Yes I agree that after Brian Millers statement that those critizizing him cannot possibly understand the situation because they are not Lesbian-gay-or transexual is a prejiduced and bigoted statement. I also am not gay (or transexual or bisexual). I also have stood up in defense for Ron Paul. I also know that the only real libertarian position is for the government to have absolutely no interaction with peoples mariages. Mariage as well as sexual relationships are personal relationships that have nothing to do with the state and all these relationships should be considered protected under the first amendment in the bill of rights for freedom of expression. THus even state governments have no right to enforce any laws or rules regaurding mariage and sexual relations. Any libertarian can understand this easily regaurdless of sexual orientation.
Additionally-despite numerous requests to Mr. Miller for any evidence to support his acusations against Ron Paul I have not recieved a shred of real evidence. The only feeble attempt I recieved was that table he sent out where he explicitly stated that they filled in the blanks for Ron Paul because he did not answer their survey. My guess is that Ron Paul does not want to offend some of his more homophobic constituents, but those in the gay comunity should realize this and lend him their support. I can pretty much gaurentee that electing Ron Paul would do absolutley no damage to their cause and would help them emensly (unless this group of "libertarians" is actually looking for fazoritism from the fed gov rather than a hands off free society approach). Well thats my two cents and to reiterate-Brian Miller appears to bear a lot more prejiduce against non-gays than we heterosexuals bear against gays. Peace, Tony --- Anthony Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here, by the way, is what I tried to post on LP > Radicals: > > Ron Paul has said gay people should not be booted > from the military unless > they act disruptively, same as straights. > > Personally, I disagree with him. Straights and gays > have no right to work > for an aggressive, socialist institution. And > although I think gays would > serve the state just as well as straights I really > am no bigot on > sexuality I certainly wouldn't want the less > disruptive people working for > the state in an aggressive capacity. The less > efficient, the better. But > he's a minarchist and we disagree on the military in > numerous ways. But I > don't see his position as unegalitarian. (Even if it > were, that wouldn't > _necessarily_ make it less libertarian, though I > would tend to question it.) > I see it as equal between the genders. [Sic: Should > be "between people of > various sexual orientations."] > > As for gay marriage, he believes marriage shouldn't > be handled by the feds, > and more ideally, it shouldn't be handled by > government. He thinks it should > be a private affair. He stresses decentralism but > when have you ever heard > him advocate a state banning gay marriage? > Decentralizing the issue is > better for gays, it really is. Vermont and San > Francisco would be left alone > by the US and California, respectively. > > But I've never heard him speak as though the state > issuing pieces of paper > to gays keeps him up at night. He is certainly not > Republican on the issue, > seeking to use the state to protect straight people > and Christian society > from homosexuals doing what it is their right to do. > And he believes that it > is one's right to proclaim herself in a same-sex > marriage, it is another's > right to deny that marriage is legitimate in his own > eyes, and everyone > else's right to live without a government dictating > this kind of thing to > everybody. > > I really don't think he's as bad on the issue as you > think he is. He does > have a conservative emphasis he is trying to talk > to Americans, who are > terribly conservative. But what's he telling them > primarily, 99% of the > time? Let's stop the accelerating stampede toward > nationalist fascism and go > back to more decentralized, liberal governance. > Let's stop threatening > millions with nuclear murder, conducting torture in > secret prisons, starving > children and looting the nation for trillions of > dollars, and imprisoning > hundreds of thousands of people for non-violent > acts. This is a matter of > life and death for countless people. It's the > difference between mildly evil > and cruel social democracy and outright National > Socialism. He is, indeed, a > libertarian hero, even if I don't agree with his > emphasis or rhetoric all > the time. > > On 11/1/07, Anthony Gregory > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 11/1/07, Brian Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > Considering that neither Mr. Holtz nor Mr. > Gregory are (to my knowledge) > > > LGBTQ persons, and also considering that neither > are members of Outright > > > Libertarians, I fail to see how either > individual can claim literally any > > > expertise on the area of LGBTQ issues. > > > > > > > Wait a second. Are you saying someone has to be > queer to understand that > > queers have a natural right to liberty? Why is > this? This sounds slightly > > bigoted to me. Would you never endorse someone, > then, unless that person > > were queer? Or, in discussing other issues, does a > libertarian have to be a > > gunowner to understand gun rights? A drug user to > understand the war on > > drugs? An Iraqi to oppose the US war in Iraq? A > corporate executive to > > understand corporate taxation? Come on. > > > > FYI, I am a Foucaultian on sexuality. I think the > whole thing is a > > construct. People do what they do, and if it's > peaceful, it should be > > tolerated. The whole attempt to break down > somethign as complex as sexuality > > into a few neat categories is deeply flawed. I > didn't know my own lifestyle, > > life choices or sexual history would be germane in > this discussion, but > > suffice it to say, I see nothing wrong per se with > any voluntary sexual > > acts. I've marched in pride parades and any true > state violations of sexual > > liberty would be taken by me and many of my > friends to be quite personal. > > > > Mr. Holtz, in particular, has been particularly > tone deaf on the issue of > > > same-sex marriage equality, and only recently > switched over to the > > > Libertarian side of the issue in the platform > debate after concerted > > > lobbying from Outright's membership -- and a > clear signal from the Outright > > > membership in California that there would be > near unanimous opposition to > > > efforts floated on the LPSF list to remove our > party's support for marriage > > > equality from the platform, at convention if > necessary. > > > > > > > The libertarian position on marriage is to > privatize it. There is no > > possible other solution that is totally compatible > with libertarianism. For > > the state to license some people but not others in > _any_ regard is > > inherently problematic. > > > > > > It's hilarious indeed for Mr. Holtz to now be > claiming some sort of > > > expertise on LGBTQ issues, when he was so > thoroughly wrong on his prior > > > convictions about LGBTQ issues (and thus enjoys > such limited esteem in the > > > community at large). > > > > > > The LP's queer membership doesn't need a bunch > of uneducated folks > > > "explaining" our issues to us, nor does it need > persistent attacks on our > > > platform. I can assure you that from the > delegates on the ground all the > > > way up to the Libertarian National Committee, we > are fully prepared to > > > defend both our party platform AND honest > dialogue on Republican and > > > Democratic candidates from such attacks. > > > > > > Cheers gents, > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Brian Holtz < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Cc: [email protected]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2007 12:28:12 AM > > > Subject: Ron Paul a "homophobic bigot"? > > > > > > Anthony Gregory wrote to Brian Miller on > lpradicals (from which I was > > > expelled after my No First Force > Pledge<http://marketliberal.org/No1stForce.html>challenge > was censored there): > > > > > > BM) the Republicans (including Ron Paul) are > such homophobic bigots that > > > [...] (BM > > > > > > AG) Ron Paul is not a homophobic bigot. What on > earth are you talking > > > about? (AG > > > > > > Anthony, here is some context for you. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/2107 > > > is my unrebutted response to Miller's untenable > attacks === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
