queers, Mexicans, and other "undesirables" that they're only shooting themselves in the foot -- costing themselves the support of their core Libertarian base, while not winning any points in the public debate.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Partisanship isn't bad, but lying about it is.

After many months of being extremely patient, I wrote the following letter to MassEquality.

I've read both your "red envelope" fundraising appeal as well as this latest email.

And I just wanted to let you know why I have not donated to MassEquality in the past year and will not do so now. It's because MassEquality has proved itself unwilling to support ANY third-party candidate over a Democrat, even when the Democrat is significantly worse on marriage equality. I can understand picking a pro-equality Democrat like Sandlin over a pro-equality Green like Broadhurst. All else being equal, you have to go with the better funded, major-party candidate. But why defend an anti-equality Democrat against pro-equality candidates?

The most glaring example is anti-equality incumbent Democrat Sean Curran, who is opposed by pro-equality Libertarian Bob Underwood. This line from your PAC's "campaign locator" says it all [Blog note: use the address at the top right of this page in the "campaign locator"]:

"Representative Curran's position on marriage equality is unknown. In 2005, Representative Curran voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage."

Seriously? Unknown? I can send you some press statements from Curran in the past few months if it will help clarify things for you.

But you shouldn't even need that. Does the second sentence in your "campaign locator" entry for Curran not directly contradict the first?

more . . .

When we spoke in the Spring, you admitted it was unlikely Curran would start to support us on marriage equality, but that you were concentrating on primaries and would not deal with the general election until the primaries were done. And yet, still, a month after the primaries, you refuse to speak out against Sean Curran despite his continuing record of opposing marriage equality. Would you give a Republican this much slack? I doubt it.

One would have hoped that Bill Clinton signing DOMA was a wake-up call for gay and lesbian Americans, and that John Kerry endorsing a same-sex marriage ban in Massachusetts was the final confirmation that the Democrats are NOT our unquestionable allies in the struggle for equality. But MassEquality still doesn't "get it," so I'm withholding my support. I will instead be using my time and resources to support a truly pro-equality candidate, Libertarian Bob Underwood. Shame on you and your organization for not doing the same.

Can you give me any reason why Outright Libertarians should remain part of the MassEquality coalition? Given the way that MassEquality has run its endorsement process, supporting only Democrats, we feel like we're merely nonpartisan window dressing for your clearly partisan Democratic activities. And we're not at all happy with that.

I know other Libertarians (and Greens and Republicans) who have decided to stop donating to MassEquality, though they had given in the past, because they're tired of MassEquality giving anti-equality Democrats a free pass when there are alternative party competitors who deserve MassEquality's support. If you're truly facing the dire funding issues you described in your letter and email, you should consider how much your supposedly nonpartisan nonprofit organization's blatant Democratic partisanship has contributed to that problem.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Outright Libertarians' Endorsments

At a meeting of the general membership held yesterday, October 15th, Outright Libertarians endorsed five candidates for election in their respective races. Nominations were made last month by an Endorsement Committee consisting of all twelve members of the Outright Libertarians Executive Committee which in turn took suggestions for the nominations mainly by email.

Criteria included the candidates positions on issues of interest to the GLBT community, such as same-sex marriage and the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and their willingness to discuss these issues in their campaign.

The five candidates endorsed, all Libertarian Party members, are:
  • Philip Berg - US Congress, California District 8

  • Bruce Guthrie - US Senate, Washington

  • Mike Nelson - US Congress, Texas District 5

  • David Schlosser - US Congress, Arizona District 1

  • Starchild - Board of Supervisors, San Francisco, CA
Berg, Nelson, and Starchild are Outright Libertarian members with whom, naturally enough, we found large areas of agreement. Guthrie and Schlosser are running high-profile campaigns with Libertarian solutions to GLBT issues prominently featured through single-issue brochures, gay pride festival appearances, web site mention, and etc.

We regret that due to a very aggressive timeline for nominations some deserving candidates were not able to be considered.

Sea Scouts' Ship Suitably Sunk by Supremes

The Supreme Court today laid the final stone in the case the Sea Scouts brought against the city of Berkeley, CA in their attempt to have their cake and eat it, too. The Scouts want to discriminate at will, and they wanted the taxpayer to help pay for it. They retained their right to the former (freedom of association) in a landmark Supreme court decision in 2000; and now in 2006 the court ruled the taxpayer is off the hook. Both correct decisions by the court in our view.

