Friday, October 31, 2008

Friday, October 24, 2008

Prop 8 supporters are threatening businesses now

This is totally surreal.

The backers of Proposition 8 are sending this letter to California business who don't donate money to their campaign.

"He characterized it as a bit 'Mafioso,'" Abbott said. "It was a little distressing, but it's consistent with how the 'yes' side of this campaign has been run, which is a bit over the top."


Only "a bit"? If those of us in the NO on 8 campaign did something like this, everyone would think we were totally out of our minds.

Donate to NO on 8 now and send a message to the other side: We reject your effort to intimidate us and we reject your shameful lies. We will fight to protect our freedom.

Libertarians Are Right Again: The Nanny State Is All About Force

This time, the Nanny State (in the form of California's Proposition 8) is attempting to use force to get its way even though its law HASN'T passed yet.

Not content to threaten business leaders opposed to the anti-gay law, Prop 8 supporters are stepping up their act.

Outright members who have been lobbying against Proposition 8 on street corners in California have reported intimidation that made them fear for their physical safety.

Californians who have been outspoken in their opposition to Proposition 8 have received threatening letters, phone calls and voicemails.

If there was any further need to understand the coercive and threatening nature of the nanny state, the actions of the Proposition 8 nanny statists serve as an ample case study.

We encourage anybody who is assaulted or threatened with bodily harm to report such behavior to the authorities, and we encourage prosecutors to act vigorously in prosecuting those using force to attempt to silence opponents to this law.

And we encourage voters who are considering this issue to examine the violent impulses surging through the pro-Proposition-8 campaign and reconcile them with the rights of ALL Californians, including LGBT ones, to live free from violent coercion.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Pity the poor confused Log Cabin Republicans

You've got to hand it to the Log Cabin Republicans. They are tenacious and don't give up easily. No matter how often their party slams them, insults them, kicks them, slanders them, assaults them, disses them, spits in their faces, key-scratches their cars, calls for their imprisonment/execution, throws them out of their jobs, returns their campaign donations, or throws them out of its party events, they keep coming back with a "thank you, sir, may I have another?"

Now, we at Outright are not ones to criticize the peculiar proclivities of partisan Republican LGBT people. We believe in a world of individual choices, including the choice to support people who absolutely hate you and wish you were dead. Who knows -- perhaps Log Cabin serves a function as a political organization for the more masochistic element of the community.

That said, we do have to shake our heads in wonder at LCR's apparent schizophrenia.

On one hand, Log Cabin is joining Outright Libertarians and the Stonewall Democrats in working against California's anti-gay Proposition 8. Good for them!

On the other hand, Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed homophobic bigot John McCain for president. John McCain endorsed Proposition 8 and had this to say of the Log Cabin Republicans (and all other gay people):

the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman


In other words, McCain has just rewarded LCR for their endorsement with a steel-toed boot to the groin, at high velocity.

And Log Cabin Republicans have responded with a whimper and "thank you sir, may I have another" yet again.

LCR likes to argue that it stands as a voice for tolerance in the GOP. But so long as they're willing to be stooges to the hate-filled bigots in their party leadership, while making token efforts to stand up for LGBT Americans, your faithful blogger bets that most gay people will continue to view them as the world's kinkiest political masochists.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Process of elimination

In my Open letter to the few Libertarians not yet opposing Prop 8, I tried to be kind to the person who wrote to me criticizing the Libertarian Party of California's unanimous endorsement of No on 8, by simply referring to this person as "the head of a fairly well-known libertarian think-tank."

Well, here's an excerpt from Reason's Voter Guide:

Proposition 8: "…would result in California once again extending 'separate-but-equal' opportunities to its gay residents. If the rights are the same, the law should not distinguish between types of 'family relationships' or call them 'marriage' for one group of people and 'domestic partnerships' for another. A gay couple's decision to marry does not infringe upon a heterosexual couple's right to marry; so gay couples should be allowed the same opportunities and freedoms as heterosexual couples."


So, by process of elimination, I guess you know that it's a "fairly well-known libertarian think-tank" other than Reason that is still making excuses for Prop 8.

