Perry: Gay People Want 'Special Rights' Like Life and Liberty

The New York Times reports that Rick Perry's new TV spot, which seeks to attract religious conservatives in Iowa by attacking gays in the military, was a source of contention among his top advisers. The ad, which Mike Riggs noted on Wednesday, is pretty loathsome, but Perry's response to the Obama administration's promotion of gay rights in other countries may be even worse.

First the ad, which shows a casually dressed Perry standing in a meadow beside a stream as uplifting music plays in the background. "I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian," he says, "but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school." Perry packs an impressive amount of dishonesty and illogic into that one sentence.

Why would Christians, who represent four-fifths of the U.S. population, be reluctant to reveal their religion? Surely it takes no courage to do so, especially for a politician courting evangelical voters. Having opened with a reference to his faith, Perry immediately says it's not really relevant, since even people who are not all that religious should be able to see why it's wrong to let homosexuals serve in the military, at least as long as Christmas and prayer are banned from the nation's schools (in the same way, I guess, that it's wrong to let Muslims build a mosque in Manhattan as long as Christians are forbidden to build churches in Riyadh). That last part is not only a non sequitur; it's a nontruth. As the father of three Jewish girls who have attended public schools, I can assure you that Christmas is alive and well within their walls. And while the Supreme Court's reading of the First Amendment bars public school teachers from leading kids in officially endorsed prayers, there is no rule that prevents students from praying on their own or in independently organized groups. If Christians were barred from public schools, or admitted on the condition that they conceal their religion and immediately expelled should it ever be disclosed, Perry's analogy would make a little more sense.

On Tuesday, Perry issued a statement about gay rights that on the face of it seems more defensible:

Just when you thought Barack Obama couldn't get any more out of touch with America’s values, AP reports his administration wants to make foreign aid decisions based on gay rights.

This administration's war on traditional American values must stop.

I have proposed a foreign aid budget that starts at zero. From that zero baseline, we will consider aid requests based solely on America's national security interests. Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America's interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers' money.

But there is a troubling trend here beyond the national security nonsense inherent in this silly idea. This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many Americas of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong.

President Obama has again mistaken America's tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles. I will not make that mistake.

If it were up to me, the foreign aid budget would start at zero and stay there. But whether or not it is a justifiable use of taxpayers' money, Obama's initiative is not about "promoting a lifestyle" or "promoting special rights for gays"—unless you think life and liberty are special rights. Here is how Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the program's goals:

I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm.

I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time....

It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.

Does Perry disagree? The administration's avowed goal is not "special rights" but equal rights—precisely the "tolerance for different lifestyles" that even Perry seems to support. One can acknowledge human rights violations in other countries without endorsing the Obama administration's response to them. Instead Perry dismisses concerns about these horrendous abuses as frivolous.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sevo||

    "...to know that there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

    I was trying to come up with an equally idiotic false dichotomy, but he's got me beat.

  • Binky||

    You can easily find one in just about any Obama speech.

  • Barack Obama ||

    Let me be clear: the struggle today is between those who believe that ending government regulation and allowing corporations to do whatever they want to people is a path to prosperity, and those who believe that government needs to play a role in strengthing the middle class and eliminating the power of special interests in Washington.

    Bitch please, I own the false dichtotomy.

  • wareagle||

    Bitch please, I own the false dichtotomy.
    ----------------------
    bumper sticker of the day.

  • ||

    ^^ This

    I'm printing 'em up in basement as I type!

  • ||

    ^^ This

    I'm printing 'em up in basement as I type!

  • A. Scalia||

    I read that in Obama's voice.

  • Grego||

    Perry isn't attacking gays, he's attacking the Christian haters that treat Christians like they're gays living in the 1950s.

    I supported the abolition of don't ask don't tell, I don't support treating the 88% of Americans who believe in Jesus like they have to put their Christianity in the closet everytime they enter the public square.

    America has freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion. Christmas IS a federal holiday, so if you don't like your school having a Christmas play, Christmas carols or a Christmas break, don't participate. But don't you dare fuck with the collective rights of the 88% Christian majority.

    http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....s-hes.html

  • MWG||

    Gregoooooo!

  • Joe R.||

    Yet another Christian, being tormented by a 10% minority. Oh, the tragedy. It's like being gay in the 50's.

  • .R eoJ||

    by a 10% minority

    Not 10%. More like 2-3%.

    The fact that Christians are so numerous doesn't mean that they don't get picked on.

    American society has changed mightily over the last 50 years. One of the ways that it has changed is that an atmosphere has been created such that it is considered gauche to talk about religion publicly. Politicians used to unapologetically put religious references and even prayers in their speeches. Nowadays, doing so, unless at something like a prayer breakfast, will garner condemnation by the MSM, with warnings about the danger of injecting religion into politics. Of course, if a Republican is the transgressor, additional warnings about the attempt to establish a theocracy or the cynicism of catering to evangelicals are included.

