Join/Renew Membership

Outright's Twitter Feed

OutrightUSA Old news by now: "When Paul acts or speaks inconsistently, his campaign responds by pretending like it did not... http://t.co/EGl1Bw9i7g
7hreplyretweetfavorite
OutrightUSA Some observations by Andy Craig for Congress, Libertarian from Wisconsin. #LiberationNOW http://t.co/JMbk9VjWZ0
OutrightUSA “The moral crisis we have in our country — there is a role for us trying to figure out things like marriage —... http://t.co/qn9csOzIQr
OutrightUSA Thought for the Day: The Indiana RFRA states that government must prove a restriction "is the least restrictive... http://t.co/8vSmcXv1Ka
OutrightUSA Freedom is what exists without any legal language at all. Whenever law is being passed, you know force is being... http://t.co/1JpRvehYCB

Follow Us on Google+

Are you a Libertarian?

World's Smallest Political Quiz

Marriage Equality Or Marriage Privatization – Why Not Both?

There seems to be a lot of confusion among libertarians on how to handle the issue of marriage equality from a uniquely libertarian standpoint. Some suggest that the struggle to remove government from our personal lives requires more than equal marriage rights for same sex couples – I agree with them.  Others adopt the all-or-nothing approach of opposing marriage equality now in favor of abolishing state marriage altogether – I disagree with these people.

Fortunately, the Libertarian Party’s platform makes its position clear:

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.

Let’s cut to the chase: The messages in italics are NOT in conflict with one another; it is true that government has no business in marriage to begin with, but the reality is that government IS involved currently, issuing benefits that are still denied for the sole reason of choosing to marry a person of the same sex. Rather than solely focusing on our long-term goal of removing government from marriage, Libertarians should applaud the striking of gay marriage bans as a step toward that goal. Sate-endorsed discrimination is government overreach at its worst. Ensuring marriage equality would deregulate that overreach.

Does the push for marriage equality make the idea of abolishing state marriage meaningless? Absolutely not. My hope is that The United States will return to a common law marriage system in which individuals would not be required to “ask permission” via license in order to establish a new legal next of kin. However, this must be done tactfully.

Recently, Rep. Todd Russ (R) of Oklahoma received much praise from libertarians after he introduced a bill with the intent of getting county court clerks out of the duty to officiate marriage ceremonies. He admits this was a response to a federal court striking down Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage and the fear that the Supreme Court would uphold that ruling later this summer. The problem with his solution is that it would not allow same-sex marriage recognition given Oklahoma’s state constitutional amendment banning such unions.

Libertarians who want the “state out of marriage" come in a number of flavors, some genuinely want to liberate all types of families from the clutches of the state, but quite a few more are just masking their discomfort with equality in that rhetoric. We should not confuse the reactionary tactics of those who fear equality under the law with those that strive for progressive libertarian solutions.

So next time a self-proclaimed libertarian refuses to accept the incremental approach of supporting marriage equality before abolishing state marriage altogether, remember this…




A History Lesson for Conservatives: What These People Have in Common

c-b-pI want to point out the historical point addressed by this meme: an ideological critique to the notion of inherited power in what is supposed to be a merit-based individualist society. Having power pass from father to son was the legacy of aristocracy and monarchy … It’s impossible to be a Constitutional conservative and want to be ruled by an aristocracy.

The error in reasoning which leads people to believe that Rand must surely be like his father, is the same one which led humans to submit to hereditary transfers of power for thousands of years, and which leads people to believe that entire families of evil human beings named “Clinton” or “Bush” must be great ideas for President!! Confronting that core idea is totally fair game for libertarian activism within the context of a constitutional republic which our founders absolutely never meant to become anything like what they fought to overcome.

The fact that this escaped nearly everybody who saw the meme is just proof of how far we’ve strayed from one of the most important concepts that fueled the revolution that led to our founding. Go read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist documents if you aren’t aware of what a huge thing that was to both sides of the question – all were agreed that aristocracies were to be avoided no matter what; that power should no longer be passed as inheritance, but that it must be earned by merit.

I believe it is very clear, Rand has not earned by merit the loyalty he claims through his father, and a dialogue about that is useful not only against Rand, but against the Clintons and Bushes as well. The thing they have in common was really important to our founders … It should be important to us, too.

Libertarians Working for You

Our Chair appeared on the Libertarian Party's official podcast today. Listen in to the second half hour and hear about Outright's "cutting edge activism", our Spirit of '69 fundraising effort, and local efforts in Arizona to decriminalize homelessness and relegalize all drugs.

Get the State OUT of Marriage?

10325632 10152058626341596 2745686507946483753 nThe whole "get government out of marriage" thing is a bit overblown. The government in fact does have a role in enforcing private contract. So it will continue to be called into disputes which question whether a particular relationship meets the state definition.