Thank you, Reason, for knowing that there's nothing libertarian about amending the constitution to define marriage via government fiat.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Open letter to the few Libertarians not yet opposing Prop 8

The other day, I received an email from the head of a fairly well-known libertarian think-tank suggesting that the Libertarian Party of California was incorrect when it unanimously endorsed a vote of No on Proposition 8. Below is this person's email, with any identifying information redacted, and my response follows.

Dear Rob,

Why are you and the LPC supporting state government mandates for marriage? Isn't the libertarian position to privatize marriage and remove the government from any involvement?

Here are some articles in this regard:

[links to four articles on the organization's website]

Pleas for equal treatment by state government officials have nothing to do with the freedom to contract when the state determines the terms involved.

Best regards,

__________


My response:

Dear __________,

We're opposing the redistribution of wealth that occurs when the state gives one subset of people (straight couples) benefits from taxes paid equally by both gay and straight taxpayers. If Prop 8 were about removing taxpayer-funded privileges from ALL married couples, both gay and straight, we of course would support it. But that's not what Prop 8 does. Rather, it seeks to use the force of government to take from one group and give to another, which is why we're opposing it.

Why would you and [your organization] be supporting government discrimination against same-sex couples? Isn't it the libertarian position that using government force to redistribute wealth from one group of people to another is wrong?

Regarding the assertion that there is such a thing as a private contract that offers the same protections to a couple that a marriage certificate does, I will simply ask that you do some more research on the topic before coming to such conclusions. There is no such thing as a private contract that allows one to not testify against one's "civil partner" in court, while spouses with a marriage certificate are immune from testifying against each other. This is just one of the hundreds of spousal rights, protections, and benefits that Proposition 8 would take away from same-sex couples. And even for the protections that can actually be accomplished via private contract, the redistribution of wealth continues in that such contracts cost thousands of dollars and weeks or months of red tape and paperwork to have them drawn up, while a marriage certificate costs an average of $70 and at most an hour of time. I'm told by my attorney friends that marriage is what as known as a "bright line rule" in legal terms, where one single piece of paper is able to convey huge amounts of legal significance that even thousands of pages of private civil contracts cannot convey fully. So, gay people have to wonder why some libertarians and libertarian think tanks were absolutely silent about government marriage certificates for many decades, and only became interested in the issue recently. All of the articles you mentioned are from after the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling.

I do not disagree with any of the articles you cited. We should get government out of marriage. But nobody in your organization, nor anywhere else, said anything about this until same-sex couples sought equal access. That's not a coincidence we can ignore. It smacks of bigotry, blatant and ugly, no matter how many libertarian arguments are used to whitewash the issue. The thankfully few libertarians who don't oppose Prop 8 thought that government marriage was just fine, or at least a very low priority, right up until it looked like gays might be included. Then, it was suddenly something that we absolutely must get the government out of, before dealing with illegal wiretapping, illegal wars, trillion dollar bailouts for political cronies, etc. But only for gays, of course. They don't want to do anything too hasty about opposite-sex marriages, because that would be too drastic, too extreme. As someone under the age of 40, I represent my age cohort well when I say that the first word I think of when I hear that argument is, "Whatever." (Okay, the first word actually starts with a B, but I'm trying to be civil.) No, this has nothing to do with constraining government, but rather it's solely because these few libertarians don't like gay people, not because they truly have a problem with government marriage. And here's why I know I'm right about this.

Consider that the year is not 2008, with the debate being whether to allow gays into the government marriage system, but rather 1948, with the debate being whether to allow blacks into the government school system. I'm sure that you oppose government meddling in education, just as I do. But would you ever even consider supporting a Constitutional amendment that would exclude black children from government schools, using your same rationale that "pleas for equal treatment by state government officials" have nothing to do with the freedom to educate one's own children "when the state determines the terms involved"? Of course not. The reason is that you, like most libertarians, know that if there's anything worse than the growth of government, it's the use of government to redistribute benefits from a disfavored group to a favored group. It's precisely what Reagan (quoting Tytler, though the quote is still unverified) warned us about in 1965 when campaigning for Goldwater:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority, he said, always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the treasury with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."