    You may not have realized it, but America was a theocracy when Bush was President. No, really, it was.

  • Grego||

    America was not a theocracy when Bush was president, but what Bush did was demand that charities supported by the government not perform abortions, promote abstinence education, and speak about his PERSONAL faith whenever he felt like it.

    In a way, you people are not that different from the fundamentalist Christians getting upset over Hillary Clinton speaking about gay rights as human rights. Most of you are SECULAR fundamentalists, you don't care about freedom, only a secular political correctness where public expressions of Christianity are treated like public sex in a public park. Actually, that's a wrong comparison since libertarians tend to be soft on crime.

    In the end, I will defend the Christians and their rights to come out of the closet and be their Christian selves in public. Why? Because I have PRINCIPLES.

  • ||

    Collective rights?

    Wanting to force people at the point of a gun to pay for your fantasies sounds like something a fucking commie would do.

    I always knew you were a closet commie, Grego.

  • Grego||

    I'm not a commie, it was the commies who banned Christmas celebration in the USSR. It was Fidel who said you couldn't be a good Communist and a good Catholic because they are mutually exclusive. However, if everyone in my neighborhood wants to have Christmas light and one atheist asshole finds them offensive, the rights of one person do not deny the rights of everyone else.

    Freedom is the right to be left alone. If somebody wants to force you to go to church, that violates your freedom. If a congressional session opens with a prayer, that doesn't violate your freedom. You don't even have to stand up, you can play with your cellphone, but you have no right to demand that everyone else stops what they're doing because it offends a few insignificant people.

    You libertarians think individual rights only apply for minorities and activists, you're wrong, they apply to EVERYONE. Your right to do your thing does not exclude my right to do my thing. That's why a public park can have people flying kites, tanning, walking, biking, praying, performing a play, listening to music, etc, etc, etc. As long as nobody is coerced to participate, freedom hasn't been violated. So if you don't want to say the pledge of allegiance at a sports game, fine, don't say it, you'll probably look like an unpatriotic asshole but that's your choice and it's no my fucking problem.

  • ||

    you have no right to demand that everyone else stops what they're doing because it offends a few insignificant people.

    If your tax dollars are supporting it you sure as shit do have that right asshole. You're so fucking muttonheaded that you don't even know the difference between the public and the private.

    I don't care if 99.9999% of the population wants to raze the Washington Monument and put up a Islamic sensitivity training center, too fucking bad. I also don't fucking care what Fidel, or whoever said, you're a fucking collectivist, Grego, deal with it.

    At least you're not pretending to be libertarian any more.

  • Grego||

    My tax dollars support lots of things I hate. Should we close The Smithsonian Museum? What about anti-Semites? Should we close The Holocaust Museum? What about homophobes? Should we make it illegal for gays to have their parades?

    Maybe if you libertarians started fighting for freedom from all and not just the people you like, we would have a great country.

    Instead, we're being told that saying the pledge of allegiance at a football game offends the atheists. We're being told we can't have nativity scenes in public buildings. We're being told our kids can't sing Christmas carols even if they can sing pro-Earth songs. Funny how you liberals hate God but have no problem with paganism (i.e. worshiping the Earth).

    As a libertarian, I support abolishing public education to ensure you liberals no longer pollute the public schools with your secular socialist bullshit. But in the meantime, if a school district is 90% Christian then the Christians can do whatever they want as long as nobody is forced to participate, got it?

  • ||

    Jesus, you are a stoopid fucking pig. Who the fuck says the (socialist)pledge before a sporting event?

    You see, you majoritarian collectivist cunt, rationalists, like our founding fathers, put protections for minorities in the constitution to protect them against the whims of the majority. One of those protections is called the establishment clause, and yes using my tax dollars to fund a place for your rugrat's jesusing is establishment. Got that? Didn't you have civics class in between self-flagellation 101 and being fondled by priests?

    Also, your refusal to see the difference between the public and private arenas is frustrating; it's like talking to a retarded mule.

    And cut the bullshit, Greg. You ain't no libertarian. Not by a fucking longshot, son.

    -----------------------
    Oh, and your posts are made up bullshit. All the examples you cite are things that only happen in your malformed mind. Kids singing "pro-Earth" songs, does that happen? Are you fucking mental, dude? Who wouldn't be pro-Earth? I love Earth; it's the only place I've ever lived. Wouldn't be anywhere else. Are you a martian, Grego? Some jesus worshipping deluded paranoid shitty blog havin' space alien?

  • ||

    "Why would Christians, who represent four-fifths of the U.S. population, be reluctant to reveal their religion? "

    They're not. But pandering to many Christians' delusions of persecution is a sure vote-winner.

