Massachusetts Marriage Mania

Once again, Massachusetts' legislature has voted against an anti-gay state constitutional amendment. Now, it wasn't done in the fashion that the anti-gay forces wanted -- lawmakers voted to adjourn without considering the amendment rather than voting on the actual amendment itself -- but the overwhelming majority of the democratically elected representatives ended the amendment's run.

However, the homophobic mania about this issue -- from both Democrats and Republicans -- won't die. Astroturfed letters to the editor are demanding that "the people should decide," that the democratic will of voters is being ignored, etc.

Let's step around, for the moment, the clear constitutional position that the equality under the law of various groups of people is not something that should be subject to the popular vote.

A quick review of the history of the proposed amendment itself reveals just how ridiculous the anti-gay crowd have become. The amendment supposedly received almost 2.9% of all Massachusetts residents' signatures to "pass the threshhold." Unfortunately for right wing forces, the media documented widespread fraud in the collection of signatures:

Scenario 1 - Citizens were told they were signing the wine petition when the anti-gay marriage petition was actually presented.

Scenario 2 - Citizens were first asked to sign the wine petition and then asked to sign again on a second page. The second page was actually the anti-gay marriage petition.

Scenario 3 - Citizens were told they were signing a petition to protect gay marriage when it was actually the anti-gay marriage petition.

This practice was so widespread that local television news crews easily captured the fraud on film. Based on the estimates provided by paid signature gatherers, between 50% and 75% of the signatures on the original petition were collected fraudulently.

(Of course, Democrat Attorney General Tom Reilly wasn't too concerned with this, and refused to take a position on the issue beyond "yes, it's happening and it's illegal.")

Now, the same people who defrauded tens of thousands of voters into signing the document are turning around and complaining that a clear rejection by the legislature of their bill represents "contempt of democracy." Right-wing soon-to-be-former Governor Romney has been particularly shrill in his denunciation.

The funniest part, however, has been the proposed remedy the anti-gay forces are cooking up to try and get their fraudulently-balloted amendment to the polls -- they're turning to "activist judges" to force the outcome that they want! Romney and other anti-gay types are threatening to force the issue in federal court.

It's time to recognize these efforts for what they are -- contempt for human rights, wrapped up in "democratic" rhetoric; contempt for the democratic process (including heavy use of out-and-out fraud) while citing "the will of the people"; and an effort to put the constitutional rights of a minority group up to a simple-majority vote-down.

Should the anti-gay Democrats and Republicans in Massachusetts succeed in their mission of forcing the issue on the ballot, a near-certain vote by Massachusetts citizens against their anti-gay measure wouldn't be the end of the crusade either. Another round would be certain, perpetually, until they get the results they want. It's nothing but obsessive dislike for gays which drives these folks.

Thank goodness for the sensibility of the voters of Massachusetts -- and the strong support for equal marriage rights from the Massachusetts Libertarian Party.

A Mid-Term Libertarian Electoral Surge

The Libertarian Party easily had its best election season ever yesterday, with exit polls showing remarkably strong showings by our candidates -- especially in the Southwest. For example, in "red state" Texas, four of our candidates for state Senate received around 20% or more of the vote, with an additional three posting similar results for state House. This, despite the adage that a gay-friendly party like ours cannot post strong results in a supposedly anti-gay state like Texas!

In "blue state" Vermont, all three of our candidates for state House received 12% or more of the vote. This, despite the adage that Vermonters would never accept a small-government message.

In "red state" Wyoming, our candidate for state House of Representatives broke the 20% barrier -- getting close to 22% of the vote, and our Secretary of State candidate hit the 18% mark.

Similar results can be seen in South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Louisiana, Kansas, Idaho, and Arizona -- states as diverse as the US population itself.

So what about federal races? It turns out that the media, as usual, got the story wrong. Races where Libertarian candidates received lots of media coverage saw good returns versus traditional Libertarian balloting in those districts, but our best performances were in areas with grassroots campaigning instead of big media endorsements.

In Texas, Gordon Strickland of Texas grabbed 21.3% of the vote for a seat in the House, Bob Smither won 18.8% of the vote to finish Tom DeLay's term, and Michael Idrogo grabbed 12.6% of the vote. In Texas!

In Arizona, Jason received 26% of the vote for House. In California, Camden McConnell received almost 17%. And the electoral list is peppered with similar performances for House and Senate seats in Indiana and Kentucky too.

Some Libertarian party detractors will claim that this election wasn't good for the party because we didn't win the two high-profile federal races in Texas. They're wrong.