For example, you contract with an insurance company whose partner benefits are linked to the existence of a marriage agreement. Let's say you and your same-sex male polyamorous lovers are bound by a three-way contractual union. And then let's say your insurance decides it does not want to split the payout between your two surviving spouses, because Leviticus says wives not husbands.

The court will be asked to determine and set precedent as to whether that contract meets the standard and must be upheld ... those precedents will become a new version of the same old reflection of social norms: some relationships will meet the standard, and some won't, and this is true whether we have a state monopoly on justice or whether we have a polycentric system of NGO providers.

That catchphrase slogan makes good red meat for the libertarian base, but it's kind of meaningless in practice. We can abolish marriage licenses, but the state - or its equivalent - will never be out of marriage.

Thank You Ron Paul, Now Step Aside So We Can Support Individual Liberty For ALL.

This past weekend, I attended the 8th annual International Students For Liberty Conference in Washington, DC. I have always felt that Students For Liberty does a great job positioning itself at the ideological center of the libertarian/classical liberal movement. They have routinely featured left-libertarian, conservative-libertarian, as well as anarchist writers and speakers in their materials and speaking engagements. The big-tent approach has obviously worked well for SFL, as they have reached the status as the world’s leading libertarian student organization in only eight years. However, bitter disagreement was still prevalent amongst members of the conference, none more exemplified than by one particular controversy involving former Congressman, Dr. Ron Paul. 


During the Saturday evening panel and question-and-answer period featuring Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Nick Gillespie, A young lady asked Paul about his infamous newsletters from the 1980s, which featured blatantly racist and homophobic statements written under his name. The audience reacted with a mix of boos and cheers. In some ways, the question was essentially beating a long dead horse; Anyone who has been involved in libertarian activism at some point during the past decade has likely heard of these newsletters and known of Paul’s current position on them. Setting aside the particulars of decency in confronting Paul about his newsletters, the truth is that they still to this day represent an awful blight on the face of our cause for individual rights and equality under the law.

Neither of the Pauls are particularly friends of the LGBT community. Both routinely use the doctrine of “state's rights” as a shield to deflect tough questions instead of standing up proudly for liberty for ALL. This matters to the Outright Watchdog committee, particularly because Ron Paul’s legacy is still very influential within The Libertarian Party, among paleo-libertarians and “Constitutional Conservatives” alike. This is not to say that Ron Paul’s legacy has done nothing at all except set our movement backwards. For many millennial libertarians, including myself, Ron Paul’s presidential campaigns were our introduction to the movement. But with the libertarian renaissance in full swing, it might be time for a new face of libertarianism, if one at all.

As Outright Libertarians, we know that the true vision of a free society is one that is clearly in conflict with racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia. Whether you are a left-libertarian, right-libertarian, or anarchist, we can all agree with that statement.

World's Gayest Political Quiz

wgpqYou may be familiar with the traditional libertarian outreach tool, the World's Smallest Political Quiz. Well we've got something even more fabulous!! Introducing the World's GAYEST Political Quiz - coming soon to a Pride near you!!

Answer: Agree / Maybe / Disagree

Personal Issues

- LGBT migrants from countries where they are persecuted should be given asylum in America.
- Intersex infants should be allowed to assign their own gender when they’re older.
- Binary gender tracking by legal enforcement should be abolished.
- Responsible adults, regardless of family structure, should be able to adopt children.
- Targets of hate violence should not be prosecuted for acting in self-defense.

Economic Issues
- HIV patients should be free to purchase any treatment they choose, including marijuana or experimental treatments.
- Gay men should be allowed to donate blood.
- LGBT businesses should not face zoning laws that prevent them from operating.
- Sex worker transactions between consenting adults should be legalized.
- Marriage contracts between any consenting adults should be legally recognized and enforced.
--
Score: Agree = 100 / Maybe = 50 / Disagree = 0
Average for each axis and see accompanying chart.

SURPRISE!! You're a Libertarian!!

We are currently raising funds to get some of these WGPQ kits made for Pride season to be utilized as outreach at booths. They are going to cost $50 to $100 each to create a quality display including the full-size quiz, stickers and explanatory printed materials - we would like to place at least one in each of our most active states. Please consider a one-time donation at http://outrightusa.org/joomla25/membership.

THANK YOU!!

A Call To Arms: Introducing the Watchdog Subcommittee

Since the founding of Outright Libertarians in 1998, our mission statement has included this line: “To monitor the Libertarian Party’s continuing support for equal rights for everyone including GLTBQ individuals”. The critical message that exists herein became my inspiration leading to the creation of a new subcommittee within our organization. We are the “Watchdog Committee”.

