Subscribe: Outright Libertarians Blog
http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
couples  gay  government  law  legislation  lgbtq people  lgbtq  marriage  people  proposition  rights  sex  state  support 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Outright Libertarians Blog

Outright Libertarians Blog



We're in the process of migrating our blog posts from Blogger to our own content management system hosted at www.OutrightUSA.org. If you followed a link here looking for a particular post and cannot find it, please visit OutrightUSA.org/blog.html to find



Updated: 2014-10-05T01:19:57.209-07:00

 



Real Dignity Before False Unity

2008-12-24T15:12:20.188-08:00

Much has been made of Barack Obama's invitation of anti-gay Brokeback... um, I mean SADDLEback Church pastor Rick Warren to deliver a convocation at Obama's inauguration.Obama is free to invite who he pleases, and those who are displeased with his choice are free to criticize it. We at Outright take no pleasure in seeing that our well-rooted concern that the Obama Administration would throw LGBTQ Americans under the bus will be commencing literally from the first hour of his administration.There has been much debate over the situation, some valid and some merely rhetorical. Comparisons to racist pastors have been made -- and they have some validity. If Obama is seeking to "unite" the country, including all bigots fearful of his administration, then the most magnanimous step he could take would be to invite some racist leaders, such as David Duke or Louis Farrakhan, to the event as speakers.That would doubtlessly invite controversy. African Americans and supporters of equal treatment under the law would doubtlessly disapprove across all three national political parties and independents alike. But such a move, given Obama's status as America's first African American president, would have validity and meaning, and would represent true courage in underscoring his commitment to "dialogue with all." It would represent true sacrifice on the part of the president-elect.Throwing gay people to the wolves is far less "courageous," and resembles something more akin to what Bill Clinton would have done. It's easy for a powerful heterosexual man to demand sacrifice from LGBTQ people who have already lost so much -- their family rights in the largest state in the country, their jobs in the military, and even their physical safety in brutal and traumatizing assaults like the recent gang rape of a gay woman in San Francisco. LGBTQ people have "sacrificed" far too much, and for this powerful man to demand further sacrifice from them when he has sacrificed literally nothing is staggering to behold.The reality? Barack Obama's shameless pandering to homophobia in his inauguration is an inexcusable demand that gay Americans exchange their dignity as individuals for a phony feel-good "unity" around a vision of America where LGBT Americans are on the outside looking in. This is NOT "change we can believe in" -- it is rather "more of the same."With this in mind, I'd like to turn more of my attention to the wheedling and excuse-making by LGBT Obama partisans like Atlantic columnist Andrew Sullivan and pop singer Melissa Etheridge.Etheridge opines:Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world.Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us.Sullivan adds that:The journey that Melissa Etheridge has taken is my own... we are the ones we have been waiting for.While it's sad (if not nauseating) to watch these two grown people fawn over their hero selling them (and us) down the river again, I'm reminded of something my mother taught me many years ago.If you have to "prove" you're a good person, the person demanding that proof isn't.Rather than go down this path of "reaching out" to bigots who had, until just a couple of days ago, posted lists of people who may not join their church (including "homosexuals")... Rather than fawn over Obama's Clintonian ways... Rather than spit out his trite one-liners... we have a real choice this holiday season.Let us do what we have always done and contribute to our communities in the ways we always have -- without an agenda of "proving" ourselves "worthy" of the admiration of bigots. Let us stand up and refuse to be thrown under the bus along with Obama's late grandmother, Obama's pastor, Obama's Chicago mentor, and every other individual he's sacrificed in his unrelenting thirst for power.Rather than take yet another for "the team" (which never really seeks to in[...]



