Phillies Blasts Obama on GBLT Issues
From the George Phillies campaign:
Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies today denounced Barack Obama’s support for discrimination against gays, lesbians and various religious faiths.
“Marriage equality is for everyone,” Phillies said. “Obama’s support for separate but equal marriage for gays is no different than Orville Faubus’s support for separate but equal schools for blacks. Separate is not equal. It was wrong 50 years ago and it’s wrong today.’
“Senator Obama was completely clear,” Phillies said. “He wrote: ‘I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples, whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.’ ”
“Senator Obama comes from Chicago, a place rich in different religious faiths,” Phillies noted. “I am particularly disappointed that he advocates ‘civil’ marriage, not simply ‘marriage’, turning his back on the religious faiths that celebrate religious marriage for same-sex couples. Uncle Sam should have no place in this fundamental religious question.”
“Gay and lesbian Democrats should realize they are being used by their political candidates,” Phillies continued. “The Democrats make all sorts of promises, but the real Democratic message for the GLBTQ community is, ‘Please sit in the rear of the bus’. We Libertarians invite the GLBTQ community to abandon the Democratic party’s back seat and take your place as equals in the Libertarian Party.”
March 5th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Is Phillies gay? I know he has never been married.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Once again, Phillies displays his disdain for federalism and his support for government intervention in private affairs (this time being marriage). To my knowledge, the libertarian stance on this issue is to make marriage a private institution.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Preferably it would be private but if such things exist under the state they should be equal under the law. I am a straight married libertarian and I agree with Phillies. One doesnt have to be gay to support equal treatment of gays just as one need not be black to oppose state enforced segregation and mistreatment based on race, gender, sex, religion, whatever. To me, it’s just part of being a decent human being.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Hugh, you are correct. Phillies doesn’t seem to understand. But then again, the Outright Nazis think the same thing.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I am gay and I agree with Hugh.
http://www.slate.com/id/2085127
March 5th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I like Phillies tactic though. It is a shame that an actual libertarian doesn’t come out against Osama for advocating government enforced homophobia.
The word “equality” gives me the creeps.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Did Harry Browne ghost-write this?
http://www.slate.com/id/2085127
This article is persuasive enough to convince me to back off of my prior stance supporting mandatory marriage for gays so that they would be forced to be as miserable as heterosexual married couples.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Phillies is a Beltwayite Cosmotarian without the credentials or connections. i.e. not a libertarian.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:36 am
“Preferably it would be private but if such things exist under the state they should be equal under the law. I am a straight married libertarian and I agree with Phillies. One doesnt have to be gay to support equal treatment of gays just as one need not be black to oppose state enforced segregation and mistreatment based on race, gender, sex, religion, whatever. To me, it’s just part of being a decent human being.”
So, let’s apply this thinking to other political issues. Libertarians universally reject the draft/selective service. So, by this logic, if we cannot eliminate the draft, we should at least make gays and straights equally eligible for the selective service.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:48 am
“Separate is not equal.”
Phillies is right. Seperate incomes should not be tolerated. All wages should be equal.
In addition, types of crime may be distinctly different—but they demand equality, and “seperation” cannot be equal, it must be integrated. Murder should be 35 years, and so should a speeding ticket.
Douche. Federalism rocks.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:40 am
Wow. Where do I start?
Phillies displays his disdain for federalism and his support for government intervention in private affairs
I consistently read these sorts of comments from people in opposition to equal treatment under the existing law for gay and lesbian people. I have never, however, read such comments slamming marriage laws when the discussion is about heterosexual people. Not once have I seen a serious campaign against government marriage either within the LP or general society by people who make this argument—which means it’s not an ideologically consistent one.
then again, the Outright Nazis think the same thing.
Mike, Mike, Mike, you were on the board of the organization itself, need I remind you. The only reason you seem bitter is that you weren’t able to get your Texas membership to re-elect you and expected the board to nominate you to another term and impose you on the membership.
You had ample opportunity to argue against that policy while sitting as Texas chair. You didn’t do so, not even once.
The word “equality” gives me the creeps.
Of course it does. You supported Ron Paul—who is a strong advocate of government regulation to prevent equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians (and who, incidentally, has a government marriage license).
Libertarians universally reject the draft/selective service. So, by this logic, if we cannot eliminate the draft, we should at least make gays and straights equally eligible for the selective service.
You’re comparing voluntary consensual contracting (marriage) to involuntary conscription. That’s a completely invalid comparison from the get-go, as a result.
Phillies is right. Seperate incomes should not be tolerated. All wages should be equal.
Another logical fallacy. Phillies is calling for equal treatment by government in existing areas of law—not equal outcomes in the private sector.