Unfortunately, because many libertarians have spent the past few decades in much too close contact with social conservatives in the Republican Party, thanks to Reagan giving us such wise quotes (despite actions once elected that were far less wise), there appears to be a blind spot in a minority of libertarians that doesn't allow them to consider gay civil rights in the same way that they consider black civil rights. So, even if you cannot yourself equate the 2008 marriage debate to the 1948 school segregation debate, you need to ask yourself if future generations will look kindly on yourself and your organization after choosing the wrong side in today's civil rights debate. Remember that it was also Reagan who refused to allow gay teachers to be banned when he was Governor. We libertarians don't believe that there is such a
thing as a "right to a job," much less to a government job. Yet Reagan knew that, when taxpayer dollars are involved, discrimination is wrong -- even discrimination against gay people.

Allowing black children into government schools did not halt our efforts to get government out of the education business. We're still working very hard on that issue, and making progress, too. And allowing same-sex couples into government marriage contracts will not halt our efforts to get government out of the marriage business. It will instead only ensure that while we struggle to minimize government, the government that remains will not be redistributing benefits from one group to
another. Because redistribution of wealth is not at all libertarian.

Best regards,

Rob
Now, it's not my desire to threaten the funding of any libertarian organization. That's why I redacted the identifying information in the letters above. However, if the author of the first letter wishes to step forward and "out" themselves publicly as a Prop 8 supporter, I can guarantee that they will lose several large donors to their organization. Libertarians in California recognize the blatant bigotry in Prop 8, since it picks out one group of people for discriminatory treatment. Prop 8 has absolutely nothing to do with the Libertarian ideal of getting the government out of the marriage business altogether, because it actually strengthens the government's involvement in specifying what is a valid marriage and what is not.

At this point, just a couple of weeks before the election, I've given up on trying to reason with people who claim to be the most rational and logical thinkers around. Their own personal biases on this issue make them impervious to reasoning. So, enough of the carrot -- it's time for the stick. To all so-called "libertarian" organizations who still make excuses for Prop 8: stop it now, or face future consequences. Even if we're able to defeat Prop 8 this year, those of us who it would have affected will not just forget the betrayal by this small minority of libertarians and libertarian organizations. When such people and groups appeal to us in the future for funds and support, we will remind everyone of their extremely un-libertarian and bigoted position on Prop 8 in 2008. It's unfortunate that we have to make this promise, but given that social conservatives seem to have infiltrated some of our libertarian organizations, this purge of the social conservatives is the only way to preserve the cause of Liberty and ensure that future debates aren't polluted with bigoted socially conservative arguments wrapped in a thin veil of libertarian rhetoric.

Thursday, October 09, 2008

"Keep government out of all of our lives"

Watch for the wonderfully Libertarian message at the end of this ad from the No on 8 Campaign:



If you like this ad, please make a generous contribution to get it on the air.

https://secure.ga4.org/01/stopthelies?source=outlib

Monday, October 06, 2008

The 14th Amendment IS part of the Constitution, Mr. Verney

This morning, I received an email from the Bob Barr campaign. In it, the Campaign Manager, Russell Verney, showed a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution. It's my opinion that Bob Barr himself does not have this same lack of understanding, but if he lets his staff continue to put out this 19th-Century nonsense, the voting public's perception may be that he agrees with them.

From the email:

[Barack Obama] has publicly stated his disdain for justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.
Me too. Same for most Libertarians. These four men have made excuses for the worst attacks on the Constitution by this President. The Bob Barr who donates his time to the ACLU doesn't think much of these four men, either.

The email continues:
We don't believe in a living Constitution. We believe that where interpretation is needed, original intent is what should be considered. The Constitution of 1789 is as good today as it was then.
You have got to be kidding me. There's no way that Bob Barr agrees with this nonsense. The 1789 Constitution, complete with a definition of slaves as 3/5 of a person is "as good today as it was then"? Libertarians don't believe anything of the sort.

You see, the phrase "original intent," which is one of Ron Paul's favorites, is really just code for "I don't like the Fourteenth Amendment, so I'm going to pretend that it's not part of the Constitution." Ditto for the phrase "states rights." The Fourteenth Amendment has been a part of the Constitution for a very long time now. To ignore it is to be in a 19th-Century timewarp.