Outright Libertarians has commented plenty so far on this case and other related Boy Scout cases, so we will say no more today. Coincidentally, the just previous post to this one also mentions the Boy Scouts.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Kolbe Targeted; Right Wing Lies Twice

Apparently, Congressman Jim Kolbe is being investigated on an "anonymous tip" that he went camping on a large trip which included two pages. The claims against Kolbe are obviously without merit:
"I don't want to get into the details," he said. "I just don't want to get into this... because I might possibly be considered for a job in the administration."

However, the former page — who is the one to whom Kolbe allegedly paid special attention — said he had a "blast" on the trip and did not report anything improper to his parents or any House officials after the trip. He said he has a favorable impression of the page program to this day and likes Kolbe.
Right wing blogs like GayPatriot are suggesting that it was a Democrat who targeted Kolbe with this slur (although, given "The List" we blogged about yesterday, as well as the loud attacks from Kolbe from his own party, it's equally likely the "anonymous witness" was a Republican). Lie #1: It must have been a Democrat targeting Kolbe.

Now, for Lie #2: On hops the right wing to "explain" that this is why the Boy Scouts have to "exclude gay scoutmasters":
more . . .
When my son was in the Boy Scouts the organization was fighting back against openly gay scout masters (not gays) and the firestorm from the left about allowing gay men to camp out with these young boys.


I guess if Kolbe had been a Boy Scout Master it would have been all OK.
Except, of course, that this is a Big Fat Lie as well. The BSA and its supporters certainly did campaign against gays -- loudly. It did not campaign merely "against gay scoutmasters." In other words, they sought to exclude a 14-year-old young out gay scout, or a 16-year-old gay Eagle Scout. "Gay scoutmasters molest boys" was just some of the blood libel used by that organization to justify a ban against all homosexual people in that organization from a 12-year-old gay kid on up to an honorable 18-year-old Eagle Scout with a strong history of achievement in his chosen endeavors.

In short, if you are gay of whatever age, you are banned from affiliation with BSA in any capacity -- young scout, scoutmaster, or even volunteer secretary in a regional association's headquarters.

Outright Libertarians and Libertarians in general support the right of the Boy Scouts to associate with whoever they please, including maintaining their anti-gay ban. Although it must be said that the increasing amount of distortion and outright lies that BSA and their supporters have been using to justify the ban underscores the fact that it has no purpose other than to demonize gay people.

I also think I speak clearly for many of us when I say that we're tired of the anti-gay climate perpetuated by conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats in Washington for their own political gain, and find the word games of both of the old parties to alternately slam gays or wrap themselves in the rainbow flag (depending on what's convenient) to be tiresome, homophobic, and insulting to the intelligence of all.

Let's teach them a lesson this November.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

McCarthy Republicanism and the Deluded Gay GOPer

GOP activists make a big to-do about the "sacrifices" that they make to advance gay issues inside the GOP.

Which would be great if there were actually any advances made.

A look at the GOP's history with gays should be depressing for them.

When campaigning as a "uniter, not a divider," George W. Bush's campaign lambasted Senator John McCain in South Carolina as "the fag candidate" in brochures sent to GOP primary voters because of McCain's (unjustified) endorsement from some gay Republicans. Bush also refused to meet with members of the gay Republican organization Log Cabin, preferring instead to assemble a hand-picked committee of friendly gays in Austin to discuss (and dismiss) a limited subset of the concerns of gay Americans.

As recently as a couple of election cycles ago, openly gay Republican lt. governor candidate Patrick Guerriero was told, in no uncertain terms, that Massachusetts GOP gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney wasn't interested in running with a gay man. Did he bail on a party that, even in liberal Massachusetts, wouldn't accept an out gay man? Nope. He joined the Log Cabin Republicans as their new leader -- the very same group that the Republican leader refused to engage with. His tenure at that organization, up to his recent departure, was spent mostly lambasting his own party and culminated in the gay Republican group withholding endorsements from its own presidential candidate and most of its party's other candidates, while being excluded from most Republican Party events and discussions.
more . . .