Frankly, all the strong support for federalism and against government marriage only seems to pop up when queer folks are involved. That’s really all one needs to know—there is no effective lobby against government marriage licenses except when some people call for those licenses to be equally available to gay people.
Then various homophobes (many of whom support government-licensed-married Ron Paul without reservation) spring forward with logical fallacies and phony “principles” to argue against equal treatment under the law—but never to seriously argue against the status quo they’re sidelining as “unlibertarian.”
Shame on all of you.
March 6th, 2008 at 5:18 am
My recollection is that Phillies has specifically and publicly or semi-publicly (it may have been to Outright) referred to himself as heterosexual. Not that that matters—as a matter of fact, it would be good PR to have an out gay man, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered person on our presidential ticket. I’m unaware that any such are seeking the presidential or vice-presidential nomination this time, though.
Federalism has more than one side. The federal government does have certain enumerated powers and the states do have certain obligations. The full faith and credit clause requires Texas to recognize marriages recorded in Massachusetts, Ron Paul’s anti-constitutionalist legislative proposals to nullify it with respect to same-sex marriages notwithstanding. The 14th Amendment requires the states to accord their citizens the equal protection of the law and empowers the federal government to compel performance of that requirement.
The argument against marriage licensing per se is valid, but as Mr. Miller notes the only time Libertarians seem to bring it up is when the sexual orientation of those seeking such licenses is at issue.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:21 am
The policy of Outright Libertarians has also been misrepresented by several posters here.
Outright is in favor of equal treatment under the law for gay and lesbian individuals. This includes equal treatment in marriage, which we view as a transitional step towards the ultimate goal of getting government out of the marriage business altogether.
In fact, Outright has been the only organization consistently advocating for any policies that would end government-recognized marriage.
Incidentally, this policy is entirely consistent with the position of the Libertarian Party, as laid out in the existing party platform.
It’s also interesting to note that none of Phillies’ critics on the list have noted that Phillies is opposing Obama for two reasons—segregationism and also opposition to the creation of new government regulations related to that segregated status. Phillies’ approach keeps government smaller and simpler, fulfills the 14th Amendment’s equal protection requirements, and is a transitional step towards ending government involvement in marriage.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Brian Miller – You are either a liar or an idiot. People routinely make the case against government marriage for heterosexuals. I know many hardcore Christians who (are anti-gay and) reject government marriage.
Outright “libertarians” = low-tax libertine statists.
They endorsed a racist anti-capitalist pro-Fed protectionist who supports big government at every level and special rights for their interest group. This is a looter’s mentality.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Oh boy, a 14th amendment argument.
= NOT libertarian.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Marriage should be a contract between two people—not a relationship between those two and the state. The terms of the original contract should not change when a couple moves to a different state.
Our current system of statutory vs. contract based marriage is failing miserably for heterosexuals. The divorce rate is through the roof because the penalty for violating the contract is often less than for trying to stay in. Having an explicit contract from the beginning, that both parties sign, vs. a few cute words before the altar, might get couples thinking harder about the matter. And it would make it much easier to determine fault should one of the parties break the contract.
——
Another marriage-related issue is taxes. Merge FICA with the income tax and you can have a a flat tax without being regressive. Then, issues of marriage penalties/subsidies in the income tax go away.
Inheritance taxes could be reformed to take into account the age difference between deceased and heir. Such a reform would get rid of the incentive to skip generations when bequeathing estates. It would also result in very low or even zero taxes when passing from husband to original wife, or between gays of equal age. On the other hand, young trophy wives would pay inheritance taxes similar to children.
(And don’t start flaming me for “advocating taxes.” The issue here is gay marriage. I am discussing minimal tweaks to the current system to render the gay marriage issue moot.)
March 6th, 2008 at 9:57 am
“The full faith and credit clause requires Texas to recognize marriages recorded in Massachusetts, Ron Paul’s anti-constitutionalist legislative proposals to nullify it with respect to same-sex marriages notwithstanding.”
State marriage licenses themselves are UNCONSTITUTIONAL as they violate the 1st amendment and similiar provisions in state constitutions.
Under this “logic” that you are using a person could get a job in one state where the minimum wage is $10 per hour, and then move to another state and work with the same company and expect to get paid the $10 per hour minimum wage, even though the minimum wage in this state is $7 per hour.
Or what if a person owned a slave in one state and had a contract for that slave, and then that slave escaped to another state where slavery had been abolished. Should that person be able to use their slave contract from the state where slavery was legal to compel that slave to return to bondage, a la the Dred Scott case?