  • ||

    "Help, help, I'm bein' repressed...in a Christian majority country!"

  • ||

    "Help, help, I'm bein' repressed...in a Christian majority country!"

    With all the outraged chain mails that I get either on my Facebook or inbox whenever some small-town mayor nixes a nativity scene in front of city hall, you'd there was a full-bore ethnic cleansing going on.

  • ||

    I've been assured there is.

  • Tim Tebow||

    I am clean for I have been washed in the blood of the lamb.

  • ||

    Cool. Now you can work on learning how to throw a football.

  • Tim Tebow||

    That's why God put me on a team with a solid defense and good running game. I don't have to throw like Elway, not even Mrs. Elway.

  • ||

    Sounds like a winning formula. At least until you run up against a team that can stuff the run.

  • I support evil||

    They adopt a victim pathology in order to get their base worked up and mobilized. The power of self deception is amazing.

  • ||

    The ideal candiate would also hate brown people who live on the other side of the world, and would have to demonstrate a sincere commitment to bombing their countries, that they might learn the joys of freedom and democracy.

  • Rick Sincere||

    You mean like Barack Obama's new favorite hero, Theodore Roosevelt?

  • ||

    And in July, before he announced his candidacy, Perry said that he was fine with New York's gay marriages, cause it's a state issue. How much can a politician's opinion on a hotly-debated issue change in the course of five months?!

  • ||

    The election is like a grill. The candidates are like flapjacks: floppy and constantly flipping.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    You should be cooking them on a griddle, instead of a grill. That's why they're coming out floppy.

    ... Hobbit

  • ||

    This right-wing meme is the epitome of idiocy. It's undeniably the straights who have "special rights" and preferential treatment in areas government probably shouldn't be involved in anyway.

  • ||

    It's right up there with the absolute head-shaker "well, gays can get married...to someone of the opposite sex." I can't believe people have the fucking hutzpah to even say something so fucking stupid without being embarrassed, but they do.

    That's how you know you're dealing with some real geniuses.

  • ||

    I wonder what Michelle Bachmann thinks of gay immigrants getting sham marriages to citizens of the opposite gender, since she seems to endorse that relationship. They have the legal right to marry, but would fail authenticity tests for immigration interviews if they are being fully honest. Of course, keeping more gay people out of the US is a perfect idea to her I'm sure.

  • ||

    I honestly can't imagine how she thinks, so I can't speculate. However, I do know what Carl thinks of sham marriages.

    Carl: Oh, man. I cannot wait. I got the oils, the candles, the works! When does that babe get here?

    Master Shake: Carl, don't refer to her as a "babe", please. She is a Chechnyan prostitute, and you will address her as such.

    Carl: Look, just don't cash that check immediately. I wanna make sure that both of us marryin' her is gonna be, you know, legal.

    Master Shake: Of course it is! What are you kidding me? Santa Claus ain't legal and he's around.

    Carl: Well, I guess that makes sense, you know.

  • ||

    @Proprietist

    I linked to this earlier, don't know if you saw it.

    It's 6 epilogues to based on a true story movies that ain't so great. If you read the Stella Got Her Groove Back one it describes what you say.

    The Erin Brokavich one is brutally awesome. Turns out she stepped right over the bones of cancer kids on her path to hagiography.

  • ||

    Never seen it, but that's funny and sad at the same time. I probably would never have gotten legally married if my wife didn't need me to sponsor her immigration. Common law/private marriage, sure. But there's no question we have a special legal right that gays don't have.

  • Robert||

    Even the epilog to Jaime Escalante's story was much worse than Cracked told. Don't I recall reading here that he relocated to S. Amer. and then killed himself?

  • Apatheist||

    I just got around to my daily Cracked reading.

    Did you notice that they linked to the reason article that Robert mentions?

  • ||

    Just noticed that.

    It's so fucked up, I mean, here were kids busting down the door take a harder class (that passing would ensure college admission) and it's trashed because of union policy and petty bureaucratic bickering.

    Isn't the purported purpose of the unions is so that teachers have a voice against capricious and unprofessional administrators? It seems in this case they acted in concert to push out Escalante; at great detriment to the student's education! Jesus Tittyfucking Christ.

    @Robert
    He did move back to Bolivia and taught college math. However, he became ill and moved back to California with family. He died of cancer in 2010.

  • Michelle Bachmann||

    That's "chutzpah."

  • hcracisipE||

    It's right up there with the absolute head-shaker "well, gays can get married...to someone of the opposite sex."

    Why is that a head-shaker? It is perfectly accurate and there is nothing even remotely stupid about it. In fact, it is politically astute because it focuses the conversation on what the issue really is. Gays have deceitfully spun the issue by claiming that they are being denied a right to which they are entitled rather than honestly saying that they just want to unilaterally expand the definition of marriage and impose that redefinition on the rest of society.

