Libertarian Party

Slate Wonders Why Libertarian Party Insists on Being Libertarian on Gay Rights Issues, Reveals Utter Ignorance of Party's History


Weird little piece up at Slate today, about an issue certainly none of their readers or pretty much anyone else cares about, but feeds a generic endless desire to scratch at the persistently annoying itch of libertarianism in these here times.

It is called "How Libertarians Failed Gay Rights" and its URL contains the phrase "the party failed to take a stand" on gay rights. Its evidence for this is that on the LP's current website, author Tyler Lopez couldn't find a dedicated page about gay rights.

The Party's platform does, though Lopez doesn't mention this, contain this:

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.

Lopez' very non-deep knowledge of his subject misses some other things, like the long history of LP candidates speaking out about gay rights as a pretty big deal, from Ed Clark's 1978 California governor's race in which he ran hard against the anti-gay Briggs Initiative to Gary Johnson in 2012 to Andre Marrou in 1992, and the interesting identity politics fact that the Party's first presidential candidate, John Hospers, was gay, though not openly so in a modern sense. 

At the very convention where he got the Party's nomination, former Republican congressman and Defense of Marriage Act author Bob Barr had to denounce his own law and insist he'd repeal it as president.

Lopez also misses the Party's record from the mid-'70s on of being way ahead of the national curve in talking sense and laissez-faire when it came to homosexuality.

This is summed up well in Ralph Raico's document used by the LP during the 1976 Roger MacBride campaign, "Gay Rights: A Libertarian Approach." Some excerpts. Again, this was used in the mid-'70s. Worth a longish look:

Since they partially share the heritage of Classical Liberalism, democratic socialists and left-liberals have been much more helpful to the cause of gay liberation. Much of the progress in recent years in repealing laws in this area has been due to them. But too often, even when they are more or less rational on the subject, they are, either for reasons of temperament or politics, much too timid….so many of them are generally in favor of gay rights, but nearly all shy away from the right of homosexual couples to adopt children, or even to have their unions legally recognized. Moreover, their attitudes are often tainted by an offensive, psychiatrically-rooted condescension: basically, a these-people-are-sick-and-need-help-not-punishment approach….

And as for the run-of-the-mill liberal politicians, we have a right to suspect the extent of their genuine tolerance. Consider, for example, one of the more "liberal" of these men, Sergeant Shriver (who was McGovern's Vice Presidential candidate in 1972). In a speech in Chicago to Mayor Daley's precinct workers, on October 24, 1972, Shriver whiningly complained of the unfair attacks on McGovern in these terms: "And then they say that George McGovern wants to give blanket amnesty to everybody—draft dodgers, deserters, queers, kooks …" (New Your Times, November 12, 1972. Sec. 4—notice that, in his frenzy, Shriver does not even take the trouble to make sense: "blanket amnesty to queers?") I think you and I have a good idea of the real feelings on homosexuals of anyone likely to become the candidate for President of the Democratic Party…..

With the Libertarian Party, unlike other political groups, there was never any need laboriously to raise its consciousness on the issue of gay liberation, nor to compel it, after long, drawn-out battles, finally to concede the humanity and first class citizenship of gay men and women. Instead, the Libertarian Party was born believing in gay rights. The need to promote full freedom of individual development for all persons is what led to the formation of our Party; and the very first mention of us in The New York Times ("New Party Makes a Debut in Denver," February 6, 1972) lists as our first objective (even ahead of abolition of the draft, amnesty for draft-evaders and deserters, private ownership of gold, etc.): "Repeal of all criminal laws in which there is no victim."

Gay rights have been an issue in practically every major Libertarian campaign since then, including John Hospers' try for the Presidency in 1972 (he did get one electoral vote, thus coming in a close third to McGovern); Fran Youngstein's campaign for Mayor of New York; Jerry Tuccille's try for Governor of New York in 1974; and the 1975 bids of Ray Cunningham for Mayor of San Francisco, and Dave Long for Mayor of Boston. It is also an integral part of the campaign of Roger MacBride and David Bergland, our candidates for President and Vice-President in 1976. At the Libertarian National Convention in New York City, in August, 1975, at which MacBride and Bergland were nominated, the following Platform planks were adopted unanimously.