Remedial Review for Ridiculous Religious Rightists

2008-12-01T09:39:32.685-08:00

As I scour through the comment threads of various news items, the true stupidity of the religious right smacks me, smack-dab in the snout.However, your friendly blogger is a compassionate fellow and is quite able and willing to explain a few things to the pro-Prop-8 religionists who are foaming at the mouth in fury.First of all, please stop referring to the lists of pro and anti Prop 8 supporters as "blacklists" and to boycotts as "blacklisting." A blacklist is a list developed by government specifically to punish and illegalize certain people.A boycott is not a "blacklist" and never was. Boycotts are legitimate expressions of individuals' right to consume as they please. You seemed to understand this when you boycotted American Airlines for offering same-sex partner health benefits, when you boycotted United Airlines for doing the same thing, when you boycotted Ford Motor for advertising in gay periodicals, when you boycotted Disney for not banning LGBT families from their park, and even when you threatened Proposition 8 opponents with a boycott of your own if they didn't stop contributing to the anti-Prop-8 initiatives.Please don't tell me that you're so stupid as to believe that now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's suddenly wrong, bad and illegal.None of us have a right to employment, public or private. And the fact of the matter is, a number of people in rather prominent positions -- fully knowing that their large contributions are a matter of public record -- declared that they favored Prop 8.Some of them were rather silly. Did the guy who oversees musical theater in Sacramento actually think he'd be able to avoid fallout from the gay community when they learned of his efforts to revoke their rights? It's musical theater, for criminy's sake -- without gay cash, it would cease to exist.How about the mental midget in LA who was a part-owner of a gay-oriented Mexican cantina? How stupid is she? (The mind boggles).Or the director of the Sundance festival -- a festival that goes out of its way to market itself to LGBT people.Let's put the shoe on the other foot, shall we?Imagine if a man who owns a restaurant catering to Mormons contributed a large sum of money to revoke their tax status. Or if a man who sells religious garments to the Catholic Church campaigned publicly against Catholicism.Would they have a magical right to expect business to continue pouring in? Would they be "blacklisted" if right-wing religious groups called for boycotts or other action?Of course not. Your actions facilitating this sort of thing over the years prove it.Unfortunately for you, the worm has turned.Gay people represent over $900 billion in annual spending power in the USA, pushing to $1 trillion by 2012. That's a lot of cash.And now, thanks to the internet and instant access to public records, they can decide where and how they're going to spend that money.Which means that if you want to continue channelling money to bigot amendments, you're going to have to find one of those shrinking number of jobs where little or no money comes from gay consumers -- or you're going to have to decide if your hate and anger is worth a loss of revenue to the competition.That's the beauty of free markets. You have the right to express whatever point of view you'd like, but others have the right to spend their money however they see fit.That the LGBT boycott of anti-gay businesses and individuals is more successful than the abortive boycotts you've launched over the years is less a sign of "unfair blacklisting," and more a sign of your lack of influence over modern American economic life.And while that may upset you, it's no basis for you to claim a right to the dollars of gay people who you have insulted, belittled, hated, attacked and disenfranchised so often over the last several decades.[...]



New York State Democrats Commit Electoral Fraud

2008-11-30T15:16:43.644-08:00

New York's Democratic Party politicos promised voters, in an intense campaign, that if elected to a majority in the state house and state senate, they would introduce a marriage equality bill into law in 2009.New York's Democratic governor, New York's Democratic majority leader, and New York's partisan Democratic gay lobby Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA) all promised LGBT voters that if they handed control of the state senate -- long controlled by the GOP -- to the Democrats, a marriage equality bill would hit the books in 2009.They even backed up this plan with a symbolic huge passage of a marriage equality bill in the lower house, blaming its failure in the Senate on Republican leadership.Gay voters in New York got the message loud and clear, and a flood of campaign contributions, votes, and campaign support came in for the Democrats. As the New York Times notes:After a pledge from New York Democratic leaders that their party would legalize same-sex marriage if they won control of the State Senate this year, money from gay rights supporters poured in from across the country, helping cinch a Democratic victory.But now, just weeks after the Democrats won their big victory in NY's elections, it turns out that the entire set of promises were a giant con game -- structured electoral fraud by Democrats who knowingly lied to the electorate of New York. As the Times describes it:party leaders have sent strong signals that they may not take up the issue during the 2009 legislative session. Some of them suggest it may be wise to wait until 2011 before considering it, in hopes that Democrats can pick up more Senate seats and Gov. David A. Paterson, a strong backer of gay rights, would then be safely into a second term.Classic bait-and-switch.Classic fraud.Now, it's not illegal for Democrats to lie -- heck, if it was, most of that party would be serving long terms in jail.However, it's instructive to note the reactions of most of the NY Democrat leadership:“We want to get there, but we want to get there the right way or else we risk setting ourselves back another decade,” said Senator Liz Krueger, a Democrat who represents the Upper East Side.Ah, but will the people who are "reassessing" their "strategy" be refunding the money they received in contributions as a result of their commitment?Of course not. Fraudsters rarely reimburse their victims.Meanwhile, the Gay A-List Democrats have demonstrated the lack of leadership they've demonstrated to date on Proposition 8, DOMA, DADT and every other Democratic Party con-job on the LGBT community to date. It's not like ESPA wasn't singing the praises of the Democrats up to election day, and providing top Dem politicos with a bully pulpit:Mr. Smith, speaking about same-sex marriage at a fund-raiser for the Empire State Pride Agenda last year, was emphatic, saying, “We’re going to make sure that happens in ’08, when we take over the majority.” He now avoids questions on the topic and instead gives a standard reply about the need to focus on the economy when asked about it.And you've got to love the quisling queers, selling you down the river after defrauding you for The Party. Smith, who rarely meets a microphone he doesn't want to monopolize, has been downright circumspect in the wake of this electoral fraud, and his de-facto campaign organization also isn't talking:The Empire State Pride Agenda, an organization known for aggressively pursuing news media attention, said through a spokesman that it was in a “quiet period” and would not respond to questions.That accountability thing is so tedious, dontcha know. And now, the Defrauding Democrats have picked up Smith's line about "the economy" and are peddling it to pissed off voters and contributors:Asked about when Mr. Paterson would like to see the Senate vote, the governor’s communications director, Risa B. Heller, said, “For now and the immediate future we are focused on the state’s fiscal situation.”The fiscal situation was bad before the election, too.[...]



