Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  alternatives

With the Libertarian Party Inviting Gays to Abandon the Democrats, Who Will Follow?

Libertarian Party Chairman Mark Hinkle wants it known that if the Democrats aren’t doing enough for The Gays, and the Republicans keep up their anti-gay act, then there’s a home for them in his party. And the appeal is quite an emotional one.

Telling gay voters that continuing to vote for Democrats is “like abused spouses who keep returning to their aggressors,” Hinkle is calling on gay voters to stop “handing their votes to the Democrats who abuse them.”

Well it’s about time somebody wised up that we’re been shopping around for a better deal.

“President Obama and the Democrats had almost a year of complete control of the federal government,” says Hinkle. “They could have repealed ‘don’t ask don’t tell.’ They could have gotten rid of the Defense of Marriage Act. But they didn’t do either.”

Instinctively, the gay Democratic machine has responded: Michael Mitchell, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, tells the WSJ Team Obama has done “more for the LGBT community than any other administration in our nation’s history – combined.” Which is true. Because the bar was so low.

But non-Democratic parties trying to make in-roads with queer voters isn’t new. The GOP has been trying its hand at this same tactic, despite John McCain’s best efforts to repel them. The Log Cabin Republicans are awarding GOP leaders with actual awards for their fictitious support of LGBT rights — which, to be fair, really amounts to a fringe group of conservative gays trying to suckle at their leaders’ teats.

I’m actually surprised it’s taken the Libertarian Party so long to make an obvious gesture toward LGBTs. While the party isn’t exactly in favor of anti-discrimination laws (too Big Government for them, and the party generally supports the right of private businesses to discriminate), it does say the government needs to be blind to sexual identity or gender orientation. But the time is prime: Obama’s administration continues defending DADT in court; fails to put any tangible pressure on Democratic leadership to move on ENDA (though the Libertarians wouldn’t support this either); fails to wholeheartedly support same-sex marriage; and is all but silent on the few but significant LGBT victories we’ve secured for ourselves.

Maybe November isn’t about Democrats or Republicans, but options. Or at least the appearance of them.

By:           Max Simon
On:           Sep 24, 2010
Tagged: , , ,

  • 23 Comments
    • Adam
      Adam

      I might vote Republican to support a pro-gay candidate, but I would have a hard time voting Libertarian.

      Sep 24, 2010 at 8:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dollie
      Dollie

      If I remember correctly, their 2008 pres candidate co-authored a constitutional amendment attempting to ban gay marriage on a fed level.

      Nice try, Libertarians! I’ll keep voting left-of-center, thanks!

      Sep 24, 2010 at 8:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brutus
      Brutus

      The Flat Tax, business deregulation, and other high priorities of the Libertarian Party are damaging to more people than my inability to marry my boyfriend in most states or have that marriage recognized by the federal government.

      The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. I’ll keep pushing for more liberal Democratic candidates, thanks.

      Sep 24, 2010 at 9:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ryan
      Ryan

      Just came back from a Libertarian paradise-Somalia-and boy, what an adventure that was! Can you imagine how much fun it’d be to live in a big city or rural town where you had to run like hell to get home cause your being chased by religious fanatics exercising their ‘freedom of speech’ and that “big” pesky government isn’t there to intervene in your life? I mean, considering most gay men visit a gym several times a week, we’re built for that, right?
      It’d be like the Wiley Coyote and the roadrunner..

      Sep 24, 2010 at 9:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fuzz
      fuzz

      I’ve talked to seriously right-wing Republicans who are actually scared of what certain Libertarians are proposing. I’ve also talked to some very sensible Libertarians. It’s like any other party – takes all kinds.

      We need more party options, and this is one of them. I’ll go Green or Independent (if I can find any actual candidates in this state), but if there’s a choice between a bullshit Democrat (there’s a couple zingers around here), a Republican and a Libertarian, I’m going with the Libertarian. Third-party or bust, man. I’m tired of picking the lesser of two evils.