    Go ahead, Epi, throw your tantrum, but you know I am right.

  • ||

    So, then you're for anti-miscegenation laws?

  • ||

    Too late, dipshit

    What are you going to say next? That these churches shouldn't count?

  • Thom||

    If a straight person makes even a modest attempt to imagine a world in which homosexual marriage was legal while hetero-sexual marriage was not, they will realize the absurdity of this argument almost immediately. Unfortunately, homophobes tend to be disturbingly unimaginative.

  • ||

    It's undeniably the straights who have "special rights" and preferential treatment in areas government probably shouldn't be involved in anyway.


    Only the monogamists.

    Polygamists had it worse than the gays.

  • B||

    "They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm."

    Sounds like pedophiles.

    Oh! wait! that's in the United States that that's happening, and Hillary Clinton is doing the persecuting ... so naturally that doesn't count.

    Someone needs to remove the beam from her own eye.

  • I support evil||

    Do you really believe that two consenting adults entering into a relationship is the same as an adult and a child?

  • ||

    B,

    Are you trying to be funny in some pathetic way or are you actually arguing for pedophiles? In other words, are you stupid or evil or both?

  • Duke of Anarchy||

    As long as both consent, it IS the same.

  • ||

    Go away, you sick fuck.

  • Duke of Anarchy||

    You're the sick fuck; you go away.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Perry already had his 15 minutes in this primary run. I don't think the love is coming back around to him, no matter how much strange pandering he tries.

  • Binky||

    But think how great he'd be in a VP debate with Biden!

    Romney/Perry 2012!

  • Brandon||

    Well, he's got the Westboro Baptist Church vote sewn up.

  • nodnarB||

    That ad won him much more support than just the Democrats in the Westboro Baptist Church.

  • DB||

    Complaining about how hard it is to be Christian in America is like complaining about the disabled getting all the best parking spaces.

  • seanrude||

    Those damn cripples do get the best spots, no denying it

  • LarryA||

    Obama has at most one chance in a hundred of winning the election, and I think the Republican candidates are trying to give it to him.

  • Rich||

    The Stupid Party will cease to exist as a viable entity after 2012.

  • ||

    Both parties are going away? I doubt it, but it's a great dream.

  • ||

    I feel like I've heard this before.

  • cynical||

    He doesn't mean that they'll be toast politically, just that they gave the president unlimited power to indefinitely detail or execute American citizens on a whim without being answerable to anyone.

  • hazeeran||

    The distinction is only meaningful if they wouldn't do it themselves, and they would do all of that.

  • ||

    hes already won, dumdum-hes a pretty great president-ending two wars, equality for all (ending DADT), medical coverage for all, working on the deficit caused by 8 years of Bush-what more do you want, bitch?

  • Libertarian||

    At least Bush proved us right about how shitty government is at everything.

  • ||

    GOP is too divided for anyone to come close to winning the election. The crazies wont vote for sane, the sane wont vote for the crazies. Middle of the road wont get ANY votes. Probably best if the GOP split into two separate parties.

  • Grandpa Whithers||

    "Gay People Want 'Special Rights' Like Life and Liberty"

    Bastards!

  • wareagle||

    except that's not what he said. Perry's still carping over DADT, apparently unaware gays have been in uniform since the invention of the uniform, and concerned about the lack of prayer in school, apparently unaware of 1) the 1st Amendment and 2) the presence of prayer prior to most major exams.

  • dev advo||

    Perry's still carping over DADT, apparently unaware gays have been in uniform since the invention of the uniform

    Do you really believe that Perry doesn't know that?

  • Duke of Anarchy||

    Perry's "special rights" comment was referring to the Obama administration's new foreign aid policy, not to gay rights in America.

  • ||

    "I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian,"

    Yeah, that really sets you apart in the field of candidates, Rick.

  • SIV||

    Uh, Romney? Huntsman? Gary whatsisname?

    They aren't ALL Christians! ;p

  • I support evil||

    According to Mormons they are Christians.

  • ||

    According to me they worship Cthulhu Destroyer of Worlds, so fucking what?

    Crazy's crazy no matter what you call it.

  • ||

    Perry's getting desperate.

  • BradK||

    Getting?

  • ||

    Ron Paul is getting more attention than Perry.

    And the MSM is allergic to Ron Paul coverage! They make a virtue of ignoring Ron Paul!

    ... Ron Freakin' Paul is getting more coverage than Perry.

    Perry should do something stupid--just to get himself in the conversation again.

    Have one of his kids get a DUI or something--'cause right now, I'm not sure he could draw enough attention to himself to get arrested.