Members of Outright are already aware of the Libertarian Party’s long history supporting equal rights for LGBTQ individuals. Our commitment to the liberation of queer persons, as well as the abolition of all victimless crimes, has been reflected by The LP’s platform since the party’s inception. However, to say that our history is sufficient in attracting LGBTQ members to our party would be a falsehood.

My involvement in Outright Libertarians as National Vice Chair came from a growing concern about the LP’s friendliness toward LGBTQ issues. I knew that our platform and history spoke for themselves, but I also knew that the influence of a conservative faction within the party could change it. In 2008, The LP nominated Bob Barr, the principal architect of The Defense of Marriage Act, as the Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States. Granted, Barr was required to denounce his own law and promise to repeal it should he become President. However, he eventually changed his tune following his nomination.

The few years since the Barr/Root campaign have seen a pendulum swing in a noticeably radical direction. The Libertarian National Committee has issued press releases supporting marriage equality and the repeal of DOMA, and has allowed Outright’s content to appear periodically on LP social media accounts. Other “small l” libertarian organizations, such as Student For Liberty, Cato Institute, Reason Magazine, and Libertarianism.org, have consistently produced pro-LGBTQ content, adding to the existing plethora of pro-LGBTQ libertarian perspectives.


Why then is the need for a “Watchdog” committee important?

Consider these “libertarian” reactions to the mere existence of Outright Libertarians:

readthelaw

blackliberationcaucus

opportunistic

On marriage equality…

notlibertarianonmarraige

notsuportmarriage

Trans issues…

actual issues

transpeople

It did not take me long to find these. The conservatives in libertarian drag (as I like to call them) come out of the woodwork every time The Libertarian Party makes a mere mention of LGBT issues. What would happen if these people managed to achieve high leadership positions within the party? They already have. Last March, The Vice-Chair of the Hawkins County Libertarian Party in Texas declared that being gay “destroys everything”. Arizona Libertarian candidate for State House, Zhani Doko, endorses Christian-based discrimination against gays and proceeds to call us all “queers”.  

Conservative members of The Libertarian Party tend to believe that individual rights pertaining to others but not themselves should be dismissed as unimportant. They also believe it is outside of the Libertarian Party’s purview to address matters beyond the scope of the state. This fundamentalist approach to liberty cannot work. The Libertarian Party’s support for individual rights and full equality under the law will never be taken seriously if the party fails to even mention these issues. Consider the words of the late Nathaniel Branden:

 

“I think it’s unfortunate that Libertarians so often leave the initiative to the Leftists. For example, it was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to oppose our involvement in Viet Nam. It was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to oppose the draft. It was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to denounce racism in this country. Never mind that the Leftists had their own motives for doing so and that those motives would not be the motives of Libertarians. The fact remains that we should have never have involved ourselves in Viet Nam, the draft is evil, and racism is contemptible. Libertarians—the true defenders of individual rights—should have been the first to speak up on these subjects, loudly and clearly and publicly. I don’t mean that these are the only issues to which Libetarians should address themselves. Far from it. But it would have been immensely important had Libertarians been the first to speak up on these problems. Libertarians don’t seem to know what the vital issues are, where the battle lines most need to be drawn, and which issues should be attacked first. They don’t seem to have a good sense of practical reality in these matters."

 

The Libertarian Party should no longer leave the initiative up to the leftists. Right now, the LP has an opportunity to take an unapologetic stand for LGBTQ people and against the state-sponsored forces that bring down our community. Issues like gender-specific licensing laws, treatment of LGBTQ prisoners, draconian HIV-diclosure laws, criminalization of sex-work, and a FULL lift of blood donor bans on gay men are a top priority for Outright Libertarians. But if the Libertarian Party is to follow our lead, we need to prepare for a pushback. 

This is where the Watchdog committee finds its role in Outright Libertarians. We will monitor The Libertarian Party’s continuing friendliness toward LGBTQ people and our issues. We will screen LP candidates for anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and policy positions. We will present a positive image to our community, one that reflects our radical, humanitarian roots. Please join us by following our new Watchdog group page and attending Outright’s monthly hangouts.

 

Calling all gifted fundraisers

Outright Libertarians is a very lean organization -- no paid staff, no office rental, and tiny communications overhead to give us a face to the world.  But we do need paid memberships and donations to keep us out of the red.

To that end, the Executive Committee of Outright Libertarians has appointed a Fundraising Committee, temporarily chaired by the Treasurer.  

If you have experience with fundraising for a very lean organization (we can't afford be one of those groups that spends $20k on a campaign to net $2k) and would like to help us with web, email, and small postal mail campaigns, please volunteer by contacting Outright Libertarians Treasurer Rob Power.