      Sep 24, 2010 at 10:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      If the Libertarians have no problem with private companies discriminating against gays, but draw the line at government discrimination, that still puts them ahead of the Democrats, who evidently have no genuine problem with any anti-gay discrimination, either private or state-sanctioned.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 1:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Baxter
      Baxter

      @Brutus: Liberals are so cute with their idealism, unwavering trust in bureaucrats, and total inability to understand basic economics.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 1:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brutus
      Brutus

      @Baxter: Libertarians are so cute with their idealism, unwavering trust in the free market, and total inability to understand complex economics.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 1:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AL
      AL

      Quote: “If I remember correctly, their 2008 pres candidate co-authored a constitutional amendment attempting to ban gay marriage on a fed level.”

      You are talking about Bob Barr. I am sorry, but Bob Barr is far from being a libertarian. He’s is anti-choice, anti-gay-marriage, anti-immigration. He is a typical conservative, not even close to libertarians.

      Quote: “Just came back from a Libertarian paradise-Somalia-and boy, what an adventure that was!”

      Are you an idiot? How exactly does Somalia resemble a libertarian system of government? There is no rule of law whatsoever in Somalia. Again, it’s more of an anarchy, not even remotely close to libertarianism. If you are confusing anarchy with libertarianism, I suggest you consult a dictionary.

      Quote: “The Flat Tax, business deregulation, and other high priorities of the Libertarian Party are damaging to more people than my inability to marry my boyfriend in most states or have that marriage recognized by the federal government.”

      Taxing American people to death, debilitating business regulations, and other high priorities of the Democratic Party are damaging to more people than my inability to marry my boyfriend in most states or have that marriage recognized by the federal government.

      Quote: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”

      Sorry, that’s a straight path towards dictatorship. Soviet Union ring the bell? I know you liberals think the Soviet Union was a model country with its system of food rations, government ownership of the means of production, and 10 million people in Gulags. What a wonderful country it was!

      Sep 25, 2010 at 6:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reason
      reason

      Head down to your local bookstore and pickup one of their books on Libertarianism, better yet just sit and the store and read. Their party is a gateway to the third world and rampant discrimination to boot. Say goodbye to overtime, the forty hour work weak, family leave, free road access, multiplicity water, and minimum wage for starters. Their ideals and policies read like a horror fiction, it’s like sending grandma over to Nigeria for business deals with her retirement portfolio in hand.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 9:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      Hey @AL

      That was a pretty well-reasoned response.

      Until: “I know you liberals think the Soviet Union was a model country…” etc.

      That was like reading a rational argument against, for instance, race-based quotas or affirmative-action, then finishing it off with “I know you negros are lazy, but…”

      I point this out only on the presumption that perhaps you’d rather not have your more sensible ideas dismissed by readers on the basis that your prejudices make you sound like a goddam lunatic.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 11:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jim Hlavac
      Jim Hlavac

      For years I’ve been saying that we gay folks stand a better chance of “live and let live” under a Libertarian leaning government. And for years I’ve pointing out that Democrats can be just as anti-gay as Republicans, it makes no difference, and is politician by politician. Recently comes the Tea Party, and it’s Don’t Tread On Us bravado. So I waded into their websites and reminded them that “gay folks have been saying Don’t Tread On Us for decades, welcome to the club.” The response was a lot better than I thought it would be, though there are some anti-gay folks there too. Frankly, taxes are not a “gay” issue — it’s a mathematical issue. I want to keep more of my own money, simple. Debt & Deficits are not our issues, I want less of them. And that’s why I like Barry Goldwater’s comment back in 1994, (he was called “Mr. Conservative” since 1964) “You don’t have to like it, but gays deserve full Constitutional Rights” — including, he said, marriage and military service if we could do it. And Bill Clinton codified into law Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, — that is, it’s better to lie than tell the truth. Some support that is. But the DADT spirit has been society-wide forever, not just the military, as any of us ever tried to say “this is my boyfriend” to any random straight person knows.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 11:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jim Hlavac
      Jim Hlavac