"We hold that only actions which infringe the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all federal, state and local laws creating "crimes" without victims. In particular, we advocate: … . (b) the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the immediate cessation of state oppression of homosexual men and women, that at last they be accorded their full rights as individuals … (e) the use of executive pardon to free all those presently incarcerated for the commission of these "crimes."

We call for the end of Defense Department policy of discharging armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct when such conduct does not interfere with their assigned duties. We further call for the retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and the deletion of such information from military personnel files."

Better than "don't ask, don't tell," and in 1975. Dare I suggest Lopez has no idea what he's talking about?

More on how radical and how early the LP was on gay rights, a long long time ago, from Raico:

During the Tuccille campaign in 1974, a position paper was issued on the subject, composed by Mike James, Western New York Libertarian and gay liberationist. It provide s the basis for the position of the MacBride-Bergland ticket on the issue. Here is what our national candidates in 1976 specifically favor and will promote to the extent they can:

  • Repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual acts between adults (with the age of consent reasonably defined). This would include abolition of laws prohibiting prostitution and solicitation, whether gay or straight.
  • Repeal of legislation prohibiting unions between members of the same sex, and the extension to such unions of all legal rights and privileges presently enjoyed by partners in heterosexual marriages.
  • An end to the use of loitering statutes and entrapment procedures as a means of harassing gays and prostitutes.
  • An end to the collection by government agencies of data on the sexual preferences of individuals.
  • Elimination of regulations specifying homosexuality as a justification for denying or revoking state licenses (for doctors, lawyers, teachers, hairdressers, etc.).
  • Repeal of laws prohibiting cross-dressing.
  • Recognition of the right of a homosexual parent to be considered for custody of his or her natural child, and of the child to choose the homosexual parent as guardian.
  • Elimination of laws specifying homosexuality as grounds for denying the right of adoption.
  • Equality of treatment of gay people in regard to government service, including particularly membership in the armed forces.
  • Release of all individuals presently detained or imprisoned for any victimless crime.

Even Lopez's substantive critique amounts to a complaint that the LP treats gay issues in a distinctly libertarian way–worrying about how government power effects gays, not worrying about private attitudes or treatment, which remain the business of those who hold the attitudes or give the treatment.

To complain about that is not to complain that the LP isn't sufficiently pro-gay (and compared to who? The Democratic Party who just last year got around to getting gay marriage rights in its platform, and which some research by colleague Ronald Bailey indicates didn't even mention eliminating sexual orientation discrimination in the platform until 1984?) but that it is overly libertarian.

Slate's piece combines confused thinking with near utter ignorance on its topic. However, it will, if read quickly and carelessly by equally ignorant readers, help make certain people think less of libertarianism, and that's all that matters.

NEXT: US Home Electricity Use Declines for Third Year

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Here’s your answer, right there in the platform:

    . Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

    Libertarians believe government lacks the authority to license marriage, ergo, libertarians are opposed to licensing gay marriage, and thus opposed to gay marriage, and consequently want gays who marry to be jailed.

    See, we really are crypto-authoritarian bigots. Its right there in the party platform.

    1. we really are

      Hey, hey! What’s this “we” stuff, Kemosabe?


      1. We are all different, except me.

    2. Like you say, to them, that means that you are anti-homosexual, since you are anti-license.

      It means the same to some of “us” too, as I barely won a very public libertarian debate by an essay being labeled as “Gay marriage does not expand liberty” as the heading to an anti-licensing essay. No, not at Slate, elsewhere.

      Looks like Slate is all over the place lately. One feature piece refutes 40 years of false assertions that Reagan invented the “welfare queen” phrase then Dave Weigel, at the same publication, asserts that the article “vaporizes decades and decades of obfuscation about an era-defining political controversy.”

      While it “vaporizes” the big load of BS that Reagan ever said “welfare queen” or that he made up a single thing in any of his speeches on the topic, Weigel does not seem to notice any of that and writes an article that has not much to do with the subject.

      Odd times are these.

      1. You mean former Reason employee Weigel?

        1. Yes, that one. Underlord of the JournoList.

      2. Like you say, to them, that means that you are anti-homosexual, since you are anti-license.

        “Do you have a license for that homosexual? If not, we’ll have to take him to the pound.”

        1. pounding…

  2. However, it will, if read quickly and carelessly by equally ignorant readers, help make certain people think less of libertarianism, and that’s all that matters.