March 6th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Enslaving another individual is wrong and IMMORAL! Anyone who advocates slavery is not Libertarian.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Oh yeah, Tom Knapp keeps bringing up Ron Paul in reference to the Defense of Marriage Act which says that states that don’t have gay marriage do not have to recognize gay marriages from states that do have it, yet he FAILS to mention that RON PAUL WAS NOT EVEN IN CONGRESS WHEN THIS BILL PASSED! This bill passed in 1996, however, Ron was not in Congress yet when it passed as he did not get elected until November of 1996, and then did not assume the office until early 1997.
It is also interesting that Tom Knapp has made positive comments about Bob Barr – who Knapp said passed his “kid test” (as in Bob Barr did not make Tom Knapp’s kids cry) – yet Bob Barr was in Congress when the Defense of Marriage Act passed, and not only did he vote yes on it, BOB BARR WAS THE AUTHOR OF IT!
Tom Knapp also conveintly FAILS to mention the FACT that Ron Paul OPPOSED the anti-gay marriage amendments that were proposed.
Ron has stated that the government should stay out of marriage. The only reason that he voiced support for the Defense of Marriage Act was because he doesn’t want to federalize gay marriage, in which you’d end up with a situation where a gay couple could get married in Massachusetts and then move to Utah and sue an apartment complex or a small business owner for not recognizing their marriage that occurred in Massachusetts.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:25 am
“Chris Bennett Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Enslaving another individual is wrong and IMMORAL! Anyone who advocates slavery is not Libertarian.”
That was my point! A slave contract should not be considered valid because slavery itself is not valid.
I was making the correlation between slave contracts and state marriage licenses. While a slave contract is obviously a greater evil, a state marriage license should also be considered to be invalid.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:36 am
“a few cute words before the altar”
Oh, lovely. Way to dis the profound respect many Christians feel for their marriage vows. Marriage is more than a contract between individuals – the reason that people make public marriage vows and often make them in church is because marriage is a social institution that involves the couple, their families, their community, and (if they have one) their god.
You cannot contract to love someone and to remain faithful to them for a lifetime. You can only promise these things. A promise is not the same thing as a contract.
This confusion between promise and contract leads many libertarians to ridiculous conclusions such as the notion that a person can contract himself into slavery. The will cannot be separated from the individual, therefore you can no more contract away your will than you can contract away your brain.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Make that both.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Bingo!!
March 6th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Here’s one for ya: privatize marriage
March 6th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
“Hugh, you are correct. Phillies doesn’t seem to understand. But then again, the Outright Nazis think the same thing.”
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . . .
March 6th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Quoth Andy:
“Oh yeah, Tom Knapp keeps bringing up Ron Paul in reference to the Defense of Marriage Act … yet he FAILS to mention that RON PAUL WAS NOT EVEN IN CONGRESS WHEN THIS BILL PASSED!”
Except that I didn’t bring up Ron Paul in referene to the Defense of Marriage Act. I brought up Ron Paul in reference to Ron Paul’s proposed bill which was specifically aimed at unconstitutionally) nullifying the full faith and credit clause in order to allow states to deny same-sex couples the equal protection of the law.
“It is also interesting that Tom Knapp has made positive comments about Bob Barr – who Knapp said passed his “kid test” (as in Bob Barr did not make Tom Knapp’s kids cry) – yet Bob Barr was in Congress when the Defense of Marriage Act passed, and not only did he vote yes on it, BOB BARR WAS THE AUTHOR OF IT!”
Yes, I’ve made positive (and negative) comments about Bob Barr. I’ve also made positive (and negative) comments about Ron Paul.
It’s probably decades too late for you to learn new tricks, Andy, but I’ll try to teach you one anyway. It’s called “know what the fuck you’re talking about BEFORE you start talking.” If you can master that one, we’ll work on “shake hands” and “roll over.”
March 6th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Brian you are so full of shit you really ought to remove your butt-plug. All one has to do is read your numerous pro-statist blog posts to expose this obvious lie:
http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/
March 6th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Pickin’ nits:
George misspelled Orval Faubus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orval_Faubus
PEACE
Steve
March 6th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
The 2004 LP Platform said: “We oppose adding women to the pool of those eligible for and subject to the draft, not because we think that as a rule women are unfit for combat, but because we believe that this step enlarges the number of people subjected to government tyranny.” If gays qua gays were exempt from draft registration, would the Outright Libertarians say the same thing about LGBTQ folk as the 2004 Platform said above for women? I would hope that the Libertarians would oppose such blatantly bigoted government policies, even when they nominally decrease aggression against the targeted minority.
George, I applaud the intent behind your effort to use gay marriage a wedge issue against gay-friendly Democrats, but I’d be surprised if someone as smart as you could think of no significant differences between Obama’s support for separate but equal marriage for gays and segregationists’ support for “separate but equal” schools for blacks. If we defenders of gay rights can advocate marriage equality as a path toward privatizing marriage, might not Obama simply be a friend of gay rights who sees civil unions as a path toward marriage equality?