This election shows a broad increase in support for Libertarian candidates across the board. Libertarians receiving double-digit support for national seats in multiple states in a single election year is unheard-of. Libertarians have switched in performance from a party which typically denies Republicans or Democrats a victory by "spoiling" 5% of the vote to a party capable of attracting 15% or more of the vote in key elections across the country on a state and federal level.

This is an *excellent* electoral performance and will position the LP quite well for the 2008 general elections, when the shine has worn off Democrats' promises to undo the predations of the Bush administration. It will also guarantee continued (or new) major-party status in several states.

Thanks and congratulations to the candidates, their volunteers and supporters, LP national and state organizations, and to all of you who voted on Tuesday. Your voice is being heard, loud and clear.

{Edit: Mea culpa on the Texas results -- I undercounted the number of successful candidates due to my bleary-eyed election-night blogging. Mike Nelson indicates, in the comment section, that Libertarians did even better in Texas than I indicated. Even better news for the future of our country!]

Double-Dealing For Democrats

In a rousing editorial for the Advocate, HRC head honcho Joe Solomenese calls for gay Americans to take a stand for our civil rights and vote -- an admirable proposition. He then offers a link to HRC's campaign web page. . . where things start to fall apart.

Legions of Democratic candidates with exciting soundbites present a quick face to the world to show their supposed commitment to gay rights. Bob Casey, Democratic Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, talks about how people should feel accepted for how they are, not how they're told to be.

Just one big problem -- Bob Casey opposes gay marriage.

Tammy Duckworth, Democratic House candidate from Illinois, offers a phrase where she suggests that she doesn't support the military's anti-gay policy.

Just one big problem -- her campaign has reiterated that she is not in favor of repealing DADT as a policy.

But a campaign spokeswoman told the Herald that Duckworth doesn't support the legislation. "I think she only supports a repeal if it was deemed appropriate by military commanders of the armed forces," Christine Glunz said. "The press release is incorrect."

Oops.

The HRC page then goes on to present a plethora of other candidates, including the token GOP candidate Lincoln Chaffee, and waxes rhapsodic about some pretty unremarkable stances on the issues -- which usually involve some favored legislation but falls short of full equality.

Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party has a host of excellent, unabashedly pro-gay candidates who are polling well and receive short shrift from HRC and similar groups.

Solomonese writes that if everyone gets behind HRC's preferred candidates, "maybe, just maybe, we will finally get the country we deserve."

But surely, we deserve better than this?

Election day is Tuesday, November 7th.

Endorsements and Candidates of Interest

Since our original "Outright Libertarians' Endorsements" blog entry has rolled off of our front page, and my "More Libertarian Candidates" entry is near the bottom, I thought I'd bump to the top of the blog a reminder about which candidates deserve your attention on Tuesday...

Official Endorsements by Outright Libertarians:

• Philip Berg - US Congress, California District 8


• Bruce Guthrie - US Senate, Washington


• Mike Nelson - US Congress, Texas District 5


• David Schlosser - US Congress, Arizona District 1


• Starchild - Board of Supervisors, San Francisco, CA

Berg, Nelson, and Starchild are Outright Libertarians members with whom, naturally enough, we found large areas of agreement. Guthrie and Schlosser are running high-profile campaigns with Libertarian solutions to GLBT issues prominently featured through single-issue brochures, gay pride festival appearances, web site mention, etc.

We regret that due to a very aggressive timeline for nominations, some deserving candidates were not able to be considered by our membership. Here are some of them...

Additional Candidates of Interest:

• Michael Badnarik - U.S. Congress, Texas District 10
• Joe Cobb - U.S. Congress, Arizona District 7
• Neil Evangelista - U.S. Congress, Florida District 22
• Kevin Cherry - Georgia Public Service Commission
• Jason Peck - Kansas State House, District 24
  
• Hardy Machia - Vermont State House
• David Atkinson - Vermont State House
• Mark Noble - Ohio Lt. Governor
  
• Dawn Winkler - Colorado Governor

Keep a bookmark on this blog entry -- this list will almost certainly grow as November 7 approaches. If you know of a Libertarian who publicly supports without reservation the LP Platform plank on Sexuality and Gender, as the candidates listed above do, and they're not on this list, please let us know.

[Update: You gotta read the comment Bruce Guthrie added to this post!]

They really *are* the same

Dick Cheney, Republican VP Candidate, October 5, 2000, on gay marriage:

I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.

Hillary Clinton, Democratic Likely Presidential Candidate, October 26, 2006, on gay marriage:

My position is consistent. I support states making the decision. If you go the next step and say, 'But I want what is called marriage,' you're going to have a problem.