    Bingo. That’s also the reason the article is accompanied by a picture of Bob Barr and not Gary Johnson, who held that gay marriage was an equal protection issue under the Constitution.

    1. Exactly, this is typical prog tactics (with a little ignorance thrown in) of trying to stop any fags from voting libertarian and keep them on the Team Blue Plantation.

      Also, thanks for the history lesson for me (I’m ignorant of this LP history myself).

    2. “… if read quickly and carelessly by equally ignorant readers…”


      We’re talking about *Slate*, again, right?

    3. The way to protect equally is by getting rid of licenses, not making more varieties of them.

      1. Or to simply have the govt recognize marriage as a mere contract, y’know, exactly as it is, and enforce a contract as it should be.

        Of course, that also means the end of no fault divorce. Parties in breach of contract shouldn’t be able to extort money from the parties they’re violating the contract with.

        1. You recognize property as a contract, not people.

          1. Yes but you also recognize the people who are party to the contract.

            That’s like saying you don’t recognize the people in a labor contract.

    4. It’s like when the term nullification got thrown around, all the blogs would put up a pic of Henry Clay, but not the inventor of the concept, Thomas Jefferson.

      And now you don’t hear that term so much in a negative connotation since CO and WA have (sort of) nullified federal pot laws.

      1. All CO did was differently regulate pot.

        1. Considering that home growing is now legal in CO (under state law) it’s a pretty significant “differently regulated” change.

  3. Can we talk about Bill Moyers outing gay staffers in the Goldwater campaign now?

    Too soon?

    1. For some bizarre reason that escapes me, I read that as Bill Maher instead of Moyers.

      1. Just an example of the lefts johnny come lately bonifides to gay rights issues.

        Until very recently they were even bigger piles of shit on the issue then current day republicans.

    2. yeah liberals are the REAL bigots highfive bro

  4. FTA:

    In fact, two years after Stonewall, the party’s platform called for the abolishment of “victimless crimes,” which lumped homosexuality with prostitution, polygamy, recreational drugs, abortion, and gambling.

    It sounds as if he is miffed that libertarians won’t make a value judgment and embrace gay people as inherently good and worthy of celebration.

    1. he is miffed that libertarians won’t make a value judgment and embrace gay people as inherently good and worthy of celebration.

      I am miffed that he thinks prostitution, polygamy, recreational drugs, and gambling are not inherently good and worthy of celebration.

    2. Back then wasn’t homosexuality was a crime and considered a mental illness? So it made sense to lump it with those things.

  5. None of this matters. There is only TEAM and the TEAM binary. Facts are irrelevant, actual stances are irrelevant. These people do not operate in reality, they operate in a fantasy world spun for them by TEAM and partisanship and projection. You can point out the LP’s stance on gay rights until you are blue in the face and it doesn’t matter one whit.

    One of the biggest mistakes you can make is thinking that these people can be reached by logic, persuasion, and rationality. If they could, they wouldn’t be who they are and on a TEAM in the first place. They want to be in fantasy land. Every time you try to jar them out of it, it bothers them. They sure don’t see it as a favor.

    1. These people do not operate in reality


      1. It’s like “based on a true story.”

    2. One of the biggest mistakes you can make is thinking that these people can be reached by logic, persuasion, and rationality.

      Just look at the Tony comment above. He actually decries the use of logic.

      1. Yes, but Tony is a sockpuppet. Though he is admittedly parroting TEAM BLUE concepts for the sockpuppet performance.

      2. what Tony Comment above?

    3. You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

  6. The Slate comments section pretty much destroys the author.

    1. I somehow cannot break into their comments section via Opera. Counting it as a blessing.

      1. I use Opera from time to time. It somehow misses some things, especially with Adblock running.

  7. Who gives a fucking crap what Slate says? Fuck them, and I’m not falling for their transparent attempts to try to get me to go to their garbage-ass site.

  8. It is called “How Libertarians Failed Gay Rights” and its URL contains the phrase “the party failed to take a stand” on gay rights. Its evidence for this is that on the LP’s current website, author Tyler Lopez couldn’t find a dedicated page about gay rights.

    The article makes much more sense if you run it through Google Translate first. See when lefties say “rights” what they mean is “ponies.”

    Also Doherty, your first mistake was falling for Slate’s retarded click-bait in the first place.