Is invoking Faubus supposed to suggest that Obama can be assumed to be somehow bigoted against gays? Wouldn’t suggesting that run the risk of alienating the same gay-friendly voters we’re trying to peel away from Obama? To ask it another way: when polls show that the 35% of Americans who support gay marriage rises to 53% when including supporters of civil unions, are we libertarians mistaken in saying that more than half of Americans want to move toward greater marriage equality for gays? Are you saying the 18% of Americans who support civil unions but not gay marriage are as bad on gay rights as Southern segregationists were on black rights?
Searches against the Outright web site and blog reveal no definitive stance on whether advocacy of civil unions is commendable, but various postings suggest that it’s at least a tepid step in the right direction. I tend to agree. Until we can get the government out of marriage, we can at least get the government’s anti-gay bigotry out of marriage. And until we do that, we can at least use civil unions to bring immediate and practical relief to LGBTQ Americans while they add to the overwhelming evidence that their relationships are not a threat to anybody’s values or institutions.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Brian Miller – You are either a liar or an idiot. People routinely make the case against government marriage for heterosexuals. I know many hardcore Christians who (are anti-gay and) reject government marriage.
Please provide me with a single link to a Libertarian organization (or individual) who condemned, say, Ron Paul for his marriage license.
I’m going to be waiting a long time for that link, because it never happened. Not once. The only time some “libertarians” complain about marriage licenses is when LGBT people want them.
It’s a double standard, no matter how much you try to wriggle out of that simple truth.
I consistently meet “Libertarians” with marriage licenses who complain that extending the same access to gay people is “unLibertarian.”
Hypocrites to the last man (and they’re all men).
Outright “libertarians” = low-tax libertine statists.
Yawn.
Get back to me when you have a real organization pulled together to get government out of marriage entirely—and when you’re condemning marriage-license-holding Libertarians with the same fervor you’re condemning queer Libertarians for just wanting equal access.
Homophobia is an ugly thing.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Brian you are so full of shit you really ought to remove your butt-plug.
And with such rhetoric, it’s no wonder that you couldn’t get a single member of your state to renominate you for Texas state chair, Mr. Mike Nelson.
You really should let the bitterness go. You’ve decided that your civil liberties should take a back seat to the interests of the Ron Paul campaign, which is fair enough, but don’t assume that the vast majority of LGBT Libertarians are going to agree with you. Many of us have to pay our own way and care for our spouses, rather than get cared for by a wealthy benefactor.
March 6th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“I consistently read these sorts of comments from people in opposition to equal treatment under the existing law for gay and lesbian people. I have never, however, read such comments slamming marriage laws when the discussion is about heterosexual people. Not once have I seen a serious campaign against government marriage either within the LP or general society by people who make this argument—which means it’s not an ideologically consistent one.”
Funny, considering Ron paul mentioned that government shouldn’t be involved in the marriage business in a debate last June.
“You’re comparing voluntary consensual contracting (marriage) to involuntary conscription. That’s a completely invalid comparison from the get-go, as a result.”
Well, with all other contracts, the signers enforce it. Why should the government enforce a marriage contract, but not any other contract? The government has just as much authority to enforce private contracts as it does to force people to join the army-none.
“Frankly, all the strong support for federalism and against government marriage only seems to pop up when queer folks are involved. That’s really all one needs to know—there is no effective lobby against government marriage licenses except when some people call for those licenses to be equally available to gay people.
Then various homophobes (many of whom support government-licensed-married Ron Paul without reservation) spring forward with logical fallacies and phony “principles” to argue against equal treatment under the law—but never to seriously argue against the status quo they’re sidelining as “unlibertarian.””
Well, the only time the marriage debate even pops up is when queer folks are involved. And you are wrong about federalism; I have attacked Phillies for his lack of federalism before when he supported Roe vs. Wade, an unconstitutional ruling that most libertarians oppose. Also, explain to me how it is hmephobic when I say that there should be NO government laws regarding marriage-gay or straight? In that society, pastors would be able to wed whomever they wanted, regardless of orientation. Are you saying that pastors should only be allowed to marry gay people because the government says so? If so, I would say that you are the homophobe here.
“It’s also interesting to note that none of Phillies’ critics on the list have noted that Phillies is opposing Obama for two reasons—segregationism and also opposition to the creation of new government regulations related to that segregated status. Phillies’ approach keeps government smaller and simpler, fulfills the 14th Amendment’s equal protection requirements, and is a transitional step towards ending government involvement in marriage.”
