Outright Libertarians Blog

Don't Mess With Camden, NJ

2008-12-26T17:05:00.001-08:00

Growing up in Philadelphia in the 1980s, the city was continuing through its hard times. Population decreased, jobs fled, violence and crime surged, West Philadelphia burned as the MOVE situation raged out of control.

But the city had its immovable institutions, one of which remained Campbell's Soup Company, across the river in the roughest town in Jersey -- Camden.

From its headquarters right off the Ben Franklin Bridge across from Center City, Campbell's produces more soup than any other company. It fills lunchboxes and stomachs of everyone from the poorest inner city kids to the wealthiest suburbanites. It understands the diversity of its customer base -- possibly one of the most diverse in the world.

Recently, the company made the decision to advertise its product to gay families in The Advocate. The American Family Association went ballistic, but the company held its ground with the sort of gumption one would expect from a Philly-area institution:

"Our position on this is pretty straightforward," said company rep Anthony Sanzio. "Inclusion and diversity play an important role in our business, and that fact is reflected in our marketing plan. For more than a century, people from all walks for life have enjoyed Campbell's products, and we will continue to try to communicate in ways that are meaningful and relevant to them."

He added: "Our plans for the Swanson brand include additional placements in The Advocate."

Smackdown!

AFA has met its rhetorical match, not from a political rival, but in the plucky soup cannery from Camden, NJ.

If only politicians could have that sort of backbone!

Democrats Lied; Equality Died

2008-12-25T07:22:00.001-08:00

Just days after the Democratic president-elect threw the LGBTQ community under the bus by inviting one of the nation's most pernicious homophobes to give an invocation at his inauguration, the Democratic Party decided to put the bus into reverse and run over the community yet again, this time on military service.

Democrats from Pelosi down to the average Daily Kos poster swore, up and down, that if gay people helped Obama get elected, anti-gay laws would fall and gay people would be treated as equal Americans by the Feds for the first time.

They told us that if Democrats got majority control in the New York statehouse, that a gay marriage bill would be introduced and passed in 2009.

And they told us that Democrats would repeal the anti-gay Don't Ask, Don't Tell statute during the first term of Congress in an Obama presidency.

Obama hasn't even assumed the presidency, and already, the Democrats have broken the first two promises -- Rick Warren's elevation to prominence in the Obama administration undermined Obama's claim to stand for real dignity for LGBT people; and New York's Democratic Party backed out of its marriage equality commitment literally 48 hours after they received their majority.

Now, Democrats have announced that the last of their campaign promises to the LGBT community must, "sadly," be abandoned as well. Queerty reports:

Key Democrats — even openly gay lawmakers — are quietly conceding to letting another two years go by before trying to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the controversial 1993 law banning openly gay people from serving in the military.

And predictably, the excuse being used for this latest bit of electoral fraud by Democrats is exactly the same as before:

Most fear that moving too quickly on such a divisive issue could backfire, and most would rather tread lightly, at least in the early months of President-elect Barack Obama's administration.

"Change we can believe in?" Nope. More of the same.

One could literally have pulled a similar quote and paragraph from an article circa 1996.

If Democrats are too fearful to repeal an anti-gay statute that is opposed by almost three quarters of Americans, then they are completely useless.

No attacks on Republicans, attacks on Libertarians, dithering, excuses, or convoluted and condescending lectures on "strategy" can change this fact: The Democrats bald-facedly lied to the LGBTQ community in this election.

They had no intention of accomplishing any of the policies they promised. They knew, beforehand, that the fight would be "too hard." Yet they figured a couple of cheap promises would land them millions of votes and $100 million plus dollars in campaign contributions. Sadly, they were right.

If gay people continue to provide unwavering and "patient" support to this corrupt and mendacious political party, we will be reading lectures from queer Democrat partisans in 2028 about how "patience is needed" to repeal DADT.

It's time that the LGBT community got tough on the Democrats. No money, no votes, no volunteer time, and no quarter should be given to that party until it makes good on its 16-year uninterrupted string of broken campaign promises to LGBTQ Americans.

Real Dignity Before False Unity

2008-12-24T14:34:00.001-08:00

Much has been made of Barack Obama's invitation of anti-gay Brokeback... um, I mean SADDLEback Church pastor Rick Warren to deliver a convocation at Obama's inauguration.

Obama is free to invite who he pleases, and those who are displeased with his choice are free to criticize it. We at Outright take no pleasure in seeing that our well-rooted concern that the Obama Administration would throw LGBTQ Americans under the bus will be commencing literally from the first hour of his administration.

There has been much debate over the situation, some valid and some merely rhetorical. Comparisons to racist pastors have been made -- and they have some validity. If Obama is seeking to "unite" the country, including all bigots fearful of his administration, then the most magnanimous step he could take would be to invite some racist leaders, such as David Duke or Louis Farrakhan, to the event as speakers.

That would doubtlessly invite controversy. African Americans and supporters of equal treatment under the law would doubtlessly disapprove across all three national political parties and independents alike. But such a move, given Obama's status as America's first African American president, would have validity and meaning, and would represent true courage in underscoring his commitment to "dialogue with all." It would represent true sacrifice on the part of the president-elect.

Throwing gay people to the wolves is far less "courageous," and resembles something more akin to what Bill Clinton would have done. It's easy for a powerful heterosexual man to demand sacrifice from LGBTQ people who have already lost so much -- their family rights in the largest state in the country, their jobs in the military, and even their physical safety in brutal and traumatizing assaults like the recent gang rape of a gay woman in San Francisco. LGBTQ people have "sacrificed" far too much, and for this powerful man to demand further sacrifice from them when he has sacrificed literally nothing is staggering to behold.

The reality? Barack Obama's shameless pandering to homophobia in his inauguration is an inexcusable demand that gay Americans exchange their dignity as individuals for a phony feel-good "unity" around a vision of America where LGBT Americans are on the outside looking in. This is NOT "change we can believe in" -- it is rather "more of the same."

With this in mind, I'd like to turn more of my attention to the wheedling and excuse-making by LGBT Obama partisans like Atlantic columnist Andrew Sullivan and pop singer Melissa Etheridge.

Etheridge opines:

Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world.

Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us.

Sullivan adds that:

The journey that Melissa Etheridge has taken is my own... we are the ones we have been waiting for.

While it's sad (if not nauseating) to watch these two grown people fawn over their hero selling them (and us) down the river again, I'm reminded of something my mother taught me many years ago.

If you have to "prove" you're a good person, the person demanding that proof isn't.

Rather than go down this path of "reaching out" to bigots who had, until just a couple of days ago, posted lists of people who may not join their church (including "homosexuals")... Rather than fawn over Obama's Clintonian ways... Rather than spit out his trite one-liners... we have a real choice this holiday season.

Let us do what we have always done and contribute to our communities in the ways we always have -- without an agenda of "proving" ourselves "worthy" of the admiration of bigots. Let us stand up and refuse to be thrown under the bus along with Obama's late grandmother, Obama's pastor, Obama's Chicago mentor, and every other individual he's sacrificed in his unrelenting thirst for power.

Rather than take yet another for "the team" (which never really seeks to include LGBTQ people as out and equal partners), let's just tell the truth: Obama's demand for our reticence, and his partisans' glorifying of Warren's ideology as an opportunity for "dialogue" is an insulting, condescending and inexcusable embrace of homophobia. And further, let us deliver a message to both Obama and his bigoted base: we seek unity as Americans and as vigorous participants in a free society, but we shall never do so at the cost of our own dignity.

Those who demand otherwise seek power for themselves, not promise for America, and they should be held to account. So long as such attitudes enjoy a position of prominence in strategies of the American president, this country's promise shall remain elusive.

Remedial Review for Ridiculous Religious Rightists

2008-11-30T16:00:00.000-08:00

As I scour through the comment threads of various news items, the true stupidity of the religious right smacks me, smack-dab in the snout.

However, your friendly blogger is a compassionate fellow and is quite able and willing to explain a few things to the pro-Prop-8 religionists who are foaming at the mouth in fury.

First of all, please stop referring to the lists of pro and anti Prop 8 supporters as "blacklists" and to boycotts as "blacklisting." A blacklist is a list developed by government specifically to punish and illegalize certain people.

A boycott is not a "blacklist" and never was. Boycotts are legitimate expressions of individuals' right to consume as they please. You seemed to understand this when you boycotted American Airlines for offering same-sex partner health benefits, when you boycotted United Airlines for doing the same thing, when you boycotted Ford Motor for advertising in gay periodicals, when you boycotted Disney for not banning LGBT families from their park, and even when you threatened Proposition 8 opponents with a boycott of your own if they didn't stop contributing to the anti-Prop-8 initiatives.

Please don't tell me that you're so stupid as to believe that now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's suddenly wrong, bad and illegal.

None of us have a right to employment, public or private. And the fact of the matter is, a number of people in rather prominent positions -- fully knowing that their large contributions are a matter of public record -- declared that they favored Prop 8.

Some of them were rather silly. Did the guy who oversees musical theater in Sacramento actually think he'd be able to avoid fallout from the gay community when they learned of his efforts to revoke their rights? It's musical theater, for criminy's sake -- without gay cash, it would cease to exist.

How about the mental midget in LA who was a part-owner of a gay-oriented Mexican cantina? How stupid is she? (The mind boggles).

Or the director of the Sundance festival -- a festival that goes out of its way to market itself to LGBT people.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, shall we?

Imagine if a man who owns a restaurant catering to Mormons contributed a large sum of money to revoke their tax status. Or if a man who sells religious garments to the Catholic Church campaigned publicly against Catholicism.

Would they have a magical right to expect business to continue pouring in? Would they be "blacklisted" if right-wing religious groups called for boycotts or other action?

Of course not. Your actions facilitating this sort of thing over the years prove it.

Unfortunately for you, the worm has turned.

Gay people represent over $900 billion in annual spending power in the USA, pushing to $1 trillion by 2012. That's a lot of cash.

And now, thanks to the internet and instant access to public records, they can decide where and how they're going to spend that money.

Which means that if you want to continue channelling money to bigot amendments, you're going to have to find one of those shrinking number of jobs where little or no money comes from gay consumers -- or you're going to have to decide if your hate and anger is worth a loss of revenue to the competition.

That's the beauty of free markets. You have the right to express whatever point of view you'd like, but others have the right to spend their money however they see fit.

That the LGBT boycott of anti-gay businesses and individuals is more successful than the abortive boycotts you've launched over the years is less a sign of "unfair blacklisting," and more a sign of your lack of influence over modern American economic life.

And while that may upset you, it's no basis for you to claim a right to the dollars of gay people who you have insulted, belittled, hated, attacked and disenfranchised so often over the last several decades.

New York State Democrats Commit Electoral Fraud

2008-11-30T14:17:00.001-08:00

New York's Democratic Party politicos promised voters, in an intense campaign, that if elected to a majority in the state house and state senate, they would introduce a marriage equality bill into law in 2009.

New York's Democratic governor, New York's Democratic majority leader, and New York's partisan Democratic gay lobby Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA) all promised LGBT voters that if they handed control of the state senate -- long controlled by the GOP -- to the Democrats, a marriage equality bill would hit the books in 2009.

They even backed up this plan with a symbolic huge passage of a marriage equality bill in the lower house, blaming its failure in the Senate on Republican leadership.

Gay voters in New York got the message loud and clear, and a flood of campaign contributions, votes, and campaign support came in for the Democrats. As the New York Times notes:

After a pledge from New York Democratic leaders that their party would legalize same-sex marriage if they won control of the State Senate this year, money from gay rights supporters poured in from across the country, helping cinch a Democratic victory.

But now, just weeks after the Democrats won their big victory in NY's elections, it turns out that the entire set of promises were a giant con game -- structured electoral fraud by Democrats who knowingly lied to the electorate of New York. As the Times describes it:

party leaders have sent strong signals that they may not take up the issue during the 2009 legislative session. Some of them suggest it may be wise to wait until 2011 before considering it, in hopes that Democrats can pick up more Senate seats and Gov. David A. Paterson, a strong backer of gay rights, would then be safely into a second term.

Classic bait-and-switch.

Classic fraud.

Now, it's not illegal for Democrats to lie -- heck, if it was, most of that party would be serving long terms in jail.

However, it's instructive to note the reactions of most of the NY Democrat leadership:

“We want to get there, but we want to get there the right way or else we risk setting ourselves back another decade,” said Senator Liz Krueger, a Democrat who represents the Upper East Side.

Ah, but will the people who are "reassessing" their "strategy" be refunding the money they received in contributions as a result of their commitment?

Of course not. Fraudsters rarely reimburse their victims.

Meanwhile, the Gay A-List Democrats have demonstrated the lack of leadership they've demonstrated to date on Proposition 8, DOMA, DADT and every other Democratic Party con-job on the LGBT community to date. It's not like ESPA wasn't singing the praises of the Democrats up to election day, and providing top Dem politicos with a bully pulpit:

Mr. Smith, speaking about same-sex marriage at a fund-raiser for the Empire State Pride Agenda last year, was emphatic, saying, “We’re going to make sure that happens in ’08, when we take over the majority.” He now avoids questions on the topic and instead gives a standard reply about the need to focus on the economy when asked about it.

And you've got to love the quisling queers, selling you down the river after defrauding you for The Party. Smith, who rarely meets a microphone he doesn't want to monopolize, has been downright circumspect in the wake of this electoral fraud, and his de-facto campaign organization also isn't talking:

The Empire State Pride Agenda, an organization known for aggressively pursuing news media attention, said through a spokesman that it was in a “quiet period” and would not respond to questions.

That accountability thing is so tedious, dontcha know. And now, the Defrauding Democrats have picked up Smith's line about "the economy" and are peddling it to pissed off voters and contributors:

Asked about when Mr. Paterson would like to see the Senate vote, the governor’s communications director, Risa B. Heller, said, “For now and the immediate future we are focused on the state’s fiscal situation.”

The fiscal situation was bad before the election, too. Didn't stop the Democrats from defrauding the voters of New York State.

Your rights weren't too insignificant to serve as a campaign slogan to get cash out of your pockets and your vote. Only after providing the margin of victory did LGBT people become a non-priority to this Party of Parasites.

In the meanwhile, to our Democratic Party colleagues expressing shock and grief over this betrayal -- this blatant electoral fraud -- we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so.

In 1991, Bill Clinton and Democrats campaigned as the president who would desegregate the military. Instead, he signed the anti-gay Don't Ask Don't Tell law, resulting in the illegalizing of out gay servicepeople and the discharge of tens of thousands of servicepersons.

In 1996, Bill Clinton and Democrats campaigned on a platform of "fairness and equality for gay people." Then, Bill Clinton signed the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act -- and campaigned on it. As a result, married families in Massachusetts, Connecticut and (until recently) California continue to be treated as legal strangers by the federal government that has its hands deep in their pockets.

In 2000, Al Gore campaigned in favor of the UAFA, pledging to promote it. After losing the election, he and the Democratic Party made it clear that UAFA was permanently off the agenda -- despite the massive amount of LGBT support his campaign attracted.

In 2004, John Kerry campaigned for state DOMA laws in Missouri, and after losing the election (despite a large amount of LGBT support), called his first press conference after the election in Louisiana to denounce his own state of Massachusetts for making marriage equality a reality.

And in 2008, supporters of Barack Obama provided the margin to push the anti-gay Proposition 8 over the top, with Obama refusing to lend his voice to commercials in opposition to that law.

Libertarians can attest that this latest Democratic Party betrayal is just one in a long line of con-jobs foisted by Democrats on the electorate.

What else would you expect from the ethical lowlifes who gave the world Elliot Spitzer?

We hope that rather than jumping through the hoops yet again, the gay community responds to this latest outrage by saying "sorry, we have other priorities" when the defrauding Democrats of New York State come begging for votes and donations. Hopefully a few election cycles in the minority (and a defunct ESPA) will be instructive to fraudster politicos and their phoney promises made with your family's future.

Could this have ended up any worse?

2008-11-21T11:41:00.000-08:00

eHarmony to offer same-sex matches after New Jersey settlement* | Technology | Los Angeles Times

1. Government regulation of a privately-owned business.
2. Gays given "separate-but-equal" treatment yet again.
3. Does anyone think this "CompatiblePartners.net" site will be anything but utterly craptastic?
4. Fundamentalists predictably are screaming "judicial activism" even though this was a private settlement outside of trial.
5. Fundamentalists threatening to sue gay dating sites for not offering straight matchmaking.
6. More undeserved press for that Fundamentalist bozo Neil Clark Warren.

Mercury-News's Mangled Muddied Muddled Marriage Malarke

2008-11-19T18:49:00.000-08:00

The San Jose Mercury News, the top paper of Silicon Valley, has gotten it wrong again. This time, it printed a presumptuous and somewhat insulting editorial about the present controversy around California's anti-gay Proposition 8. Most notable are some rather questionable assertions that the paper asserts as truisms:

Had supporters of gay marriage shown as much fervor for their cause before the Nov. 4 election as they have since, they probably would have defeated Proposition 8. But they will surely fail in their campaign to repeal the ban if threats and coercion continue to be among their tactics.

Threats and coercion?

Such as threatening to launch recall petitions against Supreme Court justices who vote in favor of the 14th amendment rights of gays and lesbians?

Or referring to peaceful protestors in last weekend's nationwide marches as "terrorists?"

some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions.

Vandalism is indeed nasty. However, several investigations in California have suggested that the vandalism (and the various other claimed threats) was not committed by LGBT people at all -- but rather by Mormons themselves, in a bid to generate public sympathy and change the subject.

In fact, not one of the alleged "vandalism" incidents has been traced back to any member or ally of the LGBT community.

That doesn't stop the Mercury-News from presuming the community's guilt however... which is amusing since it then begins a lecture on the Constitution that is laughably inaccurate.

One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative.

...

the selective boycotts of small donors clearly is meant to send a message of intimidation and suppress the First Amendment right of expression.

Well, let's set the record, ehrm, straight here.

Firstly, the bar in question was a popular Mexican cantina in Los Angeles that catered heavily to the LGBT community in the area.

Secondly, the "small donor" was not merely the "owner's daughter," but a part owner of the firm in question.

Thirdly, there was not a "raucus demonstration," but rather a press conference called by the other owners, where the owner in question attempted to explain her contribution to the anti-gay initiative.

A majority of attendees at the gay-catering establishment rejected her argument, and a large number of people have decided to take their business elsewhere. Which is their right.

Let's ignore the fact that the Mercury-News has refused to criticize anti-gay boycotts conducted against firms ranging from a California pumpkin farm (for flying rainbow flags) to large institutions like Apple, Ford Motor Co., American and United Airlines, and Walt Disney Co. for having the "audacity" to offer domestic partner benefits.

Let's even ignore the fact that the Mercury-News has refused to criticize the pro-Proposition-8 campaign's tactics as "dangerous," despite the fact that it was the first party in this debate to play the boycott card, threatening anti-Prop-8 donors with boycotts back in October.

Both mulligans for the Mercury-News aren't difficult -- LGBT people are long used to a lack of even-handed treatment by the established media, and while that's rather inexcusable in this day and age, there's something far less excusable at play in the M-N's editorializing.

The Mercury News has demonstrated it has absolutely no understanding of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of individuals to express themselves free of government coercion or harrassment. It provides no guarantee to a comfortable living despite one's political opinions, nor does it provide a guarantee or "right" to avoid criticism and boycotts.

The business owner in question certainly had a right to donate to a gay-hating constitutional amendment. Just as she has the right to contribute money to a pro-racial-segregation amendment, or an amendment to strip women of the right to vote, or any other initiative that may or may not appear in the future.

However, she has no "right" to expect LGBT people, or African Americans, or women, or any other group negatively impacted by her actions, to continue to patronize her business. Her decision to support an anti-gay constitutional amendment was one she made as a result of her religious ideas, and part of that decision should include accepting the consequences of that decision -- including loss of business.

By making the donation, she indicated that she valued her ideals above her economic well-being (especially considering her heavily gay clientele), and the responsibility for the consequences lie primarily with her -- not her customers. Her decision to publicly make such a donation was an economically foolish decision for an owner of a gay-targeted business -- equally as stupid as the loan decisions of subprime mortgage issuers, or any other bad business decision.

Putting aside Hank Paulson's TARP bailout package, the last time we checked, there was no Constitutional right to avoiding the consequences of bad business decisions.

On an emotional level, much has been made of her tears and frustration. But the Mercury-News needs to consider the tears and frustration of families across the state of California tonight, many of whom have children who are now "legally bastards" (to use Dan Savage's inelegant yet accurate verbiage).

It's a pity that the Mercury-News isn't concerned about them (and their rights). Rather than mangling, muddling and muddying the First Amendment to invent a right to not suffer the consequence of bad business decisions, the paper would be better served defending the Fourteenth Amendment rights of all Californians.

On Proposition 8

2008-11-14T23:10:00.000-08:00

At Outright, we give credit where credit is due, even when it comes from people with whom we often disagree.

In this case, your humble blogger believes that Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's Democratic Party talking head, has more-or-less nailed it on Proposition 8's passage in California.

Buying in to right-wing talking points

2008-11-10T13:23:00.000-08:00

If I hear another gay conservative complain that the loss of marriage equality in California is due to "judicial activism," I will absolutely explode.

Listen up, conservatives: You know that recent Supreme Court decision that struck down D.C.'s gun ban as Unconstitutional? Judicial activism. Court decisions striking down campaign finance laws as Unconstitutional? Judicial activism. And conservatives loved those precedents. So, why is it that judicial activism is only bad when gay people are the beneficiaries?