Annoyed with the idea that gay issues are best articulated by gay people, the GOP's tiny moderate wing started a new front-group called the Republican Unity Coalition, whose leadership included well-known Republican "homosexual leaders" such as. . . Gerald Ford, Alan Simpson, Mary Matalin and Susan Molinari. Oh, they're all straight. Oops. Even funnier, the RUC's position was not to criticize the GOP and GOP candidates on objective issues, but to justify anti-gay positions and politicians with doublespeak and undermine the Log Cabin Republicans' activist role in their own party. That position has delivered howlers such as this:
We are Republicans because we believe in limited government, free markets, a strong national defense, and personal responsibility. Some of us are straight. Some of us are gay or lesbian, and some of us think it is nobody's business but our own what we are. All of us are Americans." (The Cody Statement).

We vigorously oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, and will speak out against it. Yet, we are uncomfortable with the Hobson’s choice (no good choice) of beating up President Bush or defending the Amendment.
Now, it's getting even worse for gays in the GOP.

Those few gay people who, like recently-disgraced Mark Foley, choose to live a lie in the closet to maintain "respectability," face a new McCarthyism:

In the wake of the Mark Foley scandal, a memo containing the names of allegedly closeted gay Republican congressional staffers was composed by anti-Republican gay rights activists and sent to leading antigay Christian groups, according to a report in The Nation. The Reverend Don Wildmon of the notoriously antigay American Family Association told The Nation's Max Blumenthal that he had received that memo, which he referred to simply as "the list."


"They oughtta fire every one of 'em," Wildmon told Blumenthal. "I don't care if they're heterosexual or homosexual or whatever they are. If you've got that going on, that subverts the will of the people; that subverts the voters. That is subversive activity. There should be no organization among staffers in Washington of that nature, and if they find out that they're there and they're a member, they oughtta be dismissed el pronto."

I am reminded of Joe McCarthy's statement that "I have here in my hand a list of 205 people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party..."

It's time that gay Republicans recognize the GOP for what it is: a deeply anti-gay political organization which puts gay hatred ahead of most other concerns, mouthing Libertarian slogans about smaller government (while hiking spending) and individual liberties (while passing draconian "security laws" and challenging habeus corpus).

Gay people who support an agenda of smaller government and greater freedom -- in an environment welcoming to gay people -- would do much better advancing the growth of the Libertarian Party and libertarianism by joining Outright Libertarians, rather than wasting time begging the Modern-Era McCarthyists of Republicanism to learn to love them.

Friday, October 13, 2006

The Grassroots Deliver While The Old Parties Fret

If one listened to the dialogue which is common within the capital these days, he'd think that the biggest challenge gay Americans face today is protecting the careers of richly-paid anti-gay closeted homosexual staffers in the Democratic and Republican parties.

However, once again, the grassroots are delivering results:
more . . .
Support for same-sex marriage bans is weak in three of the eight states that will vote on them this November, and in one—Colorado—a competing measure to establish domestic partnerships for same-sex couples is currently backed by a majority of voters. The growing sense that key victories will be had this Election Day is in stark contrast to 2004, when constitutional bans on same-sex marriage were approved in 13 states, USA Today reports.

. . .

This year, however, opposition to such a measure in Arizona is currently at 51 percent, with only 38 percent of voters supporting it, according to a recent poll, while the proposed marriage ban in South Dakota is opposed by 49 percent of voters, with 41 percent in support. In Colorado, which has ballot measures both to ban same-sex marriage and to create domestic partnerships, a recent poll showed that only 52 percent of voters are in favor of the former, but that 58 percent favored the latter.

It's no secret that the Libertarian Party and Libertarian activists have been working hard to push same-sex legal equality in marriage and other legal issues. Libertarian candidates in local, state and federal elections from Bruce Guthrie to Ed Thompson have been campaigning against anti-gay laws and strongly supporting marriage equality in both "blue" and "red" states -- with great success. This is a long, proud tradition in the party -- back when Bill Clinton was busy supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne was arguing, passionately, for the freedom of all gay people. And even back to the 1970s, the Libertarians stood for the individual rights of gay people while Democratic and Republican politicians were blasting us as subhuman.