  9. The first mistake was thinking that these attacks on libertarianism are being made in good faith.

    1. I made it to paragraph 4 and stopped reading. I came down here to say just that.

      Lefties never, ever argue in good faith. Ever. They know if they are honest about what they want they will be soundly rejected.

      I wonder sometimes if the mask is as much for their own benefit as it is to fool us. I know that if I were like the lot of them I would not be able to look in a mirror either.

      1. That’s sort of it. Remember that their epic projection stems from knowing that they are exactly what they accuse their opponents of being, so it’s a defensive mechanism. The mask is partially for their own benefit, partially for others on their TEAM, and partially to try and pretend to the rest of us how pure their motives are.

  10. The article has a substantive criticism – (L)libertaris want private employers to have their right to hire whom they please, serve whom they please, and run their business how they please, even if this involves discriminating against gays or hurting their feelings. Good luck defending yourselves by saying “we’re against government discrimination, we just don’t want to dictate to the private sector!: How did that work out for Goldwater and Rand Paul re the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

    1. It’s called “integrity”, asswipe.

      1. cling to that ideology no matter how much it breaks down in practice. integrity.

        1. Yes, the world is filled with the practical failures not of statism and collectivism, but of libertarianism.


  11. “Tyler Lopez is a master’s candidate in the Communication, Culture and Technology program at Georgetown University.”

    That doesn’t sound like the sort of degree program that requires anyone to know things.

    1. Say what you will, but those CC&T chicks are easier than even your mama.

      1. Especially the Georgetown ones.

        1. You know what they say about men trained by Jesuits. (leaving aside Stubby Clinton)

  12. Oh, and recall that ENDA is *more popular* than SSM. So this article is going to resonate with people who realize that you guys oppose the former while supporting the latter.*

    *Yes, support SSM as an intermediate stage while waiting for state-sanctioned marriage to wither away, I know.

  13. Looks like Tony couldn’t help but get involved in an environment that won’t make him support his statements:

    Tony 8 minutes ago

    Libertarians are not to be taken seriously for many reasons, one important one being that they’re almost entirely composed of white males. Libertarians, being suckers for a simplistic attitude that everything is answerable by appealing to “logic”–and the simpler the better–don’t appreciate this as a hindrance to their worldview as a workable philosophy. But if only a scrappy band of pale-faced straight boys and men have access to Total Logic, it should go without saying that their conception of logic is flawed. Or else it must inherently incorporate racist, sexist, and homophobic claims as truth. Ask them why nearly all minorities vote for Democrats, and see if you can get a coherent response that isn’t inherently bigoted. You can’t, and they probably won’t even try.

    1. Ask them why nearly all minorities vote for Democrats, and see if you can get a coherent response that isn’t inherently bigoted. You can’t, and they probably won’t even try.

      I wonder what his answer would be, eh? Are minorities just naturally more gifted at seeing the revolutionary truth?

      1. The answer is simple, and unfortunately upended his quest to find institutional racism in a cup of coffee.

        Stockholm Syndrome.

        1. Logic is “simplistic”?

          What does he offer in its stead?

          “Simplistic” was, originally, a term that came out of the anti-conceptual philosophy of pragmatism (the one in which American culture has been saturated for the past century). Under pragmatism, concepts and logic are “simplistic” because enlightened spirits know that there is no such thing as knowledge and concepts are arbitrary (nominalism).

          Today, “simplistic” has no formal epistemological base, and it is simply used as a form of the argument from intimidation, on the premise that complexity is somehow a criterion of truth (but if knowledge and concepts are impossible, how can they claim *anything* to be true? FYTW).

          Of course, it is juvenile, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual leftoids like Tony who are most often heard to use the term. But like everything else they say, it is an empty platitude born from shitty philosophy from the 19th century.

          1. I disagreed with Tony. As far as I can tell from your response, it appears that you shit in your own hands and then started clapping.

            What the intended result was is beyond me.

            1. Our Libby’s more a flinger than a clapper.

              (though he’s right re: proggies, but wrong re: pragmatism, which he mischaracterizes as nihilism with customary spittle-flecked Randian flair)

              1. Do you really want to go there? That you read what I wrote and somehow equate that with nihilism, tells me that I’m probably throwing pearls before swine, but I’ll do it anyway.