And as if it's not bad enough that some gay conservatives parrot the right-wing talking points about judicial activism, I occasionally see one fly so far beyond the most arch-conservative pundit to say something so ridiculous that it would make Pat Buchanan cringe:

The gay marriage issue is not going to be decided over the heads of the American people, and no amount of comparing it to Brown vs. Board of Education or any other dubiously relevant precedent will change that. -- Jonathan Rauch

Really?

This is why gay conservatives aren't taken seriously. By anyone.

About the Advocate article...

2008-11-04T16:47:00.000-08:00

This article has been moved to the Outright Libertarians website.

Why The Phillies Deserved A Win

2008-11-02T08:27:00.000-08:00

Leave it to your friendly blogging Philadelphian to take solace in this news.

Apparently, a well-known player for the LA Dodgers donated $15K to the anti-gay Proposition 8 in California.

Jeff Kent, who played second base for the Los Angeles Dodgers this season, has stepped into the emotional world of same-sex marriage, giving $15,000 to backers of the California proposition on Tuesday's ballot that would ban it.

In a disclosure filed with the California secretary of state, Kent listed his occupation as professional baseball player for the Dodgers and his address as Austin, Texas. He gave the $15,000 in a transaction dated Monday but which only now is public.

You may recall that the Dodgers lost the league championships to my very own hometown Philadelphia Phillies -- who spanked the Dodgers and went on to win the World Series this past week.

The Phillies are well-known for their pro-gay approach to baseball.

In fact, they've even earned the ire of the right-wing Controlling Wankers of America (CWA). Seems they didn't want the CWA disrupting their gay-friendly game with their hatred, and CWA is outraged that they threw their propagandists out of the privately-operated stadium.

Got to love that.

Meanwhile, let's hope that the Dodgers' Jeff Kent is as poor a performer in anti-gay politics as he and his colleagues were on the baseball diamond against the Phillies!

Ruth E. Bennett for Washington State House of Representatives District 37, Position 2

2008-11-01T23:40:00.001-07:00

Outright Libertarians are PROUD, THRILLED and ECSTATIC to support our own National Vice-Chair, Ruth Bennett, for Washington State House of Representatives District 37, Position 2!

Her survey results follow:

1. I would willingly sponsor legislation to repeal DADT in the Washington State National Guard.

2. While Washington has some inroads towards marriage equality, we are still not equal. I have spoken to legislators and to the press pointing out that while second class rights are better than no rights at all, that the Democrats (who have majorities in both the state house and senate AND the governor's mansion) have not done their job by repealing the state's DOMA. Shame on them and I would love to be the legislator to introduce a repeal of DOMA here which is the only thing keeping marriage equality from our community (per our state's Supreme Court).

3. I absolutely would work for tax fairness regardless of sexual orientation or gender. The fact the LGBTQ people have such a disproportionate tax burden is unconscionable. Taxes at all levels should be cut and those left applied equally.

4. Punishing or additionally punishing people for their thoughts is so dangerous and I would introduce and support legislation eliminating hate crimes.

5. The first suit filed in Washington under an ENDA type law was a straight, unmarried couple suing to get partnership benefits. What too many LGBTQ folks realize is that ENDA type laws means that LGBTQ people can't hire just other LGBTQ people. I was looking into some co-housing with some friends and the biggest problem our attorney warned us about was limiting our housing to just lesbians! I do not support ENDA type laws.

6. I do not support government mandated discrimination of any sort and would refuse to implement such bigotry.

7. Few people understand that mandates increase the cost of insurance to everyone. I do not support mandates that price insurance beyond the means of so many individuals and families. I would support being able to purchase insurance across state lines and minimal cost catastrophic coverage.

8. The government has no right to discriminate and I support all government employees being treated equally regardless of sexual orientation or gender. I just want fewer of them!

9. I have been a member of Pink Pistols and fully support the rights of all citizens to protect themselves from aggression. Washington State has an even stronger constitutional amendment regarding the right to keep and bear arms and I fully support it.

10. The idea that a child is less loved or cared for by a gay or lesbian couple is nearly beyond my comprehension, let alone that one state would try to negate the family another state has approved! While Washington has no such discriminatory laws, I would never support adding in such bigotry to our state.

11. At some point I hope the LGBTQ community will stop its "Stockholm-syndrome" slavish support of the Democrats or the internalized-homophobia of the Log Cabin Republicans to realize that the Libertarian Party is the only political party to consistently support the rights of LGBTQ people to live their lives free of self-loathing and discrimination.

Brian Irving for North Carolina Senate 17

2008-11-01T23:33:00.000-07:00

Outright Libertarians are proud to support Brian Irving for North Carolina Senate 17. His survey responses:

Outright Libertarians State & Local Candidate Survey

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?

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is a shame. Yes, LGBT people should be able to serve openly in the military. (Although as long as the Democratic-Republican duopoly perpetuates an imperialist foreign policy, I would not recommend it.) In my 25-years service, it did not make any difference if the person next time me was gay. I will support legislation to allow service in the NC National Guard. However, the Guard is also governed by Federal regulations, so I will work to change those regulations as well.

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?

The State has no business telling people who they can marry. Period. I will oppose a "gay marriage" amendment to the NC Constitution and work to repeal the state's DOMA.

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. Of course, as a libertarian I would also work to repeal all these taxes.

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?

"Hate crime" laws criminalize thought. I will oppose "hate crime" legislation for any group. I will also work to repeal laws making punishment for crimes against "government officials," including police officers, any more stringent than citizens. All people are equal before the law. "Hate crime" laws are just as destructive to individual rights as laws that discriminate against people based on sexual preference, race, religion, nationality or any other factor. The proper place to deal with "hate" is in determining the motive of a criminal.

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?

I will vote against any law that restricts the right of private employees to hire who they please. As a libertarian, I do not support "group rights." One individual has the same rights as 1,000 individuals -- no more, no less.

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?

Absolutely. The U.S. Constitution does not give the Federal government the power or authority for education. As a State Senator, I will oppose any Federal mandates in this, or any other area.

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?"

The Federal government has no authority to mandate health care or regulate insurance. The state government has proven it is incompetent in both area. For a libertarian, the bottom line is that private businesses, including health care providers and insurance companies, have the right to sell their services to whoever they please. Removing government interference will encourage health care providers and insurers to offer services to meet the needs of LGBTQ people.

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?

If I form a staff, I will chose people based on their ability, and how well I can get along with them personally, and on no other criteria. And I will treat all equally. And if I form a staff, I won't offer health care benefits, or any other perks, at all, nor will I pay them much. My efforts will be to repeal laws and oppose expansion of government power.

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?

Absolutely. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is essential to the safety and security of the Republic. I will oppose any and all regulation or restrictions on that right.

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?

Yes. The full faith and credit clause was written specifically so that citizens of one state where treated equally no matter where they traveled in the United States. Like many other guarantees in the U.S. Constitution, it has not been enforced infrequently and more often ignored. As a State Senator, I will work to insure North Carolina gives "full faith and credit" to the laws of the other 49 states, and work with our Congressional delegation to convince other states do the same for North Carolinians, and that the Federal government enforces this guarantee.

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

A personal note: My brother is gay and has been living with his partner for more than 20 years. I also have a gay nephew. I am also a Christian, and so believe all people are created in the image of God, and should be treated with equal respect. I recall a 60s slogan: God doesn't make junk!

Just as I will oppose any laws that treat people differently because of their sexual preference, I will also oppose laws that give individuals or groups special treatment. I will defend the right of LGBTQ people to live your lives as you choose, so long as they do not use force, the threat of force, or fraud to violate the rights of others. With equal intensity, I will also defend the right of people who hold opposing religious or moral beliefs to live as they choose, and express their views -- so long as they do not use force, the threat of force, or fraud to impose those beliefs on you.

Jan MacKay for North Carolina Senate 15 (Raleigh, Wake County)

2008-11-01T23:23:00.000-07:00

Outright Libertarians are proud to support Jan MacKay for North Carolina Senate 15. Survey responses follow:

State and Local Candidate Survey

Candidates for State and Local elected office should complete this
survey on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) issues
and send answers to candidatesurveys@outrightusa.org

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, the the full extent that can be done at the state senate level.

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, the the full extent that can be done at the state senate level. NC
legislators are currently making the push for a DOMA. I will oppose.

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, the the full extent that can be done at the state senate level.

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?

I would vote and work hard against anything that discriminates against
people. NC currently does not include sexual preference and gender
identity as protected classes. NC has problems which needs to be worked
and is not addressed by this question.

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 1st amendment must be protected, as must all bill of rights. They
need to be applied so that all person are equal under the law.
Government should not be involved in regulating hiring practices, except
for government jobs. Gov't should be protecting peoples rights to
non-discrimination when it comes to employment, but we cannot afford a
massive government bureaucracy to regulate this. The civil courts are in
place for this reason. If there are impediments to the civil process,
these impediments need to be removed.

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?

Yes, the the full extent that can be done at the state senate level.

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?"

Yes, the the full extent that can be done at the state senate level.

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, the the full extent that can be done at the state senate level.

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?

Yes, the the full extent that can be done at the state senate level.

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?

Yes, the the full extent that can be done at the state senate level.

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

I will be a fighter! I am not afraid to upset the status quo. You need
more vigilance in NC because there is always a bill introduced to
discriminate against LGBTQ. Visit me if I am elected. Wherever there is
a wrong that needs to be righted, I will gladly submit a bill even if it
is not in my political best interest. I do not seek office to serve my
own interests but to bring back rights to the people who are stomped on
the most. I will actually try to live on that measly salary, and will
refuse money from PACs and lobbyists. That is the only way to clear out
the corruption.

Jan MacKay http://grassroot.us/mackayforsenate/
NC Senate Candidate 15, Raleigh, Wake County

Sue Newell for Governor of New Hampshire

2008-11-01T23:20:00.000-07:00

Outright Libertarians are proud to support Sue Newell for Governor of New Hampshire. Her survey responses are below:

1) Yes. Sexual orientation should not be an issue for military service.
Truth is always better than lie, even a lie of omission. Transparency is
the best option for any government endeavor. Military service should
never be a matter of conscription, and no person should ever be placed
in a position of forced association with anyone else.

2) I believe the state should not be involved in marriage at all.
Marriage is a religious sacrament, and I would seek to leave the state
out of either marriages or civil unions, which should be private
contracts between whatever consulting adults choose to enter into them.
I would seek to repeal all laws relating to both marriages or civil
unions. If three adults of whatever gender(s) chose to enter into a
legal agreement with regard to rights as beneficiaries, or for purposes
of medical decision-making, or the sharing or inheritance of wealth, the
state has no business either approving or disapproving it. The state
has no business defining or authorizing relationships based on what
sexual or non-sexual activities are assumed to take place within the
privacy of the home - always provided that only consenting adults are
involved.

3) New Hampshire has no income tax, and state civil unions already
provide marriage-equivalent standing within the state for same-sex
couples for other taxation purposes. My ultimate goal would be the
elimination of all income taxes. Meanwhile, I am opposed to any tax
code designed to provide preferential treatment to any class of people\
or any particular activity.

4) Hate crimes are thought crimes. Criminals who do harm to another
should be punished for the harm done and for patterns of repeat offense,
not for which victims they chose. I would support legislation to repeal
RSA 651:6, New Hampshire’s hate crime penalty enhancement.

5) The employer-employee relationship is a private one, and as long as
no fraud or deceit is present, the government should not be interfering
in it, including via discrimination laws.

6) I have committed to calling for a constitutional amendment for the
complete separation of school and state. Without the mantle of
government, the free market will provide for schools that meet the needs
of consumers, and schools that will cater to the specific choices of
their clientele - with regard to staffing, curriculum and everything
else. The state has no business controlling what goes into the minds of
children or in inculcating any particular social message.

7) As governor, I would fight any insurance mandates or regulations that
will increase the cost and reduce choice, and work to roll back existing
mandates.

8) If elected, I would hire the best people for the jobs - and far fewer
of them than currently employed by the state. Any aspect of a person’s
personality or biology that is irrelevant to their ability to do their
job is irrelevant to the state’s decision to employ them.

9) I am an unconditional supporter of both the federal Second Amendment
and the right to keep and bear arms as enshrined in the New Hampshire
state constitution.

10) The government should not be involved in family relationships except
in extreme cases where there is a demonstrable victim. Parental sexual
preferences and identities do not make anyone a victim.

11) This election is a fine opportunity for voters to vote their
conscience and send a strong, clear pro-freedom message to the political
establishment. Don't compromise on your rights, voting for a politician
who will trample only some of them but promises to protect others; vote
for the candidate who will protect ALL of your rights. Vote
Libertarian, Liberty Sue Newell for Governor.

If you've had it with this (mf) discrimination in our (mf) Constitution...

2008-10-31T16:11:00.000-07:00

Samuel L. Jackson has recorded a very powerful ad for the No on 8 campaign, and if we can raise $3 million by midnight tonight, we can make sure that it's seen on TV by voters across California before Tuesday's election

Please click here to help put this ad on TV.

Please click here to help put this ad on TV.

Prop 8 supporters are threatening businesses now

2008-10-24T13:19:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-24T10:12:00.000-07:00

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.

Pity the poor confused Log Cabin Republicans

2008-10-23T11:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Process of elimination

2008-10-20T09:39:00.000-07:00

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.

Open letter to the few Libertarians not yet opposing Prop 8

2008-10-18T20:10:00.000-07:00

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.

"Keep government out of all of our lives"

2008-10-09T16:01:00.000-07:00

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

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

2008-10-06T10:57:00.000-07:00

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.

Marakay Rogers for Pennsylvania Attorney General

2008-10-01T02:21:00.000-07:00

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 â€œDonâ€™t Ask, Donâ€™t Tellâ€� (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 Constitutionâ€™s â€œfull faith and creditâ€� clause and reject other statesâ€™ 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 arenâ€™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 arenâ€™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 â€œhate crimeâ€� legislation that seeks to make attacks on LGBTQ people (as well as certain other minorities) â€œmoreâ€� 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 â€“ and vote against â€“ 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.

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 â€œcatastrophic careâ€� coverage, to force people into expensive HMOs and similar programs that offer so-called â€œcomprehensiveâ€� 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 â€“ 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.

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 â€“ and all other
law-abiding people â€“ 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 â€“ especially adoptive parents â€“ 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 â€œhostile territory.â€� This is in direct violation of the Constitutionâ€™s full faith and credit clause that requires states to recognize other statesâ€™ 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 youâ€™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

2008-10-01T02:17:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-01T02:09:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-01T01:57:00.000-07:00

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:

The Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee (August 2)

The Libertarian Party of San Francisco (September 13)

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

2008-10-01T00:31:00.000-07:00

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.

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares

2008-09-25T15:03:00.000-07:00

From the Libertarian Party response to Ron Paul's endorsement of the Constitution Party nominee for President:

Many Constitution Party members are libertarians, in some way, shape or form. However, there are very few Libertarians--if any at all--that would comfortably identify themselves as [subscribing] to the Constitution Party platform.

However, the biggest difference between the two parties, and one that is the best manifestation of the diametric difference of philosophies on the role of government in society, relates to the issue of gay rights.

As the Constitution Party members would say, "Amen."

Regarding Tom Knapp's open note to Outright's Secretary Brian Miller

2008-09-24T12:06:00.000-07:00

Thank you, Tom.

While Brian is still being attacked by the Radicals, especially those in or near the top of the LNC power structure, seeing you come around on this is heartening. It really restores my hope in the Libertarian movement.

Fixing this mess in 2010 and 2012 will be difficult, but having you back on our side will be a valuable asset.

I just want to admit that you were right and I was wrong about Ron Paul at least as publicly as I've sometimes disagreed with you about him.

Paul's endorsement of Baldwin makes it clear that when he feels himself pressured to choose between libertarianism ... and the darkest, most medieval social conservatism, he'll choose the latter.

Thank you again.

Not looking good for Barack Obama...

2008-09-22T23:18:00.000-07:00

Wonkette just made my day:

"There you have it: Chuck Baldwin, whoever he is, now has the full support of Ron Paul and the entire Clone Army of Paultards. This is not looking good for Barack Obama."

For the record, I called this nearly a year ago:

"Paul’s ideology is socially conservative/traditionalist/federalist. It’s not really Libertarian because it still supports government control over individual lives -- merely at the state, not federal, level. Paul is likable and principled, but his principles are biblical, not Libertarian or even Constitutionalist, because he ignores the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause."

Federal Candidate Survey

2008-09-20T00:51:00.000-07:00

Candidates for U.S. House and Senate should complete this survey on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) issues and send answers to candidatesurveys@outrightusa.org

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

State and Local Candidate Survey

2008-09-19T00:51:00.001-07:00

Candidates for State and Local elected office should complete this survey on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) issues and send answers to candidatesurveys@outrightusa.org

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?"

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?

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?

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?

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

A Reminder To Republicrats: Silence Is Golden

2008-09-05T09:41:00.000-07:00

Many of us at Outright Libertarians were rather surprised when Stonewall Democrats endorsed Barack Obama.

After all, Barack Obama's record on issues that matter is pretty poor.

Obama is opposed to marriage equality and favors a segregated "separate and unequal" arrangement for gay couples based on his religious beliefs:

Barack Obama said Friday that his Christian beliefs dictate that marriage should be between a man and a woman

We were particularly disappointed that the first African American to represent a major party in a national election would cite his religious beliefs in support of segregation. After all, many segregationists in the Old South cited the Bible to justify racial segregationism as well.

Obama's not just poor on the marriage equality issue. He has repeatedly refused to co-sponsor or support the Uniting American Families Act, or UAFA, which would do nothing other than treat same-sex couples the same as opposite sex couples for immigration purposes.

And Obama's refusal to support a meaningful end to the military's anti-gay policy by co-sponsoring the Military Readiness Enhancement Act is equally appalling.

In short, it is clear that a Barack Obama presidency would represent an ugly era of segregation for LGBT Americans. We would have a president who uses religion to justify public policies that segregate us and drop us into second-class status -- permanently.

That sort of presidency doesn't deserve an endorsement from a gay rights group.

Which brings us to Log Cabin Republicans, who dutifully endorsed their party's choice, John McCain.

John McCain?

The same John McCain who stammered and ummmmmed his way through an interview with Ellen DeGeneres when she pointedly challenged him on his anti-family policies?

The same John McCain who backed a failed anti-gay ballot initiative in his home state, and who has embraced anti-gay bigotry by endorsing California's anti-gay Proposition 8?

The ProtectMarriage.com campaign says it received an e-mail from McCain Thursday in which the Arizona senator expressed his support for the group's efforts "to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman."

McCain has previously said that while he does not back banning same-sex marriage at the federal level, he thinks it is appropriate for states to do so.

If there's one candidate whose stance on gay issues is even worse than Obama's execrable apologies for anti-gay animus, it's John McCain.

For Log Cabin to endorse McCain, after their pointed refusal to do so in the case of George Bush in 2004, is particularly disappointing.

In both cases, the partisan LGBT lobbies chose party power politics over the concerns of the LGBT community.

That's why we'd like to remind our friends in the Stonewall Demopublicans and the Log Cabin Republicrats that they are, first and foremost, gay rights organizations.

When they give unearned endorsements to anti-gay candidates, they sell out the LGBT community.

We at Outright take a different tactic. We only give endorsements to those candidates who have earned them -- by embracing an unabashed equal-treatment-under-the-law agenda. When confronted with a candidate who doesn't embrace equality under the law in our own party -- or anywhere else -- we don't endorse him or her.

We're big fans of partisanship. We believe that the Libertarian Party platform is the best approach for LGBT Americans, as well as America in general. We're proud that our party platform has the strongest gay-rights plank of any national party in the USA. And we believe, as we're sure our counterparts at Log Cabin and Stonewall do, that our party is the best choice for governing.

We simply choose to be honest and give credit where credit is due. When confronted with a demand for an endorsement for a candidate who does not embrace equality under the law, Outright Libertarians puts the LGBT community first. We wish that our colleagues in the other parties would learn that sometimes, silence is truly golden.

The Daily Show: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Hearing

2008-07-29T07:26:00.000-07:00

Well, my notes from the congressional hearing on DADT last week are kinda dry. For something more entertaining, but still poignant, please watch this clip from Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:

Review of Congressional Hearing on Don't ask, Don't tell

2008-07-24T07:42:00.001-07:00

Yesterday afternoon, the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee for Military Personnel held the first hearing on gays in the military in fifteen years. I was able to watch it online and if you'd like to read my notes on the hearing, I invite you to visit my personal blog:

After Action Review: Congressional Hearing on Don't ask, Don't tell

Barr polling better with LGBT voters than with general electorate

2008-07-22T12:13:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting story from The Advocate. A recent Harris Interactive poll shows Bob Barr is doing better with LGBT voters (3%) than with the general electorate (2%).

According to Harris Interactive, in a four-way race, Barack Obama leads John McCain among registered voters 44% to 35%, while Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate, and Ralph Nader each receive 2%.

Three percent of GLBT adults favor Barr, while 1% choose Nader.

Very interesting.

Ron Paul & Don't ask, Don't tell

2008-07-20T09:42:00.000-07:00

Earlier this month, I travelled to Washington, DC, for a number of reasons. Among them I was visiting various Congressmen from around Texas to discuss the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (HR 1246) and Don't ask, Don't tell. I requested and was given an appointment with Rep. Ron Paul.