He should be opposing Obama because he wants government marriages, not because of segregation within those government marriages. Also, while you’re mentioning the 14th Amendment, do you mind telling the rest of the class how a) it was never legally ratified in the first place, b) it was meant to protect free slaves, and c) how activist judges have used it to expand the size of the federal government of the last 150 years? To my knowledge, gays are not discriminated against by race, color, OR previous condition of servitude, so you cannot use the 14th to defend Phillies. I suppose next you’ll be telling us about the “libertarian” Equal Rights Act.
I’ll continue later.
March 6th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . . .”
Surely you see the irony in this, Jose. Government marriage contracts are a violation of that Pursuit of Happiness you mentioned. Should I be free to pursue my own happiness with another man or woman without the government getting involved?
“Please provide me with a single link to a Libertarian organization (or individual) who condemned, say, Ron Paul for his marriage license.
I’m going to be waiting a long time for that link, because it never happened. Not once. The only time some “libertarians” complain about marriage licenses is when LGBT people want them.
It’s a double standard, no matter how much you try to wriggle out of that simple truth.
I consistently meet “Libertarians” with marriage licenses who complain that extending the same access to gay people is “unLibertarian.”
Hypocrites to the last man (and they’re all men).”
I’m am NOT saying that libertarians who have marriage licenses are hypocrites! That’s as ridiculous as saying any libertarian who uses the post Office is a hypocrite, or that any libertarian that uses Federal Reserve notes is a hypocrite, or that any libertarian that sends their children to public schools is a hypocrite. I could go on and on. Neither I nor disinter is saying that gay libertarians are hypocrites for wanting marriage licenses, we just think the “Outright Libertarians” are hypocrites for claiming to advocated libertarianism yet at the same time endorsing the government’s monopoly on the marriage business.
“Homophobia is an ugly thing.”
So is mindlessly calling fellow libertarians homophobic when you use red herring arguments to condemn us for wanting to get the government off our backs. I am not defending the current laws. I just think that anybody, gay or straight, should be able to get a marriage without the government intervening.
“You’ve decided that your civil liberties should take a back seat to the interests of the Ron Paul campaign”
Civil liberties, like the freedom to get married without the government intervening?
March 6th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Stephen, please don’t delete disinter’s crude expletive against Mr. Miller. Let it stand as a monument to disinter’s utter lack of civility and credibility.
Despite all the noise, there’s some interesting signal above.
Carl, is your idea of scaling inheritance taxes to age difference original? If inheritance taxes weren’t such a very bad idea, yours might be a very good one.
Susan, there are some obvious rejoinders to the promise/contract distinction, but instead of exploring them with you, I’ll just ask if you have any favorite reference on the topic of the freedom to sell oneself into slavery.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Here’s the real question:
If well-known heterosexual libertarian celebrities like Bill Redpath, Ron Paul, Wayne Allyn Root, Brian Holtz, Stephen Gordon, etc. can all get marriage licenses without being condemned as “libertine low-tax statists,” why are Outright members who wish to get a marriage license treated differently?
The answer: homophobia. Veiled in double-standard purism that sees no problem in straight libertarians getting a government marriage license, but which condemns gay libertarians seeking only the same accommodation simply because they’re gay.
The “marriage licenses are unlibertarian” schtick is an ungenuine fig leaf used to cover up the real objection, which is that they don’t want icky homos getting married.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
PS —The LNC chimed in on this issue earlier, and their position is an excellent summary of Outright’s position on this issue, as well as a workable Libertarian approach that treats all people equally under the law:
http://www.lp.org/media/article_464.shtml
“There is a cloud of sadness hanging over the heads of countless Americans this Valentine’s Day,” said Libertarian National Committee Chairman William Redpath. “It’s certainly more difficult to enjoy that bouquet of roses or box of chocolates from your partner when you realize that your government won’t accept your long-term relationship. Hopefully, Americans will use Freedom to Marry Week to reflect on equality in marriage issues. We’ve eliminated our racist marriage laws, but not those that discriminate based on sexual preference or identity. Perhaps some day the government will treat all people, black and white and gay and straight, exactly the same.”
The Libertarian Party is strongly committed to the repeal of state and federal laws and amendments defining marriage, assigning special rights to people based on sexual orientation or gender identification, and laws which deny same-sex partners the rights enjoyed by others, such as adoption of children and spousal immigration. Libertarians hope to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and adamantly oppose any proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
“If well-known heterosexual libertarian celebrities like Bill Redpath, Ron Paul, Wayne Allyn Root, Brian Holtz, Stephen Gordon, etc. can all get marriage licenses without being condemned as “libertine low-tax statists,” why are Outright members who wish to get a marriage license treated differently?