Could this have ended up any worse?

2008-11-21T11:41:39.097-08:00

eHarmony to offer same-sex matches after New Jersey settlement* | Technology | Los Angeles Times

1. Government regulation of a privately-owned business.
2. Gays given "separate-but-equal" treatment yet again.
3. Does anyone think this "CompatiblePartners.net" site will be anything but utterly craptastic?
4. Fundamentalists predictably are screaming "judicial activism" even though this was a private settlement outside of trial.
5. Fundamentalists threatening to sue gay dating sites for not offering straight matchmaking.
6. More undeserved press for that Fundamentalist bozo Neil Clark Warren.



Mercury-News's Mangled Muddied Muddled Marriage Malarke

2008-11-19T19:23:59.962-08:00

The San Jose Mercury News, the top paper of Silicon Valley, has gotten it wrong again. This time, it printed a presumptuous and somewhat insulting editorial about the present controversy around California's anti-gay Proposition 8. Most notable are some rather questionable assertions that the paper asserts as truisms:Had supporters of gay marriage shown as much fervor for their cause before the Nov. 4 election as they have since, they probably would have defeated Proposition 8. But they will surely fail in their campaign to repeal the ban if threats and coercion continue to be among their tactics.Threats and coercion?Such as threatening to launch recall petitions against Supreme Court justices who vote in favor of the 14th amendment rights of gays and lesbians?Or referring to peaceful protestors in last weekend's nationwide marches as "terrorists?"some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions.Vandalism is indeed nasty. However, several investigations in California have suggested that the vandalism (and the various other claimed threats) was not committed by LGBT people at all -- but rather by Mormons themselves, in a bid to generate public sympathy and change the subject.In fact, not one of the alleged "vandalism" incidents has been traced back to any member or ally of the LGBT community.That doesn't stop the Mercury-News from presuming the community's guilt however... which is amusing since it then begins a lecture on the Constitution that is laughably inaccurate.One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative....the selective boycotts of small donors clearly is meant to send a message of intimidation and suppress the First Amendment right of expression.Well, let's set the record, ehrm, straight here.Firstly, the bar in question was a popular Mexican cantina in Los Angeles that catered heavily to the LGBT community in the area.Secondly, the "small donor" was not merely the "owner's daughter," but a part owner of the firm in question.Thirdly, there was not a "raucus demonstration," but rather a press conference called by the other owners, where the owner in question attempted to explain her contribution to the anti-gay initiative.A majority of attendees at the gay-catering establishment rejected her argument, and a large number of people have decided to take their business elsewhere. Which is their right.Let's ignore the fact that the Mercury-News has refused to criticize anti-gay boycotts conducted against firms ranging from a California pumpkin farm (for flying rainbow flags) to large institutions like Apple, Ford Motor Co., American and United Airlines, and Walt Disney Co. for having the "audacity" to offer domestic partner benefits.Let's even ignore the fact that the Mercury-News has refused to criticize the pro-Proposition-8 campaign's tactics as "dangerous," despite the fact that it was the first party in this debate to play the boycott card, threatening anti-Prop-8 donors with boycotts back in October.Both mulligans for the Mercury-News aren't difficult -- LGBT people are long used to a lack of even-handed treatment by the established media, and while that's rather inexcusable in this day and age, there's something far less excusable at play in the M-N's editorializing.The Mercury News has demonstrated it has absolutely no understanding of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of individuals to express themselves free of government coercion or harrassment. It provides no guarantee to a comfortable living despite one's political opinions, nor does it provide a [...]



On Proposition 8

2008-11-14T23:11:35.395-08:00

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.

(object) (embed)



Buying in to right-wing talking points

2008-11-10T13:23:55.113-08:00

If I hear another gay conservative complain that the loss of marriage equality in California is due to "judicial activism," I will absolutely explode.

Listen up, conservatives: You know that recent Supreme Court decision that struck down D.C.'s gun ban as Unconstitutional? Judicial activism. Court decisions striking down campaign finance laws as Unconstitutional? Judicial activism. And conservatives loved those precedents. So, why is it that judicial activism is only bad when gay people are the beneficiaries?

And as if it's not bad enough that some gay conservatives parrot the right-wing talking points about judicial activism, I occasionally see one fly so far beyond the most arch-conservative pundit to say something so ridiculous that it would make Pat Buchanan cringe:

The gay marriage issue is not going to be decided over the heads of the American people, and no amount of comparing it to Brown vs. Board of Education or any other dubiously relevant precedent will change that. -- Jonathan Rauch
Really?

This is why gay conservatives aren't taken seriously. By anyone.




Why The Phillies Deserved A Win

2008-11-02T08:40:36.043-08:00

Leave it to your friendly blogging Philadelphian to take solace in this news.

