Yawn... US Rep. Mark Foley Resigns From Congress. Another one?
Between McGreevey and Foley, and several before them, it's clear that there are more than a few closet cases in the Democratic and Republican parties. But can anyone imagine such a thing as a closeted queer Libertarian? I'm not sure how that would even work.
Libertarians place such a premium on the value of the individual that suppressing one's own identity for the sake of the collective seems unthinkable.
Similarly, for most out LGBT people, the thought of being in the closet seems totally alien. So why do out LGBT people continue to vote for major parties that are structured such that elected party leaders feel the need to stay in the closet in the 21st Century? Doesn't this continual outing of middle-aged politicians in both major parties make it clear that neither party is as inclusive of diversity as they claim? When will LGBT voters figure out that voting for the major-party status quo only prolongs our struggle for equality under the law?
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Friday, September 29, 2006
An interesting article from the leader of the charge to eliminate the LP Platform
Several months ago, we reported on an effort to eliminate the Libertarian Party platform. The effort largely succeeded, with only a handful of planks surviving, including the Sexuality and Gender plank that puts the LP ahead of all other political parties in its LGBT-friendliness. Yet this wasn't enough for Carl S. Milsted, Jr., who led the charge to gut the platform, because the night of the vote he was overheard saying that he would leave party over what little of the platform that remained. He didn't leave, and it appears that he may be changing his mind about "embarrassing" planks like Sexuality and Gender.
In his September 27 article, Freedom and Equality: They Go Together, he makes the exact point that we were making in our argument to keep LGBT equal rights in the platform. Granted, he never actually says the word "gay" anywhere in it and instead only talks about economic equality, but his basic argument, "Equality requires freedom," and "A free society requires more equality than we have today," supports our position nonetheless. Liberty and Equality are not opposites, but rather they require each other. Thankfully, the Libertarian Party platform still says so.
In his September 27 article, Freedom and Equality: They Go Together, he makes the exact point that we were making in our argument to keep LGBT equal rights in the platform. Granted, he never actually says the word "gay" anywhere in it and instead only talks about economic equality, but his basic argument, "Equality requires freedom," and "A free society requires more equality than we have today," supports our position nonetheless. Liberty and Equality are not opposites, but rather they require each other. Thankfully, the Libertarian Party platform still says so.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Gay and Lesbian (Democratic Party) Victory Fund
Outright chair Rob Power had a look at the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund's attitude towards gay Libertarian candidates a few days ago.
Despite their protestations of being a "non-partisan" group, the group refused to even consider an endorsement of gay Libertarian Party candidates running competitive races throughout the country, though it has endorsed a number of candidates who have "no hope of winning" running as Democrats in party primaries and general elections. That obviates the typical excuse used to dismiss Libertarians, which is that "we have no chance of winning."
However, increasingly often, a significant number of our candidates not only have a chance of winning, but are running for re-election as incumbents. In addition, the number of elected Libertarians in offices at all levels is expected to significantly grow this election cycle. However, this dynamic has not translated into any meaningful, thoughtful consideration from the Victory Fund. There's one piece of evidence of Democratic partisanship masquerading as "non-partisan lobbying."
However, it's the Advocate which delivers the damning final blow, reporting the skewed nature of GLVF's endorsements:
...
In other words, in GLVF's busiest-ever election year, a "whopping" 2.6% of their endorsements went to candidates who weren't Democrats.
In short, it would appear that a donation to or support of the GLVF isn't an effort to increase the representation of gay candidates in America's total political system, including the Libertarian, Democratic, Republican, and Green parties (as well as independent affiliation), but rather a donation to Democratic Party candidates who happen to be gay.
Many left-wing Democrats complain ceaselessly about the systemic bias of conservative-leaning organizations such as self-described "fair and balanced" FOX News, and they have a point. Democratic organizations conducting similar deception shouldn't get a free pass either. GLVF should come clean about its partisanship and drop the "non-partisan" pretension by adding its party affiliation to its name -- just like the Log Cabin Republicans, Stonewall Democrats, and yes, Outright Libertarians already have.
Despite their protestations of being a "non-partisan" group, the group refused to even consider an endorsement of gay Libertarian Party candidates running competitive races throughout the country, though it has endorsed a number of candidates who have "no hope of winning" running as Democrats in party primaries and general elections. That obviates the typical excuse used to dismiss Libertarians, which is that "we have no chance of winning."
However, increasingly often, a significant number of our candidates not only have a chance of winning, but are running for re-election as incumbents. In addition, the number of elected Libertarians in offices at all levels is expected to significantly grow this election cycle. However, this dynamic has not translated into any meaningful, thoughtful consideration from the Victory Fund. There's one piece of evidence of Democratic partisanship masquerading as "non-partisan lobbying."
