|
Written by Rob Power
|
|
Tuesday, 28 July 2009 16:49 |
The national executive committee of Outright Libertarians has voted to sign onto the LoveHonorCherish.org letter explaining why putting a repeal of California's Prop 8 on the 2012 ballot is a mistake. This letter is a response to a letter circulated by a small but powerful group in the LGBT activist community intending to postpone the repeal of Prop 8 until 2012.
We believe that our community's experience of having marriage equality sacrificed at the altar of a Democratic Party White House win makes it clear that if there's any chance to win a repeal of Prop 8 in 2010, then we really ought to go for it. If there's absolutely no chance of winning in 2010, then 2014 is a better choice than 2012. We simply disagree that a 2010 campaign is unwinnable, and we instead believe that there are other motives for delaying to 2012 that have more to do with advancing partisan Democratic Party interests and less to do with advancing LGBT equal rights.
Recently, a letter was circulated in the activist community entitled “Prepare to Prevail: Why We Must Wait in Order to Win.” This letter, which was signed by about 30 organizations, some small and some large, argued that 2010 is too soon to seek the repeal of Prop 8. It gave eight reasons. Here are the reasons, and the response to each
Read the full letter here. |
|
Last Updated on Thursday, 27 August 2009 11:17 |
|
|
Written by Rob Power
|
|
Wednesday, 01 July 2009 13:04 |
WASHINGTON -- Representatives from America’s third-largest party greeted Democrats protesting the Obama administration’s legal arguments defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) outside a Thursday Democratic National Committee fundraiser aimed at gay and lesbian donors, and shared with them information on the Libertarian Party’s advocacy for marriage equality...
Read more at LP.org... |
|
Last Updated on Sunday, 08 November 2009 15:34 |
|
Written by Rob Power
|
|
Wednesday, 17 June 2009 00:00 |
Why would a Libertarian admire and respect Harvey Milk?When the socialists arose they embraced many of the goals that true liberals were seeking. But these socialists thought it possible to achieve liberal ends through the use of State force, in other words while adopting liberal goals they clung to conservative means. As the socialist/communist movement evolved certain erroneous premises which they had embraced pushed many into a totalitarian camp. At that point these “Leftists” had ceased seeking even liberal ends and had become full-fledged conservatives preserving the political power structure through coercive means.
This created a crisis within the political Left. Many in the Left still passionately embraced the ends of the classical liberals. They opposed the totalitarianism of the conservative Left yet they were having problems giving up the idea that state power was the best method of achieving liberal goals. Most of modern Leftists, Harvey included, fall into this category. For the libertarian they are as confused as the modern conservative. Neither consistently advocates freedom yet neither consistently wants to undermine it. Whether their premises undermine such freedom is a different matter, but neither does so intentionally, with the exception of the more extreme elements.
Read more at Classically Liberal... |
|
Written by Rob Power
|
|
Friday, 12 June 2009 00:00 |
|
Just in time for Los Angeles Pride (where she will be present at our outreach booth), Elinor Brandt's new book, A Libertarian Primer for the Gay Community (and Everyone Else), is now available online. |
|
Written by Rob Power
|
|
Wednesday, 13 May 2009 00:00 |
James Madison, who initially introduced the First Amendment to the Constitution, had previously written to Thomas Jefferson on the passage of the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom: "We have in this country extinguished forever ... making laws for the human mind." No American, he emphasized later, would be punished for his "thoughts."
They should also remember that the Fifth Amendment makes clear: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy." But the House "hate crime" bill allows defendants found innocent of that offense in a state court to be tried again in federal court because of insufficiently diligent prosecutors; or, as Attorney General Eric Holder says, when state prosecutors claim lack of evidence. It must be tried again in federal court!
Read more at Cato.org... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 6 |