No Taxation Without Representation

From the San Francisco Chronicle comes a story about two states which bar same-sex couples from marrying nonetheless deciding to impose a tax currently only levied on married couples.

As bad an idea as this tax is, whether for straight or gay couples, there's only one state in the nation justified in imposing such a marriage tax on same-sex couples, and that's Massachusetts. Gay voters in California and New York need to stand up and demand that they not be taxed as married couples until those states start to treat them as married couples.

Meanwhile, in states where there is no such tax, the problem of domestic violence amongst same-sex couples is finding a free-market solution:

In the absence of government mandates, a growing network of nonprofit agencies that specialize in same-sex domestic violence has sprung up in cities like Boston; Columbus, Ohio; Houston; Kansas City; and Tucson, Ariz. Many police departments also have started training officers to know how to respond to gay or lesbian victims.

Christine Smith for President

Christine Smith has informally announced she is running for the Libertarian nomination for President of the United States.

While I don't yet know enough about her to judge her qualifications, I do see the following statement on her personal website addressing some of Outright Libertarians' favorite issues:

I want as little governmental intervention into the private lives of the American people as possible. The government has no business in prohibiting drugs, or regulating what sexual acts between consenting adults are permitted, or who can get married or serve in the military based on their private sexual lives.

She intends to have her campaign website up in Novemeber, when she will make her formal announcement that she is running.

"Liberated" Iraq?

Over $300 billion of your tax dollars, and over 2,000 of your fellow citizens have died in a war launched under false pretenses about phony "weapons of mass destruction." But at least some Iraqis are freer -- the Islamic death squads which are, often with American-made and American-bought weapons, murdering gay Iraqis at an unprecedented rate.
more . . .

Hardline Islamic insurgent groups in Iraq are targeting a new type of victim with the full protection of Iraqi law, The Observer can reveal. The country is seeing a sudden escalation of brutal attacks on what are being called the 'immorals' - homosexual men and children as young as 11 who have been forced into same-sex prostitution.

There is growing evidence that Shia militias have been killing men suspected of being gay and children who have been sold to criminal gangs to be sexually abused. The threat has led to a rapid increase in the numbers of Iraqi homosexuals now seeking asylum in the UK because it has become impossible for them to live safely in their own country.

The American response to this crisis? Well, when a 14 year old boy was executed under suspicion of being gay, Army sources said they had "other priorities."

Democrats and Republicans lobbied for this war. They lied about the motivation for it, they voted for it, they funded it, they staffed it, they apologized for its failures, they attacked the patriotism and sanity of those who opposed it, and they supported the incompetence of those who planned it. Both Democratic leaders and George Bush pledge to "stay until our task is finished." The Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates of the Democratic opposition voted for the war just as surely as Bush and Cheney supported it.

Let's hope, for the sake of our gay brothers and sisters in Iraq, that the ill-defined "job" is finished before they are all exterminated by people elevated by the US Army and weapons supplied by the US arsenal.

And let us also commit to working hard not only to help our gay colleagues abroad with our strong support for a genuine and compassionate asylum policy (as well as loud condemnation of those who would murder them) -- but also to electing Libertarians who will put an end to the global Democratic-Republican war games which put them in such grave peril in the first place.

"Let the people decide!"

Democrats make very loud noises about democracy -- when it comes to voting machines, socialized medicine, etc., Democratic activists can always be counted on to point out what a majority of voters support (when it's what they want).

However, that's less important, apparently, when it comes to their own electoral processes.more . . .

Patricia Todd, a lesbian who won a tough primary election in Alabama for state legislature in Alabama, was challenged for her victory. Most concede that it was because she was a white woman who won a victory in a majority black district. She was initially disqualified by party power brokers who cited an obscure campaign finance rule which had not been adhered to by any other candidate in any other race in the whole state.

However, the party's executive committee decided to reinstate her as their candidate:

The Alabama Democratic Party Executive Committee voted 95-87, mostly along racial lines, to reject the ruling of a subcommittee that had voted to disqualify Todd, who is white, and her black opponent, Gaynell Hendricks, in the race for the House seat from Birmingham's predominantly black District 54.

So in the Democratic Party's own business and in selection of candidates to run in its artificially-protected monopoly environment, the vote which matters most isn't that of everyday party voters, but of the small and exclusive executive committee deep in the party machine, which apparently number under 200 statewide.

Let the people decide, indeed.

Republicans, Clinton and Hezbollah Agree On Gay Hatred

It's funny when the mask of bigotry drops off of various parties' faces and they look so different underneath. In the case of anti-gay bigotry, homophobia has united Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders to oppose a simple gay pride parade in Jerusalem; has united "liberals" and "conservatives" in legislatures all over America to pass anti-gay laws; and now, we find the leaders of various terrorist organizations in the Middle East mouthing the Bush administration doctrine on why gays in the military are a bad idea.
more . . .