  • ||

    Wow, another absurd, hyperbolic headline. Can someone direct me to where Perry advocated the loss of "liberty" to homosexuals? The "right" to serve in the military or gain government recognition isn't a "liberty". I won't even bother asking when he said that they did not deserve to "live". I agree that the man is an idiot, but he didn't advocate either of these things.

    Granting benefits to individuals based upon their personal relationships is not libertarian. The fact that government recognition of hetero relationships is wrong does not make the government recognition of homosexuals right. Both are unlibertarian because the benefits provided come at the cost of others.

    Why no love for single people? Why in the fuck do heteros or homos require government recognition? How the fuck is an increase in government, however "fair", a good thing?

    Why, for the love of Science, do you publish so many articles about the expansion of government?!!!1!

  • ||

    Can someone direct me to where Perry advocated the loss of "liberty" to homosexuals?

    Perry opposed the 2002 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas. See, Texas used to love throwing gay people in jail for the crime of sodomy. (Technically that includes straight people who engage in oral sex, but the law was only used to throw gays in jail.)

    Like Ron Paul, Rick Perry is angry that the Supreme Court prevents Texas from imprisoning gay people, and to some libertarians, that's a greater threat to freedom than the law itself. That's why reversing that decision is part of the official Republican Party platform in Texas (and Oklahoma, and Idaho).

    http://motherjones.com/mojo/20.....ng-gay-sex

    You may not trust Mother Jones as a source, but follow the links to primary sources like Perry's book Fed Up that came out this year.

    So yes, Perry explicitly advocates the loss of liberty and "liberty" to homosexuals. Please attempt to defend the Texas anti-sodomy laws under some measure that it's a smear tactic by the left wing media. Perry is quite proud of his desire to criminalize homosexuality, so it will be difficult.

  • kciroY||

    Perry opposed the 2002 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

    Letting the Supreme Court strike down State laws simply because they don't like them represents a loss of liberty for everyone, gay, straight or other.

    Texas used to love throwing gay people in jail for the crime of sodomy.

    You have obviously lived in a Texas town near a State prison since you are so sure that their walls were exploding outward with all the gays imprisoned therein.

    You may not have liked the Texas sodomy law, but it was almost never used and the right way to eliminate it was to get it repealed, not drag a case up to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled as you wanted in this case, but relying on an entity which is so unaccountable to do your political work for you is unwise. Sooner or later, that tactic will turn around and bite you.

  • ||

    God damn, you're a fucking idiot. Striking down a law that violates basic liberty is a loss of liberty? Conservatives love judicial activism when it's striking down Obamacare or overturning bans on school prayer. Conservatives would love nothing more than the Supreme Court to conclude Roe v. Wade was a mistake and abortion is a violation of the right to life, states rights be damned.

    If the role of the Supreme Court is not to define the boundaries of what is or isn't Constitutional, what the fuck is the point of the Supreme Court? Conservatives go full retard on buzzwords fed to them by braindead talk show hosts.

  • Sevo||

    "The "right" to serve in the military or gain government recognition isn't a "liberty"."

    Care to explain why you think so?
    Unless you're an anarchist and claim we should have no government at all, I fail to see how denying a class of people equal opportunity isn't denying them their liberty.

  • ||

    Someone once defined Libertarianism as conservatives that want to date liberal chicks.

    While not true, that does pretty much sum up Reason's brand of it, so they constantly advocate popular liberal causes - global warming, gay marriage sanctioned by the government, occupy wall street, etc

  • ||

    You don't seem to get that it isn't about the people involved.

    It's about their rights.

    I don't like the OWS people. That doesn't mean I'll keep my mouth shut about cops pepper-spraying them in the face for the crime of peacefully sitting on the sidewalk.

    Global warming isn't a libertarian or non-libertarian issue. If you don't think there are libertarian solutions to global warming, then you must have a very narrow view of libertarianism and must not have much confidence in capitalism to solve our problems at all...

    And as far as gay marriage goes, I'm not sure what the libertarian argument is against gay marriage, but I'm willing to listen if you got one. Seems to me that the government discriminating against consenting adults becasue of how they like to get their jollies with each other is a pretty un-libertarian thing.

    You gotta understand--being libertarian isn't about being Republican. Republicans were the same scumbags that got us into a lot of the mess we're in right now--during the Bush Administration.

    There are a lot of people who imagine they're libertarian right now, who are actually just thinking about themselves as libertarians becasue they think it's the opposite of what the progressive in the White House is all about.

    We're not the opposite of liberals or progressives. We're the opposite of authoritarians.

    If being against authoritarian solutions to global warming (and in favor of capitalist solutions), against police brutality, and against government discrimination isn't consistently anti-authoritarian--and, hence, very libertarian?

    Then I guess I don't what libertarian is.

    And I do know what libertarian is--really well actually.