Ron Paul was high on my list of priorities for a number of reasons. First, despite an independent Libertarian Party, Ron Paul is often seen as the face of libertarianism in the USA. Second, his comments on DADT in previous forums have indicated he has a lack of knowledge as to what the law really says. Third, I wanted him to have the opportunity to explain himself face-to-face with someone who had been discharged from the military under DADT.

To start, allow me to share Rep. Paul's comments on DADT. During last year's GOP debate on 3 June 2007:

Q: Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end "Don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the US military?
A: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality, it's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.

In this statement, Rep. Paul talks a lot about theory - that we derive our rights as individuals - but he totally neglects the practical, day-to-day aspects of living under different sets of rules for different groups of people. More bluntly, he doesn't answer the question. If Rep. Paul truly believes in individual liberty and individual rights, he should have been more clear and direct and said that DADT should go and the existing laws against "disruptive behavior" should apply to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

Later in 2007 he spoke to conservative Christian commentator and radio host John Lofton:

LOFTON: We'll try to stop anyone from getting in the military who is a homosexual, who is an adulterer, who is a fornicator, and then other categories that indicate a character flaw. Why we shouldn't try to do that?

PAUL: Looking it in protecting the military if they are going to perform the services, and they are imperfect — because we're all imperfect and we all sin. If a heterosexual or homosexual sins, that to me is the category of dealing with their own soul. Since we cannot have only perfect people going in the military I want to separate the two because I don't want to know the heterosexual flaws, nor the homosexual flaws and that's why I got in some trouble with some of the civil libertarians because I don't have any problem with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Because I don't think that, for the practicality of running a military, I'd just as soon not know every serious thing that any heterosexual or homosexual did, and those flaws have to do with all our flaws because each and everyone one of us has those imperfections.

In this instance, I believe, Rep. Paul does a little better because he doesn't give in to Lofton's blanket condemnation of gay people. He also let's us know pretty clearly that he doesn't know what DADT really is and what it means. Rep. Paul was operating under the same assumption that many Americans do when they hear "don't ask, don't tell" - they assume it means exactly that and nothing more.

When I sat down with Rep. Paul, I showed him these two quotes and told him that I had been discharged under DADT. Rep. Paul seemed a little uncomfortable bringing those up, which tells me he knows he probably didn't say the "right" thing in answering those questions as he did.

The interesting part of the conversation was that he saw DADT as a protection for gay soldiers. He admitted to not having read the law and the various service regulations, so a good part of the conversation was geared toward making him understand that DADT does nothing to protect the gay troop, but actually puts him or her into a more vulnerable position. DADT is not a hot-button issue, even in the LGBT community, so most politicians, even the sympathetic ones are uninformed on the issue. They also have a tendency to confuse their talking points, hence the reason it is often hard to figure them out or they give the appearance of flip-flopping. A consistent philosophy would go a long way to keeping them accurate on everything they say.

Rep. Paul was concerned that the Military Readiness Enhancement Act would simply repeal DADT and not provide any protections for gay people in uniform. I had a copy of the current law and a copy of the bill. I showed him specifically where MREA would add the words "sexual orientation" to the current nondiscrimination clauses. He got philosophical and asked me what I thought of that. I responded by telling him that 1.) the military is public institution funded by taxpayers, including gay Americans, not a private institution funded by individuals who should be free to choose who they will hire and fire; and, 2.) the additional words are "sexual orientation" - not "homosexuality" - and since everyone has a sexual orientation, the law truly protects everyone. If a straight soldier were to have a gay commander, and the straight soldier believes the gay commander is showing favoritism to a gay soldier, then the straight soldier would have the same right to file an equal opportunity complaint as a gay soldier would have to file a complaint against a straight commander.

Actions speak louder than words and as the conversation was winding down, Rep. Paul went through the folder I had prepared to leave with him. He asked about the emails I had included from my conversations with the Republican Liberty Caucus . He also picked up the stories I had included regarding Major Alan G. Rogers who died earlier this year when he used his own body to block an IED explosion, saving the lives of two soldiers. Alan was gay, and while I never knew him, we had some mutual friends and acquaintances. The Washington Post willfully hid any reference to Alan's sexual orientation and it was later made public through the Washington Blade and the Post issued a statement from their ombudsman. I watched him read the first page of the story - where it tells how Alan died - without speaking a word.

The visit to Rep. Paul's office was one of the most productive of the entire trip. While I didn't get any commitment from him one way or another, I think he was left with some food for thought. Something I have learned about lobbying on any issue, is that building a relationship with the representative and his or her staff is probably more effective than simply flooding their email in-boxes with mass-produced letters.

Republicans Say The Craziest Things

2008-07-19T10:51:00.000-07:00

Take, for example, Arizona Republican Congressional candidate, Joe Sweeney:

Yet another example of the futility of trying to advance "libertarian values" inside the right-wing looney-bin popularly known as the Republican Party. With guys like this making up the brain trust, we'd hate to see the dumb ones.

John McCain says gay parent households aren't "family"

2008-07-13T10:48:00.000-07:00

He also pledges to use his office to attack queer families in this interview with the New York Times:

Mr. McCain, who with his wife, Cindy, has an adopted daughter, said flatly that he opposed allowing gay couples to adopt. “I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption,” he said.

So while the Democrats offer up a candidacy of empty platitudes and flip-flopping, the Republicans offers up a member of the Keating Five to lecture gay parents on how they're not real parents... and condemn thousands of children to lives in orphanages without parentage.

Some Help From Outright To Ease Obama's "Difficulty"

2008-07-11T11:03:00.000-07:00

Recently, a gay Democratic activist went to ask Obama about immigration equality. An emotional issue for the gentleman, he teared up when asking Obama about it and received a Clintonian "I feel your pain" response, followed up with a statement that immigration equality is a "difficult" issue:

It was apparent that he knew this issue well. He took some time to explain that same sex immigration is going to be a very difficult one because it combines two of the most controversial issues Congress faces, gay rights and immigration. (I heard this from Barney Frank two years ago as well.) Obama also said that to tackle it we were going to have to establish a vehicle to recognize gay couples.

Obama's understanding of this issue is pretty lousy, and must contribute to his perception of "difficulty."

Presently, the Uniting American Families Act (or UAFA) would make immigration equality happen for both same-gender couples AND opposite-gender couples who choose, for religious, personal or other reasons, not to get legally married.

So here's a simple, easily implemented plan for Obama to pursue on this issue:

1) Talk to Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Speaker, and get the Democratic Whip to get all Democrats to sign on to support UAFA. Ask Pelosi to allow the bill out of committee. The bill, supported by all Democrats and a number of Republicans, would easily pass the House.

2) Introduce identical companion legislation in the Senate. As a senator, Obama can do this, and ensure there's no "committee" necessary to reconcile differing pieces of legislation in the house.

3) Have Harry Reid instruct all Democrat Senators -- who have a majority -- to vote for the bill. A number of GOP senators support the bill as well.

4) If President Bush vetoes it, attempt to get a veto-proof majority, which could possibly be achieved for the bill. If a veto-proof majority is impossible to get, commit to signing the bill if elected president. Then, simply repeat the use of the Democrat majorities in both houses and sign the bill as president, after campaigning on a committed platform for UAFA.

It's not that real action on immigration equality is "difficult," it simply requires Democrats to actually walk the walk on gay issues. Since Democrats typically cannot be bothered to make legislation on gay issues happen -- except when it's anti-gay legislation like DOMA and the anti-gay military policy -- the difficulty is not theirs, but that of 40,000 binational same-gender couples divided or exiled due to Republicrat duplicity on this issue.

Sorry, Barack, but "feeling our pain" ain't good enough. We heard that often enough from Bill Clinton over 16 years ago. It's time to listen to Lee Iacocca and either lead or get the hell out of the way.

Chris Cole, Libertarian for U.S. Senate

2008-07-07T14:28:00.000-07:00

A nice article in North Carolina's News and Record:

"I think I contrast in every way," Cole said when asked to compare himself to Hagan and Dole. "They both consider government to be the solution for problems and I consider government the source of problems."

Cole is openly gay, a fact he says he hesitates to talk about only because he doesn't want it to define his campaign.

Newsweek Commentator Alter: Throw The Gays Under The Bus (Again)!

2008-07-06T10:19:00.000-07:00

The Obama campaign has been mystifying observers for a while in its sheer audacity. Not necessarily audacious in hope, but rather in flip-flopping, Obama has been running so far to the right as of late to shock even longtime critics like yours truly.

When not advocating an expansion of George W. Bush's government funding program for religious organizations, extension of the warrantless wiretap law, or claiming ignorance about the teachings of his own pastor, Obama is taking steps to distance himself from gay people.

Whether it's slamming marriage equality while announcing his opposition to California's anti-gay marriage ballot initiative or the possible nomination of notorious homophobe Sam Nunn as his VP nominee, Obama has shown nothing but contempt for LGBT Americans.

Which makes this article from Newsweek's John Alter advocating a Nunn Democratic VP nomination all that much more patronizing to LGBT Americans, especially this portion:

The biggest stumbling block in selecting Nunn is his support in 1993 for a Pentagon study that backed a don't-ask-don't-tell policy for gays in the military. Nunn's position now is a mixture of new rhetoric ("I'm grateful to the thousands of gays and lesbians serving today") and a willingness to "review the policy" with an eye toward "eventually" changing it.

This won't be nearly enough for the gay and lesbian community and other liberals, for whom a controversial position of 15 years ago is still fresh. But, contrary to what many assume, this constituency does not have a veto over Obama's choice. And after pleasing gay rights groups by expressing his opposition to a California ballot initiative that would change the state constitution to bar gay marriage, Obama has some room to maneuver.

The blunt political truth is that Nunn's history on this issue might actually help the Democratic ticket in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. While gays would protest loudly if Nunn is the nominee, his selection would show Obama's independent streak in standing up to a powerful Democratic interest group.

I'll leave it up to you to decide which assertion is most pathetic:

1) The assertion that all gay and lesbian Americans are "liberals";

2) The idea that Obama's speechifying on a state issue not directly relevant to the presidency in California "makes up for" dithering in a federal area -- military readiness -- by taking the wrong side on an issue that a supermajority of Americans have long thought should change;

3) The idea that bigotry against gays and lesbians is demonstrative of an "independent streak" (one wonders if Alter and his media cohorts would characterize David Duke's policies against African Americans as edgy and independent);

4) The idea that gay people have any significant power or influence in the Democratic Party -- which has been taking the votes and contributions of gay people for two decades yet delivered not a single substantive positive policy change in that time.

If this article is what passes for "political analysis" in the mainstream media, it's no wonder we're stuck with a boatload of mediocre candidates this election cycle. The media isn't doing its job.

Repealing Don't ask, Don't tell is Fundamental to Freedom

2008-06-27T15:22:00.000-07:00

Last December the CBS newsmagazine 60 Minutes featured a story about Don’t ask, Don’t tell – the misnomer people commonly use for the Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces. Correspondent Lesley Stahl spoke to a number of gay veterans who had served in the US Armed Forces. She also spoke to one soldier who appeared on camera while still serving in the Middle East. Yes, he spoke out publicly about his sexual orientation while still in the military. His name was Darren Manzella.

After completing their tour in the Middle East, Manzella and his unit returned to Fort Hood, Texas. Over six months since speaking out on national television, Manzella was finally discharged under the policy earlier this month. Yet another waste of talent, training, experience and all the money invested in giving him that talent, training and experience. Besides being a waste of money, the current law is an unnecessary assault on personal liberties.

The rationale behind the current law is that the presence of a known homosexual service member would disrupt the military unit's morale and cohesion. In other words, straight people and gay people can't work together to accomplish a mission. In the past fifteen years, since the law was debated and codified, there has been no evidence whatsoever to support this rationale. The case of Darren Manzella and numerous others actually provide quite a body of evidence that the rationale is completely wrong.

Congress and the courts have given the military a lot of discretion when it comes to regulating their own activities. And sometimes that includes regulations that would be unacceptable in civilian society. In particular, judges recognize that they may know very little about what is necessary to train and lead an army, so they let the army commanders decide what is best so long as it isn't too extreme. But the case of Darren Manzella makes me think about why Congress felt it was necessary to create this law, instead of leaving it in the hands of the military commanders.

Part of my outlook on life - and what attracted me to the Libertarian Party - is a sincere belief in the worth of the individual. That each one of us is valuable in some way. And when I was a sergeant in the Army, I tried to look at my soldiers that way. They were all able to do a variety of tasks, but some were simply better at doing certain tasks. I could assign a soldier according to his strengths in order to more effectively accomplish our mission. If we were in training, I could assign a soldier according to his weaknesses, so that he could get better.

No matter how much uniformity you try to instill in soldiers, they are always and will always be individuals. A common mission brings them together so that they may apply their individual strengths. The key to building a successful squad or section in the Army is a lot like building a successful (and free) nation - you rely on and exploit the strengths of the individual. Successful military leaders know this. They also know that you cannot crush the individual because crushing the individual also means crushing his strengths.

Successful military leaders want to retain those service members who have demonstrated their strengths, but when one of those service members happens to be gay, they have no say in the matter. Like Darren Manzella, and more than 12,000 other former service members, gay Americans who are honest about their sexual orientation are forced out of the service.

The public's opinion about gays in the military has changed dramatically over the past fifteen years. And the officers and NCOs in our military have shifted as well. Few of them will openly declare their support for gay soldiers, but, like Darren Manzella's commander, they will openly ignore a good soldier's sexual orientation for as long as possible. Time is ripe, the supporting rationale is weak and we should prepare to make a decisive blow for liberty.

Many will say that Don't ask, Don't tell shouldn't be a priority, but how can we advance liberty for all gay Americans when there are thousands of gay American soldiers who still cannot even come out of the closet without retribution?

Democrats Continue Record Of Failure On The Most Basic Of Gay Issues

2008-06-15T22:47:00.000-07:00

Democrats have a majority in the House.

Democrats have a majority in the Senate.

Democrat Barack Obama has a polling advantage exceeding 13% in some polls against his Republican rival -- an incredible lead by political standards.

And as long ago as 2004, almost 2/3 of Americans supported an end to the military's anti-gay policy.

So what do Democrats do?

The same thing that gay Americans have come to expect them to do, time and again, on our issues -- absolutely nothing other than talk:

Democrats say the nation should be ashamed of its ban on gays serving openly in the military. It discourages qualified people from joining the ranks at a time when the armed forces are stretched by two wars, they say, and is degrading to those willing to serve their country.

So what have the Democrats done about it? Nothing, really.

Since taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats have not convened hearings on the matter or taken up legislation that would let gays serve openly, although most party members favor repealing the prohibition.

But surely, Barack Obama, the "hope and change" candidate, is leading the way to transform the Democrats' "old politics" into the "new politics of hope and empowerment," right?

Doesn't appear to be so:

In a recent interview with The Advocate, a gay newsmagazine, Democrat Barack Obama stopped short of promising to lead the way for change, saying only that he can "reasonably see" a repeal of the current ban if elected president.

So let's get this, ehrmmmm, straight.

The Democratic Party has a majority of both houses of Congress -- a majority that's expected to grow in November. The Democrats have a presidential candidate who is almost certain to win the election -- by double-digit margins against his rivals.

That Democrat claims to be in favor of "real change" and worked to court gay voters.

The policy in question actively harms the US military's ability to recruit and retain skilled workers at a time when there's a severe shortage of them.

A repeal of the policy in question is supported by at least 2/3rds of the public -- probably even more today -- eliminating even the most wimpy inside-the-beltway spineless "we need to avoid backlash" argument against taking action.

And the best the Democrats can do is "reasonably see" if eliminating this law is "possible?"

Pathetic.

No wonder Democratic homophobe Sam Nunn is a favorite for Obama VP.

PS, for comparison's sake, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr -- himself no stranger to controversy in the LGBT community -- issued a clear call to end the policy in 2007 -- a call to action that Barack Obama and the Democrat leadership still won't make.

How much more of this will LGBT voters put up with before demanding some accountability from the party that claims a near-monopoly on their support?

Bob Barr: I Will Work To Repeal DOMA

2008-05-27T08:50:00.001-07:00

Libertarian Presidential Nominee Bob Barr described the Defense of Marriage Act as a "mistake" and decried how it is used to "club down the rights of law abiding citizens." The former Congressman, during his nomination speech, made an impassioned commitment to repeal the law.

Libertarian Party of California Statement on Marriage Equality Ruling

2008-05-17T16:12:00.000-07:00

As the Republicans condemn the Court's decision and the Democrats try to distance themselves from it, only the Libertarians are publicly stating their support:

Kevin Takenaga, chair of the Libertarian Party of California, issued the following statement:

"People who truly cherish freedom see the Supreme Court decision as a victory for liberty and common sense."

Thank you, Kevin!

Why Did Outright Endorse George Phillies For President?

2008-05-15T20:00:00.000-07:00

We often get asked this question.

Today provided an excellent example of why Outright Libertarians endorses George Phillies.

It's one thing to "have" the right policies. It's another to fight for them, as Dr. Phillies has, for years.

Of the serious Libertarians running for nomination, only two sent out press releases about the marriage ruling in California today.

One of them was by Dr. Phillies. The other was by former Congressman Bob Barr. I present them here for comparison's sake.

Phillies on the ruling:

"It is wonderful to hear that once again our Courts have defended our Constitutional rights," Phillies said. "Once again, our courts have agreed that separate is not and cannot be equal. To to the people of California I say: Thank you for taking another step toward liberty and equality for all. To my civil-union supporting Democratic opponents I have a shorter message: Civil unions are major-party apartheid for GLBTQ people."

Barr on the ruling:

Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own

Phillies on DOMA:

"Voters should remember that conservative bigotry can be bipartisan," Phillies continued. "The depraved Defense of Marriage Act was authored by a Republican and passed with bipartisan support."

...

"Americans should cheer the good news that conservative bigotry has been driven back. You can tell when it is losing at the Federal level," Phillies noted, "because conservative bigots start bleating about 'Federalism' and their Jim Crow 'states rights' doctrine. Patriotic Americans know the truth: States have no right to take away your liberties."

Barr on DOMA:

Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state.

As a lobby for fully equal and uniform treatment by government for LGBT people (and ALL people) under the law, Outright Libertarians has a duty to its membership and the Libertarian Party to support the candidates who best fight for that principle at a local, state and federal level.

Only two Libertarians saw fit to release presidential press releases on this topic -- effectively getting into the fight. And only one of those candidates embraced the proposition that equal protection of the law is not a discretionary thing to be implemented or revoked by pluralities, but an uncompromising and fundamental principle of the Constitution of our republic.

Not coincidentally, that candidate is also the one who earned our endorsement several months ago.

Supreme Court of California Rules for Marriage Equality

2008-05-15T12:25:00.000-07:00

The ruling is in. California's Supreme Court has ruled in favor of marriage equality. The key intent expressed in the ruling:

It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution

I believe this ruling, based on the Constitution of California, will have significant precedence in a federal court challenge to DOMA. A major US court has just ruled that excluding gay people from marriage, even if in name only constitutes a violation of the principles of equal protection under the law.

Despite what some Republicans claim, since our federal constitution also has strong equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment (which applies both to state governments AND the federal government), this ruling could place additional pressure through precedent on the US Supreme Court to (at the very least) strike down DOMA language that bans federal recognition of California and Massachusetts marriages.

Anti-gay forces are preparing a constitutional amendment referendum campaign, similar to the failed effort in Massachusetts, to overturn the equal protection rights of LGBT Californians. Outright and the LP will both fight this effort vigorously, and I believe the hate amendment will ultimately fail.

The best news for California couples? California must begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses within thirty days. Congratulations to the California Supreme Court, and all of the families of California.

California To Rule On Same-Sex Marriages On Thursday

2008-05-14T12:21:00.000-07:00

Despite repeated legislative efforts for marriage equality that were vetoed by the Governator, California's Supreme Court is set to rule on the question of equal treatment in marriage law tomorrow.

Assuming that the court rules in favor of equality, it will be interesting to see what the response of anti-gay activists will be. After repeated majority votes to send gay marriage legislation to the governor for signature, it will be very difficult for those individuals opposed to equal government treatment to argue their standard "overruling the will of the majority" canard.

As always, Outright Libertarians and the Libertarian Party will continue to fight hard to advance marriage equality in California and every other state where it is not yet legal reality.

Outright Press Release On Bob Barr's Candidacy

2008-05-14T11:39:00.000-07:00

The Executive Committee of Outright Libertarians today released the following statement regarding Bob Barr's candidacy for president:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Outright Libertarians Executive Committee Comments on Bob Barr's Declaration of Candidacy for the Libertarian Nomination

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO, SEATTLE, KNOXVILLE, PHILADELPHIA and ATLANTA -- This Monday, former Congressman (and recent LNC committee member) Bob Barr announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Nomination for President of the United States.

Many of you are wondering where Outright Libertarians stands on this recent development, and the short answer is this: our position has not changed.

We continue to strongly support Dr. George Phillies as our endorsed candidate. Dr. Phillies has shown the courage, character and commitment that Outright's membership seeks in a presidential nominee. A longtime Libertarian activist and longtime supporter of equality under the law for all people (including LGBT Americans), Dr. Phillies has established an enviable record of achievement in the fight for liberty.

His platform includes uncompromising support for the rights of LGBT Americans in military service, marriage, immigration, adoption, and tax treatment. He has been an implacable foe of the Defense of Marriage Act and the military's anti-gay recruitment policy since their inception. Most importantly, he has led important initiatives to fight for us everyday, while bringing the message of the Libertarian Party to LGBT people. We can think of no finer candidate, and are proud to reinforce our support for Dr. Phillies' candidacy.