Apparently, a well-known player for the LA Dodgers donated $15K to the anti-gay Proposition 8 in California.

Jeff Kent, who played second base for the Los Angeles Dodgers this season, has stepped into the emotional world of same-sex marriage, giving $15,000 to backers of the California proposition on Tuesday's ballot that would ban it.

In a disclosure filed with the California secretary of state, Kent listed his occupation as professional baseball player for the Dodgers and his address as Austin, Texas. He gave the $15,000 in a transaction dated Monday but which only now is public.


You may recall that the Dodgers lost the league championships to my very own hometown Philadelphia Phillies -- who spanked the Dodgers and went on to win the World Series this past week.

The Phillies are well-known for their pro-gay approach to baseball.

In fact, they've even earned the ire of the right-wing Controlling Wankers of America (CWA). Seems they didn't want the CWA disrupting their gay-friendly game with their hatred, and CWA is outraged that they threw their propagandists out of the privately-operated stadium.

Got to love that.

Meanwhile, let's hope that the Dodgers' Jeff Kent is as poor a performer in anti-gay politics as he and his colleagues were on the baseball diamond against the Phillies!



Ruth E. Bennett for Washington State House of Representatives District 37, Position 2

2008-11-01T23:45:34.769-07:00

Outright Libertarians are PROUD, THRILLED and ECSTATIC to support our own National Vice-Chair, Ruth Bennett, for Washington State House of Representatives District 37, Position 2!

Her survey results follow:

1. I would willingly sponsor legislation to repeal DADT in the Washington State National Guard.

2. While Washington has some inroads towards marriage equality, we are still not equal. I have spoken to legislators and to the press pointing out that while second class rights are better than no rights at all, that the Democrats (who have majorities in both the state house and senate AND the governor's mansion) have not done their job by repealing the state's DOMA. Shame on them and I would love to be the legislator to introduce a repeal of DOMA here which is the only thing keeping marriage equality from our community (per our state's Supreme Court).

3. I absolutely would work for tax fairness regardless of sexual orientation or gender. The fact the LGBTQ people have such a disproportionate tax burden is unconscionable. Taxes at all levels should be cut and those left applied equally.

4. Punishing or additionally punishing people for their thoughts is so dangerous and I would introduce and support legislation eliminating hate crimes.

5. The first suit filed in Washington under an ENDA type law was a straight, unmarried couple suing to get partnership benefits. What too many LGBTQ folks realize is that ENDA type laws means that LGBTQ people can't hire just other LGBTQ people. I was looking into some co-housing with some friends and the biggest problem our attorney warned us about was limiting our housing to just lesbians! I do not support ENDA type laws.

6. I do not support government mandated discrimination of any sort and would refuse to implement such bigotry.

7. Few people understand that mandates increase the cost of insurance to everyone. I do not support mandates that price insurance beyond the means of so many individuals and families. I would support being able to purchase insurance across state lines and minimal cost catastrophic coverage.

8. The government has no right to discriminate and I support all government employees being treated equally regardless of sexual orientation or gender. I just want fewer of them!

9. I have been a member of Pink Pistols and fully support the rights of all citizens to protect themselves from aggression. Washington State has an even stronger constitutional amendment regarding the right to keep and bear arms and I fully support it.

10. The idea that a child is less loved or cared for by a gay or lesbian couple is nearly beyond my comprehension, let alone that one state would try to negate the family another state has approved! While Washington has no such discriminatory laws, I would never support adding in such bigotry to our state.

11. At some point I hope the LGBTQ community will stop its "Stockholm-syndrome" slavish support of the Democrats or the internalized-homophobia of the Log Cabin Republicans to realize that the Libertarian Party is the only political party to consistently support the rights of LGBTQ people to live their lives free of self-loathing and discrimination.