The leader, Abu Oudai, chief rocket coordinator for the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in the West Bank, said Hizbullah's "tremendous victory" has emboldened his group and other Palestinian terror organizations to immediately coordinate violence against Israel and to focus their "resistance" on rocket attacks.

. . . snip. . .

"If we do (what Hizbullah accomplished), this Israeli army full of gay soldiers and full of corruption and with old-fashioned war methods can be defeated also in Palestine."

This Libertarian will be doing his utmost to condemn the anti-gay forces in the Republican party with their own rhetoric for "allying with the terrorists" and "covering for the terrorists" and "mouthing the terrorist line in America, damaging our freedoms" the next time a discussion about gays in the military pops up. And when Democrats wax rhapsodic over Bill Clinton -- he of DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, why not ask why he allied himself with the Republicans and the terrorists on this important issue? I suggest that all liberty-lovers consider a similar strategy.

Hijacking The Gay Movement Again

If one listens to the loudest voices of the left, he'd think that the biggest gay issues aren't protecting our families, gaining equal recognition under the law for our mutual living arrangements, and lifting government restrictions.

What should be more important? Well, according to the AFL-CIO's "gay rights group," it's WalMart's compensation arrangements and a laundry list of other leftist causes:

"[Gay groups should] demand that Wal-Mart create 'friendly' practices, of say, paying their employees above-poverty-line wages, offering affordable health care, and when that is done, they could think about offering domestic-partner benefits and dealing with the massive class action lawsuit facing them regarding gender discrimination" [said Jeremy Bishop, program director of Pride at Work at the AFL-CIO].

more . . .

So first, gay groups should campaign for WalMart to offer health benefits to all of its employees -- gay and non-gay -- and also demand WalMart pay much higher wages. These are gay issues how? (I suppose that it is generous of Mr. Bishop to insist that gay groups may want to get around to campaigning for domestic partner benefits sometime after his own well-funded group gets everything it's looking for).

The cardinal sin for which WalMart is being punished? They've teamed up with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce to create and nurture a gay-friendly supplier and employee culture. The initiative, if successful, will create friendlier environments for gay employees -- both in-store and in management -- as well as create greater access for gay and lesbian owned businesses to sell their wares through WalMart. This creates new jobs, new business opportunities for gay and lesbian enterprises (who can then hire more gay employees) and greater economic impact for all gay Americans versus the status quo.

Sounds great, right? You'd figure such value creation for such an important part of the gay and lesbian community would earn both organizations some props -- even from those who are regular critics of WalMart. But instead, Mr. Bishop says:

"The mission statement says it is committed 'to forming a broad-based coalition of LGBT-owned and -friendly businesses,'" Bishop told PageOneQ.com, referring to NGLCC's own description of its agenda. "We're not exactly sure how Wal-Mart fits into the LGBT-friendly business category. In fact, we're not sure how Wal-Mart fits into anything worker-friendly."

Note how quickly the discussion shifted from gay people to "worker-friendliness" in just two sentences. So once again, we learn that for the left, the demands of powerful union interest groups trump those of gay people. Despite all of the advances this agreement offers to gay entrepreneurs/small businesses, workers, managers, and potential employees of WalMart and its suppliers, it's just not something they can support -- in fact, according to them, no good gay person could.

If gay people needed any more evidence of the "tactical utility" of gay issues for the left, it would be harder to find. Unless you're a gay person who falls into the narrow band of people who the AFL-CIO represent, finding opportunity in a left-leaning socialist world will prove to be just as elusive as in a right-leaning neoconservative world.

These People Want To Run Our Lives For Us?!?

The typical Libertarian position on issues such as government defining and regulating one's family is quite simple -- that's a job for individuals, who define their relationships and living arrangements in mutually-agreeable terms.

However, it is often instructive to examine the character and practices of those who designate themselves morally superior, who seek to use government power to marginalize gay families, and who present themselves as experts in "family relations."
more . . .

The Advocate offers this intriguing news snippet on Republican Randall Terry:

Randall Terry, a leading conservative Christian, doesn't run away from "family values issues" in his Florida state Senate race, but his gay son, Jamiel, says things are not what they seem. Among the senior Terry's pledges are preserving traditional marriage and opposing adoptions by gays. He has touted efforts to stop abortions. His campaign mailers sum up the value he puts on family: they show a picture with his wife, a daughter, and three grinning young sons taken before a fourth was born this summer.

But Jamiel, Terry's adopted son, says the picture is missing two people: him and his sister Tila, also adopted. Both have been estranged from Terry since Jamiel came out as a gay man and Tila had a child out of wedlock.

So a man who seeks political power to "save the families" of the nation -- and micromanage them from a position of governmental authority -- has failed at his parenting duties to the point where he doesn't consider two of his kids to be his kids (at least from a campaign perspective).

"Redefining traditional family" indeed! Perhaps Mr. Terry and those who agree with him should focus more on their own family values rather than attempting to impose them upon other families. Most gay parents, after all, love all of their children.