However, it's the Advocate which delivers the damning final blow, reporting the skewed nature of GLVF's endorsements:
The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, an LGBT political action committee, announced Thursday its support of 13 new candidates. The new endorsements bring the total number of candidates it's supporting this election year to 77, the group's largest number ever.
...
The fund also endorsed one Republican, Devin Slayton, for Arizona house of representatives, district 11, and one candidate with no party affiliation, Rudy Serra, for Detroit judgeship, district 36.
In other words, in GLVF's busiest-ever election year, a "whopping" 2.6% of their endorsements went to candidates who weren't Democrats.
In short, it would appear that a donation to or support of the GLVF isn't an effort to increase the representation of gay candidates in America's total political system, including the Libertarian, Democratic, Republican, and Green parties (as well as independent affiliation), but rather a donation to Democratic Party candidates who happen to be gay.
Many left-wing Democrats complain ceaselessly about the systemic bias of conservative-leaning organizations such as self-described "fair and balanced" FOX News, and they have a point. Democratic organizations conducting similar deception shouldn't get a free pass either. GLVF should come clean about its partisanship and drop the "non-partisan" pretension by adding its party affiliation to its name -- just like the Log Cabin Republicans, Stonewall Democrats, and yes, Outright Libertarians already have.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
What's a 9% annual spending hike between friends?
The Republican Party has been in power for years now, with a monopoly over the legislative and executive branches (and a majority in the judicial branch). So how is the self-described "party of small government" faring?
We have expensive wars overseas, we have massive numbers of American casualties in Iraq; we have an activist foreign policy which would make Wilson jealous; we've received a new and disastrously operated Medicare prescription drug program; we have the government trying to legislate individuals' personal and family lives; and we've endured endless incursions into our civil liberties ranging from illegal wiretaps to efforts to legalize torture.
But at least the GOP is clinging to one small government value--its fiscal conservatism--right? Guess again.
more . . .
...
When we Libertarians have pointed out these facts, we've been blasted as "left wingers." It's hard to see where the Republicans' bona fides come from. Do they come from a profligate Republican Congress blasted by the Heritage Foundation? Perhaps a GOP-developed federal budget which manages to consistently outpace even the spending growth of the big government Clinton-Gore administration?
The honest, forthcoming answers to these questions are likely hidden in the secret vaults containing large stockpiles of Iraqi WMDs.
We have expensive wars overseas, we have massive numbers of American casualties in Iraq; we have an activist foreign policy which would make Wilson jealous; we've received a new and disastrously operated Medicare prescription drug program; we have the government trying to legislate individuals' personal and family lives; and we've endured endless incursions into our civil liberties ranging from illegal wiretaps to efforts to legalize torture.
But at least the GOP is clinging to one small government value--its fiscal conservatism--right? Guess again.
more . . .
Federal spending in 2006 is set to rise 9 percent, the largest increase since 1990 and enough to earn Congress near failing grades from the Heritage Foundation’s third quarter report card.[1] Most families facing steep new expenses would cut back on additional spending. However, the Senate is preparing to bust fiscal year (FY) 2007 discretionary spending caps by at least $32 billion
...
Senators classify much of this new spending as “emergency” so that it does not technically count against the budget caps.
When we Libertarians have pointed out these facts, we've been blasted as "left wingers." It's hard to see where the Republicans' bona fides come from. Do they come from a profligate Republican Congress blasted by the Heritage Foundation? Perhaps a GOP-developed federal budget which manages to consistently outpace even the spending growth of the big government Clinton-Gore administration?
The honest, forthcoming answers to these questions are likely hidden in the secret vaults containing large stockpiles of Iraqi WMDs.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Reminder: Endorsement meeting via teleconference on Sunday, October 15
If you are a member of Outright Libertarians and did not receive via our email list the notice of the upcoming general membership meeting on October 15, please send us an email, stating whether you want to receive all posts, or only special notices from the officers, and we'll see that you are added to our email list accordingly.
License To Discriminate
The Advocate reports on a civil rights lawsuit being considered by California's high court which has been filed by a lesbian denied fertility treatment:
Libertarians always honor freedom of association, which includes freedom to choose to discriminate in provisioning services. However, we also oppose cumbersome and intrusive licensing practices which restrict the number of medical professionals who can qualify to provide services in the first place.