Brian Irving for North Carolina Senate 17

2008-11-01T23:37:54.443-07:00

Outright Libertarians are proud to support Brian Irving for North Carolina Senate 17. His survey responses: Outright Libertarians State & Local Candidate Survey 1) Since the early 1990s, Congressional legislation has blocked LGBTQ people from serving openly in the military. This discriminatory legislation, commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (or DADT), has resulted in the discharge of thousands of qualified military personnel solely on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. However, the governor of each state is a commander in chief of the National Guard for that state. Will you support efforts to ensure that LGBT people may serve openly in your state's National Guard? The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is a shame. Yes, LGBT people should be able to serve openly in the military. (Although as long as the Democratic-Republican duopoly perpetuates an imperialist foreign policy, I would not recommend it.) In my 25-years service, it did not make any difference if the person next time me was gay. I will support legislation to allow service in the NC National Guard. However, the Guard is also governed by Federal regulations, so I will work to change those regulations as well. 2) In 1996, Congress passed (and Bill Clinton signed) the Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA). This law overrules the constitutional right of LGBTQ people to equal protection under the law by banning all federal recognition of same-sex relationships for various purposes (such as sponsoring a foreign partner for a visa, or filing a joint tax return). It also allows states to ignore the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause and reject other states’ certification of same-sex relationships. Many states have also passed similar anti-LGBTQ legislation or even anti-LGBTQ constitutional amendments. Will you take steps to work to repeal state DOMAs (if they exist in your state) and implement equal treatment in marriage in your state? The State has no business telling people who they can marry. Period. I will oppose a "gay marriage" amendment to the NC Constitution and work to repeal the state's DOMA. 3) LGBTQ people are subject to unequal tax treatment in a number of areas. For example, while opposite-sex married couples aren’t taxed for joint health benefits, same-sex couples must pay income tax on domestic partner benefits that include health care coverage. Asset transfer taxes, estate taxes, and inheritance taxes that aren’t charged to straight couples must be paid by LGBTQ couples. As a result, many LGBTQ couples will pay over five times the tax of a comparable straight couple over the life of their relationship. Will you take steps to eliminate any tax discrimination against LGBTQ people by your state/local government? Yes. Of course, as a libertarian I would also work to repeal all these taxes. 4) The House and Senate are considering “hate crime” legislation that seeks to make attacks on LGBTQ people (as well as certain other minorities) “more” of a crime than a violent attack on a member of a majority class. Many states already have such legislation implemented on a state level. Will you lobby against – and vote against – such legislation? "Hate crime" laws criminalize thought. I will oppose "hate crime" legislation for any group. I will also work to repeal laws making punishment for crimes against "government officials," including police officers, any more stringent than citizens. All people are equal before the law. "Hate crime" laws are just as destructive to individual rights as laws that discriminate against people based on sexual preference, race, religion, nationality or any other factor. The proper place to deal with "hate" is in determining the motive of a criminal. 5) The House and Senate are considering the Employ[...]



Jan MacKay for North Carolina Senate 15 (Raleigh, Wake County)

2008-11-01T23:27:51.930-07:00

Outright Libertarians are proud to support Jan MacKay for North Carolina Senate 15. Survey responses follow:State and Local Candidate SurveyCandidates for State and Local elected office should complete thissurvey on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) issuesand send answers to candidatesurveys@outrightusa.org1) Since the early 1990s, Congressional legislation has blocked LGBTQpeople from serving openly in the military. This discriminatorylegislation, commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (or DADT),has resulted in the discharge of thousands of qualified militarypersonnel solely on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or genderidentity. However, the governor of each state is a commander in chief ofthe National Guard for that state. Will you support efforts to ensurethat 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 ofMarriage Act (or DOMA). This law overrules the constitutional right ofLGBTQ people to equal protection under the law by banning all federalrecognition of same-sex relationships for various purposes (such assponsoring a foreign partner for a visa, or filing a joint tax return).It also allows states to ignore the Constitution’s “full faith andcredit” clause and reject other states’ certification of same-sexrelationships. Many states have also passed similar anti-LGBTQlegislation or even anti-LGBTQ constitutional amendments. Will you takesteps to work to repeal state DOMAs (if they exist in your state) andimplement equal treatment in marriage in your state?Yes, the the full extent that can be done at the state senate level. NClegislators are currently making the push for a DOMA. I will oppose.3) LGBTQ people are subject to unequal tax treatment in a number ofareas. For example, while opposite-sex married couples aren’t taxed forjoint health benefits, same-sex couples must pay income tax on domesticpartner benefits that include health care coverage. Asset transfertaxes, estate taxes, and inheritance taxes that aren’t charged tostraight couples must be paid by LGBTQ couples. As a result, many LGBTQcouples will pay over five times the tax of a comparable straight coupleover the life of their relationship. Will you take steps to eliminateany 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 thatseeks to make attacks on LGBTQ people (as well as certain otherminorities) “more” of a crime than a violent attack on a member of amajority class. Many states already have such legislation implemented ona state level. Will you lobby against – and vote against – such legislation?I would vote and work hard against anything that discriminates againstpeople. NC currently does not include sexual preference and genderidentity as protected classes. NC has problems which needs to be workedand is not addressed by this question.5) The House and Senate are considering the EmploymentNon-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would regulate business and removeemployers' and employees' First Amendment rights to freedom ofassociation by banning private sector discrimination based on sexualorientation. Many states and municipalities already have similar laws ona local level. Will you vote against/veto those laws?The 1st amendment must be protected, as must all bill of rights. Theyneed to be applied so that all person are equal under the law.Government should not be involved in regulating hiring practices, exceptfor government jobs. Gov't should be protecting peoples rights tonon-discrimination when it comes to employm[...]