  • jacob||

    +1

  • Ob||

    I think libertarians are those people who work in quiet buildings and use the dewey decimal sytem.

  • lib guy||

    Hell yeah! liberal chicks won't date us anyway. We're not stupid enough for them.

  • ||

    Seriously well written Ken Shultz. logical, concise, and addressed all the main points. I especially liked the last two liines- kind of an FU line that would have won big applause at a presidential debate. Thanks for writing it!

  • ||

    Dude, Ken's awesome. He'll take the time to type out a well thought out response to any troll, no matter how despicable.

    I prefer to fling feces at such posters; both methods have their relative (dis)advantages.

    He must have the patience of a saint*.

    *except for those that use the c-word, he'll not abide those people (just kiddin')

  • ||

    well, we need more people like him. we can't grow libertarianism if more people don't make rational arguments for our principles and ideas.

  • ||

    I agree with your first sentence, but your second one I take issue with. Movements are built upon emotion and propaganda; rational arguments will get you nowhere.

  • ztluhS neK||

    That doesn't mean I'll keep my mouth shut about cops pepper-spraying them in the face for the crime of peacefully sitting on the sidewalk.

    But you will keep your mouth shut about all the people whose lives are negatively impacted by the actions of OWS and you will pre-judge the actions of cops even though there is a long history of leftists deliberately misrepresenting every action taken by cops. Police forces exist for a reason. Cops aren't always in the wrong. Given the whole context of the UC Davis incident, condemning the actions of the cops there is equivalent to insisting that cops should never be able to take any action against any group which gives itself the sacred title of "protestors".

    Global warming isn't a libertarian or non-libertarian issue.

    Like hell it isn't. Government employees scoring a pay day from taxpayers by inventing a crisis which, ever so conveniently, trumps all levels of political sovereignty, allowing the argument to be made that international bureaucrats should be put in charge of virtually every aspect of people's lives should make every libertarian take notice.

    If you don't think there are libertarian solutions to global warming, then you must have a very narrow view of libertarianism

    You are presuming that AGW is a problem. By accepting that premise, you are assisting the statists.

    and must not have much confidence in capitalism to solve our problems at all...

    The "capitalist" "solutions" to "global warming" must be imposed by government. Sorry, calling a "solution" to AGW "capitalist" won't make the entire political construct any less statist.

    There are a lot of people who imagine they're libertarian right now, who are actually just thinking about themselves as libertarians becasue they think it's the opposite of what the progressive in the White House is all about.

    Right. Any one who doesn't think like you is just a partisan, incapable of reason.

    I admit I don't understand how any American who calls himself a libertarian can support the Democrat Party. The DP is truly the party of government. The starting point of the philosophy of the DP is that government should actively involve itself in people's lives, ostensibly to make their lives better.

    The RP, on-the-other-hand, rhetorically supports limited government on occasion. It rarely lives up to the rhetoric as a party, but there are at least factions in the RP that support limited government. The same cannot be said about the DP. If the DP ever had a political soul, it sold it to the government devil a long time ago.

    Condemning the DP is not the same as endorsing the RP. From a practical political standpoint, it is easier to remake an existing political party than it is to start a new one so it is not completely unreasonable, as a libertarian, to view the RP slightly more hopefully than the DP which is a totally lost cause.

    We're not the opposite of liberals or progressives. We're the opposite of authoritarians.

    There are enough people who call themselves libertarians that celebrate when they get their way politically, no matter how they do so, that is a bit cheeky for libertarians to wrap themselves in a cloak of virtue for being principled.

    A great example of some libertarians acting in an unprincipled manner shows up with regard to the issue of the definition of marriage. The principled, libertarian position should be that the government should not be involved in the definition. Libertarians should work to get the government out of the business of licensing marriage and work to change the tax system to something that won't allow meddling in people's private lives. Instead, many of the proponents of expanding the definition of marriage are enthusiastically using the judicial system and, recently, the military, to impose a redefinition on the rest of society. That is as statist as anything the proponents of maintaining the existing definition ever do.

  • ||

    So forcing a gay man to testify against his partner in court at the point of a gun is less statist than allowing him the opportunity to be immune from such action?

    Huh, you learn something everyday.

  • Fletch||

    Why does a having a GOV'T APPROVED "partner" afford an individual more rights than having a "roommate"?

    Doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

  • ||

    As long as the government is in the marrying business then the protections should be available to any two, or group of, people that want to get married.

  • ||

    "Given the whole context of the UC Davis incident, condemning the actions of the cops there is equivalent to insisting that cops should never be able to take any action against any group which gives itself the sacred title of "protestors"."

    I wouldn't have had a problem with those cops arresting those protestors for breaking the law. I wouldn't have had a problem with those cops using force against protestors who were resisting arrest.

    I didn't see anyone resisting arrest in that video.

