I'm all for straight allies. There are lots of them, many of them are informed about the issues.
Unfortunately, all the criticism of Outright's scorecard is without basis, and when it comes from people who aren't involved in any of the issues in question -- sans Outright's input/involvement -- it becomes ludicrous. The attacks on Outright's factual assessment of Ron Paul's policy positions have no basis in fact. We've defined concrete areas for each of them, and have invited his supporters to demonstrate policy areas where he differs from our assessment. For example, on gays on the military, we do not ask "do you support letting gays serve in the military," as that's an ambiguous question. We instead ask "do you support the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation," which is the only concrete step to attain this. Ron Paul does not support that repeal -- as he's confirmed in debates. That he said that he doesn't think sexual orientation should matter is immaterial -- on a policy level, he has not taken the position necessary to earn a good score on that. More importantly, in addressing the LGBTQ community, Paul's supporters (especially Mr. Holtz) have failed to realize the importance of this. Gay voters are policy-driven people, not platitude-driven. As a result, most LGBTQ groups across the political spectrum measure candidates in concrete policy declarations, as real benchmarks of a candidate's willingness to stand on the issues. Ron Paul has not done well in this regard, plain and simple. Talking about his feelings, opinions, etc. is all well and good, but as a policy-oriented LP organization focused on specific Libertarian policy goals related to LGBTQ rights, we only care about policy. Rather than attack Outright for being "mean," Ron Paul supporters should urge his campaign to take the appropriate policy steps to gain a good score for Ron Paul -- or at least explain his positions concretely in our survey, which we will happily reproduce verbatim on our web site, as we've done with ALL the survey respondents to date -- even non-FEC-registered ones. Further, Outright's non-member, non-queer critics (who typically have little to no LGBTQ legal or lobbying time under their belts) should take some time to consider that perhaps they don't know as much about gay issues as Outright's membership. I frankly see the idea of them attacking Outright's well-thought-out, consensus-driven ranking system as being in the same league of absurdity as me criticizing Steve Kubby on drug policy. Yes, I am supportive of drug legalization, but drug policy is nowhere near as key an area of experience in my life as Kubby's. LP activists should accord the same respect to queer LP activists, women in the LP, and racial minorities in the LP -- all of whom get regularly subjected to streams of abusive lectures from folks who aren't queer, female or racial minorities on "how things really are." It's condescending in the extreme and undermines our ability to grow the party in our respective communities when it leaks out to the broader public dialogue. Cheers, Brian ----- Original Message ---- From: Anthony Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Brian Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Anthony Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Brian Holtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2007 11:43:58 AM Subject: Re: Ron Paul a "homophobic bigot"? Brian, I don't think you're reading what we're saying. Look, are you a user of meth, cocaine and LSD? If not, does that mean you can't rigorously oppose the war on drugs? I find such reasoning quite dubious. Since you don't know anything about my "sexuality" I think it's presumptuous of you to say I 'm trying to tell anyone that they don't understand what it is to be whatever they are. What I'm saying is someone doesn't have to be queer to know that queers have been treated terribly by the state and by society and that there's a fundamental human decency and liberty that they have a human right to enjoy. On 11/1/07, Brian Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, gents, considering the rampant problem of heterophobia in society, I must plead guilty to an astonishing lack of compassion for the heterosexual community. Fortunately, I am white, otherwise I might be accused of anti-white racism as well. We know what a problem that is in our society as well! ;) Honestly, if you gents believe this sort of thing, and think that a bunch of straight guys can lecture LGBTQ people on what it's like to be gay (and how things "ought to be"), when they have no life experience or interest in learning from LGBTQ people (such as Outright's membership), I cringe to think of what will happen when race relations issues get called up. I've already seen embarrassing episodes with white suburban guys lecturing black Oaklanders about how life is for racial minorities, and how their concerns are "ridiculous" or "out of context" too. Aren't you LRC-affiliated boys supposed to be about growing the party? One way to grow the party is to listen to the concerns of people who aren't like you, rather than lecture those people on "the way things are." A simple observation that you don't know much about these issues due to a lack of involvement in the community, and a lack of engagement with Outright in particular, is not bigoted -- it's simple fact. It's no different from pointing out that you don't know what it's like to give birth. I hate to deprive you of your manufactured outrage, but if this is the sort of thing you're planning to bring to convention, I suggest you save yourselves the plane fare and hotel fare and don't attend. The white straight guys telling the queers, blacks and women how they don't know anything about their issues will *not* go down a treat -- either with the LP general membership or the broader political campaign. Cheers, Brian ----- Original Message ---- From: Anthony Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Anthony Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Brian Miller < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Brian Holtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [email protected]; Anthony Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2007 11:23:41 AM Subject: Re: Ron Paul a "homophobic bigot"? 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 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- "There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . . [The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow from authority.... As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use of force except against the invader." — Benjamin Tucker __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