Regarding Mr. Barr, we find that though he has shown some welcome evolution on the issues, he has a record that remains notably different from the other Libertarians in the race. Mr. Barr has not completed Outright's Candidate Survey, but is "on the record" regarding two issues key within the LGBT Libertarian community and the broader LGBT electoral base.

First, while we applaud the former Congressman's repudiation in the Wall Street Journal of the anti-gay military policy, and the evolution that this represents for Mr. Barr, his opinion on this issue simply moved into the Libertarian mainstream -- rather than pushing the debate forward. Every Libertarian candidate who has answered our survey -- plus Dr. Mary Ruwart (who has not yet answered our survey but is "on the record" on this issue) -- shares that view.

On the Defense of Marriage Act -- an odious law that Bob Barr co-sponsored as a Congressman -- his evolution has been far slower. We have discussed the law with him a number of times, and recently he has telegraphed support for repealing the half of the law that creates a federal definition of marriage. However, he has not consistently campaigned on this point, and seems reluctant to speak of it. An example of this reluctance may be heard at approximately 16:30 in the linked Atlanta radio interview with Mr. Barr.

In contrast, Democratic nomination candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has adopted a similar position, yet appears more willing to campaign upon it. Barack Obama has declared that he would repeal the law altogether.

Every Libertarian candidate who has completed our survey, as well as Dr. Ruwart, goes a major step further by calling for repeal of the law.

We believe that the difference between the Democratic and the Libertarian commitments on this issue is that while the two Democrats talk about doing something (despite a multi-year do-nothing record as Senators), Libertarians will fight from day one for us. We are not yet convinced that Mr. Barr would fight vigorously to promote his reluctantly-expressed position, a problem given that his position is the most statist of the serious Libertarian candidates in this race.

We welcome Bob Barr's engagement with the Libertarian Party, and are always delighted to welcome new Libertarians into the movement. We look forward to continuing to work with him as an LNC member or in any other role he takes within our Party. However, we must hold our presidential candidates to the highest possible standards, for the benefit of both our Party and LGBT Americans. In this regard, we believe that Bob Barr has quite a bit of work to do in order to enter the mainstream on LGBT issues in comparison to the other declared Libertarian candidates in this race. Just as many of us did when we first joined the LP, he needs to "steep in the brine of Liberty" for a while longer before running for nomination as our Party's standard-bearer.

Further, we note that regardless of who is nominated, the Libertarian Party will perform an invaluable service to the queer community in this election cycle -- even if the delegates ignore Outright's endorsement of George Phillies and instead choose Bob Barr as the Libertarian Party's nominee, the silver lining for the LGBT community will be that a Barr candidacy will almost certainly spoil any possible victory by John McCain.

In summary, recent news has only reinforced our commitment to Dr. George Phillies, and we encourage Outright members and supporters -- as well as all Libertarian Party convention delegates -- to support his candidacy in Denver with their votes, their ideas, and every other resource at their disposal.

About Outright: Outright Libertarians is the largest association of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Libertarian Party supporters. With hundreds of members across the United States, it is the intellectual and policy hub of the LGBT libertarian movement, serving as the voice for LGBT Americans within the Libertarian Party as well as a voice for Libertarian candidates in the LGBT community. Its web site is http://www.outrightusa.org.

Outright Annual Meeting and Hospitality Suite at Denver LP National Convention

2008-04-22T08:47:00.000-07:00

Please join us at the Libertarian National Convention in Denver from May 21 to 26, where Outright Libertarians will hold its annual meeting concurrently in the convention hotel (Sheraton/Adam's Mark). We will be electing officers and hearing reports from our state coordinators.

We will also have a hospitality suite most nights, so please stop by and visit with other GLBT and straight ally Libertarians in a social setting.

(Please visit the Outright Libertarians booth just outside the main convention hall for details on date/time/location of our events in Denver.)

Another Gay-Basher for Obama

2008-04-21T14:29:00.000-07:00

Former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn has endorsed Barack Obama, and is taking a senior role on the Obama campaign as a policy adviser.

If Nunn's name sounds familiar, it's because he was instrumental in the effort to preserve the military's anti-gay ban. In 1993, Bill Clinton's half-hearted effort to repeal the military's anti-gay ban was opposed stridently by Nunn.

Nunn, then a senior Democratic Senator, stood up and declared that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service."

That same bigoted, hateful language is now enshrined in the most recent Republican party platform as well.

This news underscores three realities central to the 2008 campaign:

1) Obama has a bad habit of cozying up to anti-gay forces, be they religious bigots like McClurkin and Meeks, or political bigots like Nunn;

2) Gay Democrats who support his candidacy are in fundamental denial of Obama's lack of leadership on gay issues and willingness to pander to homophobia for political power;

3) There's not much difference on gay issues between the leading Democratic and Republican candidacies. In fact, the GOP's language for opposition to equality in military service was provided, verbatim, by the military "brain" in the Obama campaign.

It really is just that simple

2008-04-16T13:37:00.000-07:00

I've had several people ask me why Outright Libertarians hasn't put together a proposal for what to do about the Defense of Marriage Act. I've always wondered at this question, because I thought that's what we had been doing for the past several years -- our proposal is simply that DOMA be repealed entirely.

However, I understand that what most of these folks are asking for is language that would only partially repeal DOMA -- the part that's the most anti-federalist (or in Dixiecrat terms, "violates states rights"). And while I consider this option sub-optimal, it's clearly better than nothing, and nobody out there (Clinton, Obama, Barr, etc.) has laid out the specifics of what exactly a partial repeal would look like. So here goes:

Repeal from Chapter 1, Title 1 of the United States Code:

Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

In addition, there'd need to be a clerical amendment to the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, USC, removing:

`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.

It's just that simple. This tiny bill to repeal the anti-federalist second half of DOMA would overnight require that the IRS, Immigration (ICE), federal courts, and all other federal bureaucracies treat same-sex couples married in Massachusetts exactly the same as they treat opposite-sex married couples. Joint filing of taxes, sponsorship of one's spouse for a green card, being able to deduct spousal health benefits from taxation, etc. -- nothing all that sexy, just stuff that straight married people take for granted. And once this repeal passes, we can repeal the other half or just wait for the Supreme Court to realize that the other half is a blatant violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and rule the law unconstitutional.

So, hopefully, this puts to rest once and for all the various criticisms that amount to "but what's Outright's proposal?" You have it now, in plain text, and it was just this simple all along.

Tax Day proves that separate is unequal

2008-04-15T13:42:00.000-07:00

While all of us Libertarians tend to be activists on Tax Day each year, those of us Libertarians who are also LGBT-identified have an extra reason to be angry. Not only are we not getting our money's worth, just as most Americans do not, but those of us who have married in a jurisdiction where same-sex unions are recognized face an extra penalty of not being able to file our federal income taxes jointly.

There are two main effects of the different treatment under federal law.

One is the tax rate. Take two couples where one partner has a taxable income of $20,000 and the other makes $40,000. If they can file their federal taxes jointly, the tax bill would be $8,217.50. Filing separately, the combined bill would be $9,032.50 -- more than $800 higher.

Another disparity comes with the federal government's treatment of employer-provided health insurance, which also affects unmarried heterosexual couples.

For example, Dan Jessup is a project manager at JPMorgan Chase in Indiana. His partner, Bob Chenoweth, is self-employed, running two businesses out of the couple's Mooresville, Indiana, home. So Chenoweth gets health insurance through Chase.

But Jessup is required to count the company's cost of his partner's benefits as additional income for tax purposes.

State and federal taxes on those benefits cost about $1,800 per year, Jessup said.

Let's see Congress fix that marriage penalty!

Philadelphia Gay News Calls Out Obama's Arrogant Dismissal Of Gay Voters

2008-04-03T17:13:00.001-07:00

Once again, Democrat Barack Obama has shown his contempt for gay Americans.

After courting anti-gay votes through affiliations with anti-gay preachers, and advocating segregation for gay Americans, Obama has refused to speak with the Philadelphia Gay News, one of the largest and most established LGBT papers in the country.

Unfortunately for Obama, the gay press has been operating increasingly independently of the Democratic Party as of late. They struck back and called Obama out on the carpet -- embarrassingly so.

Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News, said, "Senator Obama's lack of dialogue with the local gay press is disappointing. The local gay press often is to the LGBT community what churches are to the black community."

Despite concerted efforts, Senator Barack Obama has not granted a formal interview to the Philadelphia Gay News. PGN, now in its 32nd year and the nation's most-honored LGBT newspaper, is taking the unusual step of displaying Obama's lack of communication to the local LGBT press, leaving blank space on the newspaper's front page where Obama's interview would have appeared, illustrating his lack of accessibility to the local gay press. Obama has not granted a formal interview to any local gay press in 1,522 days, when he spoke to the Windy City Times during his Senate race in 2004.

Good for them.

And to be fair to the other Democrat in the race, Hillary Clinton spoke with the PGN and pledged to eliminate unequal treatment in immigration and taxation.

Good for her (though it took her long enough to follow the Libertarian lead on these issues). We'll be sure to follow up on her commitments.

Even John McCain's campaign had the gumption to respectfully decline an interview with PGN. As their editor says:

"It's a sad day when we are treated with more respect from the Republican candidate, John McCain, than a Democratic senator," said Segal. "With McCain, his top press representative called us back within three hours. It took seven weeks for Obama's representative to acknowledge."

It's time that gay voters demand respect from candidates. Candidates who are not willing to speak to the LGBT press are showing a profoundly dismissive lack of respect for queer voters and our families. They do not deserve the time of day from gay people, let alone the continuous accolades they receive from their LGBT partisans including Chris Crain, John Aravosis and David Mixner.

We look forward to seeing the Philadelphia Gay News also interview Libertarian candidates for president, including Outright's endorsed candidate, Dr. George Phillies.

Howard Dean Foot-In-Mouth Disease Strikes Again

2008-03-29T03:01:00.000-07:00

Howard Dean just cannot seem to take Abraham Lincoln's advice on speaking. It's as though he's continuously compelled by some cosmic force to "remove all doubt."

Consider his latest swipe at the Republicans:

"They can't become more diverse," Dean said at a speech at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on Tuesday. "Who in their right mind, if they were African-American or Hispanic or Asian-American, if they were gay or lesbian, would join the Republican Party?"

This quote was apparently enough to motivate Log Cabin Republicans' Patrick Sammon to take a break from his abortive modeling career to angrily decry Dean's commentary:

"It’s unfortunate that the chairman of the Democratic Party would rather divide people than engage in a thoughtful debate about policy ideas or a vision for our country’s future."

Now far be it for us to defend the GOP, whose anti-gay record is indisputable to all but the most partisan Republican Party hack, but once again, Howard Dean has stuck his foot in his mouth.

After all, it's pretty crazy to be a gay Democrat these days too.

Their chief of staff is sending pricey lawyers to threaten the gay press for covering the DNC's anti-gay activities.

Their two front runners for the presidential election are both opposed to UAFA as written, marriage equality, taxation equality, and equality in law enforcement. On the few issues where they do take a pro-gay stance, such as military service, they have consistently refused to sponsor or co-sponsor legislation on the issue.

Howard Dean embarrassed himself with an earlier foot-in-mouth disease outbreak on Pat Robertson's anti-gay 700 Club, bashing gay marriage and pandering to anti-gay right-wingers for votes.

And on and on it goes.

So once again, Howard embarrasses himself and his employer by more or less declaring "the Republicans get an F- on gay issues, while Democrats have a much better record with a mere F!"

Perhaps when Kenneth Cole finish with their Log Cabin Republican line of shoes, they could create a new line for Howard Dean Democrats -- flavored shoes. After all, Dean has become quite the frequent connoisseur when it comes to tasting his own foot -- perhaps he'd appreciate some variety!

Utah Libertarians Oppose Anti-Gay Standard Bearer

2008-03-28T16:31:00.000-07:00

This post from GLAAD says that Utah Libertarians are trying to certify "None of the Above" as their nominee for Governor to keep anti-gay Dell Schanze from being their nominee.

Now it looks like, regardless of his high profile, the Libertarians don’t want him. One of the few Libertarians successfully elected to office is former Big Water, Utah Mayor Willy Marshall – who served as Mayor as an openly-gay man. Former Mayor Marshall and other Utah Libertarians are trying to certify “None of the Above” as the party’s nominee for Governor, instead of Schanze. They say this is in a large part due to Schanze’s anti-gay views.

I'd just rather see Willy Marshall as the nominee.

Gay Media Calls Out Democrats

2008-03-20T21:12:00.000-07:00

We're pleased to see the Washington Blade -- the New York Times of the LGBT press corps -- take on the hypocrisy of do-nothing Democrats. After being handed the absolute power they demand from LGBT people, they continue to fail in delivering even basic equality under the law:

MEANWHILE, MARYLAND’S POLITICIANS continue to betray their gay constituents. After the state’s high court, in a 4-3 ruling, upheld a state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, gay residents looked to their elected officials to right a judicial wrong. And once again, they are being let down.

While gay couples in committed, long-term relationships are still viewed as strangers under the law and remain desperately in need of a legislative remedy, lawmakers have turned their attention to more pressing matters, like banning cell phone use while driving and upholding a ban on online wine sales. This is not the behavior of courageous political leaders; it is the hallmark of cowards so desperate to hold onto power that they fear creating a ripple on the pond.

And this is in Maryland, a decidedly “blue” state where Democrats control both houses in the Assembly and the governor’s mansion. It’s become apparent that a full marriage rights bill is doomed and the state’s lawmakers aren’t even embracing the cop-out of civil unions. That’s not surprising, considering the powerful Senate President Thomas V. “Mike” Miller, a Democrat, opposes civil unions.

And what of the DNC, whose anti-gay meltdown we chronicled in January?

Apparently, they're now using pricey lawyers to threaten the LGBT press:

In the piece, I wrote that the DNC’s response to anti-gay remarks made by Gen. Peter Pace, President Bush’s former chair of the Joint Chiefs, was insufficient and weak.

In response, Daughtry sent two lawyers to the Blade’s offices to berate me and our publisher, Lynne Brown. The meeting was beyond contentious and featured lots of red-faced cursing and threatening of lawsuits. They claimed to represent Daughtry and not the DNC. But DNC officials have gloated behind the scenes that since the confrontation in the Blade’s offices, the paper has stopped writing about a gay man’s lawsuit against the party, his former employer. Donald Hitchcock accuses the DNC of firing him after his partner, Paul Yandura, publicly urged gay donors to think twice before giving money to the Democratic Party.

...

This is what happens to gay people who challenge Democrats to be better on our issues. Dean and others at the DNC have derided the Blade as right-wing birdcage liner. Both criticisms are absurd; no fair-minded person could reasonably consider the Blade a conservative publication and judging by the innumerable references to the Blade in the Hitchcock case depositions, DNC officials spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about what we write. They may line their birdcages with our pages, but not until they’ve read them cover to cover.

These people are those who claim to deserve your vote.

Given them absolute power as in Maryland, and they do nothing to advance equality under the law.

Criticize them in any way, and they send high-paid lawyers to curse, scream obscenities, and issue threats.

It's time for us to support candidates who stand for us -- and against these abuses of power. Outright's endorsed candidate for the Libertarian nomination, George Phillies, proudly embraces equality under the law and has a long history of fighting (and winning) battles for gay people and all Americans. If elected, he'll restore integrity to the White House and ensure that there's a place for gay people at the table beyond fundraisers and being the punching bags for wealthy Democrats' lawyers.

A Contrast in LGBT Leadership

2008-03-14T07:20:00.000-07:00

Now, we at Outright Libertarians are not under the illusion of perfection. We have our flaws, our faults and our foibles. We cannot stay on top of every important LGBT issue. Sometimes we miss a news story or two.

But we can say we do our best -- mostly as volunteer activists -- to keep gay issues front and center in political life in America.

One benchmark that can be easily used is comparing our activities as partisan activists to those of other campaigns. Recently, a member of Barack Obama's LGBT leadership team, Maxim Thorne, was forced to step down after posting some inflammatory comments about Democratic rival Hillary Clinton on a listserve.

Was the "LGBT leadership team" member attacking Clinton's position on DOMA? Nope, because Obama more-or-less shares it.

Was he pointing out Clinton's opposition to passing UAFA as written? Nope, Obama shares that position too.

Was he criticizing Clinton's failure to sponsor or co-sponsor Senate legislation to repeal the anti-gay military policy? 'Fraid not -- Obama shares that failure.

He was pushed to resign because his post was an attack on Clinton that had absolutely nothing to do with gay issues -- as in zip, zero, nada.

Where was she when Monica was having sex with Bill? 35 years of experience? When he was intimidating Katherine Wiley and Paula Jones? Where was the judgment on the cattle futures and white water. Do we forget Mark and Denise Rich? This was an impeached President who lost his license to practice law. He committed perjury. They settled with Paula Jones for the full amount of her lawsuit. I haven't forgotten and none of us should.

Monica Lewinsky. Paula Jones. Katherine Wiley. Whitewater. Cattle futures. Mark and Denise Rich. The Clinton impeachment. So much for us sometimes being slow to address news stories -- these "stories" are over a decade old!

Not to mention the fact that they have no relevance to LGBT issues whatsoever.

I suppose that when it comes to issues of importance to the LGBT community, you could say that Outright Libertarians hasn't forgotten and that none of us should. We wish the partisan Democratic Party LGBT "leaders" would take the same approach.

California Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Case This Week

2008-03-03T13:18:00.000-08:00

Sacramento's news reports that California's Supreme Court is finally hearing arguments on the marriage equality case first filed in 2004:

The California Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments Tuesday on lawsuits brought in 2004.

The suits were filed the day after the court halted a monthlong wedding spree that took place in San Francisco at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.

California is home to more gay and lesbian couples than any other state, and its Legislature and courts have a tradition of being pacesetters on gay issues.

The Sacramento channel also reports that:

But gay marriage opponents think the court will be reluctant to go against voters, who in 2000 approved a measure bolstering the state's existing one-man, one-woman marriage law.

We've been through all of this before. After all, the US Supreme Court "went against the voters" of Alabama (by overturning Jim Crow laws) and Virginia (by overturning racist anti-marriage laws) when both of those laws had far more popularity with voters in those states than the bizarre "Knight" initiative passed by a relatively small margin in California eight years ago.

As evolution continues on the issue, we hope the California Supremes choose a role upholding the values of the founders and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, rather than the anti-gay position embraced by all those has-been failed Republican presidential candidates.

Democrats Gay-Baiting (Again)

2008-03-02T12:21:00.002-08:00

Remember the outrage from Democrats at the GOP's old "Hillary Clinton is a lesbian?" buzz?

It was scurrilous and baseless homophobia, gay-baiting at its worst, Democrats told us. And they were right -- it was.

Too bad that the Democrats themselves, through one of their largest lobby groups, are now gay-baiting Republicans:

"Marriage of convenience!" Tee hee. Get it? The targeted Republicans must be big old yucky queers! Ewwwwwww!

Those clever Democrats.

Not.

Regardless of what one thinks of McConnell and Cho's policies (Libertarians certainly aren't fans), the Democratic Party's willingness to engage in immature gay-baiting (and their partisan gay apologists' immature glee for such tactics) should serve to remind LGBT voters that Democrats simply cannot be trusted on gay issues.

Not only will they not take chances or risk political capital to advance equality under the law; not only will they be instrumental supporters of the anti-gay military policy, the DOMA and key supporters of the recent failed anti-gay marriage amendment in Congress; but they'll advocate segregation through "civil unions" and readily exploit high school homophobia to get cheap laughs from their base.

The best thing queer voters can do with these high-school kids is withhold their lunch money and send them to their rooms for a few election cycles.

Barack Obama Calls For Segregation

2008-02-28T10:08:00.001-08:00

Barack Obama has endorsed segregation based on sexual orientation in a recent campaign missive to LGBTQ voters:

I personally believe that civil unions represent the best
way to secure that equal treatment.

It's particularly disappointing, though not surprising, that the Democratic front-runner would embrace "separate and unequal" while providing an Orwellian discourse on "equality."

Obama provides a laundry list of other things he promises he'll try, maybe possibly, if he can get around to it, to get done as president:

Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether.

So has the Senator introduced legislation to do this in the Senate now? Nope.

I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Has the Senator supported companion legislation in the Senate for the already-House-introduced MREA that would end the anti-gay policy? Nope.

have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

Actually, Obama has done nothing other than declare he opposes UAFA because it will "facilitate immigration fraud." That's quite a hilarious contention -- that a few hundred people would slip through the system under UAFA -- when thousands get marriages of convenience under the existing marriage system.

Once again, Barack Obama is demanding a separate, more difficult arrangement for same-gender couples than for heterosexual ones. And he's done nothing legislatively or otherwise related to UAFA other than refuse to cosponsor the bill.

I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced.

In other words, Obama will send a couple of open letters to gay people when he wants their votes, but will insist that anti-gay discrimination is a legitimate "alternative choice" that deserves equal consideration.

Imagine if a presidential candidate had made similar commitments to "not close his ears" to the voices of KKK supporters in the 1960s vis-a-vis equal rights for black Americans.

Sorry, Senator, but you're all talk. An empty suit. You've done nothing for LGBTQ people in your short Senate career, and your laughable "open letter" to gay people underscores the futility of supporting your campaign for gay people who want real equality.

Gay people want a candidate who will always stand up for equality under the law and the 14th Amendment, regardless of the opinions of "those who still need to be convinced." We want equal treatment under the law -- not separate and unequal "compromises." And we want politicians who back their commitments with legislation, not pleas for support after years of failure and inaction.

