2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow Libertarians Failed Gay Rights
By Tyler Lopez
The current Libertarian Party home page has tabs for a wide range of topics, from crime (solution: more guns) to gun laws (solution: more guns) to the environment (solution: less regulation). Among these tabs is a Current Issues section, featuring blurbs covering the "Bush/Obama Bailouts and Civil Liberties. Conspicuously absent from the page: any mention of gay rights.
Surprised? Dont be. Despite myriad political developments in the last 10 years, not to mention three presidential elections during which Democrats and Republicans debated the topic at length, the Libertarian Party website has no section devoted to LGBTQ issues. To find that content, users have to dig around in the sites archives. The results are laughably minor: The most recent press release mentioning LGBT came in 2010all of it spent decrying President Barack Obamas inaction on the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and the U.S. militarys Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy. LGBTQ Democrats are painted as victims suffering from the offensive catchphrase battered gay voter syndrome. Democrats, despite their recent efforts to expand gay rights, are labeled as oppressors. The cure for all this persecution is, of course, the Libertarian Party.
In a sense, the website is an appropriate metaphor for the party in general. Libertarians like to tout the fact that the party supported marriage equality in 1971, when it was founded. Sort of. In fact, two years after Stonewall, the partys platform called for the abolishment of victimless crimes, which lumped homosexuality with prostitution, polygamy, recreational drugs, abortion, and gambling. While certainly not a ringing endorsement of the LGBTQ community, the mere acknowledgement of gay peoples existence was an important step forward for an American political party. Its also true that in the 1990s, the Libertarian Party (having no elected representatives) did join a small handful of Democrats in opposing DOMA and Dont Ask, Dont Tell, despite overwhelming public support for both measures. This might seem like a case of talk being cheap, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt. Plenty of Libertarian candidates take strong positions on gay rights. So why shouldnt all gay and lesbian voters support these candidates?
Because the Libertarian Partys stance on gay rights never left the 1990s. The government should stay out of your bedroom era, which ended with Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, does not empower LGBTQ people outside of the bedroomand that's exactly where we need to take the fight. In the Libertarian view, gay and lesbian marriages are not seen as a committed relationship between two adults, but rather as a step toward ending governmental involvement in marriage altogether. Thats not giving gay people equal rights: Its stripping away everybodys rights.
:::snip:::
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/12/30/libertarians_and_gay_rights_the_party_failed_to_take_a_stand.html
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)to be the equivalent of arguing "scream 'fire!' in a crowded theater? yeah, that should totally be protected speech. It's the price of freedom.".
"Allow people to discriminate and use hate speech against ______ (oppressed group) such that an atmosphere is created/allowed wherein bigoted people then take it to the next level and physically harm members of said group? Hey, just the price of freedom, man.".
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)leaders that do not. They think they need to not alienate any Republicans who might want to make the switch.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,412 posts)They just go one (or fifty) steps too far IMHO with their "get government out of the way" mentality. In this day and age where everything is so interconnected and interdependent, I don't know how a *true* Libertarian society would be able to function.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)The ones I've known became libertarians either because of guns or taxes....
NCLefty
(3,678 posts)jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)Remember, even though the liberatrian party is right wing, it is still different from the republicans calling themselves libertarian. In fact, they are very socially liberal but very conservative economically. From their website, they have this to say about Personal relationships.
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
Also on abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Finally on rights and discrimination we have
We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual's human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect.
One make the argument they will not practice what they preach if given any power but it is an outright lie to say they have nothing about LGBT rights on their website
http://www.lp.org/platform
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)to support a bill that uses govt action as opposed to repealing govt action to solve a problem? Its like asking me to show you a place on the socialist website where it talks about support for a private insurance mandate.
The article talks about lp not saying anything(support) about LGBT people when in fact it did.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)civil rights of LGBT citizens then.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)but stop asking me, look at their website for your self seeing how we are talking about things on their website.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)They could have focused on their action and not the content of their website and still be truthful. He didn't have to make things up
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I'll save my further criticisms for another thread....