The answer: homophobia. Veiled in double-standard purism that sees no problem in straight libertarians getting a government marriage license, but which condemns gay libertarians seeking only the same accommodation simply because they’re gay.
The “marriage licenses are unlibertarian” schtick is an ungenuine fig leaf used to cover up the real objection, which is that they don’t want icky homos getting married.”
Just because they get government marriage licenses does not mean that they approve of them. Just because I use Federal Reserve notes in my daily transactions does not mean I approve of fiat money. Just because I use the Post Office to deliver mail doesn’t mean I approve of the federal monopoly on mailing. Just because I attend public high school doesn’t mean I approve of government involvement in education. Just because I’m not a druggie doesn’t mean I approve of the drug war. The same argument applies to marriage. Would you want the government to intervene in ALL contracts between two consenting individuals, or is marriage just an exception. You also ignore the fact that I don’t oppose gay marriage; just government involvement in private contracts.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Brian you are so full of shit you really ought to remove your butt-plug.
Stephen, please don’t delete disinter’s crude expletive against Mr. Miller. Let it stand as a monument to disinter’s utter lack of civility and credibility.
While I may strongly support gay rights, I’m too damned straight to get in the middle of a fight between two gay guys armed with deadly buttplugs.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
If well-known heterosexual libertarian celebrities like Bill Redpath, Ron Paul, Wayne Allyn Root, Brian Holtz, Stephen Gordon, etc. can all get marriage licenses without being condemned as “libertine low-tax statists,” why are Outright members who wish to get a marriage license treated differently?
The LNC chimed in on this issue earlier, and their position is an excellent summary of Outright’s position on this issue, as well as a workable Libertarian approach that treats all people equally under the law…
So just who do you think is to blame for this release? I hear heterostatist Steve Gordon wrote the darned thing and heterostatist Bill Redpath modified his quote a little bit.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Ok, guys. I’ll admit, I’m not a libertarian. But your libertarian principles are getting out of hand and impractical. Especially this:
“We oppose adding women to the pool of those eligible for and subject to the draft, not because we think that as a rule women are unfit for combat, but because we believe that this step enlarges the number of people subjected to government tyranny.”
So what you are saying is its better for the government to discriminate against certain groups based on sex, race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. than for them to treat all people the same? For example—libertarians want lower taxes, right? So let’s say a bill came into Congress that would eliminate (or drastically cut) taxes for a certain race, gender, etc. Would the libertarian party (and/or libertarians) come out and say: “We support the reduction of taxes upon [arbitrarily chosen group here], not because we think as a rule this group of people deserve to pay less taxes than the rest of us, but because we believe that this step lowers the number of people subjected to government tyranny.”?
This reaction seems consistent with your reasoning about women being drafted and gay marriage, doesn’t it?
The point is, yes—the government should get out of the marriage business. I completely agree with you on that. My girlfriend and I plan on getting married in a church without getting a government license (Take that Ron Paul!). But since ending the government’s role in marriage is still a very unpopular view, why can’t we at least make it equal for the time being? Why would you be against that?
March 6th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Here’s the real question:
On what planet are Bill Redpath, Wayne Allyn Root, Brian Holtz, and Stephen Gordon well-known heterosexual libertarian celebrities or is that just a cover for those who wish to see disinter in a fig leaf?
The Libertarian Party is a dark place.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Strange, I don’t recall ever even trying to get renominated. Hell, I just volunteered to be the TX chair to begin with because your very shady organization couldn’t find anyone else dumb enough to deal with the nazi’s that ran the tiny national organization. Tiny it will remain.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
On what planet are Bill Redpath, Wayne Allyn Root, Brian Holtz, and Stephen Gordon well-known heterosexual libertarian celebrities…
Only on the planet of HeteroStatism. Its population is so low that even small fish can be big there.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Hunni, you don’t need consensus to get libertarians to agree with… wait for it…. libertarianism! Hello? Your Liber-Nazi circle jerk group has about as good of a grasp of libertarianism as Dondero.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Poor baby. Want a tissue?
March 6th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I agree that homophobia is an ugly thing. It’s always as ugly as statism and looterism.
I don’t need an organization. I stand on my own with my own views. What a collectivist mentality you have.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
disinter – You are so homophobic! You obviously hate gays since you disagree with the esteemed statists, Miller and Holtz. Everyone who makes the arguments you make is obviously a Westboro Baptist Church sympathizer, as pronounced by the infalable Miller/Holtz regime.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Brian Miller was the queen that was throwing a hissy fit when Bob Barr joined the LP because she thought Barr was going to exterminate all the fags.