In short, gay people want a president who would do what a Libertarian president will do.

Tasty Log Cabin Republican Delicacies

2008-02-25T11:53:00.000-08:00

Your faithful blogger took notice of a recent Log Cabin Republican press release noting the latest poster child for pricey shoe vendor Kenneth Cole -- LCR's president Patrick Sammon.

LCR has recently engaged in a feverish yet predictable rush to apologize for anti-gay John McCain's dismal record. While we understand that the awful McCain is, at this point, a shoe-in for the GOP nomination, we believe that he and his supporters are rather soleless and decidedly less straight-laced than they pretend to be.

Hopefully, Kenneth Cole's embrace of the new Deluded Log Cabin Republican segment of the market will go beyond a single advertisement and will result in exciting new product lines. Outright Libertarians would like to suggest the following prototype as a fantastic starting point for the new Log Cabin Republican line of loafers:

Snazzy! And given Log Cabin's history over the last several months, we hope the shoes are edible, or at least flavored. After all, queer Republicans are often inserting their feet into their mouths these days.

Guess Which Party Is Queer-Bashing Again?

2008-02-14T15:17:00.000-08:00

One of the uglier things about the Democratic Party, other than the duplicity it shows in promising equality to LGBTQ people yet delivering anti-gay laws, is the homophobia that is popular within its ranks.

We recently pointed out the rot at the top of the Democratic Party with regard to homophobia in their national committee.

Unfortunately, it would seem that the disease of homophobia has thoroughly infected the Democrat community.

Here are some excerpts from the Democratic Party's most popular online community:

Transgender is a choice, so it doesn't fit with the rest.

...

There's an awful lot of unspoken about rape and sexual assault in lesbian relationships.

...

Sexual Orientation IS different from race in the same

Sense that women are not allowed in front-line combat units and were not allowed on shipsl.

It is all about sex, attraction, foxhole desires and showers...

Right or wrong, the comparison to race is fallicious at best.

...

Who in the hell in their right mind would think, this woman, smart, intelligent, strong leader and very very conscience of the public eye on her would have a lesbian relationship.

(God forbid!)

...

The issue of gay marriage is hardly the most pressing issue facing our nation this year. Iraq, the economy, the environment--all of these take much more precedence in my book. Social issues in general will always arouse the emotions and passions but generally take a back seat when it comes to issues of national importance.

(Funny, when we point out that Democrats are opposed to marriage equality, we always get attacked by Democrats!)

That's just a small sample.

Remember, these are the folks who claim an entitlement to your vote, and claim to be "pro-gay." Don't forget that many of these folks also believe that the government -- presumably managed by them -- knows more about your life than you do.

Have they earned your support?

We're Not Asking For Much -- Just Don't Lie

2008-02-14T15:05:00.000-08:00

Outright's blog doesn't allow anonymous posts, due to the high proliferation of spam and anonymous unverified comments that are posted by partisans from all sides. We figure that since all of us publish our views under our own names, the least we can ask from those who blog here as commenters is the same courtesy.

However, one of the bits of anonymous comments from one Democratic Party partisan leapt out at me -- I post it here for your enlightenment. It's quite revealing:

LGBT legislation is not a priority for most lawmakers
because it is not a priority for most voters.

We at Outright couldn't agree more -- Democrats aren't known for doing what's right, since they have no principles beyond "governing by the polls."

We're just asking them to be honest about it and tell gay voters "your priorities are not our priorities," rather than lying to us every election cycle about "plans" to reverse the anti-gay military ban or end DOMA that never come even close to fruition (despite endless promises).

(Incidentally, one has to wonder whether plans to rename federal buildings, test ketchup viscosity, or legalize Super Bowl games shown in churches are "a priority for most voters." We doubt it -- but it's certainly a more important priority for Democrats. Those bills, after all, got voted on and passed.)

We think that politicians should earn your vote and those of your family. Democrats (and Republicans) seem to think they're entitled to your vote to the same degree that they're entitled to spend your income on programs that marginalize you and your family -- and if you don't like it, tough.

Bi-Partisan Marginalization of Gay People Part 3,491

2008-02-11T09:48:00.000-08:00

Outright Libertarians (and indeed, a lot of gay people) often ask a question to self-described "gay friendly" Republicans and Democrats -- if you're so pro-gay, how come your legislative record is so bereft of even token support for equality under the law for LGBTQ people?

For example, why, if Obama and Clinton both support military service equality, haven't they introduced companion legislation to the MREA in the Senate? It's been languishing in the House for quite some time now.

Why, if Arlen Specter and Christopher Dodd are "moderates on gay issues," haven't they done the minimum to pass the UAFA and allow gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency? Why haven't they at least demanded that the INS amend its rules so that gay Americans get the same partnership sponsor rights as foreign nationals (who can sponsor their same-gender partners for a green card if they themselves get residency in the USA)?

Why, if Nancy Pelosi is so pro-gay, hasn't there been a vote allowed on ending the military's anti-gay ban, or overturning DOMA?

The Democrats (and "pro gay Republicans") tell us it's because they're "too busy" with "more important issues of national implications for us all."

Hat tip to Kip Esquire for this example of crucial bi-partisan legislation that is more vital than your equality under the law:

Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill this week that would allow houses of worship to show football games on big-screen televisions.

The legislation was among a flurry of action taken this week as the result of an article Friday in The Washington Post reporting that churches were canceling Super Bowl parties out of fear of lawsuits from the NFL if they showed the game on jumbo TV screens.

...

"The legislation simply provides churches with a limited yet justifiable exemption to allow them to bring their congregation together to watch the Super Bowl," Specter (R-Pa.) said in a floor statement when he introduced the legislation Monday. "In a time when our country is divided by war and anxious about a fluctuating economy, these types of events give people a reason to come together in the spirit of camaraderie."

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said that the league is reviewing the bill. Specter is also expected to raise the issue with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell when he meets with him soon to discuss the league's investigation of the spying scandal involving the New England Patriots.

So, for "pro-gay" Republicans and Democrats alike, they're just far too busy working on truly important life-and-death issues like Super Bowl parties, renaming post offices, and testing baseball player urine to spend undue time on minor issues like our constitutional rights.

I suggest that we respond by informing them that we're just too busy ourselves to show up and vote for them and donate to their campaigns -- but we're not too busy to support our friends in the Libertarian Party.

Equality Wins Primaries

2008-02-06T02:53:00.000-08:00

Three states held Libertarian primaries on Super Tuesday tonight. And all three states underscored how equality under the law is fundamental not only to the Libertarian base, but to performing well in elections.

In Arizona, Outright's endorsed candidate George Phillies won the support of the most registered Libertarians who showed up to vote.

In California, Christine Smith won the largest proportion of support.

And in Missouri, Wayne Allyn Root took home the gold.

While the Libertarian "primaries" are non-binding, and our ultimate candidate will be chosen at our national convention in Denver, it's very informative to note that all three of the winners are much stronger on LGBT rights than any of the Democrats and Republicans, and none of the FEC-registered candidates who refused to answer Outright's survey got significant support.

Finally, those who put their hopes behind a sorta-"libertarian" Republican with a terrible record on LGBT issues watched today as said candidate not only posted horrendous results in his party's primary, but couldn't even defeat a pro-war right-wing populist Mike Huckabee in Massachusetts. Once again, "compromising" on equality under the law led another "compromise candidate" to defeat, even in a place where the electorate is largely sympathetic with the rest of the candidate's platform.

Log Cabin Republicans' old motto used to be "Inclusion wins." But as the Libertarian winners and Republican losers are learning from tonight's results, the reality is that "Equality Under The Law Wins."

As tonight's pre-electoral results indicate, there's only one party that will deliver that to LGBT voters, and it ain't the GOP or Democrats.

Super Tuesday Primary Reminder

2008-02-04T21:12:00.000-08:00

For all those folks in Super Tuesday primary states, we just wanted to remind you that Outright Libertarians has endorsed George Phillies for the Libertarian Party nomination for President. Our original blog post about the endorsement is here:

http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2008/01/outright-libertarians-endorses-george.html

But, in a nutshell, of the three candidates who scored perfectly on Outright's scorecard, Dr. Phillies has the most well-organized, consistently active campaign, and he has always voiced support for full equality for LGBT people and other minority groups. He alone stayed true to his Libertarian principles even when talking to those who had chosen to support a certain Republican this year.

Best of all, he has been a complete gentleman during his entire campaign, believing that spreading manure is the right way to grow a garden, but the wrong way to grow the Libertarian Party. It's really too bad that the Communications Director for one of the other campaigns chose to become fertilizer-happy on the eve of Super Tuesday. The smell of it certainly won't wash off of his boss in time for the state and national conventions.

Breaking News: The Democrats' Big Queer Meltdown

2008-01-25T20:36:00.000-08:00

Big news on a historic meltdown within the Democrats' party organization over gay rights. But first, a brief history of Democrat homophobia.

Outright Libertarians has been telling gay voters for years about our interactions with Democratic Party affiliates.

How they've actively deceived the electorate, time and again. How they've created phony "grassroots" support. How they've manipulated "non-partisan" groups such as HRC and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund to be fonts of the Democrats' propaganda. And how they've apologized for the Democratic Party's execrable record on LGBT equality, ranging from Clinton-era anti-gay laws like the military ban and DOMA to 2004's Kerry-Edwards endorsements of anti-gay state marriage amendments, to today's ongoing dishonest campaigning by Obama, Clinton and others on basic issues.

However, with the contempt of Democratic LGBT groups seems to have spread to infect the Democratic National Committee itself with a bizarre sort of homophobia reminiscent of the "self-loathing" that many queer Democrats accuse their rivals in other parties of. And this time, it's being noticed not just by Libertarians, but by the national LGBTQ press.

more . . .

Take, for instance, Andrew Tobias's laughable lie attempting to cover for Howard Dean's homophobic outburst on Pat Robertson's television show. The efforts to stretch the facts were so insulting to the intelligence of the average voter that even Tobias had to recant his story.

But even that is nothing compared to the Democrats' birds coming home to roost in the media today.

You may recall that former Democrat Party gay outreach director Donald Hitchcock was fired by Howard Dean after his husband published an open letter critical of the Democrats' hypocrisy on gay issues.

Hitchcock retaliated by filing a lawsuit against the DNC, Howard Dean, and a number of other top Democrats. As part of his civil lawsuit alleging defamation of character by the Democrats, he has filed e-mail trails as evidence. Some of this evidence has leaked to the LGBTQ press, and the content is shocking (albeit not surprising to Outright).

In 2006, one Democrat candidate for office barely survived a homophobic primary campaign waged against her, replete with an anti-gay tirade and severe pressure from high-ups in the Democrat machine to exclude her. In a letter to Democrat LGBTQ fundraiser Brian Bond, one very angry (anonymous) member of Stonewall Democrats (Outright's analogue in the Democrat side of the house) called for Democrats to "drive the [homophobic] snakes from the DNC."

The Stonewall leader goes on to note that there's a:

vast public perception that [DNC Chair Howard] Dean is a fuck-up [sic] among Congressional Democrats, the LGBT community, the media and most of America

The exchange also refers to DNC CEO (and religious-right homophobe) Leah Daughtry as a "cancerous sore." This would not be the first time that Daughtry has been accused of homophobia -- reports of her lack of support of LGBT equality (particularly in marriage) are well-established, and it was Daughtry who personally informed Hitchcock that he was terminated.

Funnier, still, are efforts by the Democrats to scheme against gay periodicals who don't offer fawning coverage. Since the Washington Blade reported "bad" news about the Democrats (such as Howard Dean's 700 club interview), and refused to paint a perfect picture, numerous DNC luminaries including Director of Communications Karen Finney and deputy finance director Julie Tagen plan to "give" scoops to competitors (who presumably will return the favor by not printing any "bad" news). In a contemptuous sniff of derision at the LGBT press, Tagen notes that she prefers to "line bird cages" with their material.

Meanwhile, Queerty notes the backlash and also the DNC's efforts at damage control:

Today we hear that gay activist and former National Stonewall Democrats executive committee member Lee Bolin wants to see deputy finance director Julie Tagen fired.

...

We called the DNC for a statement regarding Bolin’s burning desire. Though staffers can’t comment, DNC Chief Counsel Joe Sandler sent over this statement:

"The DNC has consistently refrained from commenting about ongoing litigation out of respect for the legal process and to protect the interests of everyone involved. It is therefore unfortunate that Donald Hitchcock has chosen to abuse the discovery process by selectively leaking documents."

We can’t say where we got the documents, but we can say we don’t find anything “unfortunate” about it...

If that was the only news, the meltdown would seem contained. But it's not the only news. There's more!

Queerty also covers Daughtry's bigotry and quotes Howard Dean's laughable full-denial defense (despite ample and growing evidence of Daughtry's "nonprogressive" views on gay people):

Anyone who truly knows Leah and her values appreciates her deep commitment to fighting for fairness and equality for everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity, and any insinuation otherwise is irresponsible and despicable.

Of course, this is hardly the first time Howard Dean has tasted his own shoe, and we doubt it will be the last.

So the record so far for the "Democratic" Party?

1) It delivered the two worst anti-gay federal laws, DOMA and the military's anti-gay policy, with presidential signatures (and a large number of supporters on the Dem side of the aisle).

2) It raised millions of dollars from gay people, yet spent almost none of that money campaigning against anti-gay constitutional amendments in 2004 and 2006. In fact, John Kerry was an outspoken supporter of anti-gay state DOMAs in Massachusetts and Missouri.

3) When this pattern of misconduct became too much for longtime Democratic activist Paul Yandura to take, he wrote an open letter calling for Democrats to improve their record on gay issues and encouraging gay contributors to withhold financial and voter support until the Democrats' terrible gay record improved.

4) To retaliate against Yandura, the DNC fired Yandura's husband, Donald Hitchcock. Hitchcock alleged in a lawsuit filed in early 2007 that after that point, the DNC, led by wealthy queer attack dog Claire Lucas, began to defame him publicly and privately. Lucas, in possible contempt of court, refused to testify in a subpoenaed deposition to address Hitchcock's charges, and may have also perjured herself in her efforts to avoid testifying.

5) Documents from Hitchcock's suit show a Democratic National Committee working hand-in-hand with Stonewall Democrats to actively deceive and manipulate the queer press into refusing to cover the issues that matter most -- complaining about a press that we have already established is already far too unjustifiably supportive of the DNC and its candidates.

6) Homophobia in public and in private continues to originate from senior Democrat leaders, including Howard Dean and Leah Daughtry.

7) Leading Democrat contenders including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to demand gay votes and financial support despite opposing marriage equality, courting homophobes, and refusing to take even a minimal leadership position on such non-controversial issues as ending the military's unpopular anti-gay ban.

All of this adds up to a political establishment in the "Democratic" Party that is profoundly dishonest, mendacious, misleading, contemptuous, arrogant and homophobic.

Gay voters would serve themselves much better by withholding their money and votes until Democrats take steps to earn those votes -- steps that will be a long time coming. Some respectful dialogue with the gay press, a calling off of the attack dogs, some non-homophobic positions, an end to pandering, an end to nepotist assaults on queer critics, an end to transparent lies to the community to "explain away" Howard Dean Homophobic-Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome, and a commitment to spend a significant amount of queer contributions on queer causes (such as stopping anti-gay laws) would be a minimal start.

Or better still, gay voters can get involved with the Libertarian Party, which enjoys an excellent relationship with the LGBT community, proudly supports marriage equality, spends significant resources defending the rights of gay people from Democrats and Republicans alike, and enjoys an Outright-endorsed candidate in its presidential nominating process who takes a message of equality to the law to places friendly and hostile while refusing to knuckle under to anti-gay attacks from the left or the right.

You can count on Outright Libertarians to continue to monitor the Democrats' homophobic meltdown and to provide commentary and insight as the meltdown accelerates.

Washington Times coverage

2008-01-21T09:29:00.000-08:00

The Washington Times gave us some ink (and not because we were selling a car):

Different George

Former Republican George Phillies has just been endorsed for the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nomination by the executive committee of "Outright Libertarians."

Who and who?

First, Outright Libertarians identify themselves as the country's most influential LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) Libertarian organization.

As for the 60-year-old Mr. Phillies, a scientist and college physics professor who previously served in the U.S. Army Reserves, he says he was a Republican until the late 1980s, abandoning the party when the government and deficit "got bigger," taxes "kept going up," and the party's social agenda got on the "wrong track."

"I am not a social conservative," he explains. "When George Bush attached himself to the 'Christian Right', he took the Republican Party his way, and I went my way."

Fabulous!

Outright Libertarians Endorses George Phillies for Libertarian Presidential Nomination

2008-01-17T10:02:00.000-08:00

I recently saw a message from Log Cabin Republicans entitled "Who Can Log Cabin Endorse for President?" The article described how this may be the first brokered GOP convention in 60 years, and that Log Cabin would be working to see that the lesser of evils with respect to gay rights would win the GOP nomination.

In contrast, we at Outright Libertarians have had an embarrassment of riches this year, with three of our candidates getting a perfect score on our scorecard, and the one who differed with us on marriage at least matching Clinton and Obama (and surpassing all of the Republicans) by supporting civil unions. We had a serious debate in our Executive Committee as to whether we ought to make any endorsement at all prior to the LP nominating convention in Denver.

But in the final analysis, there was only one Libertarian with a perfect score on our scorecard who was actively campaigning (for himself, not for some major-party candidate), who had a truly national campaign, who was receiving media attention (including magazines and television), and who has continued to receive FEC-reportable campaign contributions that are better than any Libertarian candidate in recent history.

For these reasons, the Executive Committee of Outright Libertarians voted on January 16 to endorse George Phillies for the 2008 Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination.

From his interview in The Advocate magazine, to his one-liner response to a marriage equality question at a debate in socially conservative Fresno, California -- "We've already solved that problem in Massachusetts" -- we can tell that Dr. Phillies would never try to rationalize anti-LGBT bigotry as a way to "grow" the Libertarian Party. He recognizes that Liberty is impossible so long as the boot of big government remains on the neck of any disfavored minority group.

Outright Libertarians proudly supports George Phillies and calls on all of our members and allies to attend the Libertarian National Convention in Denver this May and cast their nominating vote for Dr. Phillies.

Have They No Shame?

2008-01-14T18:59:00.000-08:00

You've gotta wonder sometimes. Courtesy of Queerty:

Tobias recently sent a message to gay Democratic donors claiming that Chairman Howard Dean did not know he was being interview for the 700 Club back in 2006.

...

Dean misspoke during that interview and claimed the Democrats believed marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Actually, he went further than that and claimed the Democratic platform stated that.

The storm of criticism was fierce and many gay contributors to the Democratic Party decided to withhold support as a result. But Tobias has a super-slick cover story:

Howard was NOT a guest on the 700 Club. He agreed to an interview with the CBN/ABC Family channel. Our feeling is that we can’t ignore the millions of people who watch CBN/ABC Family Channel programs just because Pat Robertson happens to be on for 30 minutes a day and grabs news content from the network.

There's just one problem. Tobias was lying.

CBN reporter David Brody confirmed this weekend, however, that Dean was well aware of the journalist’s outlet: “When I interviewed Gov. Dean in 2006 he and his staff knew it was for the 700 Club. That was made very clear.”

And Tobias's response?

Tobias reportedly defended himself this weekend by saying he had been “misinformed” by a DNC staffer.

There's no word about whether the supposedly "misinformed" staffer was Dean himself. And, of course, the Democrats have not issued apologies for Howard Dean's homophobic comments nor Tobias's effort to insult the intelligence of gay voters.

Fact-Correcting the Queer Press

2008-01-14T18:25:00.000-08:00

As the endless old-party primary process slogs on, replete with glittering generalities and shameless efforts to pander and mislead, I figured that this article in the Southern Voice needed some factual correction.

So, without further ado. . .

With Hillary Clinton fresh off a crucial win in New Hampshire and Barack Obama still riding on his win in Iowa, local gay voters acknowledge they are torn between the two.

That would be local gay Democratic voters, of course. Many of us insist on voting for actual pro-gay candidates.

Both tDemocratic [sic] presidential candidates claim nearly the same stance on gay issues such as repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as well as providing legal protections for gay couples.

Neither Democratic candidate has introduced companion legislation to the Military Readiness Enhancement Act which actually would repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, despite years in the Senate (and the fact that the MREA is so old that it was originally introduced into the House by a Congressman, Marty Meehan, who has since retired).

Both candidates are also opposed to marriage equality, rendering their commitment to "legal protections for gay couples" questionable at best.

But John Edwards, also a strong gay rights rter, [sic] seems to have lost his footing in the race, according to University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock.

I assume that the article was claiming that John Edwards is a "strong gay rights supporter," but that's difficult to reconcile with his extremely poor record on issues including marriage equality. The former Senator even stood up at last year's LOGO Democratic debate on gay issues to declare that he opposes gay marriage.

How that translates into "strong gay rights support" fails to be seen. But perhaps I got the missing word wrong and it's really "punter."

Ben Labolt, a national spokesperson for the Obama campaign, said the campaign was definitely seeking gay support in Georgia and referred calls to Drenner for further comments.

Press releases from the Obama campaign listing Georgia supporters don’t include other notable gay leaders.

I guess that would be called "support from the closet."

Clinton’s campaign released a list of Georgia supporters with several prominent gay and lesbian leaders

I guess that's a little better, although it begs the question what constitutes a "leader" (which, like "strong support," remains undefined.)