                Pragmatism grew out of the subjectivist–empiricist–skeptic epistemological tradition, which held nominalism as its foundational view of concept formation(nominalism is the subjectivist premise that concepts are arbitrary creations of the mind that do not refer to factual percepts). Pragmatism dismisses concepts, logic, and theory altogether, replacing it with “just do what works, and whatever worked yesterday probably won’t work tomorrow, so don’t bother thinking, just live for the spur of the moment”.

                Pragmatism is most immediately influenced by the skeptic side of Kant (which entails Hume, of course), but to really get to the bottom of it, you have to go all the way back to Heraclitus, who said that there cannot be any such thing as identity (and thus a concept), because nothing exists but change. Pragmatism presents reality as a transitory, shapeless, indeterminate flux of random events, and this is the Heraclitean influence of identity vs. change (Aristotle corrected him, but Hume resurrected Heraclitus as a means to justify his skepticism).

                Pragmatism professes to be practical and this-worldly (and against the nonsense of rationalists, it would *appear* to be so), but we are living in a culture that is utterly saturated in pragmatism; how well is that working for you?

            2. I was disagreeing with Tony as well; but now you, the foul-mouthed dullard on the internet, have accused me of crapping in my hands, or something.

              If that’s what passes for sharp wit in your book, you deserve it.

        2. If Tony thinks a majority of minorities think you are a racist then you must be a racist.

      2. Are minorities just naturally more gifted at seeing the revolutionary truth?

        IDK but Polls do show “minorities” don’t like gays very much.

        Gay marriage is not very popular among Blacks and Hispanics.

        1. Probably white pollsters. Think about it.

    2. So he has been released into the wild. Maybe he’ll find a home, and stay there.

    3. First

      Libertarians are not to be taken seriously for many reasons, one important one being that they’re almost entirely composed of white males.

      And then

      Or else it must inherently incorporate racist, sexist, and homophobic claims as truth.

      And you people think proglodytes operate on projection.

    4. Tony 8 minutes ago:
      “Libertarians are not to be taken seriously for many reasons,…”

      That explains why we occupy so much space in his head.

  14. If he had done the most basic research before writing that hit piece, he would have come across this document from 1975:…..n-approach

    And yet… It’s hard to expect any better from them.

  15. Libertarians are too unclean to care about the preciouses (gay rights)!

  16. This makes a lot of sense dude.

  17. Instead of bitching about it on the Internet, does anyone want to chip in for a television spot highlighting Georgetown University’s alma mater? I hear college selection season is upon us and I think every parent should know just what sort of education they can expect their child to receive at Georgetown University.

    I feel it’s important that future consumers know what their $30,000 a year in tuition are going to net them.

    1. $30,000? Try $60,000.

  18. Waiting for some LRCtard to claim the NAP means it’s okay to exclude gays from libertopia.

    1. If the owner of Libertopia is an anti-gay biggot, I assure you, he’ll never have me as a citizen.

      After reading this article, I’m convinced that at least some progs see the writing on the wall. They view advancing gay rights as an opportunity to force another layer of control. After they got their asses handed to them in the Chick-fil-a and Duck Dynasty cultural wars they sparked, it has dawned on them that this approach, the one they succeeded with in the 1964 CRA is not going to go down so well with the public this time around. The public feels less guilty about its role in gay relations than it does in racial ones for very real historical reasons. There is only one other tact to take in advancing civil liberties for gays, and that is the libertarian one. This is anathema for the proggies because without the control that the rationale of advancing rights gives to them, what is the point of expending political capital to accomplish it?

  19. In the comments section there are a few readers, notably female, who seem to be possessed of the strange notion that Supreme Court decisions delimit the extent of any given debate. Someone pines in about inalienable rights, one of these weirdos will jump in with,

    Karyn Ellis 4 hours ago

    @Filthy Henry Try again. In fact, try reading Loving v Virginia.

    This was a reply to:

    Joshua Trujillo 4 hours ago

    @Filthy Henry

    People have a right to marry. I mean there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the government to stop two (or even more than two) people from going to a church that will have them and getting married before God or whatever.

    It just need not be state sanctioned or recognized.

    I’ve never seen this before. What do you even call it? Petulant legalism?

  20. Hey Libertarian Party. Do you see the problem with nominating shit heels like Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root for higher office? All detractors have to do is have an article calling libertarians social conservatives and then they put your picture up there and, well, damn, when they talk about your party they kinda have a fucking point.