Sue Newell for Governor of New Hampshire

2008-11-01T23:22:50.951-07:00

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 isthe best option for any government endeavor. Military service shouldnever be a matter of conscription, and no person should ever be placedin 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 stateout of either marriages or civil unions, which should be privatecontracts between whatever consulting adults choose to enter into them.I would seek to repeal all laws relating to both marriages or civilunions. If three adults of whatever gender(s) chose to enter into alegal agreement with regard to rights as beneficiaries, or for purposesof medical decision-making, or the sharing or inheritance of wealth, thestate has no business either approving or disapproving it. The statehas no business defining or authorizing relationships based on whatsexual or non-sexual activities are assumed to take place within theprivacy of the home - always provided that only consenting adults areinvolved.3) New Hampshire has no income tax, and state civil unions alreadyprovide marriage-equivalent standing within the state for same-sexcouples for other taxation purposes. My ultimate goal would be theelimination of all income taxes. Meanwhile, I am opposed to any taxcode 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 anothershould be punished for the harm done and for patterns of repeat offense,not for which victims they chose. I would support legislation to repealRSA 651:6, New Hampshire’s hate crime penalty enhancement.5) The employer-employee relationship is a private one, and as long asno fraud or deceit is present, the government should not be interferingin it, including via discrimination laws.6) I have committed to calling for a constitutional amendment for thecomplete separation of school and state. Without the mantle ofgovernment, the free market will provide for schools that meet the needsof consumers, and schools that will cater to the specific choices oftheir clientele - with regard to staffing, curriculum and everythingelse. The state has no business controlling what goes into the minds ofchildren or in inculcating any particular social message.7) As governor, I would fight any insurance mandates or regulations thatwill increase the cost and reduce choice, and work to roll back existingmandates.8) If elected, I would hire the best people for the jobs - and far fewerof them than currently employed by the state. Any aspect of a person’spersonality or biology that is irrelevant to their ability to do theirjob is irrelevant to the state’s decision to employ them.9) I am an unconditional supporter of both the federal Second Amendmentand the right to keep and bear arms as enshrined in the New Hampshirestate constitution.10) The government should not be involved in family relationships exceptin extreme cases where there is a demonstrable victim. Parental sexualpreferences and identities do not make anyone a victim.11) This election is a fine opportunity for voters to vote theirconscience and send a strong, clear pro-freedom message to the politicalestablishment. Don't compromise on your rights, voting for a politicianwho will trample only some of them but promises to protect others; votefor the candidate who will protect ALL of your rights. VoteLibertarian, Liberty Sue Newell for Governor.[...]



If you've had it with this (mf) discrimination in our (mf) Constitution...

2008-10-31T16:34:50.523-07:00

Samuel L. Jackson has recorded a very powerful ad for the No on 8 campaign, and if we can raise $3 million by midnight tonight, we can make sure that it's seen on TV by voters across California before Tuesday's election

Please click here to help put this ad on TV.
(object) (embed)
Please click here to help put this ad on TV.



Prop 8 supporters are threatening businesses now

2008-10-24T13:19:16.168-07:00

This is totally surreal.

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

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


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

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



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

2008-10-24T11:50:01.591-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Pity the poor confused Log Cabin Republicans

2008-10-23T12:06:44.348-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



Process of elimination

2008-10-20T09:52:51.409-07:00

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

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

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


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

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



Open letter to the few Libertarians not yet opposing Prop 8

2008-10-18T20:54:09.242-07:00

The other day, I received an email from the head of a fairly well-known libertarian think-tank suggesting that the Libertarian Party of California was incorrect when it unanimously endorsed a vote of No on Proposition 8. Below is this person's email, with any identifying information redacted, and my response follows.Dear Rob,Why are you and the LPC supporting state government mandates for marriage? Isn't the libertarian position to privatize marriage and remove the government from any involvement?Here are some articles in this regard:[links to four articles on the organization's website]Pleas for equal treatment by state government officials have nothing to do with the freedom to contract when the state determines the terms involved.Best regards,__________My response:Dear __________,We're opposing the redistribution of wealth that occurs when the state gives one subset of people (straight couples) benefits from taxes paid equally by both gay and straight taxpayers. If Prop 8 were about removing taxpayer-funded privileges from ALL married couples, both gay and straight, we of course would support it. But that's not what Prop 8 does. Rather, it seeks to use the force of government to take from one group and give to another, which is why we're opposing it.Why would you and [your organization] be supporting government discrimination against same-sex couples? Isn't it the libertarian position that using government force to redistribute wealth from one group of people to another is wrong?Regarding the assertion that there is such a thing as a private contract that offers the same protections to a couple that a marriage certificate does, I will simply ask that you do some more research on the topic before coming to such conclusions. There is no such thing as a private contract that allows one to not testify against one's "civil partner" in court, while spouses with a marriage certificate are immune from testifying against each other. This is just one of the hundreds of spousal rights, protections, and benefits that Proposition 8 would take away from same-sex couples. And even for the protections that can actually be accomplished via private contract, the redistribution of wealth continues in that such contracts cost thousands of dollars and weeks or months of red tape and paperwork to have them drawn up, while a marriage certificate costs an average of $70 and at most an hour of time. I'm told by my attorney friends that marriage is what as known as a "bright line rule" in legal terms, where one single piece of paper is able to convey huge amounts of legal significance that even thousands of pages of private civil contracts cannot convey fully. So, gay people have to wonder why some libertarians and libertarian think tanks were absolutely silent about government marriage certificates for many decades, and only became interested in the issue recently. All of the articles you mentioned are from after the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling.I do not disagree with any of the articles you cited. We should get government out of marriage. But nobody in your organization, nor anywhere else, said anything about this until same-sex couples sought equal access. That's not a coincidence we can ignore. It smacks of bigotry, blatant and ugly, no matter how many libertarian arguments are used to whitewash the issue. The thankfully few libertarians who don't oppose Prop 8 thought that government marriage was just fine, or at least a very low priority, right up until it looked like gays might be included. Then, it was suddenly something that we absolutely must get th[...]



