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.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
Friday, November 21, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
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:
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?"
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.
...
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.
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.
Friday, November 14, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, November 10, 2008
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:
This is why gay conservatives aren't taken seriously. By anyone.
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 RauchReally?
This is why gay conservatives aren't taken seriously. By anyone.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
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.
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!
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!
Saturday, November 01, 2008
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)