    1. 2008 was a special kind of sad. WAR and BB were the least offensive candidates in a field that included McCain, Palin, Obama, Biden, and whatever hellspawn the Greens were running. So permanent scars for everyone who casts a vote that year. Just don’t expect me to be receptive to opening them back up for the purpose self flagellation because I don’t even see what good that would do you.

      1. I dunno. Put BB and WAR up there next to Obama or McCain or Romney and do they seem that different to you?

        1. Obama is in his own class of horrible. Biden, yeah, I’ll have to agree with you there. There isn’t many degrees of separation there between Barr and Biden.

        2. But in the LPs defense running the moderate, yet anti-establishment(!!! those things almost always cancel each other out), Johnson in 2012 was definitely a movement forward. I was proud of my Gary vote.

          1. I was proud of my Gary vote.

            Me too, and I still am!

  21. Repeal of laws prohibiting cross-dressing.

    Holy shit. There were laws against cross dressing?

    1. I think those go to being “in disguise” in public. Barney Miller had a whole episode about it once, a Teamster truck driver was nabbed for dressing as a woman.

  22. Don’t worry about anything folks. Come 2016 there is going to be a good solid libertarian candidate. However, whoever runs needs to be sitting squarely on the dime of freedom and diversity.

    On that note, how about an African American Woman, who is also paralyzed from the waist down, and is also a Lesbian and a member of the Rastafarian Movement. A fine Libertarian President I think.

    And let’s have a catchy jingle for the Libertarians in 2016. How about: “Rat’s Ass, Cat’s Ass, Stinky Old Twat, 69 Douche Bags Tied in A knot. I’m a Libertarian! Who the Fuck Are you?”. Just a suggestion now.

    1. You should be running an online pharmacy and tag it in your url header, Mary. I want some of that shit.

      1. Killaz,

        All I want to know is: Do you like the candidate? Do you like the libertarian campaign jingle? That’s what I’m talking about. Nice posting with you ace.

        1. who is also paralyzed from the waist down

          If she really wants to win over libertarians she would have something done about that. Half man, half machine, unfeeling cyborgs are kind of our thing.

  23. None of this whining over homosexual rights addresses the fundamental unfairness of making the single and divorced and widowed people subsidize “married” people of any stripe through tax and benefit systems. Having a sex partner should be its own reward. True Libertarianism would demand these subsidies STOP, for traditional couples as well!

    1. Pretty sure large groups of libertarians want everyone to play the same taxes.

      Zero taxes for everyone.

      Also low flat taxes are similarly popular.

  24. Dare I suggest Lopez has no idea what he’s talking about?

    He’s a leftard media minion. When have ANY of them ever known what they’re talking about?


  25. Seems like the progressive media is busy lying about Libertarians now. We must be doing something right, to be a serious target of these misinformation campaigns.

  26. “To complain about that is not to complain that the LP isn’t sufficiently pro-gay…”

    Among certain circles of the Left, being “pro-” means embracing identity politics. You cannot be pro-gay, pro-woman, pro-disabled, etc. without wanting the government giving legal advantages based on those statuses. In that sense, libertarians cannot be full social liberals without abandoning libertarianism.

  27. Mr. Doherty,

    The primary thrust of the article seems to be “What have the Libertarians done for us lately?” Reiterating the party’s 1970s stands doesn’t address the issue.

    I think we can safely say that the gay rights movement has largely won on its original aims: no mainstream politician would ever make a statement like “blanket amnesty for queers” now, most or all of the laws prohibiting homosexuality have been repealed, and gay marriage has a plurality — if not a majority — of support. However, no activist group ever declares victory and disbands. The gay rights movement is moving on to new objectives. If the LP hasn’t explicitly declared their support, then they are just one more opponent to denounce, regardless of their past positions. “If you’re not for us, you’re against us” — it’s not just for neoconservatives any more.

  28. One point I will make, LP has definitely never followed-up on the promise to “reasonably define” the age-of-consent. This is a topic which, unfortunately, became so radioactive in the intervening decades as to silence even the most rational libertarians.

    Those few who dared to later broach this topic for discussion were, effectively, shut-out in the cold.

    This, and the still broader and more-important issue of genuine children’s rights (not to be confused with feminist and fascist ‘children’s rights’ in which children were further shorn of what few rights they possessed and became chattel of the state), are a topic that libertarians need to revisit and soon.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.