"Keep government out of all of our lives"

2008-10-16T10:12:13.133-07:00

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

(object) (embed)

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

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



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

2008-10-06T11:20:11.985-07:00

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

From the email:

[Barack Obama] has publicly stated his disdain for justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.
Me too. Same for most Libertarians. These four men have made excuses for the worst attacks on the Constitution by this President. The Bob Barr who donates his time to the ACLU doesn't think much of these four men, either.

The email continues:
We don't believe in a living Constitution. We believe that where interpretation is needed, original intent is what should be considered. The Constitution of 1789 is as good today as it was then.
You have got to be kidding me. There's no way that Bob Barr agrees with this nonsense. The 1789 Constitution, complete with a definition of slaves as 3/5 of a person is "as good today as it was then"? Libertarians don't believe anything of the sort.

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

But here's the kicker:

Your gift of any amount will help us get the word out that there is not a dime's worth of difference between McCain and Obama.
And if Russell Verney has his way, there won't be a dime's worth of difference between Paul, Baldwin, and Barr. The Libertarian Party is not a place for apologists of the Confederacy. Those folks have a home -- the Constitution Party.

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

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



Marakay Rogers for Pennsylvania Attorney General

2008-10-17T11:49:21.758-07:00

We're proud to support Marakay Rogers for Pennsylvania Attorney General. Her survey answers:1) Since the early 1990s, Congressional legislation has blocked LGBTQ people from serving openly in the military. This discriminatory legislation, commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell� (or DADT), has resulted in the discharge of thousands of qualified military personnel solely on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. However, the governor of each state is a commander in chief of the National Guard for that state. Will you support efforts to ensure that LGBT people may serve openly in your state's National Guard? Yes, and to the extent possible given my position I will also support open service in all branches of the military.2) In 1996, Congress passed (and Bill Clinton signed) the Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA). This law overrules the constitutional right of LGBTQ people to equal protection under the law by banning all federal recognition of same-sex relationships for various purposes (such as sponsoring a foreign partner for a visa, or filing a joint tax return). It also allows states to ignore the Constitution’s “full faith and credit� clause and reject other states’ certification of same-sex relationships. Many states have also passed similar anti-LGBTQ legislation or even anti-LGBTQ constitutional amendments. Will you take steps to work to repeal state DOMAs (if they exist in your state) and implement equal treatment in marriage in your state? Yes. I consider DOMA and all its state equivalents to be violations of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution as well as the federal DOMA being a violation of federal powers in an area strictly subject to the states' determination.3) LGBTQ people are subject to unequal tax treatment in a number of areas. For example, while opposite-sex married couples aren’t taxed for joint health benefits, same-sex couples must pay income tax on domestic partner benefits that include health care coverage. Asset transfer taxes, estate taxes, and inheritance taxes that aren’t charged to straight couples must be paid by LGBTQ couples. As a result, many LGBTQ couples will pay over five times the tax of a comparable straight couple over the life of their relationship. Will you take steps to eliminate any tax discrimination against LGBTQ people by your state/local government? Yes.4) The House and Senate are considering “hate crime� legislation that seeks to make attacks on LGBTQ people (as well as certain other minorities) “more� of a crime than a violent attack on a member of a majority class. Many states already have such legislation implemented on a state level. Will you lobby against – and vote against – such legislation? Having once worked as a civil rights attorney I understand the impetus for the passage of hate crime legislation. It is a very emotional issue for many people. What should be everyone's greatest concern, however, is the application of existing laws prosecuting all assaults and violent attacks on all citizens, which are often pled out instead with insufficient punishment for the crimes committed. If we cannot prosecute assault and aggravated assault in the first place, nothing else matters. Currently, there is no hate crimes legislation in Pennsylvania as the existing law was struck down by the state's appeals courts.5) The House and Senate [...]