When the battle was started for equality under the law, Democrats and Republicans warned us that "we wanted too much, too fast." We were told by the Washingtonians that equal protection rights didn't apply to us, that wanting to raise our families as we see fit was "politically dangerous," and that our victories would take decades to win. "Pro-gay" Dem/Rep liaisons from Alan Simpson to Barney Frank warned us of the dire consequences of defending our families.

They were wrong. Everyday people fought, won a number of key battles, and now the tide is turning in their favor. The results of that broad-based grassroots activism is coming to light. In a surging election year which promises to deliver the strongest Libertarian electoral results in party history, once again Libertarians lead in the issues which matter to gay Americans -- while Republicans and Democrats scramble to protect their powerful closeted friends in Washington DC.

This November, when you go to the ballot box, consider who has fought to earn your support and stood up for you -- and who cares more about their powerful friends in Washington than about your individual rights.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

It's time to come out of the Libertarian closet

Today, National Coming Out Day, thousands of LGBT people will "come out" to friends, relatives, coworkers, and even strangers, as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender.

The reason LGBT people have to do this is that most folks simply assume that everyone they meet is straight. At Outright, we often find ourselves "coming out" twice -- once as LGBT, and then a second time as Libertarian. In our case, we have to do this second "coming out" because most folks simply assume that every LGBT person they meet is a Democrat.

Well, it's time for us all to "come out" of the Libertarian closet. You can start by contacting the main sponsors of National Coming Out Day, the Human Rights Campaign, and letting them know that you're a Libertarian. If you've donated money to them, and you're disappointed that they've only ever used your money to support big-government (Democrat and Republican) programs and candidates, tell them so.

And when you're done "coming out" to HRC, be sure to do the same with the other large LGBT organizations, such as the Victory Fund, NGLTF, NCLR, GenderPAC, and others.

Happy Coming Out Day, everyone!

Friday, October 06, 2006

Free Markets Mean Free Gay People

One thing that, as a Libertarian, always amazes me is the power of free markets to solve complex social and economic problems quickly and often ingeniously.

When it comes to equal access for gay people, once again, the free market is far ahead of the pack.

Just in the last couple of days, the Advocate has run a couple of interesting stories on corporate advancement for gays in the workplace -- the growth of non-discrimination policies, affirming workplaces, equal benefits policies for same-sex couples, etc.

An openly gay partner at Ernst & Young writes about the benefits his organization has seen in adopting gay-friendly policies:
more . . .
One thing that is applicable across the board: A commitment to equality at work inevitably expands within employee ranks, beyond the cubicle and the office walls. In today’s highly competitive business environment, a company that not only adopts but also projects a philosophy of respect and fairness for all employees is critical to the recruitment and retention of top-tier candidates.

In other words, doing the right thing pays off for both employees and companies.

Isn't it ironic how Democratic party socialists, who claim to be pro-gay politicians, manage to produce little to nothing in the way of equal treatment under the law, while "evil, greedy businesses" which are so often maligned by the Democrats have been driving forward equal treatment of gays on and off the job?

Free markets give us domestic partner benefits, equal insurance treatment for our partners and children, even free airline club access for our partners equivalent to spouses. Voting for Democrats gives us nothing but DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, state anti-gay marriage amendments, and constant frustration.

If you want your vote to deliver the same sorts of results in the legal equality domain that free markets have delivered in your everyday life, a vote for your local Libertarian candidate this November is in order.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

More Pro-Dem Spin Dissection

The bi-annual ritual of Democratic Party apologia in the gay press persists in another article in Bay Windows from former editor Jeff Epperly.