“[Clinton’s] doing a good job of actively reaching out to gay voters,” she said. While there is not a great deal of difference on gay issues among the Democratic candidates, Demorest said, it is Clinton’s experience and how effective she can be in the White House that resulted in her backing.

I suppose that, if pandering to the right by refusing to criticize a homophobic general's comments on gay people being "immoral," and sharing a similar do-nothing attitude vis-a-vis equal military service, marriage equality, immigration equality, and tax treatment equality counts as "experience," then Mrs. Clinton is very experienced.

Of course, it's still not giving gay people a lot of reason to support her.

On the Republican side, there is obviously not much gay outreach

This quite possibly qualifies as the understatement of the year so far in the queer press.

When he introduced himself to Romney as the president of Georgia’s LCR, Ensley said Romney “looked like a deer caught in headlights, and then mumbled something awkwardly and smiled. I told our national office after meeting him that if Gov. Romney is the answer, then it was a stupid question.”

Your faithful blogger got to meet the former Massachusetts governor at the Conservative Leadership Conference in Reno, Nevada and concluded that Romney is just as pandering and principle-free as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the other Democrats. In fact, they could swap places and not many people would notice.

His meeting with Giuliani went better, Ensley said, with the former New York mayor thanking him for his support.

Never mind that Giuliani is on the record as backtracking on ending the anti-gay military ban and has flip-flopped on marriage equality, stating recently that even New Hampshire's civil union law "goes too far."

Wow. What a leader.

But as a political activist, he said he knows Clinton, Obama, Edwards as well as Gov. Bill Richards, [sic] Giuliani and even Ron Paul are receiving significant gay grassroots support.

Considering that former governor Richardson has exited the race, and that Ron Paul has no significant gay support that I've been able to discern as a longtime gay Libertarian activist, one wonders how plugged in he is.

So basically, gay voters have three choices this election season.

They can throw their support to Democrats, who define "outreach" as segregation of gay people into "separate and unequal" legal status; who argue about which is "bolder" by naming so-called partisan gay "leaders" as supporters (or keeping them in the closet, in Obama's case); and who claim to be "supporters of gay rights" yet have done literally nothing after years in the Senate to support even the most rudimentary (and aging) legislation pertaining to equality under the law.

Or they can throw their support to Republicans, who flee at the mention of gay people; thank gay people for their "support" while supporting anti-gay policies; or have the dubious distinction of politically and/or financially profiting from homophobic public statements or publications.

Or they can choose to support Libertarians, who unequivocally support equal treatment in marriage, taxation, immigration, military service, and adoption.

It's not a tough choice for those of us who are aware of the differences (and insist on quality gay journalism, something that's increasingly hard to find in the political arena).

Progress is hard work, but it pays off

2008-01-08T13:28:00.000-08:00

Thanks to the increasing profile of the LP due to your hard work in the field (and a compelling slate of Libertarian candidates in the last several elections) The Advocate has devoted significant attention to the libertarian movement and its principal entity, the Libertarian Party, within the LGBT movement this election cycle.

While the article was originally intended to discuss a Republican candidacy, it delves into a surprisingly detailed examination of LGBTQ issues from a Libertarian perspective and cites Outright's Chair Rob Power, ensuring that the libertarian voice on gay issues is clearly heard.

“The LP offers an uncompromising stance on equal rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity -- with sexual rights in the Libertarian platform for more than three decades,” says Rob Power, who chairs Outright Libertarians

In these uncertain political times, where gay people are a bloc to be bought, sold and traded within the cynical politics of old-party primaries, it's refreshing to see principle and equality under the law brought to to the table. As always, Libertarians will tirelessly fight to defend the rights of all people under the law, without compromise.

Thirty Pieces of Silver

2007-10-29T16:15:00.000-07:00

“You’ve sold your soul.” That’s exactly what was said to me a few days ago. I was talking to a paid lobbyist from one of the nation’s largest GLBT organizations. A friend of mine met him the night before and thought I might be interested in talking to him.

I recently started a website: www.IntegrityInService.org – with the help of another friend – devoted to repealing Don’t ask, Don’t tell. I’ve been promoting the site through various email lists and discussion boards. I went to the Conservative Leadership Conference in Reno, Nevada. I’ll be hosting a booth during the Greater Dallas Veterans Day Parade this year. I’ll also be going to the annual Black Tie Dinner in Dallas in November.

This lobbyist asked me if I was partisan on my website. I stated that I am Libertarian, and while libertarian ideas of individual freedom were a key element to my message, I was not explicitly favoring or endorsing the Libertarian Party through the website. Any and all were welcome to visit and learn.
more . . .

This is when I was informed I had sold my soul. Funny, in a capitalist society, both parties should agree to the transaction, but I don’t remember agreeing to anything of the sort. I guess he thought he would help by reminding me? As the conversation continued he mentioned money numerous times. I advised him that all of the money for my site and for promoting it came from my own pocket. He also discussed the benefits of working with a large organization – like his – as opposed to small-time political entrepreneurs – like me. Whose soul is lost? And despite his organization’s obvious infatuation with the Democratic Party, he cautioned me to always be bi-partisan and walk down the middle of the road. It seems to me you’re more likely to be hit by a car if you walk down the middle.

I’ve been working on Don’t ask, Don’t tell ever since I was discharged from the Army in 2003. A lot of you might consider me a single-issue activist, and maybe I am. I’ve also been cautioned not to allow other issues – such as gay marriage – to distract my battle against Don’t ask, Don’t tell. And I don’t. What is hurting our work, however, is a failure to put Don’t ask, Don’t tell in context.

At IntegrityInService.org, I have established three core values: Freedom, Integrity and Responsibility. Together with the skill of leadership, these form the context in which I fight Don’t ask, Don’t tell. Every capable and competent individual should be able to serve in Freedom without having to compromise their Integrity. Every Freedom-loving American has the Responsibility to defend the Freedoms we enjoy. (Not necessarily in the military, for those who choose not to wear a uniform.) And when it comes to ensuring that all gay, lesbian and bisexual servicemembers are treated with the respect they deserve, Leadership is the key. These are values all Americans can appreciate, no matter what their sexual orientation.
This lobbyist talked more about money and the power it gives. He talked about discrimination and equal rights. He adopted his organization’s message as his own and everything he said parroted the organization. I gave up the discussion because it was pointless. At that moment he was not going to understand what I was trying to say. Maybe he sincerely believes everything the organization says, but based on our conversation, I doubt it. He seems to have resigned himself to play ball according to the rules of this one organization and to help them monopolize grassroots activism in the gay community. Their devotion to one party makes it difficult for me and others to work with this organization.

This Washington insider talked with a serpent’s tongue and tried to tempt me with sour, rotten fruit. Fortunately my grandmother took me to Sunday School every week, so I knew better than to bite. He never mentioned Freedom or Responsibility or even Integrity, values important to me. Money is much less important or why would I spend so much on activism which provides no financial return? But that’s what was clearly important to him. If he doesn’t value the things I do, I will look someplace else. But I’ve already find people whose beliefs are similar to my own, libertarians.

No matter how you read the Bible – as fact or fiction, I am not Judas Iscariot. I didn’t sell my soul for thirty pieces of silver. I didn’t take the easy road by selling out to a large organization only to be lost among thousands. I’m certainly not John the Baptist, even if I’m a voice crying out in the wilderness of the World Wide Web. And I’m not Jesus Christ either. But I’d much rather sacrifice myself as He did: one man giving his all for what he believes.

Aravosis Still Has It Wrong

2007-10-24T13:11:00.000-07:00

He posts a snarkily-titled scan of the latest Advocate editorial, apparently stating that since the editor is supportive of a transgender-excluding ENDA law -- and a female -- that all the criticism of Aravosis's position from the trans community is nullified.

Unfortunately for Mr. Aravosis, it's not nullified.

ENDA is, as we've noted here earlier, a special-rights law that doesn't have much support or importance to everyday gay people.

Everyday gay people get excited and passionate about marriage, about military service equality, about adoption equality and equality in immigration treatment.

Everyday gay people, for the most part, couldn't care less about ENDA (if they even know what it entails).

ENDA serves two purposes -- its classic function as a wedge issue for Democrats to leverage to avoid acting on real issues of equality such as marriage and military service, where their records are abysmal; and a new function as a billy club to bash transgender people with absurd "those freaks are holding us back" rhetoric.

When debates about real equality pop up, the Libertarian Party is in there fighting for equality in military service, as well as equality in marriage, when the other two national parties are nowhere to be found (along with Aravosis, Log Cabin, and various other old-party-affiliated gay groups).

And when debates about excluding members of the queer community from government recognition pop up, they're always started by old party apologists, be they George W. Bush and his Federal Marriage (Bigotry) Amendment, or John Aravosis's and Barney Frank's "Transgender People Are Freaks Dragging Us Down" ENDA bill.

There's just no getting around those simple facts. Voters seeking a queer-friendly party that's interested in defending all of our rights, at the expense of none, should take careful note of them.

Republicans, make up your minds.

2007-10-13T09:21:00.000-07:00

Mitt Romney, as a Republican governor in 2004, said it's the job of the legislature, not the courts, to decide marriage equality. He repeated that claim this year when a judge in Iowa struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Conversely, Arnold Schwarzenegger, also a Republican governor, has said in both 2005 and 2007 that it's the job of the courts, not the legislature, to decide marriage equality.

They can't both be right.

Barney Frank Thinks You're A "Single-Issue Faction"

2007-10-10T14:44:00.000-07:00

Barney Frank has called a press conference to defend his "dump the transgender people" stance. From his press release:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) will hold a press conference
tomorrow, Thursday, October 11, at 11:30 a.m. The subject will be the
obligation of the Democratic Party to govern responsibly when confronted
by a demand to react emotionally by a deeply committed, single-issue
faction insisting on putting ideological purity over achievable
advancement of our values.

The specific example discussed will be the current demand that the
Democratic leadership kill the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA),
which has been the prime legislative goal for gay and lesbian people for
over 30 years, because we do not have the votes to include people who are
transgender.

Fact: The reason the ENDA (which is a prime Democratic Party priority, not "the prime legislative goal for gay and lesbian people") doesn't have votes to include transgender people is because Democrats don't like transgender people and the Democratic majority will not support their inclusion.

Fact #2: Everyday LGBTQ people consistently rank marriage equality and equal military service as more important than ENDA. When Frank claims otherwise, he is lying.

Fact #3: "Governing responsibly" starts with telling the truth.

Fact #4: Barney Frank is one of the principal architects of the anti-gay military ban -- another "responsible Democratic initiative." A Libertarian Congress would have blocked the ban.

Fact #5: Barney Frank's Democratic Party still won't let the Military Readiness Enhancement Act onto the floor. A Libertarian Congress would allow it to go to vote and would pass it.

Fact #6: Barney Frank called many of the plaintiffs in the Goodridge case that delivered marriage equality in Massachusetts, begging them to call it off because it would "hurt the cause of equality." The Libertarian Party supports marriage equality without apology.

Fact #7: Barney Frank's Democratic Party won't let the Uniting American Families Act get a floor vote. A Libertarian Congress would allow a floor vote -- and would pass UAFA.

Fact #8: Barney Frank's Democratic Party won't allow a bill amending or revoking DOMA to get a floor vote. A Libertarian Congress would repeal DOMA.

Fact #9: Barney Frank's "responsibly governing Democratic Party" thinks that if you want equality, rather than symbolic and useless ENDA special-rights legislation, you're a "single-issue purist."

Fact #10: LGBTQ people who accept such lines of reasoning from such contemptible hypocrites might as well don a shirt every morning that says "Please kick me, I deserve it!"

Fact #11: Transphobia is not "responsible," and inclusiveness for transgender people is not "deeply committed, single-issue ideological purity." Anyone who claims it is would be, in the words of one of my favorite bloggers, a "moral defective."

Fact #12: Barney Frank doesn't speak for most gay people -- and he never did.

Throwing Transpeople Under the Bus

2007-10-04T23:15:00.000-07:00

It was a beautiful, sunny day early this year when I opened up my e-mail after an editorial I wrote explaining why Outright Libertarians was opposed to ENDA. In short, we oppose it because we support equal rights – marriage, adoption, military service, etc. – rather than the special rights only for (back then) LGBT people that ENDA entailed.

Our argument was (and is) both practical and principled. On the practical side, we believe that our community’s resources are better spent pursuing equal rights in areas where government discriminates against us. Given that the vast majority of ENDA advocates live in areas where “nondiscrimination” legislation already exists, it’s a moot point anyway, even if you accept the specious argument that government can outlaw homophobia.

And on the principled side, as libertarians, we don’t support the creation of special classes of people – even when the membership of Outright would largely be members of that special class.

That didn’t stop the hate mail. My inbox filled up with e-mails from Democrats (and a few Republicans) accusing me of “hating gay people” and being “self-loathing.”

Fast forward to today.

Now, in a typical Democratic Party snowjob, the “T” has been dropped from the ENDA bill courtesy of Barney Frank – and it now is only for LGB people. Of course, the people slamming me (and Outright) would object strenuously to applying their own logic to them, accusing them of hating trans folk and being “trans loathing” – after all, that would require consistency from the same group of people who talk ceaselessly about “equality” yet swoon over the homophobic platforms of Clinton and Obama while attacking Libertarian candidates who are far more inclusive (and supportive of marriage, adoption and military service equality).

A Hostile Climate, A Laughable Apologia

What makes the anti-trans movement in the so-called queer commentariat even more astonishing is the utter lack of diversity that it represents. Rhetoric from connected, well-to-do (and wealthy) white guys represents the near totality of the argument in question.

Consider John Aravosis, a Washington Democratic Party partisan who made a name for himself by attempting to get right-wing radio host Laura Schlesinger’s program thrown off the air when she said some mean things he didn’t like. This well-to-do former attorney (and Democratic commentator) wrote a tortured blog-post “explaining” how he had such great sympathy for the transgender community but how it’s not really part of the “gay rights” movement.

He states that the “transgender revolution” is a “revolution from the outside” that has been “forced” on gay people. As a result, while he has “sympathy” for inclusion for transgender people in our society, they’re just going to have to fight their own battles, because even though the LGBTQ lobby accepted their cash for years, they’ve just become. . . you know. . . inconvenient. Under the bus with you, boys and girls!

(I wonder if “stopjohnaravosistransphobia.com” is still available?)

Chris Crain, the wealthy and jet-setting former publisher of the Washington Blade, weighed in with a piece stating that ENDA was “transjacked” – a pleasant term that I’m sure he wouldn’t mind seeing modified. Perhaps Republican leaders (or, as the wind blows, Democratic leaders) would be happy to complain that gay people are “gayjacking” marriage in Massachusetts, or “queerjacking” immigration law so that his Brazilian boyfriend could join him stateside?

He complains that efforts to include transfolk in the ENDA morass would “kill momentum” for the bill, and thus, well, it’s that darn liberal guilt harming the greater movement again.

And on and on it goes. Bay Windows, the reliably establishment queer paper in Boston, has articles from queer white guys (and the token lesbian) praising Frank’s betrayal of the trans community, from people who can get married, adopt, and have a state equivalent of ENDA already. Of course, if ENDA “had to” exclude lesbians, you’d have quite a different story.

So what exactly is going on?

Bolstering the Democratic Party, Targeting Transgender Americans

Gay people often cock their heads and look at me strangely when I mention that the primary agenda of much of the gay “leadership” is not actual equality, but bolstering the Democratic Party. However, a detailed look at the situation reveals a consistent pattern of duplicity. This latest embarrassing saga is a prime example.

The vast majority of gay people in this country are already “covered” by ENDA-style special rights laws that guarantee employment for gay people at a state or local level. Certainly, every single one of the gay leadership who have chimed in to date are covered by such laws already. And looking consistently at polls of the LGBTQ community, ENDA-style protections are ranked as far less important than marriage equality, equal adoption, and only just above equality in immigration rights for same-sex foreign partners.

In short, very few everyday gay people who aren’t regulars on the HRC black-tie dinner party circuit, or professional panderers to powerful Washingtonians, care about it.

So why the attention on ENDA from “gay leaders?”

Because the Democrats need a law that is largely symbolic, and devoid of substance, so that disgusted gay voters across the country – most of whom are not millionaires with jet-set Brazilian boyfriends, married prosperous lesbians in pricey Boston, or connected members of the Washington establishment – don’t bail on them and either stay at home or vote for Libertarians and Greens (both parties that had impressive vote totals – and cost Republicans lots of seats – in the 2006 elections).

And transgender people, being the smallest group in the LGBT community, represent a vocal impediment to this process. After all, Democratic legislators are opposed to transgender inclusion in their special-rights bill, and rather than suffer the embarrassment of having their anti-trans orientation pointed out, they’d rather drop trans folk from their bill in their desperate effort to get it out the door prior to the elections. Since Democrats have also never been that great at dealing with people who are “different” – mouthing platitudes about “diversity” rather than practicing them – transgender people represent an uncomfortable reality they’d rather not deal with.

To create the artificial consensus necessary around this bill, they need to launch a full-court press, and that means if pesky transgender people, grassroots LGBTQ activists (or even Libertarians!) get in their way, they’re to be dealt with promptly through an abusive stream of hyperbole.

Effectively, the LGB “leadership” and press corps have decided to do to trans folks what they helped Bill Clinton do to LGBT folks back in the 1990s – take their money, take their support, and then promptly stab them in the back.

And if a little transphobia helps them get their meaningless (and low-priority) ENDA bill through to “prove the Democrats really DO love us,” so much the better for them. They keep getting invited to Democratic Party black-tie dinners, and get to hob-nob with (and be photographed with) Hillary, Pelosi and the rest. They remain part of the “elite,” while trans folks get brushed off like a bit of lint on their Armani jackets.

Best of all, it’s a no-lose proposition for the Democrats.

If ENDA fails because Bush vetoes it, Dems can run as the brave warriors fighting for queer folk against the Republicans. If it fails because of a lack of LGBTQ support, they can claim that gay people “aren’t serious about their rights” – despite the fact that ENDA isn’t about our equality, but rather Democratic Party priorities. If it fails because of transgender opposition, the white rich bois who don’t like transfolk can claim that they’re “harming the movement.” And if, by some miracle, it passes, Democrats can claim they “fought for an important victory” – even though the “victory” is meaningless for everyday gay life.

So Where Do Grassroots Queer Folk Go From Here?

Sounds like a pretty disheartening situation, right? Transphobia running rampant, ENDA being pushed as some Barney Frankenstein monster to preserve queer votes for a Democratic Party that hasn’t earned them, and a lack of real dialogue with the everyday gay community (which doesn’t really care that much about ENDA anyway).

But it’s not really so bad as it looks.

Consider, for instance, the grassroots efforts that have won us the equality under the law that our community really values.

Marriage equality started as lawsuits in Vermont and Massachusetts – leading eventually to civil unions and then marriage equality in Massachusetts. All throughout that process, individual grass-roots activists who cared more about their own equality than a Democratic Party central committee agenda, took the matter into their own hands (and to court). No less an “authority” than Barney Frank himself called them, desperate, demanding that they drop their case and explaining how they’re asking for too much -- that their efforts would hurt the Democratic Party (and ENDA!). But they soldiered on, with the support of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and yes, transgender people, to a stunning victory.

If they’d taken Frank’s “advice,” marriage equality would still be a distant goal – not something many people enjoy today, and an achievable thing in many parts of the country. When push came to shove, Frank and his supporters valued their own political power over what the average gay person actually wanted and needed – and laughably described their concern for their own family’s well-being as “selfish and misguided.”

This has continued within the marriage struggle today. California is just a governor’s signature away from full marriage equality, thanks to a broad transpartisan (and transgender inclusive) coalition of grassroots activists who brought the issue to light with state legislators. The commentariat who are busy slamming transfolk today were nowhere to be found in the California struggle – and neither were most of the “national leaders” who are today busy pushing ENDA. This is a struggle that once again, grassroots activism delivered.

In fact, most of the real advances being made by queer folks in the past 15 years have been the result not of Democratic Party politicians (and their apologists), but by grassroots action. And the good news here is that regardless of what happens with the ENDA fiasco (and its firestorm of transphobia), we can look forward to continued progress if we work together on the grassroots level and ignore the self-appointed commentators’ pronouncements on who is “in or out” of our community.

Transgender people are a crucial part of the LGBTQ community. They have fought many brave battles in their everyday lives in the service of living and loving openly. They deserve nothing more, nor less, than full equality under the law – as do all queer Americans. The grassroots knows this and accepts it. The Democratic Party and its associated apologists know it, and fear it. If we stick together, ignore the manufactured ENDA “controversy,” and push for equality under the law rather than Washington-crafted special rights legislation, we’ll all win.

I invite transgender people feeling burnt by this controversy to commit to joining Outright in the grassroots. And I invite the rest of the LGBTQ community (and its allies) to recommit ourselves to real equality under the law, without regard to the fortunes of a corrupt and mendacious Democratic Party (and its privileged white urban apologists).

If you want to get started, why not head to Outright’s web site (http://www.outrightusa.org) and sign our petitions demanding equal marriage, equal adoption, equal immigration rights, and equal treatment in criminal law. Then, consider working locally with LGBTQ people who share your passion for real-life issues like marriage, adoption, and immigration – not Washington policy-wonk politics. Learn more about candidates for office (including Libertarians) who share your concerns on these issues – and will actually do something about them.

We still have time to make lemonade out of this latest basket of pungent Democratic lemons.

