All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Tom.

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

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

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

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

Thank you again.

Not looking good for Barack Obama...

Wonkette just made my day:

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

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

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

Federal Candidate Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State and Local Candidate Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Reminder To Republicrats: Silence Is Golden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John McCain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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