      @the crustybastard:
      Our gay bars, and resorts, etc., had better retain the right to refuse service to anyone we want, like straight people, or they’ll swarm in and take over, and we’d stand no chance in numbers alone. I myself have told straight couples that their glomming on each other is inappropriate in a gay bar, that there are plenty of places “your kind can go, but don’t do that here, it’s revolting” (dramatics in the support of liberty is OK sometimes.) When they protested about their “rights” I pointed to the “right to refuse service to anyone” sign up on the wall. Adding, “when I can kiss my boyfriend in a straight bar, talk to me about rights.” Which does put the crinkle in their “flaunting” and “in your face” attitudes, as I tell them it is, and which we’re accused of for putting up a mere picture of a loved on our desks at work.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 11:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brutus
      Brutus

      @Jim Hlavac: “I myself have told straight couples that their glomming on each other is inappropriate in a gay bar”

      Are you joking?

      Sep 25, 2010 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Baxter
      Baxter

      @Brutus: Touche.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 12:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      The tea party is deceptively libertarian. The bulk of them want a god-centred Judeo-Christian rule.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 1:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris H
      Chris H

      The Tea Party, because it is decentralized and has no rule, is a LOT of things. It started as only an economic movement.

      There are the general tea partyists that are just about economic issues, deregulation, and removal of taxes.

      Then there are the crazies who’ve hitched their cart to the “Tea Party Movement” and really do want a theocracy.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 2:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Jim Hlavac said “When they protested about their “rights” I pointed to the “right to refuse service to anyone” sign up on the wall.”

      Sorry, Jim; if your bar is open to the public, you do not have any right to refuse service to anyone. As a public accommodation, you cannot throw out someone on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender or handicap.

      If your state or city bars discrimination on the basis of sexuality, those straight customers are correct, and you’re violating the law.

      Put another way, you cannot reserve a right you don’t have.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 11:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sam
      sam

      @the crustybastard: Nope. Privately-run institutions can discriminate based on any non-protected class. See, e.g., the recent rulings in favor of the constitutionality of ladies’ nights.

      Sep 26, 2010 at 12:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Allan
      Allan

      CrustyBastard, Sam is right, discrimination laws are all about “Protected Classes”!

      In Tennessee as in many other states, if I am fired for being over 40, being of color, being female, being from France, etc. I can sue. But, if I am fired for being gay there is nothing I can do. Heck, if I am straight working in a gay-owned business and I’m fired because I am straight, there is also nothing I can do.

      Most bigoted straight people forget that such laws cut both ways.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 4:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      Ohferchrissakes. Read closely. Jim asserted some imagined right to discriminate against ANYONE by virtue of posting a sign claiming to reserve such a right.

      I pointed out there are some people he cannot discriminate against based on their membership in a protected class.

      Sam, the decisions regarding businesses giving preferential pricing by gender have been mixed. “Ladies’ Nights” are legal in New Jersey but illegal in Colorado. Further, it is illegal for a New York City dry cleaner to charge less to clean a man’s shirt, etc. I am not aware of any federal court ruling on the constitutionality of “ladies’ nights.” Please cite.

      The only other landmark case I know of is Kool v The Gang (1979), holding unanimously that when it’s Ladies’ Night, “it’s disco night, lady, you’ve got to be there.”

      Sep 27, 2010 at 1:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      @Dollie: Barr has recanted his postition on DOMA since leaving the Republican party. He made it clear in his 2008 presidential campaign that he supports a full repeal of it.

      Sep 29, 2010 at 2:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • J.T.
      J.T.

      @Ryan:
      Somalia’s economy is still better than Zimbabwe’s.

      Nov 3, 2010 at 2:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.