But here's the kicker:

Your gift of any amount will help us get the word out that there is not a dime's worth of difference between McCain and Obama.
And if Russell Verney has his way, there won't be a dime's worth of difference between Paul, Baldwin, and Barr. The Libertarian Party is not a place for apologists of the Confederacy. Those folks have a home -- the Constitution Party.

Slavery was wrong. Individual states infringing on the liberty of individuals based on immutable characteristics such as race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity, is wrong. That's why the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified and why Libertarians support the Fourteenth Amendment -- to guarantee every American, in every state, equal protection under the law.

Mr. Barr needs to give Mr. Verney a lesson on the Constitution, and he needs to publicly refute statements from his staff that deny the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Marakay Rogers for Pennsylvania Attorney General

We're proud to support Marakay Rogers for Pennsylvania Attorney General. Her survey answers:

1) Since the early 1990s, Congressional legislation has blocked LGBTQ people from serving openly in the military. This discriminatory legislation, commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell� (or DADT), has resulted in the discharge of thousands of qualified military personnel solely on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. However, the governor of each state is a commander in chief of the National Guard for that state. Will you support efforts to ensure that LGBT people may serve openly in your state's National Guard?
Yes, and to the extent possible given my position I will also support open service in all branches of the military.

2) In 1996, Congress passed (and Bill Clinton signed) the Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA). This law overrules the constitutional right of LGBTQ people to equal protection under the law by banning all federal recognition of same-sex relationships for various purposes (such as sponsoring a foreign partner for a visa, or filing a joint tax return). It also allows states to ignore the Constitution’s “full faith and credit� clause and reject other states’ certification of same-sex relationships. Many states have also passed similar anti-LGBTQ legislation or even anti-LGBTQ constitutional amendments. Will you take steps to work to repeal state DOMAs (if they exist in your state) and implement equal treatment in marriage in your state?
Yes. I consider DOMA and all its state equivalents to be violations of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution as well as the federal DOMA being a violation of federal powers in an area strictly subject to the states' determination.

3) LGBTQ people are subject to unequal tax treatment in a number of areas. For example, while opposite-sex married couples aren’t taxed for joint health benefits, same-sex couples must pay income tax on domestic partner benefits that include health care coverage. Asset transfer taxes, estate taxes, and inheritance taxes that aren’t charged to straight couples must be paid by LGBTQ couples. As a result, many LGBTQ couples will pay over five times the tax of a comparable straight couple over the life of their relationship. Will you take steps to eliminate any tax discrimination against LGBTQ people by your state/local government?
Yes.

4) The House and Senate are considering “hate crime� legislation that seeks to make attacks on LGBTQ people (as well as certain other minorities) “more� of a crime than a violent attack on a member of a majority class. Many states already have such legislation implemented on a state level. Will you lobby against – and vote against – such legislation?
Having once worked as a civil rights attorney I understand the impetus for the passage of hate crime legislation. It is a very emotional issue for many people. What should be everyone's greatest concern, however, is the application of existing laws prosecuting all assaults and violent attacks on all citizens, which are often pled out instead with insufficient punishment for the crimes committed. If we cannot prosecute assault and aggravated assault in the first place, nothing else matters. Currently, there is no hate crimes legislation in Pennsylvania as the existing law was struck down by the state's appeals courts.

5) The House and Senate are considering the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would regulate business and remove employers' and employees' First Amendment rights to freedom of association by banning private sector discrimination based on sexual orientation. Many states and municipalities already have similar laws on a local level. Will you vote against/veto those laws?
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania does not have this particular authority. I could only offer my opinion on the matter.


6) Often, the federal government and state governments use funding to compel compliance with certain discriminatory practices. For instance, one federal bill introduced into the last Congress would withhold some federal education funds for states that refuse to embrace an anti-LGBTQ mandatory educational curriculum. Will you pledge to refuse to implement anti-LGBTQ federal and state mandates even if that opposition would result in reduced funds from federal or state government coming to your constituency?
If there is a mandate received that my office handles, I would refuse to implement it. As an LGBTQ person myself, I have no plans to enforce a law against me. Further, I would offer the support of the AG's office in non-implementation of such mandates by other government units. Additionally, I would refuse to implement ANY form of discriminatory federal or state mandates, whatever their basis.