He writes:
It’s an argument that’s been around in this community since before there were Log Cabin Republicans: Should progressives vote for “moderate” Republicans with the hopes that their middle-of-the-road views will somehow win over their more rabid right-wing colleagues?
Funnily enough, we Libertarians have been asking the same question about "moderate Democrats" like Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Evan Bayh for years now. Except that when we ask it, we're attacked for holding such individuals to their actual records on gay issues.
That is a rallying cry that is being used once again to justify the candidacy of Kerry Healey, the GOP candidate for [Massachusetts] governor who swears that she is different than outgoing right-wing Gov. Mitt Romney — a man who painted himself as a moderate in the last election and has been a disaster locally and (if he has his way) nationally for this community.
more . . .
I am strangely reminded of Bill Clinton -- hailed by gay Democrats in 1992 as a revolution for gay people, but who ended up leaving gay people with two of our most enduring setbacks: DOMA and the military's anti-gay policy. However, the double-standard persists -- when Republicans don't live up to expectations, they are to be condemned. When Democrats don't live up to expectations, they should be endorsed, heavily funded, and (re)elected so that they can be "better educated by the community on our issues" and given a second/third/twentieth chance to vote for gay equality under the law.

The very same Democrats who support an anti-gay Senator from Massachusetts in his bid to win the presidential election on a policy platform that endorses state-by-state anti-gay constitutional amendments will turn around and hastily attempt to muzzle pro-gay-marriage Libertarian opponent Michael Badnarik. Voting for actual, bona fide pro-gay candidates, such as Libertarians (who support universal legal equality for all people, including gays), never comes into the equation in the bizarro world of Democratic partisan politics.
Much of the mainstream media, most of which are always eager to prove their centrist bona fides in the face of conservative cries of liberal bias, have been slower to open their eyes to the Big Lie of moderate Republicanism. Still, when The New Republic decides to devote an entire in-house editorial to the subject, it’s safe to say that the thin veneer of respectability that has covered many a moderate Republican’s tracks is starting to crack.
Libertarians, among other opposition parties, have been pointing out this fact for years -- with significant Democratic approval. Of course, when we make similar observations about the pitiful line-up of Democratic candidates and their claims of "progressive pro-gay values" versus their substantial anti-gay voting records, the silence is deafening.
When The New Republic decides it’s time to put to rest one of the great electoral lies of our time, it’s safe to say that perhaps the rest of us should think twice before falling for the sham once again.
Unfortunately, Republican "moderatism" is a smaller sham than the present Democratic sham on gay issues, where Democrats talk like Libertarians but govern like Republicans. Rather than reward such duplicity on gay issues, we should hold our elected officials and candidates alike to a higher standard -- the standard the Libertarian Party and its candidates have been setting since the 1970s.

And So Begins The Pro-Dem Spin

As election 2006 looms, the Democratic Party spin machine is whirling to life yet again, urging gay people to vote Democratic for their fundamental survival and to put the brakes on Republicans.

Unfortunately, there's no reason to believe Democrats' dismal performance on this front over the past five years will change, regardless of the outcome of the midterms.

Courtesy of your friendly neighborhood Outright blogger, let's do a little "Fisking" of the common Democratic Party talking points, starting with Richard Rosendall's piece in Bay Windows:

Like demonized foreigners, we represent “the Other” against whom voters are encouraged to direct their fears and frustrations. In any witch hunt, GLBT folk are not safe.

Especially when large numbers of Congressional Democrats vote for the latest anti-gay marriage amendment, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry endorses anti-gay constitutional amendments, and Kerry uses his first major press conference after losing the election to condemn gay marriage equality in his home state, one would suppose.

When Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage — both in 2004 and last June — he stressed the need for civility and respect, while refusing to mention the people he sought to write out of the Constitution.

Whereas, the Democratic leaders who supported the federal amendment, and Democratic leaders who support state anti-gay amendments including Kerry, are not seeking to disenfranchise people? What of the overwhelming support for DOMA from senior Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and Joe Biden?

I suppose gay families are supposed to ignore these votes.

If we are concerned about our nation’s drift toward tyranny and theocracy, then we must ask ourselves what price we are prepared to pay for our liberty. Disillusionment and disengagement from politics are poor substitutes for electing to Congress those likeliest to resist a president who has shown he considers himself above the law.

I agree completely. And considering the complicity of Congressional Democrats in widespread support of Bush's agenda ranging from the Iraq War, to the USA Patriot Act, to anti-gay constitutional amendments, to budget-busting deficit spending, it's imperative that gay people exercise their electoral muscle to send a strong message to Washington. . .

. . . by voting for and electing Libertarians to Congress, rather than rewarding Democrats for their embrace of the Bush agenda on gay issues and civil liberties issues.