And shame on the queer commentators who are leveraging transphobic bias to appease their political masters. You don’t speak for us – and never did.

Why we oppose ENDA

2007-09-18T21:41:00.000-07:00

Equality is a buzzword in LGBT circles nowadays. At Outright, we support equality under the law, which is why we are vocal proponents of equal marriage, adoption, and military service. All three of these are institutions that straight people enjoy, but LGBT people are excluded from by government.

Though when it comes to ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act), the rallying cry logically cannot be equality, since gay people have equal rights to fire straight people, just as straight people can fire gay people. So, instead of equality, the best possible argument for ENDA is fairness.

Unfortunately, no matter how good the intentions, government attempts at subverting the free market in the pursuit of fairness always result in dismal failure. This is something that Libertarians have known for a long time (and something Republicans used to know several decades ago). What we understand is that life is fundamentally not fair, but that the free market gets us a whole lot closer to fairness than any government construct ever could. For this reason, we oppose government interference in private affairs, even when the intended outcome is something as high-minded and laudable as fairness. The best we can hope for from government is that government itself not discriminate. It is inherently incapable of doing any better than that.

So, once again, we're back to the goal of ending discrimination by government. At best, ENDA is a distraction from this goal, providing political cover for politicians who oppose true equal rights for LGBT people in marriage, adoption, and military service. And, at worst, ENDA is itself an attack on equal treatment under the law, since no matter how such laws are written, the courts always interpret them as only favoring minority groups, and never majority groups.

Our community is so very close to true equal rights under the law. We can't afford to be distracted by special rights laws like ENDA and MSA (the "hate crimes" law), which actually subvert the goal of equal rights under the law. That's why we oppose ENDA, and why you should, too.

Libertarian Party of California Calls For Governor To Change Position On Marriage Bill

2007-09-18T08:28:00.001-07:00

A simple, strong, clear letter to the governor from our party's state chair on AB43, the marriage equality bill:

RE: SUPPORT FOR AB 43

Dear Governor,

Gay men and lesbians are being discriminated against in California, and you can do something about it.

No, I am not talking about discrimination in employment, or housing, in the private sector. This injustice is much more pervasive and damaging than that. I am talking about the second largest perpetrator of discrimination against gay people in the nation - a virtually inescapable discrimination, where moving to another neighborhood or changing jobs does nothing to cure it. I am talking about
institutionalized discrimination on a truly grand scale.

I am talking about discrimination against gay people by the State Government of California, whereby the state refuses to legally recognize the marriages of men and women to members of the same sex. This, in spite of the equal protection clauses in the state and federal constitutions.

With a stroke of your pen, you can end this particular injustice in California. The legislature, as representatives of the people of California, has seen fit to send you Assembly Bill 43, which would put marriage between two gay men or two lesbians on an equal legal footing with that of a heterosexual couple. Outside of a similar measure at the federal level, there is nothing greater that could be done to
eliminate discrimination against gay people in California.

Yet, most appropriately, it would not interfere with the rights of people in those religious organizations authorized by the state to perform legal marriages. AB 43 exempts them from having to perform marriages between members of the same sex; marriages that may be in contradiction to their religious beliefs.

On September 15th, in a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of California, with all members present and accounted for, the Libertarian Party of California unanimously passed a resolution authorizing me to write you an open letter urging you to sign AB 43 into law.

The Libertarian Party would like to see all people treated equally before the law; gay or straight, male or female, white or black, able-bodied or disabled, married or single. We would like to see government less involved in the institution of marriage, which we see as a civil matter; something that isn't even within the proper role of government to interfere with or regulate. AB 43 is a significant move towards individual freedom by eliminating legalized discrimination by the State of California against gay couples. The Libertarian Party of California, and I personally, urge you to sign this historic bill into law.

Respectfully,
Kevin Takenaga
Chairman, Libertarian Party of California

Thanks to the Libertarian Party of California for its continued lobbying for gay equality under the law in California.

You can take steps to make marriage equality a reality here, by lobbying the governor, volunteering in marriage equality initiatives, and supporting groups like the LP of California that are taking an unapologetic stand for equality under the law.

Governor George Wallace Schwarzenegger

2007-09-17T21:11:00.001-07:00

California's governor has spoken on marriage equality.

"They can send this bill down as many times as they want, I won't do it."

Governor Arnold is clearly inspired by another governor who, like him, pandered to bigotry. . .

Segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever!

Both cited "the majority," both had no moral scruples, and I daresay both will go down in history in an unflattering light.

Something no Republican (not even you-know-who) is willing to say

2007-09-05T11:32:00.000-07:00

George Phillies, one of the candidates for the Libertarian Party's nomination for President, today published this press release supporting marriage equality:

Gay Marriage: Marriage is a Basic Civil Right
Gay Marriage - The debate over gay marriage is a wonderful example of what's wrong with Washington. Down the street where I live are two churches. One church views gay marriage with horror. The other has been happily marrying gays for years. The Libertarian position is simple: Gay marriage is purely a personal and religious question, not a question for government to decide. The George Bush Republican party disagrees: They've made it Uncle Sam's business by passing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The Defense of Marriage Act is deeply flawed. In 1967, the landmark Supreme Court case, Loving v Virginia found that the right to marry is a "basic civil [right] of man.” Loving v Virginia ended legal discrimination in marriage. DOMA tries to bring legal discrimination back into marriage.

DOMA also says that states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages created in other states. However, marriages are contracts: The interstate validity of contracts is guaranteed by the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause. No wonder the Bush Republican Party now wants a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

When I am elected, I will ask Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I will protect the right of States to license same-sex unions or not, as they will. But I will also hold states to the United States Constitution and require them to recognize legal unions created in other states, just as they have always done in the past.States should concern themselves with civil agreements on property, medical care, and protection of children, and not interfere with the personal relationship of those involved. I will encourage Congress to make that the law in the District of Columbia: Government should recognize civil law aspects of domestic partnerships. Government should leave marriage to private individuals and their clergy.

Domestic partnerships range from a a newly-wed couple having children to elderly companions who want rock solid assurance that, if they are disabled, their medical care decisions will be made by someone they trust. If people want to marry and have a ceremony, that is a private matter between them, their friends, and their faith.

Uncle Sam has no business in your bedrooms, your religious ceremonies, or your private life. It is none of the government's business which consenting adults marry each other, and which do not. Do you want your religion's marriage practices protected from government interference? Only the Libertarian Party will protect the privacy of your bedroom and your conscience.

Marriage Equality -- Coming To Iowa?

2007-08-31T10:17:00.000-07:00

Good news from Des Moines:

A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa's law banning gay marriage.

The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered the Polk County recorder to issue marriage licenses to six gay couples.

Now, this is just the beginning, it's likely the case will go all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court -- and it's possible equal treatment could lose there.

However, this experience is instructive for two reasons:

1) The *only* progress being made for equality is being made in court. Democrats, despite their constant broken promises, have delivered literally nothing in the 15 years since they decided to court gay people in their propaganda. Once again, they are completely MIA on the most important issues for gay people.

2) Iowa is not Massachusetts, New Jersey, California or other "coastal" states that are considered at the forefront of the marriage equality movement in this country. The simple fact that a judge in a "heartland" state would make such a ruling underscores the sheer scale of the moral victory that LGBTQ people are enjoying in broader society.

The Register notes that:

Polk County is expected to appeal the ruling to the Iowa S upreme Court.

County Attorney John Sarcone said the county would immediately seek a stay from Hanson, which if granted would prevent anyone from seeking a marriage license until an appeal could be heard.

...

Sarcone, the Polk County attorney, said the arguments in the case were similar to those made in litigation around the country.

"I know Judge Hanson took a lot of time with it," Sarcone said. "He made his decision and we respectfully disagree."

There's no respect in your "disagreement," Mr. Sarcone.

This comes as no surprise to Libertarians, but guess which party Mr. Sarcone is a member of, and was representing in the last election within which he was re-elected as Polk County attorney?

And people ask why we're Libertarians!

The more things change. . .

2007-08-29T16:50:00.000-07:00

As the Democrats and Republicans charge forward with their same old politics bereft of meaning, let's pause to commemorate a great moment in campaign history.

A couple of election cycles ago, a popular politician ran this advertisement on Christian radio stations. I've redacted the actual candidate's name. See if you can guess the candidate and party of this anti-gay, conservative "family values" candidate:

Protecting religious freedom. It's the foundation of our nation.

When the Justice Department went after a church to gather the parishioners'tithing money, the government was stopped cold because Our Candidate overturned the government's policy and protected us. It's not the only time he's defended our values. Don't be misled by The Other Guy's attack ads.

Our Candidate wants a complete ban on late term abortions except when the mother's life is in danger or faces severe health risks, such as the inability to have another child.

Our Candidate supports the Defense of Marriage Act, supports curfews and school uniforms to teach our children discipline.

Our Candidate enacted the V-chip to block out violent TV programs. His crime bill expanded the death penalty for drug kingpins. The Other Guy opposed him and is resorting to untrue negative attacks. Our Candidate has fought for our values and America is better for it.

Wow. Moral values legislation? Curfews? DOMA? Mandatory school uniforms? Abortion bans? Television censorship? "Defending our values?"

Must be a Republican! Newt Gingrich? Pat Buchanan? Dick Armey? Perhaps B-1 Bob Dornan?

The answer is here, and may surprise you (if you're not a Libertarian).

As Democrats and Republicans get caught lying, cheating with interns, having toilet-stall sex, and various other unsavory interruptions to their crusades for "moral values," perhaps we should step back and ask why we're allowing the Our Candidates of the world -- Larry Craig or otherwise -- to "defend our morality."

After all, the average person is both more moral -- and more honest -- than these guys. We don't need nor want their "guidance."

And that's something only the Libertarian candidate for president will say.

Trading marriage for $300,000

2007-08-26T15:01:00.000-07:00

Equality California put out this press release about the recent inclusion of the first-ever LGBT-specific funding in the state budget.

“LGBT-specific domestic violence programs provide a critical service to the community and Equality California will continue to advocate and secure state budget funding for other types of services in the years ahead. We are truly appreciative of Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Legislature for including this critical funding for LGBT Californians.”

In other words, despite your vetoing a bill recognizing our right to marry, we'll accept three hundred grand in lieu of equality. Thanks, Governor.

Another way to look at this is that LGBT Californians have gotten along just fine for generations without a single penny from the state budget. It makes you wonder how we survived all these years without the money for this "critical service."

Of course, the answer is that this money is not by any stretch of the imagination "critical," but rather just the first step for the LGBT community in the realm of pork barrel politics.

Also, consider the irony that this money isn't even being used to combat the last vestiges of homophobic violence. Instead, it's to deal with domestic violence -- that is, us LGBT folks assaulting and killing ourselves. Couldn't we just stop doing that to ourselves, and give the taxpayers back that money?

Happy 30th Anniversary

2007-08-24T13:24:00.000-07:00

On this day in 1977, the Libertarian Party issued a Resolution on Anita Bryant:

WHEREAS the Libertarian party condemns the use of government power to promote racial, religious and other forms of discrimination, including those directed against homosexuals and women, and

WHEREAS the Libertarian party deplores the calculated incitement to hatred against homosexuals which is likely to lead to the use of government power and private violence against them, and

WHEREAS the Libertarian party recognizes the rights of anti-Gays, as well as Gays, to peruse their own peaceful lifestyles,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party condemns the efforts of Ms. Anita Bryant and her associates and followers to create a climate of hatred against homosexuals, to continue the present systematic state oppression of Gays, and to extend it, for instance by banning homosexual men and women from teaching in public schools. While we did not, an do not now, support the principle of the Dade County anti-discrimination ordinance -- clearly a violation of property rights and freedom of association -- we unequivocally denounce the whipping up of anti-homosexual hysteria which is likely to lead to the infringement of individual rights of homosexuals. We demand that homosexuals be accorded those rights in full and immediately.

California to suffocate its gay couples in tax paperwork and red tape

2007-08-24T11:30:00.000-07:00

California has had domestic partnerships for quite some time now.

Unfortunately, Rex Wockner reports that state's bureaucrats were snoozing on the job the entire time, and as a result, have just realized that due to the nature of California's income tax system, California gay couples might have to file THREE state tax returns (two California and one fake federal "pro forma" return) in a year instead of just one return sent to the state. That's in addition to federal tax forms.

In short, average LGBTQ California families will have to file five tax returns with the state and federal governments, while heterosexual California families will only have to file two.

One fix under consideration is for registered California couples to do their federal income taxes three times -- their two real returns, and then a third, fake return, as a married couple. They could then use a number from the fake return to begin their joint state return.

Barrett noted that the Franchise Tax Board prefers to call the proposed fake federal return a "pro forma return."

There's a great rush by state bureaucrats to ensure that "tax software professionals," "the tax preparation community" and the endless legions of other wealth-consuming red-tape-splicers that California's convoluted tax system has created can deal with all the new bureaucratic adaptive policies and temporary directives that this problem causes.

The specific cause?

Since the federal government doesn't recognize gay couples in any way -- be they married or domestically partnered -- such couples have to file their federal taxes singly, as unmarried.

Then turn around and file in California as married.

But how does one do that, given that the first number you put on your state income tax form is a dollar amount from your federal return?

So much for the faux-libertarian frauds who insist that DOMA is "about states' rights and doesn't impact the rights of gays on a state level in any way."

Still think that DOMA advocates aren't advocating separate and unequal treatment for gay couples? Read on:

A third option -- which will be mandatory if no California laws are changed before Jan. 1 -- is to add the adjusted gross incomes from the separate federal returns and just use that number to begin filling out the California married return.

But the FTB is leaning against this option because some registered partners would unfairly pay more taxes this way than they would under other approaches.

Oh, well that's a relief. They're "leaning away" from the presently mandatory requirement for filing -- which costs gay people more than straight people.

In the article, California's Franchise Tax Board representatives groan that there's no ideal solution, while making it very clear that it's going to be a very rough tax year for California's LGBTQ families.

But they are wrong.

How about marriage equality instead -- so that gay people don't get tied up in layers of red tape and have bureaucrats' incompetence put their assets at risk? The level of complexity, bureaucratic nightmares, snarls, regulatory juggling and other gobbledygook going on with this, that simple change would save LGBTQ families in California lots of money and frustration -- and would reduce the workload of the state's bureaucrats.

Even better, how about getting rid of the state income tax altogether, so that this isn't an issue?

They'll get right on those suggestions, I'm sure. After all, they're clearly aware that government works for the people, people don't work for the government.

Right?

(Your friendly blogger isn't holding his breath).

Pinkwashing Democrats -- 'Tis The Season

2007-08-08T12:51:00.000-07:00

The Democratic Party's faithful apologists at NGLTF have long pushed a Democratic Party agenda over the interests of LGBTQ people, and we've written about that here extensively. However, NGLTF head honcho Matt Foreman penned this editorial, another pleading blog post begging Democrats to, well, stop being Democrats and actually stand for something.

The best? Let's start with the title.

Democrats 2008: Déjà vu, all over again?

Do we really have to answer that question, as though it wasn't obvious?

Sigh.

OK, let's push on through NGLTF's spin.

The first chunk of spin-worthy goodness:

The Democratic candidates for president, as a group and individually, express more support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues and legislative and policy initiatives to improve our lives than any prior set of presidential candidates in the history of American politics.

That's clearly not true. Not only are the Libertarian Party candidates for president, who are running at the same time as the Democrats, all better on gay issues than any of the Democrats, but when Bill Clinton was signing the Defense of Marriage Act waaaaay back in 1996, Harry Browne was calling for marriage equality.

The striking thing about the Libertarian Party isn't how much our candidates' positions have changed, but rather, how much they've stayed the same! Libertarians have always fielded the best candidates on gay issues from a contemporary perspective, and Libertarians continue to lead the Democrats on any gay equality issue.

no major Democratic candidate has made the kind of sweeping statement of inclusion as did Gov. Bill Clinton in 1992, when he declared to a huge crowd of LGBT people in Los Angeles, “I have a vision for America and you are part of it.”

Too bad that President Clinton didn't mention that his principal vision of "our part in America" would consist of being banned from military service under the DADT policy he signed, and having our relationships legally declared null and void in a DOMA law that he signed (and campaigned on).

His words brought tears to the eyes of the audience and rang out across the United States. Even the most skeptical of us in the LGBT community knew that we heard something previously unspoken by any major political figure.

I wasn't in the audience, but if I had been, I'm sure my tears would have been of despair and frustration, perhaps wondering "how many more times are queer people going to be suckered by these Democratic politicians and their duplicitous rhetoric?"

We also know and painfully remember that Clinton’s vision of America did not translate into much of anything positive for us at the federal level.

Translation: Clinton and the Democratic Party lied to and screwed the gay community, and as a direct result of his actions, and those of his party, LGBTQ people emerged from 8 years of his administration even less free -- and more legally targeted, at a federal level -- than any time in prior history.

That's a bit more than "not translating into anything positive at a federal level."

But Foreman, as you might imagine, is oh-so-forgiving of the Democratic Party.

All of this misery has been exacerbated exponentially by the spinelessness or unwillingness of all but a few national leaders to take a stand for us and denounce the animus unleashed on us. Many of our “friends” have simply looked the other way.

I hope that Mr. Foreman is speaking for NGLTF when he says "us." While his Democratic allies were waffling, flip-flopping, or hiding when the right-wing jihad was unleashed in the 1980s and 1990s, Libertarian Party politicians, activists, and members were fighting the good fight in the trenches. Gay people who were turned away from the Democratic Party, told that they were "too much of a liability" simply because they were gay, found political homes in the Libertarian Party.

I can say that the Libertarian Party, as a base of millions of American voters, has always had my back as a gay man. I have never once seen a situation where Libertarians didn't stand, strongly, as a party and as an organization, to take on the religious right's efforts to use government power to attack LGBTQ Americans and our families.

Too bad Mr. Foreman cannot say that about his party.

we are still waiting for the country’s political leadership to defend our right to live and thrive as a matter of principle

Again, "we" being Democrats and Republicans.

Libertarians have had great names in the past (Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik), and a bevy of pro-gay candidates seeking nomination today, who have done that both in politics and in everyday life.

We deserve and we must demand from the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates the simple and straightforward statement that our humanity requires full respect and fair treatment by all

Don't hold your breath. . .

and, further, an equally simple and straightforward condemnation of those who seek to use our lives for political gain.

Come now, Matt, they're not going to condemn themselves!

We need leadership. We need strength of vision. And we need to know that the promises of reform come from the candidates' understanding of LGBT people as inseparable from the national community in which we live. There can be no more equivocating or silence about the goodness of our personhood, our families, our relationships. Period.

Amen!

That's why LGBTQ people should vote Libertarian. We've got leaders with strong vision and who accept that LGBTQ people are no more, nor less, than equal. Our front-runners have a history of standing for gay people, with no compromises. They tackle anti-gay laws, anti-gay politicians, and anti-gay media personalities. They support complete equality in marriage, immigration, and parental rights -- all issues that their analogues in the Democratic Party fail miserably on, to this day.

In short, the vision that Foreman hopes the Democrats embrace in 10 or 20 years is the vision our party has had since 1973.

Postscript. . . And if that wasn't funny enough, check out this quote from the first entry in the comments section:

Yes, Mr. Foreman. I'm experiencing deja vu, too. But it's less what you wrote about than "Nader Raiders 2000." Remember them and their scorched earth, all or nothing strategy which succeeded only in raiding enough votes to throw the election in dispute and throw Bush in the White House?

I'm also experiencing extreme indigestion from your stew of indignation, exageration, contradiction, and misinformation. Your boilingrant is all the more surprising after the release of the Task Force analysis of candidates' positions showed all Democrats essentially the same except in the area of marriage. Unfortunately, your latest oratory serves only to muddy the perceptions of those who have not seen that report and, therefore, is untruthful, unnecessary, and counterproductive.

Translation? "Shut up faggots, who cares what you think or how we've ruined things for you?!?! You're going to ruin EVERYTHING!"

Why would any LGBTQ person want to be part of a party where such a philosophy is mainstream (and directing the campaigns of all of the frontrunners)? What queer folk need is a party that stands for their equal rights, every time -- not one that takes umbrage to being asked to do anything beyond the "tell me you love me" politics being exhibited by Foreman.

US Federal Court Upholds Parents' Rights

2007-08-04T15:37:00.000-07:00

One of the criteria that Outright uses for its candidate surveys (and evaluation of other parties' candidates) is their stance on anti-gay adoption and anti parental rights laws.

Oklahoma was one of the worst offenders. Its law invalidating same-sex parental adoptions included a provision that nullified the rights of parents who adopted in other states. In other words, if two same-gender parents who adopted in Illinois were passing through Oklahoma, their parental rights are completely nullified the moment they cross the Oklahoma state line. Parents could (and sometimes did) have their children seized from them by the state government.

Fortunately for US citizens (and unfortunately for anti-gay control freaks), the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause does not allow state governments to exercise this level of assault on our rights. Lambda Legal upheld that important principle with a victory in federal court -- striking down the Oklahoma law in question:

In a 35-page decision, a panel of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit rejected the Oklahoma Department of Health's challenge to a lower court decision striking down an Oklahoma law so extreme that it threatened to make children adopted by same-sex couples in other states legal orphans when the families are in Oklahoma. The ruling is important not only in Oklahoma, but also to families across the United States, including in Seattle and Houston, home to two of the families who joined in the suit.

...

In the opinion released today, U. S. Senior Circuit Judge David M. Ebel wrote, "final adoption orders by a state court of competent jurisdiction are judgments that must be given full faith and credit under the Constitution by every other state in the nation. Because the Oklahoma statute at issue categorically rejects a class of out-of-state adoption decrees, it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause."