7) State and federal regulations have severely restricted the availability of certain kinds of health insurance, such as “catastrophic care� coverage, to force people into expensive HMOs and similar programs that offer so-called “comprehensive� coverage. As a result, healthy LGBTQ people have not been able to buy insurance that fits their needs, and many are unable to afford health insurance – rendering them vulnerable to catastrophic illness (and financial stress) as a result. Will you take steps to ensure that LGBT individuals and families will have the right to buy the insurance they decide they want, rather than the insurance that bureaucrats mandate they 'need?'
I will do my best to do so. Pennsylvania already offers certain populations highly limited health insurance, and those groups have in great part found that the coverage is lacking in important areas. All individuals should have the right to the insurance they want, not the insurance that other people want for them.


8) As an elected official, you will be the chief executive of your own staff, with tremendous decision-making power over general employment policy in your office. Will you take steps to ensure that your LGBTQ government employees (if any) are treated equally to straight employees in the provision of health care benefits and other conditions related to employment?
Yes.


9) Efforts to water down, or even eliminate, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms have been gaining momentum. Self-defense is a crucial right for many LGBTQ people, who have often avoided severe injury or even death due to the prudent use of a firearm for self-defense. Organizations such as the Pink Pistols have emerged to help protect and defend this right. As an elected official, will you unambiguously support the right of LGBTQ Americans – and all other
law-abiding people – to keep and bear arms for self-defense as outlined in the US Constitution by opposing *all* legislation or regulation that restricts the right to keep and bear firearms?
As a gun owner myself, I understand the importance of the Second Amendment, and although I am not a member of either, I salute the efforts of the Pink Pistols and Second Amendment Sisters in defending all Americans' right to self-protection. I intend to defend the right of all law-abiding people in Pennsylvania to gun ownership and responsible gun use.

10) LGBTQ parents – especially adoptive parents – often find difficulty in traveling across the country due to anti-LGBTQ state laws that refuse to recognize their status as parents granted by their home state. Some have even lost custody of their children due to a simple vacation that took them into “hostile territory.� This is in direct violation of the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause that requires states to recognize other states’ certifications and legal status. As an elected official, will you take steps to eliminate discriminatory legislation or policies that could undermine the parental status of LGBT parents in your jurisdiction?
Absolutely. The rights of parents to their children should not be challenged for any reasons except for the safety and welfare of the children -- and it has long been established that LGBTQ parents are not unfit simply for reason of that alone. Discrimination against any parent on unreasonable grounds is a matter that should have been abolished in all states years ago. Although there is a tendency to condemn liberal judges for judicial legislation, there is an equal issue of conservative judges in certain states upholding or generating vicious policies on LGBTQ parents that must receive attention as well.

11) Do you have any other comments or statements that you’d like to make to the LGBTQ community?
I believe it is important for the LGBTQ community to support LGBTQ candidates, as well as those non-LGBTQ candidates who actually do support LGBTQ interests. Mere lip service to "gay rights" is not enough; voters must educate themselves on the background of the candidates and their actual thoughts on how they intend to support the LGBTQ popultions.

Chris Cole for US Senate, North Carolina

We're proud to support Chris Cole for US Senate, North Carolina. His survey answers:

1) Since the early 1990s, Congressional legislation has blocked LGBTQ people from serving openly in the military. This discriminatory legislation, commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (or DADT), has resulted in the discharge of thousands of qualified military personnel solely on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. As a member of the House or Senate, will you co-sponsor the
Military Readiness Enhancement Act (MREA) which on passage would permit openly LGBTQ people to serve in the military?

Answer: Absolutely. Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell is a Jim Crow law for gay
servicemembers, and is as insane as racial segregation was up through
World War II. The idea that a man cannot love and defend his country because
he loves another man is ludicrous and contrary to the experience of a number
of our allies, such as Israel and the UK.

2) In 1996, Congress passed (and Bill Clinton signed) the Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA). This law overrules the constitutional right of LGBTQ people to equal protection under the law by banning all federal recognition of same-sex relationships for various purposes (such as sponsoring a foreign partner for a visa, or filing a joint tax return). It also allows states to ignore the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause and reject other states’ certification of same-sex
relationships. As an elected representative, will you sponsor or co-sponsor legislation to repeal DOMA?