Chris Cole for US Senate, North Carolina

2008-10-17T11:49:13.752-07:00

We're proud to support Chris Cole for US Senate, North Carolina. His survey answers:1) Since the early 1990s, Congressional legislation has blocked LGBTQ people from serving openly in the military. This discriminatory legislation, commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (or DADT), has resulted in the discharge of thousands of qualified military personnel solely on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. As a member of the House or Senate, will you co-sponsor theMilitary Readiness Enhancement Act (MREA) which on passage would permit openly LGBTQ people to serve in the military?Answer: Absolutely. Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell is a Jim Crow law for gayservicemembers, and is as insane as racial segregation was up throughWorld War II. The idea that a man cannot love and defend his country becausehe loves another man is ludicrous and contrary to the experience of a numberof our allies, such as Israel and the UK.2) In 1996, Congress passed (and Bill Clinton signed) the Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA). This law overrules the constitutional right of LGBTQ people to equal protection under the law by banning all federal recognition of same-sex relationships for various purposes (such as sponsoring a foreign partner for a visa, or filing a joint tax return). It also allows states to ignore the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause and reject other states’ certification of same-sexrelationships. As an elected representative, will you sponsor or co-sponsor legislation to repeal DOMA?Answer: Yes. DOMA is another form of antigay Jim Crow law, and would nothave been tolerated against any other class of Americans. Not only does itviolate the 14th Amendment and the faith and credit clause, it also violatesthe same 9th Amendment right to fundamental private choice affirmed in theLoving decision which invalidated state miscegenation laws.3) LGBTQ people are subject to unequal tax treatment in a number of areas. For example, while opposite-sex married couples aren’t taxed for joint health benefits, same-sex couples must pay income tax on domestic partner benefits that include health care coverage. Asset transfer taxes, estate taxes, and inheritance taxes that aren’t charged to straight couples must be paid by LGBTQ couples. As a result, manyLGBTQ couples will pay over five times the tax of a comparable straight couple over the life of their relationship. Will you sponsor or co-sponsor legislation to eliminate tax discrimination against LGBTQ people?Answer: Yes, I support equal treatment under federal tax law. I would not support the imposition of such a standard on the states.4) The District of Columbia is a federally-administered District. Recently, Congress has considered and/or passed a number of laws related to LGBTQ issues in the district that are distinctly homophobic, such as excluding same-sex couples from taxpayer-funded adoption services, a ban on recognition of same-sex couples, and a law forbidding LGBTQ people from having their out-of-district adoptions recognized. Will you vote against this legislation and other similar legislation in the District of Columbia?Answer: Yes. I will always defend the equality of same-sex individuals andcouples under federal law, including federal enclaves and territories.5) The House and Senate are considering “hate crimes” legislation that seeks to make violence against LGBTQ people (as well as certain other minorities) “more” of a crime than violence against a member of a ma[...]



Morey Straus for New Hampshire State Reprsentative, Hillsborough District 11

2008-10-17T11:49:05.250-07:00

We're proud to support Morey Straus for New Hampshire State Reprsentative, Hillsborough District 11. His survey answers:

1. Yes, I oppose discrimination in all government employment.
2. I believe government has no legitimate authority to regulate marriage, and will work to repeal all laws pertaining to marriage. However, as an interim effort, I will support changing the law to allow marriage for all people.
3. I would support such efforts to combat discriminatory actions by government, but would prefer to seek them as described in question 2.
4. Yes, I am opposed to elevating the rights of some people over others based on personal beliefs, regardless of how offensive I may find those beliefs.
5. Yes, I support freedom of association, and am opposed to all government regulation.
6. Yes, I will oppose efforts to introduce anti-LGBTQ sentiments into the government school curriculum.
7. I support allowing greater choices in health insurance, and have made it a core message of my campaign.
8. There is no office or staff associated with the office of NH State Representative.
9. Yes, I fully support the rights of all people to keep and bear arms.
10. Yes, I will support the rights of all parents to maintain custody of their children.
11. As a Libertarian, I support the rights of individuals and families to live peaceably, without interference from government. The Libertarian LGBTQ community should consider me a solid ally in the fight for individual liberty.



No on Proposition 8 in California

2008-10-17T11:48:57.033-07:00

On September 29, the Executive Committee of Outright Libertarians unanimously endorsed a vote of NO on Proposition 8 in California, a constitutional amendment that would end same-sex marriage. While this should be no surprise, it should also be noted that this endorsement followed unanimous endorsements of NO on 8 by:

We encourage our members and all Libertarians, all across the country, to Vow to Vote NO on Prop 8 by visiting www.NoOnProp8.com and making a donation.



Of Course Libertarians Oppose Proposition 8

2008-10-07T11:37:13.612-07:00

In response to a "libertarian" writing several articles at NolanChart.com supporting Proposition 8, I wrote this article. It also shows how the "libertarians" who say that "getting the government out of marriage" should be the only goal, even if it means sacrificing equal treatment for gays and lesbians, have a blind spot on LGBT issues that they fortunately no longer have on civil rights for other minorities.

Despite being opposed to government schools, most libertarians would be horrified to see such a pro-segregation argument coming from the Reason Foundation. Yet they are less surprised when a nearly identical argument is made regarding gays and lesbians.