The Adoption Invalidation Law, hastily passed at the end of the 2004 Oklahoma legislative session, had said that Oklahoma "shall not recognize an adoption by more than one individual of the same sex from any other state or foreign jurisdiction."

Many powerful people in the media are arguing that Libertarians should support other parties' candidates in the upcoming elections out of a sense of "pragmatism." However, many other parties' candidates -- including the preferred Republican candidates of many "small-l" libertarians -- will be raging against this decision as a "violation of states' rights."

The Libertarian Party is the only national party whose top-tier presidential candidates all support the outcome of this ruling -- and the Constitution of the United States, including the Bill of Rights, as the supreme law of the land. No edits, no deletions, no additions.

That's why your friendly neighborhood blogger will be voting Big-L next November.

An Important Task For Libertarians: Fighting For LGBTQ Refugees

2007-07-18T15:45:00.001-07:00

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission has issued a strongly-worded press release describing the conditions that gay and lesbian people in Iran face.

Despite a widely publicized outcry two years ago when Iranian authorities executed two young men in the northeastern city of Mashhed, the government continues to target, arrest, prosecute, and execute individuals under its sodomy law. The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) condemns Iran’s violations of human rights law and asks that human rights groups around the world work to support those targeted by the government.

...

In May 2007, the Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO) was the first to report that the police forces in the city of Esfahan had raided a birthday party and arrested more than 80 people. The police apparently suspected that the attendees were gay and were possibly engaged in sodomy, though nor proof of either has been established. Later, police unconditionally released most of those arrested, but required substantial bail for 17 of the arrestees. A judge told the families of those set free on bail that they would be tried on sodomy charges. Based on IRQO’s reports and IGLHRC’s investigation, some of the detainees were severely tortured while in custody. In the last two years, IGLHRC has worked with IRQO to find refuge for a number of gay Iranians forced to leave their country and who have applied for refugee status, many of whom faced arbitrary arrests, police brutality and even lashings for being gay.

Outright Libertarians joins in IGLHRC's call for assistance for our LGBTQ compatriots around the globe who face torture, prison and even execution simply for being gay. IGLHRC recommends the following actions:

1- Support Iranian LGBT groups, such as Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO). IRQO is a volunteer-based group of Iranian activists who try to reach out to LGBT population in Iran through publication of monthly magazines, phone counseling, and podcasts, educating the Western media about the situation in Iran, and helping Iranian LGBT asylum seekers outside the country. Find out more about IRQO by visiting their website: http://www.irqo.net/

2- Ask your own government to take action in one of the following ways: a) Send a letter to your government’s foreign ministry recounting these incidents and asking them to expressly call on the Iranian government to abide by its international treaty obligations by halting the abuse and prosecution of people who are or are perceived to be LGBT. b) Ask that your government’s immigration service adopt policies to provide refuge to individuals who fear persecution based on sexual orientation or gender identity. As with all refugees, housing, food, and financial resources are needed to sustain them during the often lengthy process of establishing asylum or other legal status.

We believe that US lobbying of Iran would not be effective. We also believe that a Libertarian position on immigration reform would eliminate the need for much of the housing, food and financial resources that ILGA deems necessary as a result of lengthy big-government bureaucratic processes.

Outright calls for a compassionate, apolitical asylum system that welcomes refugees who are persecuted based on their sexual orientation as full participants in American society, with the right to find employment, enter into business, and support themselves immediately after arrival -- without lengthy government-imposed delays. In short, refugees should quickly receive a green card, and all the rights and responsibilities that come with it. We also encourage all Americans to contribute their own resources, including financial donations, space, and legal aid, to individuals from Iran and similar places where being gay can result in human rights abuses.

Some have inquired as to why we are "such sticklers" on the question of immigration equality. The answer is simple: with literally thousands of people facing death, we cannot afford to "compromise" on such a key issue. The time for action is now.

We continue to affirm that all people have the right to live and love freely, as they choose, and we call upon the US government to make good on that most fundamental of a human right by ending its slam-door policy.

The steps we take as a country today will determine whether our society's 50-year-old vow of "never again" was a commitment, or just an empty slogan.

Republican Desperation Reaches Pathetic New Lows

2007-07-11T13:00:00.001-07:00

Thanks to my favorite non-partisan blogger KipEsquire's watchful eye, we found this fantastic gem from the right-wing Blog for Bush:

For my fellow Americans who are gay - I just advise you how Bill Clinton treated your cause in 1993 after you went flat out for him in 1992. You will be betrayed again, if you are fool enough to back Democrats in 2008. True, we conservative Christians might not seem the logical home for you, but you do know where we stand, we are ready to compromise and we will never, ever betray you. You might want to think about that as you watch the debate, and make your donation and voting choices.

That's right.

Republicans -- right-wing conservative Republicans, who have blazed a trail of hatred and bigotry against gay people for 20+ years -- are positioning themselves as the alternative for gay people tired of Democratic duplicity.

The mind boggles. The jaw drops. The eyes cross.

How desperate can the Republicans get, as their party continues to crumble into dust?

I mean seriously. Think about this for a second.

These are the same Republicans who sponsored a Constitutional Amendment designed to make us second class citizens.

These are the same Republicans who launched an anti-gay jihad in dozens of states the last two elections, culminating in laws that took health benefits away from gay families in Michigan; that threatened the private consensual contracts of gay couples in Virginia with nullification; that passed state amendments that made gay people forever non-citizens of their states in major areas.

This is the same Republican Party that was instrumental in banning gay parenting in Florida, whose "moderate" Bush governor endorsed that law.

This is the same Republican party under which discharges from the military have soared to new heights in the middle of a war -- and then complains about shortages in the areas where the discharges have hit hardest.

This is the same Republican Party whose administration dramatically increased the number of challenges to asylum applications for gay and lesbian foreigners seeking refuge in this country from murder -- while simultaneously loosening standards for religious persecution and other categories of individual less under threat than ever before. (Dozens have been sent back to their countries to be tortured and murdered as a result).

This is the same Republican Party that runs a fake "libertarian" presidential nominee who declares in Congress that the Constitution doesn't "guarantee a right to sodomy," and that Supreme Court justices who cited the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law overruled the rights of "the people of Texas" to imprison their gay populations.

This is the same Republican Party whose "pro-civil union" candidate thinks that New Hampshire's civil unions "go too far" because they're called "spousal unions."

This is the same Republican Party who wields federal ERISA regulations as a club to target gay families who are legally married or partnered and permits employers to cite ERISA as a precedent for overruling mutually-agreed-upon employment benefits -- ex post facto.

This is the same Republican Party who colluded with Democrats to do a lot of this stuff -- and plenty more.

Yes, we "know where the Republicans stand." They stand on the precipice of the chasm of irrelevant, hateful, mean-spirited, meddlesome, statist politics -- and thankfully they'll be hurtling off the edge shortly.

And Republicans will "never, ever betray" us?

They haven't just betrayed gay Americans. They've betrayed all of us -- ALL Americans -- through their un-American campaigns. . . their persistent assaults on our shared humanity, our shared and cherished Constitutional rights and freedoms, our families, our men and women in uniform, our neighbors, and our very decency as a nation of laws.

Disillusioned Democrats and Republicans already know that if they want a party that REALLY stands for something -- including the equality under the law of ALL Americans (gay or straight) -- they've got a real choice. . . the Libertarian choice.

The only choice Republicans have, given their record, is to what degree they'll ask for forgiveness for their sins against our Republic and the American Way.

Libertarian Presidential Nominee Robert Milnes Answers Our Survey

2007-07-09T12:20:00.000-07:00

We screwed up. Thanks to the "usefulness" of Yahoo's bulk mail filter, Robert Milnes's reply to our survey -- dated 22 May -- sat in my junk mail filter. Fortunately, no other candidate surveys are in there.

Our apologies go out to Mr. Milnes, his campaign, and most importantly, our readers, for not getting this information to you in a timely manner.

We have heard from one other campaign that they have not yet received the survey. As a result, I will be contacting each "quiet" campaign once again to make sure they received the survey, and ascertain whether they wish to participate. My top priority is that you get the scoop on where Libertarian candidates stand on LGBTQ issues.

So without further ado, here is Robert Milnes' answers to our survey questions.

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 president, will you support the complete repeal of DADT and issue an executive order as Commander in Chief permitting openly LGBTQ people to serve in the military?

Yes.

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 president, will you support efforts to overturn DOMA?

Yes.

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 heterosexual couples must be paid by LGBTQ couples. As a result, many LGBTQ couples will pay over five times the tax of a comparable heterosexual couple over the life of their relationship. As president, will you take steps to eliminate tax discrimination against LGBTQ people?

Yes.

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, including a ban on gay adoptions, a ban on recognition of same-sex couples, and a law forbidding gay people from having their out-of-district adoptions recognized. As president, will you veto this legislation and other similar legislation in the District of Columbia?

Yes.

5) At this moment, the House and Senate are considering “hate crimes” legislation that seeks to make attacks on gay people (as well as certain other minorities) “more” of a crime than a violent attack on a member of a majority class. As president, will you lobby against – and veto – such legislation?

Yes.

6) At this moment, the House and Senate are considering the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would regulate businesses and ban the right of employers and employees to voluntary affiliation by banning private sector discrimination based on sexual orientation while possibly creating hiring quotas mandating the hiring of LGBTQ people. As president, will you veto ENDA?

Yes.

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. As president, will you support efforts to reform the immigration system to allow oppressed LGBTQ people from abroad to find sanctuary and freedom in America?

Yes.

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 president, will you support efforts to eliminate regulations that restrict the ability of LGBTQ people to buy health insurance that is “right-sized” for them?

Yes.

9) The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) is legislation currently in Congress that would allow unmarried Americans (heterosexual or gay) to sponsor a same-sex or opposite-sex partner for residency in the United States. As president, will you support UAFA?

Yes.

10) As president, you will be the chief executive of the federal government, with tremendous decision-making power over general employment policy. Will you take steps to ensure that gay federal employees are treated equally to heterosexual employees in the provision of health care benefits and other conditions related to employment?

Yes.

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. As president, 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?

Yes.

12) LGBTQ parents – especially adoptive parents – often find difficulty in traveling across the country due to anti-gay 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 president, will you take steps 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?

Yes.

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

Yes. Your questionaire is very relevent to your issues. Assuming it is honestly answered it identifies "real" libertarian candidates and gets them on the record. As to which real libertarian you endorse or choose, that seems to have to be made on other criteria.

Grinding the news into Gravel

2007-07-05T16:15:00.000-07:00

The Advocate has run a puff piece on Mike Gravel.

Just who is Mike Gravel? You'd be hard-pressed to know the answer without reading the article. Yours truly had never heard of him until stumbling across the linked article.

He's apparently a little-known candidate for the Democratic nomination for president of the USA. His claim to fame is a minute-long YouTube film of him skipping rocks across a pond and a cameo on the Daily Show.

His campaign, so far, has raised only about $100,000 -- or less than 10% of the typical budget for the Libertarian presidential campaign in a bad fundraising year.

So of course, the queer Democratic-leaning media gives him plenty of attention -- including pats on the back for positions that aren't any more pro-gay than those espoused by the frontrunners for the Libertarian nomination (as polled by Outright Libertarians).

Then, a year after Mr. Gravel is forgotten -- when the Libertarian candidate is chosen, has $2 million to spend on a campaign, and espouses unapologetically pro-gay positions on the issues -- much of the queer press will inevitably decline to provide any proportional coverage of the Libertarian campaign. . . let alone meaningful coverage.

The war drums will beat for Hillary, Obama, or whoever bears the Democrats' brass ring, regardless of their substantive position on LGBTQ issues.

And the most ironic part of the whole thing is that huge swaths of the queer press will inevitably cite "a lack of campaign funds" as a reason not to cover the national candidates who aren't Demopublicans or Republicrats. Just 12 months after publishing a glowing report of a Democrat with less than 10% of the funding power, who supposedly merits coverage because "with little chance of winning, he can say almost anything, which should make for a deadly combination."

Meanwhile, our candidate won't be saying "almost anything" -- (s)he'll be saying something.

If at first you don't succeed, rinse, repeat, and repeat again

2007-06-26T14:39:00.000-07:00

The queer left is beating the drums for ENDA once again.

A new study shows that despite a patchwork of state non-discrimination laws covering gays in various parts of the country employment harassment remains at nearly the same level it did a decade ago.

Not a surprise. As Libertarians regularly point out, "nondiscrimination" laws aren't effective at stopping discrimination. If someone senior wants you fired, for any reason, you'll get fired -- regardless of what the law says.

So, the left has given up on this failed experiment and embraced equality under the law, rather than special protections, right?

Wrong.

We can clearly document that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are vulnerable to discrimination and to its harmful effects on earnings and jobs."

Badgett said that the only remedy is federal legislation to outlaw sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

So let me get this. . . ummmmmmm. . . "straight" -- "nondiscrimination" laws are generally a failure and have literally no impact whatsoever on supposed discrimination in the workplace.

So, the remedy to the utter and complete failure of "nondiscrimination" laws is another "nondiscrimination" law that just happens to be federal rather than state -- but in every other way, identical to the laws that have failed previously.

Has Speaker Pelosi managed to borrow a real magic wand from a drag queen fairy princess from Pride, despite her no-show status at this year's San Francisco event, to make the legislation magically work?

Will Californians, New Yorkers, Massachuttans, and other states covered by "nondiscrimination" law suddenly become more accepting and loving of gay people in the workplace when the law demanding compliance is printed by the federal Government Printing Office rather than the state legislature's stationer's office?

And perhaps the most important question of all -- when will left-leaning gay groups get real and get on board with grassroots priorities coming from the gay everyman, such as marriage equality and military service equality?

The reality, as I'm sure most of you know, is that on-the-job bigotry is vanishing like a California fog on a hot summer's day -- legislation notwithstanding. The current competitive job market means that companies who value key employees need ones who work hard and deliver results -- regardless of irrelevancies like sexual orientation.

By continually fudging numbers to deliver foregone conclusions of "workplace crises" that don't exist, the left is pushing for new laws that will keep Democratic politicians and their trial lawyer buddies in clover for years to come.

The sad thing is that Outright has always pointed out how ineffective and harmful such laws are -- and now that their own research underscores our perspective, they're increasing the volume on how more such laws are needed!

I'd shake my head, but I've been doing that so much the past four days that it's starting to hurt.

Nancy Pelosi: "Too Busy" To Do Any Work

2007-06-25T13:26:00.000-07:00

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) was once again "too busy" to show up at Pride:

Pride Executive Director Lindsey Jones said Pelosi, the first woman to be elected speaker of the House, received the most votes from Pride's membership as the person they most wanted to hear speak at this year's event.

"We asked Pelosi to come speak," said Jones. "Our membership voted her as the number one requested speaker."

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill told the Bay Area Reporter that the speaker's schedule does not allow for her to return to San Francisco during Pride weekend.

Did the date for Pride magically change this year to make it unpredictable? Nope.

Was it a secret that Pelosi was in demand? Hardly -- people had written her for six months asking her to show ("most requested speaker," remember?)

What else has Pelosi been "too busy" for in the last few years?

Pelosi has *always* been too busy to show up for a general election debate. Not once in her entire career in the House has she deigned to appear to debate her Libertarian, Republican and Green competitors in Congressional elections.

Pelosi was "too busy" to make good on the Democrats' campaign promise to pull out of Iraq. Instead, she had a symbolic resolution followed up with a vote that handed Bush a blank check for $120 billion (but Pelosi wasn't "too busy" to cast a meaningless symbolic "no" vote against her own Iraq funding bill to show her "disapproval." Whoopee.)

Pelosi is "too busy" to co-sponsor or allow a bill repealing the military's anti-gay policy to come to the floor of the House.

Pelosi has been "too busy" to vote to revoke the DOMA bill (or even amend it to allow federal recognition of same-sex marriages that are recognized by US states).

Pelosi has been "too busy" to campaign for marriage equality.

Pelosi did have extensive time for certain activities this past year -- voting on renaming post offices and other inconsequential minutiae, as well as demanding that taxpayers furnish her with unlimited use of a Boeing 757 with 40+ business class seats, a kitchen and a bedroom.

The reality is that Pelosi, as a consummate Democratic Party triangulator, doesn't give a fig about gay rights or the gay people of San Francisco. She holds them in utter contempt -- refusing to debate the issues in front of them or find time for even the most basic Congressional duties, such as constituent service at major cultural events (like SF Pride) and voting on key legislation that she claims to support.

So when Pelosi comes calling for money, votes, or gay campaign resources, I humbly suggest that we inform Madame Speaker that our schedules won't allow us to accommodate her -- we're just too busy.

Going Further, But They've Got To Do Better

2007-06-25T10:40:00.000-07:00

Outright Libertarians has been a fixture at San Francisco Pride for a number of years, and we've come to the conclusion that good things happen at Pride. Groups who disagree on the direction of the LGBTQ movement meet, share ideas, and hopefully pull in the same direction. Politicians who are friendly to the community (and equal treatment by government) are embraced, and other politicians who attack LGBTQ people receive the infamous "Pink Brick Award."

This year, we had a fantastic pride -- hundreds of booth attendees, cheers for our marching contingent, and a positive reception from most Pride attendees we spoke with. The appeal of liberty, as always, is strong in the gay community.

Elizabeth Edwards is neither a politician nor anti-gay, and she "came out" in support of gay marriage during SF Pride. Yet another good Pride thing, in our estimation.

Outright gives credit where credit is due, regardless of the party affiliation of the public figure who has earned it. And we're pleased to be able to give kudos to Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of John Edwards -- one of the top-tier candidates for the Democratic Party's presidential nominations.

Mrs. Edwards stated, in an interview with the Associated Press, underscored her support for "gay rites":

None of the major candidates for the White House in 2008 has embraced legalizing gay marriage, but Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of one hopeful, John Edwards, said yesterday that she's ready.

"I don't know why someone else's marriage has anything to do with me," Mrs. Edwards said after delivering a speech to a gay and lesbian political group here, according to the Associated Press.

Goodness, she sounds positively libertarian! She's absolutely right -- someone else's marriage is the business of those "someone elses." This comment elicited a small cheer from your faithful blogger.

She continues:

"I'm completely comfortable with gay marriage."

Hurrah! So we are about to learn about a new direction for the Edwards campaign, in embracing a libertarian incrementalist approach to marriage equality, right?

Mrs. Edwards acknowledged that her husband, a former senator from North Carolina, still opposes gay marriage, though he supports civil unions.

Uh oh.

"John has been pretty clear about it, that he is very conflicted," she said. "He has a deeply held belief against any form of discrimination, but that's up against his being raised in the 1950s in a rural southern town."

Oh dear.

Mrs. Edwards, we welcome you to the libertarian movement for marriage equality and look forward to your strong continued advocacy.

But unfortunately, we cannot look the other way as your husband plays "bad cop" to your "good cop."

The Democratic Party cannot have it both ways -- despite this new (and clever) form of triangulation. Either the candidate supports marriage equality, or he/she doesn't. While it's wonderful that Mrs. Edwards is a supporter of LGBTQ marriage equality, we caution the media (and voters) to be wary of efforts to have her positions be confused with Edwards' steadfast opposition to equal treatment of queer folk.

So while Mrs. Edwards might be a breath of fresh air for Democrats, her husband's candidacy offers more of the same. Meanwhile, top-tier Libertarian candidates seeking our party's nomination have the right position on gay marriage equality and equality under the law -- no apologies or "spousal clarifications" necessary.

So in short: Sorry Democrats, you've made an inch of progress, but you've got to do better than this.

Bob Barr publishes op-ed opposing DADT

2007-06-18T15:10:00.000-07:00

Former Republican congressman Bob Barr, now a member of the Libertarian National Committee, has published a major op-ed in the Wall Street Journal [subscription required] stating his opposition to the military's Don't Ask - Don't Tell policy.

The bottom line here is that, with nearly a decade and a half of the hybrid "don't ask, don't tell" policy to guide us, I have become deeply impressed with the growing weight of credible military opinion which concludes that allowing gays to serve openly in the military does not pose insurmountable problems for the good order and discipline of the services.

. . .

The invasive investigations required to discharge a service member are an unconscionable intrusion into the private lives of American citizens. Worse, while supporters of don't ask, don't tell claim the policy only regulates behavior and not identity, the distinction is disingenuous.

Since joining the Libertarian Party as a life member, Mr. Barr has reversed his former prosecutorial position on medical marijuana, becoming a lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project. Now, Libertarians can be comforted by Barr's having joined the majority Libertarian position opposing DADT.

Thank you, Mr. Barr, for joining with Outright Libertarians, SLDN, ACLU, MEA, the Call to Duty Tour, and others in fighting this unjust law.

Republicans abandon federalism over marriage

2007-06-15T06:57:00.000-07:00

Shortly after the Massachusetts Legislature killed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Republican presidential candidate (and former Massachusetts governor) Mitt Romney called for an amendment to the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Will John McCain and Rudy Giuliani follow him?

I'm thinking they will, but I've been wrong before. On Angela Keaton's Liberated Space radio show just a couple weeks ago, I was certain that the Massachusetts ban would make it onto the 2008 ballot. I just didn't have any faith in the Democrats in the Massachusetts Legislature voting the right way. Now, it's safely off the ballot until at least 2010. Once again, though, I have little faith in the Republicans to uphold federalism by opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment. I'd love to be proven wrong again.