Answer: Yes. DOMA is another form of antigay Jim Crow law, and would not
have been tolerated against any other class of Americans. Not only does it
violate the 14th Amendment and the faith and credit clause, it also violates
the same 9th Amendment right to fundamental private choice affirmed in the
Loving decision which invalidated state miscegenation laws.

3) LGBTQ people are subject to unequal tax treatment in a number of areas. For example, while opposite-sex married couples aren’t taxed for joint health benefits, same-sex couples must pay income tax on domestic partner benefits that include health care coverage. Asset transfer taxes, estate taxes, and inheritance taxes that aren’t charged to straight couples must be paid by LGBTQ couples. As a result, many
LGBTQ couples will pay over five times the tax of a comparable straight couple over the life of their relationship. Will you sponsor or co-sponsor legislation to eliminate tax discrimination against LGBTQ people?

Answer: Yes, I support equal treatment under federal tax law. I would not support the imposition of such a standard on the states.

4) The District of Columbia is a federally-administered District. Recently, Congress has considered and/or passed a number of laws related to LGBTQ issues in the district that are distinctly homophobic, such as excluding same-sex couples from taxpayer-funded adoption services, a ban on recognition of same-sex couples, and a law forbidding LGBTQ people from having their out-of-district adoptions recognized. Will you vote against this legislation and other similar legislation in the District of Columbia?

Answer: Yes. I will always defend the equality of same-sex individuals and
couples under federal law, including federal enclaves and territories.

5) The House and Senate are considering “hate crimes” legislation that seeks to make violence against LGBTQ people (as well as certain other minorities) “more” of a crime than violence against a member of a majority class, by assigning special resources to prosecuting these crimes than are typically allocated to prosecuting identical crimes against straight people. Will you lobby against – and vote against – such legislation?

Answer: have a difficult ambivalence toward including LGBT folks under "hate
crime" laws. I consider such laws to be a form of government thought control,
and oppose them on principle. However, believing in equality under law as I do,
I support including that class, as long as such laws are on the books.

6) The House and Senate are considering the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would regulate business and remove employers' and employees' First Amendment rights to freedom of association by banning private sector discrimination based on sexual orientation. Worse, the bill creates exemptions to taxation laws that make family health insurance more expensive only for LGBTQ families. Will you vote against ENDA?

Answer: As above, I am caught in a bind with ENDA. I also oppose so-called
"anti-discrimination" laws as a violation of property and speech rights.
However, I also support equality under the law, so I oppose the exclusion of
same-sex folks from such laws. I would also point out the irrationality of a
government with DADT and DOMA still on the books, voting for
"non-discrimination."

7) LGBTQ people around the world face tremendous challenges in the face of government and societal persecution. In places ranging from the Palestinian Authority to Iran to China to Singapore to Algeria to Zimbabwe, LGBTQ people are regularly imprisoned, tortured, beaten, mutilated, and murdered simply because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Many seek asylum in the United States, but find their application delayed or denied due to government policies that seek to limit immigration. As a result, the US government regularly sends
back thousands of people to an uncertain fate – or worse, a certain fate of torture and death – rather than welcoming the oppressed. Will you sponsor or co-sponsor efforts to reform the immigration system to allow oppressed LGBTQ people from abroad to find sanctuary and freedom in America?

Answer: Yes, under similar policies to those for religious and ethnic refugees.

8) State and federal regulations have severely restricted the availability of certain kinds of health insurance, such as “catastrophic care” coverage, to force people into expensive HMOs and similar programs that offer so-called “comprehensive” coverage. As a result, healthy LGBTQ people have not been able to buy insurance that fits their needs, and many are unable to afford health insurance – rendering them
vulnerable to catastrophic illness (and financial stress) as a result. As a member of Congress, will you introduce legislation to eliminate regulations that restrict the ability of people to buy health insurance that meets their priorities, rather than those of the health care regulators and other bureaucrats?

Answer: Yes. In fact, under the Interstate Commerce Clause, I intend to support
a requirement that states permit residents to purchase insurance policies from
any state. This would make it more difficult for any state to sustain such
discrimination.

9) The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) is legislation currently in Congress that would allow unmarried Americans (regardless of sexual orientation) to sponsor a same-sex or opposite-sex partner for residency in the United States. Will you co-sponsor UAFA and bring it to a vote?