The Outright Liber-nazis prefer a very invasive federal government that forces the states to follow whatever whim is up Congress’s ass for the day, in this case it would be marriage “equality” – which is very anti-freedom. But, this only applies to fags, marriage and “equality”, anything else doesn’t apply and the federal government should not get involved. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Despite her many writings in favor of “equality”, she is now on here trying to get people to believe it is a step towards the elimination of government marriage, which is Outright bullshit.
“Naked equality is just another name for tyranny – for if everyone’s going to be equal in all aspects, then no one can really be free.”—Christopher Alexion
March 7th, 2008 at 12:52 am
“The idea is not new, as politicians have talked about using government to advance marriage for decades. But federal promotion of marriage, even if well-intentioned, is a form of social engineering that should worry anyone concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no authority to promote or discourage any particular social arrangements; instead the Founders recognized that people should live their lives largely free of federal interference. ”
– Ron Paul
March 7th, 2008 at 12:54 am
“Gay rights activists are taking the wrong approach by petitioning the government for “equal” status. This merely perpetuates the politicization of what should be a private issue. They should instead argue that the government should not be in the marriage business in the first place. Heterosexuals that believe in individual liberty should join them in this effort.”
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/summers_20051111.shtml
March 7th, 2008 at 12:56 am
“What the right-wing socialists steadfastly refuse to acknowledge is that government involvement in marriage on any level is what CREATES the issue of gay marriage.”
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/02/18/stone.htm
March 7th, 2008 at 1:00 am
“First, we must deal with the popular misconception that a state-sanctioned marriage is a “right.” A state-sanctioned marriage is a government-proffered benefit, granting unique government treatment by law, and forcing certain actions by private industry under the law. It grants the sole license of conducting legal marriages to a select few, and excludes others from operating freely to conduct legal marriages. These facts alone stand in sufficient contravention to the concept of individual liberty to warrant opposition to state-licensed marriage.”
http://www.mises.org/story/2209
March 7th, 2008 at 3:13 am
I was hoping to stay out of this, but one line above shows just how out of touch with reality young Mr. Nelson really is:
“the infalable Miller/Holtz regime”
One URL should disprove that Miller and Holtz are in cahoots in any way, shape, or form, much less in a “regime”:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&&q=%22brian+miller%22+%22brian+holtz%22&btnG=Search
These two guys have been at each others’ throats forever. They can’t stand each other.
But the one thing they agree on is that Mike Nelson is as wrong as wrong can be about whether it’s appropriate for government to continue its discrimination against same-sex couples.
That should tell you something.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Holtz writes:
Susan, there are some obvious rejoinders to the promise/contract distinction, but instead of exploring them with you, I’ll just ask if you have any favorite reference on the topic of the freedom to sell oneself into slavery.
Not off the top of my head. It’s just such a silly notion. You cannot sell what you can’t transfer to another person, and your will/mind is definitely non-transferable.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Speaking of reality, that quote came from someone else. As usual, Rob Power makes shit up…
March 7th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Hey Rob Power, I am disinter… not “G.E.”. Are we a bit paranoid?
March 7th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Yes, it should tell you something. It tells you that the Outright Liber-nazis (composed of Rob Power, Brian Miller and some sugar daddy named Allan) are a group of statists that advocate “equality”, whereas I advocate libertarianism (privatizing marriage).
March 7th, 2008 at 11:21 am
The Outright Liberals have also not addressed the fact that in the name of federal-supremacy-sanctioned state-granted privileges for their interest group they have endorsed a candidate who is anti-immigration (for protectionist reasons), anti-free trade, pro-welfare, pro-Federal Reserve, pro-income tax, anti-China, and pro-government education. In other words, they have supported a statist in libertarian name only solely because he favors expanding government in a way they think would benefit them. They are LOOTERS. The Outright blog is full of attacks on the Democrats for slips in political correctness and unwillingness to support statism in the direction of gay privilege—which is admittedly contradictory on the Dems’ behalves. But what this says to me is that the Outright Liberals would support the Democrats IF they supported more privileges for gays, granted by the state… After all, the Outrights DO support a thoroughly statist candidate from the LP on that basis alone. Or does Phillies’ anti-capitalist xenophobic nationalism appeal to them too?
March 7th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“Speaking of reality, that quote came from someone else. As usual, Rob Power makes shit up…”
Sorry about that. It’s so easy to confuse the various cowards’ pseudonyms. If the opponents of equal treatment under the law for LGBT people would use their real names, like those of us who favor equal treatment do, it would be much easier to debate.
Regardless, substituting “G.E.” in the first sentence of my previous post is enough of a correction for me to stand by every word of it. It’s still very telling that Holtz and Miller, who disagree with each other on every single point, are both in agreement that Mike Nelson is wrong for supporting continued government discrimination against same-sex couples.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I don’t even know who Holtz is, or what this red herring has to do with anything, but okay Robbie. I support the privatization of marriage with removes all discrimination. Nice try though.