    Condemning the action of the police, in pepper-spraying peaceful protestors in the face as they're peacefully sitting on the sidewalk, is in no way "equivalent to insisting that the cops should never be able to take any action against any group which gives itself the sacred title of 'protestors'".

    It just isn't.

    I think the cops should use appropriate force. I think the force they used against those peaceful protestors was inappropriate.

    "Government employees scoring a pay day from taxpayers by inventing a crisis which, ever so conveniently, trumps all levels of political sovereignty, allowing the argument to be made that international bureaucrats should be put in charge of virtually every aspect of people's lives should make every libertarian take notice."

    Well, let's see! I oppose government employees inventing a crisis. I oppose solutions that trump all manner of American sovereignty. I oppose solutions that put international bureaucrats in charge of people's lives.

    I can oppose all of that and still think that global warming is a problem.

    Just because you're incapable of imagining capitalist solutions to global warming doesn't mean there aren't any. Both I and Ronald Bailey have argued for capitalist solutions to the problem of global warming.

    In fact, I don't know what's worse--real global warming?

    Or climate change denialists who go about denying AGW to the exclusion of proposing capitalist solutions. Even if global warming is real--the solutions could turn out to be a lot worse than the environmental damage!

    If a significant portion of the population thinks global warming really is a problem? Then we better make damn sure that the only solutions on the table aren't the ones where government employees are running everything, we lose our national sovereignty, and our lives are run by international bureaucrats.

    Stop ceding that part of the battlefield to the socialists! It may kill us in the end.

    "The "capitalist" "solutions" to "global warming" must be imposed by government. Sorry, calling a "solution" to AGW "capitalist" won't make the entire political construct any less statist."

    1) To what extent will the deployment and cost of alternative energy innovations be limited, here in the United States, to the shortage of rare earth metals? 2) To what extent are our government's onerous environmental regulations responsible for strangling the mining of rare earth metals here in the United States, one of only three places in the world (if I'm not mistaken) where rare earth metals are available?

    The answer to question 1 is "quite a bit". The answer to question 2 is "an awful lot". If we got rid of the environmental regulations that were strangling the mining of rare earth metals in this country, it would do a lot for the cause of innovation in the alternative energy industry.

    In fact, innovation is key to the solutions to global warming. If the standard AGW model is correct, we're gonna have to be able to do alternative energy much more cheaply and deploy those solutions much more widely than is possible today. That means we need tons of investment and innovation.

    To what extent does our government tax system and regulation discourage investment and stifle entrepreneurship--right now? If the solution to global warming will require tons of investment and innovation--according to AGW alarmists even--then anything our government does to discourage innovation and entrepreneurship is, therefore, an environmental issue.

    There's the question of economic growth, too. It's amazing how many people will willingly buy hybrid cars, that cost more than the savings they generate in gas--just because they care so much about the environment. The consumers who do that tend to be more affluent--which is typical. People are willing to make more willing sacrifices in their everyday lives for the environment, the wealthier they are. If people are willing to make more environmental choices--so long as they're more wealthy--then generating more economic growth and more wealth is also an environmental issue--and part of the solution to global warming.

    The idea that we need to get the government out of the way of the solutions to global warming--is not an unlibertarian idea.

    "Any one who doesn't think like you is just a partisan, incapable of reason."

    The natural place for any libertarian to be is in opposition to the emperor. So it's quite natural for people who oppose whomever's in the White House to gravitate to whomever is opposing the president. I didn't always know everything I know now. And some of the people who oppose Obama now by identifying with libertarians will stick around even after we get a conservative in the White House again.

    I sure hope they stick around anyway.

    But speaking for myself? I'm not a libertarian because I oppose President Obama. I'm a libertarian because I oppose all the vile things Barack Obama has done to oppose capitalism and liberty and individual rights--because of his active opposition to libertarian solutions.

    I was a libertarian before Barack Obama ever entered the national consciousness. And I'll be a libertarian long after he's gone, and we're suffering some fresh Republican hell.

    "Instead, many of the proponents of expanding the definition of marriage are enthusiastically using the judicial system and, recently, the military, to impose a redefinition on the rest of society."

    Ideally, marriage would be a contract from the government's perspective. We would still need the government to enforce people's property rights when they're splitting those up during a divorce. We would still need the government to enforce each parent's responsibility to financially care for their own children. Both of those issues come into play with gay and straight people.

    Who would argue that the government shouldn't be in the business of enforcing contracts between people--between spouses and between parents and children too. Why would that change just because the parties were gay?

    One of the few legitimate functions of government is to sort out our individual rights--when our rights overlap and conflict with each other, which often happens in contract disputes.

    I think there will always be a role for government, therefore, in arbitrating marriages. The government doesn't have to license them, but saying that gay people can't enter into marriage an enforceable contract if they want to?