Answer: Yes. I would give same-sex marriages and civil unions equal status
under federal immigration law. Some sort of domestic-partner registry would
be necessary for residents of states without marriage equality, such that a
relationship contract would serve as an immigration voucher.

10) You will be the chief executive of your own staff, with tremendous decision-making power over general employment policy in your office. Will you take steps to ensure that your LGBTQ federal employees (if any) are treated equally to straight employees in the provision of health care benefits and other conditions related to employment?

Answer: Yes. Nondiscrimination within my own office would be an obvious first
step.

11) Efforts to water down, or even eliminate, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms have been gaining momentum. Self-defense is a crucial right for many LGBTQ people, who have often avoided severe injury or even death due to the prudent use of a firearm for self-defense. Organizations such as the Pink Pistols have emerged to
help protect and defend this right. Will you unambiguously support the right of LGBTQ Americans – and all other law-abiding people – to keep and bear arms for self-defense as outlined in the US Constitution by voting against any legislation restricting the right to keep and bear firearms?

Answer: Yes. The Second Amendment is an essential undergirding for both
self-defense and the ability to resist tyranny.

12) LGBTQ parents – especially adoptive parents – often find difficulty in traveling across the country due to anti-LGBTQ state laws that refuse to recognize their status as parents granted by their home state. Some have even lost custody of their children due to a simple vacation that took them into “hostile territory.” This is in direct violation of the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause that
requires states to recognize other states’ certifications and legal status. Will you introduce or co-sponsor a law compelling state governments to uphold the full faith and credit clause to ensure that LGBTQ parents don’t suddenly become legal strangers to their children simply by crossing a state line?

Answer: Yes.

13) Do you have any other comments or statements that you’d like to make to the LGBTQ community?

As an openly-gay man myself, government discrimination against my community is
a personal issue, not a theoretical one. I think it is important to have a
voice from our community in the debate, for the very moral authority the
personal dimension would carry.

Morey Straus for New Hampshire State Reprsentative, Hillsborough District 11

We're proud to support Morey Straus for New Hampshire State Reprsentative, Hillsborough District 11. His survey answers:

1. Yes, I oppose discrimination in all government employment.
2. I believe government has no legitimate authority to regulate marriage, and will work to repeal all laws pertaining to marriage. However, as an interim effort, I will support changing the law to allow marriage for all people.
3. I would support such efforts to combat discriminatory actions by government, but would prefer to seek them as described in question 2.
4. Yes, I am opposed to elevating the rights of some people over others based on personal beliefs, regardless of how offensive I may find those beliefs.
5. Yes, I support freedom of association, and am opposed to all government regulation.
6. Yes, I will oppose efforts to introduce anti-LGBTQ sentiments into the government school curriculum.
7. I support allowing greater choices in health insurance, and have made it a core message of my campaign.
8. There is no office or staff associated with the office of NH State Representative.
9. Yes, I fully support the rights of all people to keep and bear arms.
10. Yes, I will support the rights of all parents to maintain custody of their children.
11. As a Libertarian, I support the rights of individuals and families to live peaceably, without interference from government. The Libertarian LGBTQ community should consider me a solid ally in the fight for individual liberty.

No on Proposition 8 in California

On September 29, the Executive Committee of Outright Libertarians unanimously endorsed a vote of NO on Proposition 8 in California, a constitutional amendment that would end same-sex marriage. While this should be no surprise, it should also be noted that this endorsement followed unanimous endorsements of NO on 8 by:

We encourage our members and all Libertarians, all across the country, to Vow to Vote NO on Prop 8 by visiting www.NoOnProp8.com and making a donation.

Of Course Libertarians Oppose Proposition 8

In response to a "libertarian" writing several articles at NolanChart.com supporting Proposition 8, I wrote this article. It also shows how the "libertarians" who say that "getting the government out of marriage" should be the only goal, even if it means sacrificing equal treatment for gays and lesbians, have a blind spot on LGBT issues that they fortunately no longer have on civil rights for other minorities.

Despite being opposed to government schools, most libertarians would be horrified to see such a pro-segregation argument coming from the Reason Foundation. Yet they are less surprised when a nearly identical argument is made regarding gays and lesbians.