March 7th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
The attacks by “G.E.” on George Phillies are even more baseless that Brian Miller’s attacks on Ron Paul—and as Rob’s Google link above shows, that’s says quite a lot. I would like
1) G.E. to quote Phillies being “pro-welfare”,
2) Miller to quote Ron Paul being “a statist on health care”, and
3) George to reflect on whether it’s good for our movement when libertarians misrepresent each other’s positions and intentions.
March 7th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Pro welfare = his education “tax credit” plan, and his welfare for bankers via continued support for the Fed, and his protectionism, which works as welfare for unskilled and lazy American workers.
Phillies is a welfare statist.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
And an advocate for state-licensed marriage.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
You repeat yourself.
March 8th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
It tells you that the Outright Liber-nazis (composed of Rob Power, Brian Miller and some sugar daddy named Allan) are a group of statists that advocate “equality”, whereas I advocate libertarianism (privatizing marriage).
Now, Mike, I know you’re an expert on the “sugar daddy” thing based on your personal life experiences—but please do try to provide some basis for your over-the-top assertions at some point. You should know better, considering that you were a senior person in the group for years before I even joined the organization—and couldn’t get a single member of your large Texas membership to even renominate you for leadership.
It’s pretty amazing that the Outright membership in Texas preferred not having a representative on the executive committee at all to having you continue in that role. It says quite a bit about how far removed you are from libertarian LGBT people in general.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
The Texas group consisted of me, and some straight guy. Wow, big time membership here!
Not only did I not try to get nominated after volunteering for one year, but I didn’t even want it after dealing with the very corrupt, pro-statist national organization. You are delusional, at best.
Again, I support the privatization of marriage. Brian Miller and his circle jerk organization, Outright Liber-Nazis, preach “equality”. You and Dumbdero should really join forces. Neither of you have a clue.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Quick! Call your butt-buddy Robbie Power to come defend you against.. well, whoever he thinks is me this time. Maybe your sugar daddy, Allan, can join in as well. He’s even dumber than both of you so I get a real kick out of fucking with him.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Is poor, abused, Brian Miller still crying about his poverty? Perhaps this is why he is a socialist, advocating state-mandated equality? Maybe the government can make us all economically “equal”, would that make poor Brian happy?
Poor thang.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
G.E., “welfare” is money appropriated by force from one person and given to, or expended for, another. None of the things you mentioned are welfare. In particular, giving people back some of their own money through tax credits is not “welfare”. The LP National Program advocated education tax credits from 1991 to 2003, Ron Paul advocates them in his 2008 campaign, and I suspect he advocated them in 1988 as the LP nominee. Tax credits are no more “welfare” than a mugger handing you money from your own wallet is a “gift”.
March 8th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
The mugger is still mugging, and the tax collector is still collecting!
Under Holtz’s Beltwayite liberfascist logic, we should have a 100% tax rate with “tax credits” for (government approved) food, (government approved) housing, (government approved) health care, and of course, (government approved) education.
Are you evil or just too stupid to see the implications? I’m fairly certain Phillies is the latter.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
He’s probably one of those Outright Liber-Nazis, so probably both.
March 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
G.E., come back after you find a ninth-grader to explain to you the difference between a function and its first derivative. Or a second-grader who can explain to you the difference between the beginning of a path and its end. Or a kindergartener who can explain to you the difference between forward and backward.
Mike, I happen to be someone banned from the Outright forum for making fact-based characterizations of the statements of Outright leaders, so thanks for exhibiting your ignorance.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Good comeback, Holtzy.
“It’s not welfare for the government to confiscate all of your money and then issue tax credits for buying food, education, healthcare, etc.” – Brian Holtz
March 9th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I also say it’s not slavery to have some of your income be taxed. That doesn’t mean I don’t oppose all income taxation.
I guess you couldn’t find that kindergartener, since you failed to address my point that people getting back their stolen money is better than people not getting it back.
Meanwhile, try cracking a dictionary:
welfare n. financial aid and other benefits for people who are unemployed, below a specific income level, or otherwise requiring assistance
welfare n. financial support given to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need
welfare n. aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need
welfare n. help given, especially by the state or an organization, to people who need it, especially because they do not have enough money
welfare n. financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need
March 9th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Explaining anything to Holtzy is a waste of time. His area of expertise consist of not knowing when to pull out of Iraq or his wife on time.
March 9th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Too funny.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
If you think it is voluntary, I challenge you to stop paying your taxes. Let me know how that works out for you.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
You just contradicted yourself.
March 13th, 2008 at 1:08 am
slavery vs. voluntary == fallacy of the excluded middle
another adj. distinctly different from the first