Brian, do you really believe that being kicked out of the military is a rights violation? As a radical, why would you favor the right of anyone to work for a criminal institution?
On 11/1/07, Brian Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > -- "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
