Real Dignity Before False Unity

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

Why The Phillies Deserved A Win

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

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

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)

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

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...

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

This is totally surreal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pity the poor confused Log Cabin Republicans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Process of elimination

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

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

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

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

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

Open letter to the few Libertarians not yet opposing Prop 8

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

Dear Rob,

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

Here are some articles in this regard:

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

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

Best regards,

__________

My response:

Dear __________,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Rob

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

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

"Keep government out of all of our lives"

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



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

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

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

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

From the email:

[Barack Obama] has publicly stated his disdain for justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Me too. Same for most Libertarians. These four men have made excuses for the worst attacks on the Constitution by this President. The Bob Barr who donates his time to the ACLU doesn't think much of these four men, either.

The email continues:

We don't believe in a living Constitution. We believe that where interpretation is needed, original intent is what should be considered. The Constitution of 1789 is as good today as it was then.

You have got to be kidding me. There's no way that Bob Barr agrees with this nonsense. The 1789 Constitution, complete with a definition of slaves as 3/5 of a person is "as good today as it was then"? Libertarians don't believe anything of the sort.

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

But here's the kicker:

Your gift of any amount will help us get the word out that there is not a dime's worth of difference between McCain and Obama.

And if Russell Verney has his way, there won't be a dime's worth of difference between Paul, Baldwin, and Barr. The Libertarian Party is not a place for apologists of the Confederacy. Those folks have a home -- the Constitution Party.

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

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

Marakay Rogers for Pennsylvania Attorney General

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

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

Yes, and to the extent possible given my position I will also support open service in all branches of the military.

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

Yes. I consider DOMA and all its state equivalents to be violations of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution as well as the federal DOMA being a violation of federal powers in an area strictly subject to the states' determination.

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

Yes.

4) The House and Senate are considering “hate crime� legislation that seeks to make attacks on LGBTQ people (as well as certain other minorities) “more� of a crime than a violent attack on a member of a majority class. Many states already have such legislation implemented on a state level. Will you lobby against – and vote against – such legislation?

Having once worked as a civil rights attorney I understand the impetus for the passage of hate crime legislation. It is a very emotional issue for many people. What should be everyone's greatest concern, however, is the application of existing laws prosecuting all assaults and violent attacks on all citizens, which are often pled out instead with insufficient punishment for the crimes committed. If we cannot prosecute assault and aggravated assault in the first place, nothing else matters. Currently, there is no hate crimes legislation in Pennsylvania as the existing law was struck down by the state's appeals courts.

5) The House and Senate are considering the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would regulate business and remove employers' and employees' First Amendment rights to freedom of association by banning private sector discrimination based on sexual orientation. Many states and municipalities already have similar laws on a local level. Will you vote against/veto those laws?

The Attorney General of Pennsylvania does not have this particular authority. I could only offer my opinion on the matter.

6) Often, the federal government and state governments use funding to compel compliance with certain discriminatory practices. For instance, one federal bill introduced into the last Congress would withhold some federal education funds for states that refuse to embrace an anti-LGBTQ mandatory educational curriculum. Will you pledge to refuse to implement anti-LGBTQ federal and state mandates even if that opposition would result in reduced funds from federal or state government coming to your constituency?

If there is a mandate received that my office handles, I would refuse to implement it. As an LGBTQ person myself, I have no plans to enforce a law against me. Further, I would offer the support of the AG's office in non-implementation of such mandates by other government units. Additionally, I would refuse to implement ANY form of discriminatory federal or state mandates, whatever their basis.

7) State and federal regulations have severely restricted the availability of certain kinds of health insurance, such as “catastrophic care� coverage, to force people into expensive HMOs and similar programs that offer so-called “comprehensive� coverage. As a result, healthy LGBTQ people have not been able to buy insurance that fits their needs, and many are unable to afford health insurance – rendering them vulnerable to catastrophic illness (and financial stress) as a result. Will you take steps to ensure that LGBT individuals and families will have the right to buy the insurance they decide they want, rather than the insurance that bureaucrats mandate they 'need?'

I will do my best to do so. Pennsylvania already offers certain populations highly limited health insurance, and those groups have in great part found that the coverage is lacking in important areas. All individuals should have the right to the insurance they want, not the insurance that other people want for them.

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

Yes.

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

As a gun owner myself, I understand the importance of the Second Amendment, and although I am not a member of either, I salute the efforts of the Pink Pistols and Second Amendment Sisters in defending all Americans' right to self-protection. I intend to defend the right of all law-abiding people in Pennsylvania to gun ownership and responsible gun use.

10) LGBTQ parents – especially adoptive parents – often find difficulty in traveling across the country due to anti-LGBTQ state laws that refuse to recognize their status as parents granted by their home state. Some have even lost custody of their children due to a simple vacation that took them into “hostile territory.� This is in direct violation of the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause that requires states to recognize other states’ certifications and legal status. As an elected official, will you take steps to eliminate discriminatory legislation or policies that could undermine the parental status of LGBT parents in your jurisdiction?

Absolutely. The rights of parents to their children should not be challenged for any reasons except for the safety and welfare of the children -- and it has long been established that LGBTQ parents are not unfit simply for reason of that alone. Discrimination against any parent on unreasonable grounds is a matter that should have been abolished in all states years ago. Although there is a tendency to condemn liberal judges for judicial legislation, there is an equal issue of conservative judges in certain states upholding or generating vicious policies on LGBTQ parents that must receive attention as well.

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

I believe it is important for the LGBTQ community to support LGBTQ candidates, as well as those non-LGBTQ candidates who actually do support LGBTQ interests. Mere lip service to "gay rights" is not enough; voters must educate themselves on the background of the candidates and their actual thoughts on how they intend to support the LGBTQ popultions.

Chris Cole for US Senate, North Carolina

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer: Yes.

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

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