Very few Democrats spoke [for marriage equality and against the anti-gay constitutional amendment], because maybe you thought one way, which is that you want people out there speaking for us. We thought . . . force the Republicans out there, make them look like they're trying to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution.

We all know how lousy the Bush administration has been for the civil rights of gays. Now, six years and millions of dollars in gay campaign contributions and votes later, Democrats are parroting the Bush administration rhetoric on gay marriage and lamely explaining away their refusal to fight for our basic rights. Why should gay families even give Democrats the time of day?

Desperate Democrats, Rabid Republicans, Lucid Libertarians

As the mid-term campaign comes to a close, rabid Republicans and desperate Democrats claw at each other with shallow allegations and negative campaign ads.

Republicans attack Democrats as bin Laden lovers (despite the fact that a Republican administration was his principal client in the 1980s). Democrats retort that Republicans caused the war in Iraq (despite voting for it themselves). Both parties are happy to hang their hats on homophobia.

Now Senator John Kerry is caught up in the latest manufactured crisis. A poorly worded crack at the president is being characterized by desperate GOP campaigners as an "insult to the troops." Kerry and Democrats, who supported the Iraq War, are claiming it's instead a criticism of the Iraq War.

Rather than raging about rhetoric, Libertarians focus on facts. If Bush and the GOP cared about the troops, they would not have sent them into the Iraq quagmire to suffer injury and thousands of deaths. If Kerry and the Democrats cared about the war, they would not have overwhelmingly supported it in the Senate. If either of these issues are important to you, neither old party deserves your vote.

And if either old party cared about "protecting freedom," they's start by adhering to the Constitution -- ceasing their constant attacks on gays and our families.

It's time to end the spin, the shallow campaigning, and the deceit. It's time for more Libertarians in local, state and federal offices across the country. If you care about the future of this country (and how jeopardized it is due to antics like what we're witnessing), go to the Libertarian Party web site and get involved in your local campaign. Many campaigns need funding and get-out-the-vote efforts to put themselves over the top and send a Republicrat home.

I Have A Right To Condemn Your Thriving Marriage. My Failed Marriage, However, Is None Of Your Business!

Persisting in the hypocrisy for which the old political parties are legend, Senator George Allen recently had three of his goons physically assault a liberal critic who asked Allen about his failed first marriage.

Allen, a "family values" conservative, is no stranger to discussing (and condemning) the marriages of others, especially gay people. In reaction to New Jersey's ruling which stated that discrimination against gays in marriage law is unconstitutional, Allen was downright outspoken:
more . . .

I support the marriage amendment, because it will protect the values and views of the people of Virginia from judges who would want to impose their elitist views on us. This is a clear difference between my opponent and me – I support protecting marriage from judges who do not understand their role: to interpret the law, not invent the law.

...

This amendment does exactly what it says it does; it defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, and I’m for marriage between a man and a woman while my opponent is against it.

Despite Allen's outspoken views on others' marriages (it runs in excess of two paragraphs), he's surprisingly tight-lipped about the sanctity of his own marriage. In fact, he refused to address the public question asked of him and had to instead turn to his ex-wife:

Allen's former wife, Anne Waddell, issued a statement after Tuesday's incident calling Stark's question "a baseless, cheap shot." She said she and Allen divorced more than 22 years ago and, because it was a personal matter, they had the divorce records sealed.

According to a news release from Allen's campaign, Tuesday's incident began when Stark pushed an Allen staffer. "Later, volunteers restrained him and asked to leave the building when he approached the senator a second time, asking inappropriate questions," the release said.

So a divorced heterosexual Senator can seal his divorce records, demand absolute privacy about his personal life and personal matters, dispatch his ex-spouse to decry public inquiries into his marriage life as a "baseless, cheap shot," while ordering his campaign orderlies to "restrain" people who ask "inappropriate questions" in public.

But Allen's public condemnation of hundreds of thousands of committed same-sex couples who, unlike Allen, have remained committed to their relationship vows, is "an important public policy debate."

We would contend that attacks on gay families by someone who skipped town on his own marriage vows -- with an embarrassing divorce apparently so messy he had to have the records sealed -- is perhaps the ultimate in "baseless, cheap shots."

If Senator Allen believes that it's open season on the marriages of people he doesn't like, then he also must by default open up his own private life to public investigation and debate. "Family values Republicans" have no problems with double standards, but we're Libertarians. We believe in common sense, common decency, and common standards that apply to all people.