Religious-right doctors seem to want it both ways -- free-market style freedom to refuse to treat gays "based on religious beliefs," but heavy government regulation restricting new entrants into the medical profession to protect their revenues. With the approach to health care advocated by the Libertarian Party, we'd have more doctors, lesbians would be able to easily find fertility treatments if their existing doctors refused to provision them, and religious-right doctors would quickly find their businesses collapsing as consumers seek a medical professional who bases his or her services on science and patient priorities, not religious politics.
The California supreme court on Wednesday took briefings in an appeal brought by the gay advocacy group Lambda Legal concerning a lesbian who was denied infertility treatment by her San Diego County doctors because of her sexuality. Despite California’s civil rights law, the doctors say they have the right to not offer the treatment because of their religious beliefs.
Libertarians always honor freedom of association, which includes freedom to choose to discriminate in provisioning services. However, we also oppose cumbersome and intrusive licensing practices which restrict the number of medical professionals who can qualify to provide services in the first place.
Religious-right doctors seem to want it both ways -- free-market style freedom to refuse to treat gays "based on religious beliefs," but heavy government regulation restricting new entrants into the medical profession to protect their revenues. With the approach to health care advocated by the Libertarian Party, we'd have more doctors, lesbians would be able to easily find fertility treatments if their existing doctors refused to provision them, and religious-right doctors would quickly find their businesses collapsing as consumers seek a medical professional who bases his or her services on science and patient priorities, not religious politics.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Libertarian Candidate Reverses Position on FMA
Much to our shock and dismay, Dr. Eric Schansberg, Libertarian candidate for Congress in Indiana's ninth district, while responding to a question about the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA/FMA) during his recent televised debate, was heard saying, "I would vote for an amendment like that."
Outright Libertarians questioned him on his statement. As a result, Dr. Schansberg has publicly retracted his statement and reversed his position on the FMA, sending this clarification to the debate panelists (and to Outright Libertarians):
more . . .
The first point in his clarification is the pure libertarian position, absolutely consistent with Outright's: no government, at any level, should be involved in marriage.
It is on the interim steps to be taken between here and a totally privatized marriage institution that we still disagree with Dr. Schansberg.
Dr. Schansberg takes a "state's rights" position, being justifiably wary of Federal interference in the activities of the states. As a case in point, look at all the "help" the Fed's have given the states in the matter of medical marijuana. Even though ten states have legalized medical marijuana, the DEA is still breaking down doors and prosecuting both the sick and their state-certified purveyors.
Outright Libertarians, on the other hand, believe the 14th amendment gives the Federal government the authority to step in and stop the states in certain well defined circumstances; namely when they violate individuals' rights of due process and equal treatment before the law. We believe that individual rights should be protected, whether the rights violation originates with other individuals (e.g., criminals), the states, or the Federal government. Aid in furthering the protection of our rights is the reason that we have established governments in the first place.
As a deeply religious man, Dr. Schansberg is likely struggling with this issue. Outright Libertarians is proud to have helped move him a good portion of the way toward our position. Now, instead of supporting the FMA as he did several days ago, he wants to get the government out of the marriage business.
Outright Libertarians questioned him on his statement. As a result, Dr. Schansberg has publicly retracted his statement and reversed his position on the FMA, sending this clarification to the debate panelists (and to Outright Libertarians):
- Ideally, the government would not be involved at all in defining marriage
- If the government is involved, it should be at the state rather than the federal level. The federal government should not prohibit states from coming to their own arrangements.
more . . .
The first point in his clarification is the pure libertarian position, absolutely consistent with Outright's: no government, at any level, should be involved in marriage.
It is on the interim steps to be taken between here and a totally privatized marriage institution that we still disagree with Dr. Schansberg.
Dr. Schansberg takes a "state's rights" position, being justifiably wary of Federal interference in the activities of the states. As a case in point, look at all the "help" the Fed's have given the states in the matter of medical marijuana. Even though ten states have legalized medical marijuana, the DEA is still breaking down doors and prosecuting both the sick and their state-certified purveyors.
Outright Libertarians, on the other hand, believe the 14th amendment gives the Federal government the authority to step in and stop the states in certain well defined circumstances; namely when they violate individuals' rights of due process and equal treatment before the law. We believe that individual rights should be protected, whether the rights violation originates with other individuals (e.g., criminals), the states, or the Federal government. Aid in furthering the protection of our rights is the reason that we have established governments in the first place.
As a deeply religious man, Dr. Schansberg is likely struggling with this issue. Outright Libertarians is proud to have helped move him a good portion of the way toward our position. Now, instead of supporting the FMA as he did several days ago, he wants to get the government out of the marriage business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)