    I don't get that from a libertarian perspective at all.

  • Sevo||

    "that does pretty much sum up Reason's brand of it, so they constantly advocate popular liberal causes - global warming, gay marriage sanctioned by the government, occupy wall street, etc"
    Hey Jeremy, worried about getting too close to that guy you sort of 'like'?
    Uh, oh! Get an ambulance to those strawmen stat!

  • ||

    "Granting benefits to individuals based upon their personal relationships is not libertarian."

    What about denying benefits to individuals based on their personal relationships?

  • Duke of Anarchy||

    If you read the article you will observe that Perry was referring to the treatment of gays in foreign countries: "Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is ... not worth a dime of taxpayers' money."
    In fact, it seems Obama is not proposing to spend more taxpayers' money, but rather to cut spending going to countries that criminalize homosexuality. So Perry's statement did imply that at least liberty, if not life, is a "special right".

  • BlueBook||

    The Daily What notes that Perry's ad is now more disliked than Rebecca Black's "Friday" video.

    http://tumblr.thedailywh.at/po.....he-day-its

  • Skr||

    I really find it hilarious that Perry is wearing the brokeback mountain jacket in that ad.
    http://failblog.org/2011/12/09.....ack-perry/

  • ||

    I find it curious that you're familiar enough with the movie to have memorized the wardrobe. ;-)

  • skr||

    Dude, that's totally my "this tent is lonely jacket". I took it trolling down at occupy LA.

  • ||

    Does it have a built-in pillow in the sleeve for emergency bite-down situations? ;-)

  • ||

    As my daughter would say, "That's gay."

  • Rick Perry||

    No homo.

  • RoboCain||

    And now Perry's campaign and Heath Ledger are both dead. Coincidence?

  • ||

    Nothing makes me clean my gun faster than the thought of any sort of theocracy in this country. Perry's belief that there is a "war" against people of faith frightens me because then he, as President, will have to "defend" people of faith, and it is clear that in America "defense" is synonymous with "offense;" ie National Defense.

  • RluaP||

    Yeah, the shadow of theocracy is falling like a dark curse across America. The signs are everywhere. You should emigrate so that you will be able to sleep at night.

  • Colin||

    What's really sad about this is that the guy started his campaign off so promising by saying, if New York want gay marriage, he was all right with it.

    Even W. didn't make statements like this.

  • BradK||

    "Even W. didn't make statements like this."

    Neither has Obama.

  • anonymous||

    Perry is such a faggot. All he had to do was say "We have jobs in Texas" and he would have run away with it. Definitely the biggest choke job in the race so far.

  • Ob||

    "Why would Christians, who represent four-fifths of the U.S. population, be reluctant to reveal their religion? Surely it takes no courage to do so, especially for a politician courting evangelical voters."

    The courage comes from letting this guy speak on camera.

  • ||

  • tsitneicS daM||

    Well, the whole point of making Brokeback Mountain was to associate homosexuality with the iconography of the American Cowboy.

    It is a standard tactic of radical leftists to co-opt the ideas, words and images of their opponents.

  • Anonymous||

    Rick Perry posts apology -- pretty gay, if you ask me.

    http://youtu.be/kxEciAcewEE

  • chis||

    It is alleged that Perry switched parties in the late eighties. So, who benefits from this ad now?

  • sihc||

    Just because Perry was Al Gore's TX campaign manager doesn't mean that he ... ah ... never mind.

  • Incredulous libertarians||

    But on the complex study of economics, he's spot on!

  • BigT||

    Even a witless simpleton like Perry understands you can't spend more than you bring in for very long. Obama et al STILL don't get it.

  • TgiB||

    Obama et al STILL don't get it.

    Oh, they get it. They're deliberately trying to bankrupt the country.

  • Nike Dunk Shoes||

    thanks

  • ||

    Religion has cleared turned Perry's brain into jello. This is hilarious!

  • Famous Potato||

    Texas: come for the drought, stay for the crazy.

  • AlmightyJb||

    The rights of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered? What about STEVE SMITH'S rights?

  • dev advo||

    Obama's initiative is not about "promoting a lifestyle"

    Yes, it is. Why single out gays in foreign policy? Governments all over the world pick on their subjects/citizens for all kinds of reasons. Why single out gays? To pander, pander, pander.

  • ||

    If the conservatives are being honest about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, they'd support the military kicking out straight guys for talking about their wives and girlfriends and posting calendars of models in bikinis on their walls, and they'd eliminate dances and other social events that involve opposite sexes mingling romantically. Either the military should be strictly asexual or the military should permit all sexualities and enforce harassment rules.

    If the straight boys are too immature to handle being around a respectful openly gay guy, they're probably too immature to be in a warzone deciding life and death for multitudes of civilians.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement