Republican Party

Saying Goodbye to the GOP

After a lifetime of Republican activism, gay conservative Jimmy LaSalvia is turning his back on the party

|

Jimmy LaSalvia
Photo provided

Most of Jimmy LaSalvia's political life and activism has been connected to the Republican Party and its conservatism.

"I carried a 'Reagan/Bush 84' sign around my junior high school," he said. "I've been a Republican activist as long as I remember. I was 21 and part of the youth program at the 1992 convention. I've been to a number of other conventions since then. I was a College Republican campus chairman. I worked for a [Republican] governor in South Dakota. It's essentially been my life."

LaSalvia is also openly gay and founded GOProud, a "national organization of gay and straight Americans who seek to promote freedom by supporting free markets, limited government, and a respect for individual rights. We work to build strong coalitions of conservative and libertarian activists, organizations and policy makers to advance our shared values and beliefs. We believe all Americans deserve to be treated equally under the law, and that conservative principles benefit the lives of all Americans."

But at the age of 43, LaSalvia's days of calling himself a Republican are over. In mid-January, on his blog, he declared that he was leaving the party:

Today, I joined the ranks of unaffiliated voters. I am every bit as conservative as I've always been, but I just can't bring myself to carry the Republican label any longer. You see, I just don't agree with the big-government 'conservatives' who run the party now.

The other reason I am leaving is the tolerance of bigotry in the GOP. The current leadership lacks the courage to stand up to it – I'm not sure they ever will. 

I have worked hard to help to create an atmosphere on the right where conservatives can openly support gay Americans and even support same-sex marriage. In that effort, we have won, but there is more work to do to root out the anti-gay and other forms of bigotry in the party.

So I changed my voter registration today – "No Party."

LaSalvia is not alone. The percentage of voters who identify as independent is increasing as the number of voters who identify as Republican drops. For LaSalvia, the Republican Party leadership's unwillingness to address anti-gay bigotry from within and the party's perpetuation of a big government mentality pushed him away. By way of example, he pointed to the creation during the George W. Bush administration of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

"To me that was so offensive because it's not for the government to decide which religious institutions to do social work," he said. "It's not for them to take the money at all and leave it to the public to decide." (Incidentally, the agency still exists, renamed, under President Barack Obama's administration.)

Bush's faith-based social spending was some time ago, though, so why did LaSalvia wait until now to make his decision? Gay Republicans are not a new phenomenon and if anything, the party is slowly but surely becoming more hospitable to them. At least that's the way it looks from the outside. For LaSalvia, though, he doesn't see a party willing to stand up to its anti-gay contingent, and as the number of people identifying as "independents" rise, he's beginning to wonder about the worth of the two-party system.

"I realized that the real change can happen with the majority of people that don't find themselves represented in the two-party system," he said. "This new majority can affect change and make the country better without having to work within the system. Political parties started for a reason. But do you need a political party when you've got Facebook? We're at a point in our history. There's nothing to say that the majority can't make our country better without playing on the same field as them. Establishment parties can keep others out. I think we can come together and go around them." He admits, though, that he has no idea what that may look like.

And what about the increasing libertarian influence within the Republican Party, folks like Ron and Rand Paul and Rep. Justin Amash? Aren't they helping?

"I have never talked about or considered the conservative movement to the exclusion of libertarians," he said. "I think they've always been part of the broader conservative movement. I think that as we've seen the reality of what the large out-of-control government brings you, conservatives of all stripes are starting to have more libertarian views about big government. There's more agreement about the role of the government."

But the growth of libertarian influences within the party hasn't necessarily translated into changes in the party platform yet. The Republican Party's 2012 platform still favored a constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman. LaSalvia believes this intolerant segment of the Republican Party is holding it back. He doesn't believe the party is capable of winning another national election unless that's dealt with.

LaSalvia isn't the only gay conservative reconsidering party affiliation as the independent self-identification booms. Andy Markle, an openly gay Republican running for Indiana's House of Representatives, announced a week after LaSalvia that he was also leaving his party, angered by leaders' efforts there to pass a ban on gay marriage recognition. Markle was also the director of Indiana's chapter of GOProud.

"I should go through and count the number of e-mails from people who said 'I'm right behind you,'" LaSalvia said. "I don't know if I've launched a trend, but I'm certainly not alone."

Asked whether there's any way the Republican Party can lure LaSalvia back, he didn't hold out much hope, preferring instead to push for a stronger independent movement.

"Think of how much energy that we could spend finding new and innovative solutions to make our country better rather than trying to fix a broken machine," he said. "Let's try to make a new one. More people are throwing their hands up and saying, 'It's time to give up and move on so we can have a positive impact on this world.' It's time to pull the plug on the patient. That's where they're at. We either do it now or we do it later."

Advertisement

NEXT: Maine Law Censors Alcohol Content of Beer

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.

  1. I had a brief moment of doubt when he said he was leaving the Repubs……that went away when he said he was switching to independent. The guys that switch from TEAM R to TEAM D (and vice versa) are the guys that I can’t abide!

    1. If he really is for free markets and liberty, TEAM D is a dead letter. Dead… letter.

  2. The GOP may not support marriage equality anytime soon, but eventually they’ll come to grips with the fact that vilifying Gay Americans is no longer a vote-getter for them. Back in 2009 a CBS News survey found that while only 18% of Americans over the age of 65 supported marriage equality for Gay couples, 41% of American under the age of 45 supported it. That was FIVE YEARS AGO, and the generational shift in attitudes is accelerating.

    Even conservative National Review columnist Andrew Stuttaford grudgingly acknowledged this: “I fully understand (even if I do not agree with) the idea that same-sex unions are a threat to conventional marriage and I fully understand those who argue that opposition to gay marriage is a fundamental principle too important to be abandoned for reasons of political expediency, but these findings should, I reckon, at least be some sort of warning to those who assume that the GOP’s current position on this issue will continue to be a vote-winner.”

    30 years ago most Americans were not aware of any Gay friends, family members, or co-workers. Today most Americans ARE aware, and they have become dramatically more accepting and supportive of the Gay people and Gay couples in their lives. And social networking sites like Facebook have made the proverbial “closet” virtually obsolete. The Republican Party ignores this growing acceptance at their own peril. Jobs and the economy are important, yes … but your friends and family members are PERSONAL.

    1. The GOP may not support marriage equality anytime soon, but eventually they’ll come to grips with the fact that vilifying Gay Americans is no longer a vote-getter for them.

      Unfortunately, those who believe God is on their side pay about as much attention to voter attitudes as progressives do.

  3. It is increasingly looking like LaSalvia is right. If free market and individual rights advocates don’t emerge as leaders of the party in the next two election cycles that could do it.

    Wishful thinking, of course, but some rich, high profile dudes or dudettes could get the right amount of funding together to make it viable, a Capitalist Party or Liberty Party, or some such, could bury this party of quislings for good.

      1. It can’t be that party.

        Reason just posted an article a couple of days ago that said we should mock those Christians who believe in creation.

        Seems the Libertarian tent just isn’t big enough to respect individual rights of religious belief.

        Even if they are the type of people who would tend to vote for free markets and personal responsibility.

        Meanwhile the Dims just keep setting a place at the table for anyone who will vote for them.

        And winning.

        1. “Even if they are the type of people who would tend to vote for free markets and personal responsibility.”
          That’s the thing. THEY. ARE. NOT.

        2. Libertarians DO respect the individual rights of religious belief, but that doesn’t mean that libertarians can’t make fun of those religious folks who don’t respect the rights of others.

  4. I see it as more the idea that there are more important things to worry about than SSM. It was a winning idea in the prosperous early ’90’s but with the economic screws tightening and cultural taboos lessening it’s being seen as a waste of time, if nothing else.

    1. Yes, but why completely alienate people–gays and many young people–who might support you otherwise especially since your message should be one of freedom. SSM is a touchstone for many. It makes the Republicans look like a bunch of religious zealots and creationists. What young person or guy person wants to join up with that garbage?

      1. gay person

      2. Why indeed. Especially with more pressing matters at hand.

        But the Republicans are too wedded to the culture war to do anything else but go down with that ship. It’s too much a part of their identity to just drop it.

        1. Yeah, even Ron and Rand Paul look like stalking horses for the Rick Santorum and the American Taliban.

            1. No idea.

                1. Abortion AND gay marriage. See 9th Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

                  1. I think you mean penumbra. That’s where all the rights we can’t find but would really like to have come from.

                    1. See the Ninth Amendment.
                      Then wipe the egg off your face.

      3. You mean freedom to have your relationship regulated by the state. Yeah, that is true freedom or more likely you mean the freedom to glom onto all of the socialist goodies for married folks.

  5. There won’t be a place in the GOP for LaSalvia as long as there is a place there for Pat Robertson. As long as the Christian Right plays a dominant role in the GOP (and they still do), there will only be limited roles for gay Republicans. I’m LaSalvia held out hope for this long. Its futile.

    1. Hell, it is not just gay Republicans the GOP hates – it is us secularists too.

      William Weld was filibustered by Jesse Helms because he did not plow for Jesus on the GOP Plantation.

      1. William Weld was filibustered

        during the Clinton administration

        by Jesse Helms

        who died in 2008.

        1. Helms, Inhofe, Coburn, Santorum, Shelby, Cochran, Cruz, what’s the difference?

          1. Helms, Inhofe, Coburn, Santorum, Shelby, Cochran, Cruz, what’s the difference?

            The difference……? The difference is that your posts need MOAR CHRIZTFEG!

            God but you’re a whiny tit.

          2. Jesus Fucking Christ Butthurt, your tribalism is beyond reproach.

        2. Shrike’s history book was published in early 2009.

      2. Jesse Helms != all Republicans, cuntface.

        1. How is he wrong? You guys may not like him, but he makes a valid point.

          The GOP seems to need to emphasize the moral standards of a certain type of Christian (even if those Christians themselves may not be extremely vocal about what they believe), and that’s a major deterrent for nonreligious people.

  6. It is a fundamental characteristic of conservatives that they are deficient in empathy (a recent study showed them to be more psychopathic). It’s why I see moves like this, or like Rob Portman’s support of gay marriage, as not worthy of praise. Got a gay son, all of a sudden you get it. Got a Latina wife? Oh, maybe not so hardline on immigration. Are gay? Of course you’re against the party’s platform on gay issues.

    Being able to empathize with people who aren’t like you is not a flawed approach to politics (or as many here put it, being overly emotional), it corrects for the deep bias that comes with a narrow life experience. The country would be a lot better off if we could send conservatives to black & poor camp for a month.

    1. I gset nervous when big government fans start talking about “camps”.

    2. Wasn’t there a study recently that indicated that liberals are much less likely to be able to understand their opponent’s motivations than libertarians and conservatives?

      1. Yup. But, don’t let facts get in the way of a good narrative.

      2. Does the study explain whether said motivations are understandable in the first place?

        1. Q.E.D.

          1. I actually really, firmly believe that Tony is either someone like Penn or one of the staff writers. Maybe all of them (morning meeting “Who gets to be Tony today?)

            1. I’ve floated this idea before, but I think Tony is a shadowy genius who’s posts are actually designed to strengthen the arguments and internal logic of libertarians.

              So that’s why you have to feed the troll. If you don’t, libertarianism suffers.

        2. Does the study explain whether said motivations are understandable in the first place?

          Dude. Really?

    3. Well Tony, with just a little bit of qualification, I agree with you. Those (social) conservatives have way too much power in the GOP and need to be put out to pasture. That is why I have never, ever, been able to consider myself a Republican. I have been a registered Libertarian for over 30 years, and hell, I don’t even like some of the Libertarians I have met. But, at least the Libertarian Party platform seems mostly free of moral imperatives.

      As far as conservatives being more psychopathic, well, I guess it might depend on who, exactly, is defining conservatism, or who designed the study, or how one defines psychopathology, etc, etc. But, I am not going to get into a pissing match with you about it: it’s really not worth the effort. Having spent some real-world time working with genuinely mentally-ill folks, believe me, all world-views are equally well-represented.

    4. It is a fundamental characteristic of conservatives that they are deficient in empathy (a recent study showed them to be more psychopathic).

      You know my dearly departed mother had this intellectual tic where she’d preface every statement with “It’s well known that…” or “Everyone knows” or “It’s well established that…”

      1. I remember hearing somewhere that it was common for Pravda to preface things that were known lies with the term “as everyone knows”.

        1. There are those who say that.

    5. I’m far less concerned with conservatives firing up the ovens for those they disagree with than I am about progressives starting a pogrom to annihilate all those who just aren’t ready to understand the plans brilliance.

      1. ^This^ I don’t fear the religious nuts who pray to Jebus; I fear the totalitarian nuts like Tony who pray to gubmint.

        1. I fear both. My brain involuntarily links Christians to adults who believe in Santa Clause.

          1. Adults who wish to believe in Santa are sily, but they’re not dangerous. It’s the adults who demand we MUST NEVER believe in Santa that are dangerous.

            I think your typical Christian has a far more enlightened and pragmatic view of the world than your typical statist. Even the most sheltered Christians are constantly surrounded by media and people who disagree vehemently with their most deeply held beliefs.

            Totalitarians, these days, not so much.

        2. I fear both. Plenty of Christians are for statism, just (usually) a different brand than Tony’s.

        3. “I don’t fear the religious nuts who pray to Jebus; I fear the totalitarian nuts like Tony who pray to gubmint.”
          Why not both?

    6. All collectivists like yourself empathize with is the contents of others wallets. You have such big hearts, so many good ideas, ideas so great that you need to forcibly expropriate others property to implement them.

      It’s easy to be so empathetic when the sacrifice of others at the tip of your fingers.

      1. Taxation and redistribution is what governments do. They do it to implement your priorities same as mine. Once again, it’s entirely beside the point.

        1. That is some grand circular reasoning, Tony. You must be the genius amongst your circle jerk.

    7. Does anyone else support putting all the conservatives on a train, and sending them to the camps where black & poor people live?

    8. Being able to empathize with people who aren’t like you is not a flawed approach to politics

      Wow. Epic projection, even for Tony.

    9. Tony

      “It is a fundamental characteristic of conservatives that they are deficient in empathy”

      Is that why Conservatives donate much more of “their own money” to charity than Dims and Libs ?

      Makes sense I suppose.

      In your world.

      1. Because they’re more churchy. Liberals advocate large-scale policies that will do far more good for people than charity giving.

    10. That’s why conservatives give more money to charities than dimocrats because they lack empathy. Liberals are the ones with the mentally ill track record but don’t let your bias get in the way.

  7. quitting now? at a time when attitudes are changing, when the establishment is under siege, when libertarian ideals are changing the direction of the party? things get worse when good people leave. then what, we have to start all over with the changing the democrats from within (an even greater uphill climb against state-ism)? wish he would realize that he is needed more than ever. get back in the ring, wouldya?

    1. This is what an LGBT Republican is up against:

      http://www.goodasyou.org/good_…..ality.html

    2. I’m with the gay guy (if not for his reasons) – don’t be the GOP’s bitch and vote for them no matter what. You get more of the behavior you reward. If you vote for them after they mess up, you’re sending the message that messing up is good strategy.

      Vote for them when they do something useful or helpful, and if they don’t, let the Democrats kill and eat them.

      1. Uh, one problem. It’s not a pendulum.

    3. I’m amazed he lasted as long as he did in such a caustic environment. You have to understand that he’s getting it not only from his fellow GOPers but also from other gay people. Check out these charming comments:

      http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-…..d,11000041

      1. I thik that on a one to one basis even a lot of staunch Christian conservatives don’t have as much problem with gays as is proclaimed in the media. They approach it like many people do politicians or lawyers.

        “My lawyer is a good old boy, but that other guys lawyer is a “sun a bitch”.”

        “Them thieves up in Washington are gonna take down the country. We need more people like our guy ( insert name of pol they voted for) up there to set them straight”.

        “My nephew is gay and he’s and OK guy. You wouldn’t even know he was gay if I didn’t tell you. It’s all them queer bastards in ass chaps that are taking the country to hell”.

        I would be willing to propose that he met more caustic resistance from fellow gays than he did one on one with Conservatives.

        It seems the Santoriums etal get more air time from the press than they truly warrant.

  8. my friend’s sister-in-law makes an hour on the laptop . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay was just working on the laptop for a few hours. you could try this out…….
    http://www.Jobs84.com

    1. Was it either this or World of Warcraft gold farming?

  9. Sounds like a single issued oriented type fella.

    1. It’s a pretty big issue.

    2. Yes, he could be a “single issue” type fella (though I suspect not). But “Smaller Government” is a single issue, too 🙂

      1. Well, actually not. Smaller government is getting the government out of Education, Healthcare, Food Labeling, Agriculture, Social Security, and Drug Regulation …. hardly a single issue. And these are just a few of the areas involved.

        1. Oh yeah … I forgot another “smaller government” issue: Getting the government out of the marriage business.

        2. @Johnimo…. I guess my sarcasm was lost… not your fault. Sarcasm, like satire, is often tricky. Just ask John Swift 🙂

    3. Gillespie and Welch claim that single issue voters are going to be the driving force in real change. Look at the marijuana legalization movement I think they’re the right. The failure of the anti-war movement was that there were always leftists and libertarians trying to inject unrelated issues into the dialogue. I’m not aware of anti-war paleo-cons doing that aside from bizarrily trying to link immigration and free trade to military interventionism.

      1. *looking at the marijuana marijuana legalization movement

      2. The “marijuana legalization movement” is mostly goofy college kids who hope with all their little beings that the afterlife consists of eternally fellating Obama. They aren’t libertarians; they’re barely even useful idiots for libertarians. Gillespie and Welch see every isolated issue as a libertarian one and they are abject retards for doing so.

        1. I didn’t say they were all libertarians. I was talking about SINGLE ISSUE voters being a real driving force in change and the marijuana legalization movement is an example.

          As someone who would probably be dead if not for medicinal use of marijuana and as someone who knows alot of very different people who use marijuana I find your comment lazy, ignorant and very insulting. I hope you end up in alot of pain and can either not access marijuana or get your frail, cancer-ridden frame body-slammed by DEA thugs for using it.

    4. Well, he’s a lobbyist, so he’s a professional single issue voter. Lobbying isn’t always a bad thing though.

    5. I’m not sure how you get single issue out of this:

      You see, I just don’t agree with the big-government ‘conservatives’ who run the party now.

      The other reason I am leaving is the tolerance of bigotry in the GOP. The current leadership lacks the courage to stand up to it ? I’m not sure they ever will.

      That first one is a pretty big deal.

  10. “The percentage of voters who identify as independent is increasing as the number of voters who identify as Republican drops.”

    Someone should write a book examining this phenomenon!

  11. Good. Fuck the GOP until they start embracing the Constitution more than their rival tribe that fuckwits like Tony pledge unconditional allegiance to.

  12. Color me skeptical. I’d like to think LaSalvia’s stances will remain conservative or libertarian in principle. But, I have to look at facts. He’s leaving the party just as the influence of the people he’s objecting to is waning and libertarianism is making strides within the party. The substance of his argument sounds a hell of a lot more “No Labels” than it does principled libertarian. He’s got no particular identified set of policy objections, just complaints about attitudes that mirror the progressive disdain for the lower middle class.

    Again, I hope he’s being honest. If the guy’s conservative or libertarian principles mean he just can’t abide by the Republican party as it currently exists, who the hell am I to blame him? Lord knows it doesn’t take a whole lot of effort to find Republicans more than happy to piss all over the limited government principles that built the party. But, I’ve also seen no shortage of guys trying to take up the mantle of conscientious objector while abandoning the very principles they claim to object based on.

    1. Pure speculation, but LaSalvia seems sincere, honest and devoted to the cause of liberty, so I bet someone up the Repub food chain told him to take a hike in some way, and that is what motivated him to go public with his disaffection.

      1. Like I said, David, I hope you’re right on the first part. I just find it all a little suspect. The “why now” seems to get a lot of handwaving. And the vision he sets out doesn’t really sound very libertarian.

        “Think of how much energy that we could spend finding new and innovative solutions to make our country better rather than trying to fix a broken machine”

        Does that sound particularly libertarian to you? To me, as I said, it sounds a lot more like the meaningless platitudes palmed off by the “No Labels” crowd.

        1. It’s libertarian to me as long as he isn’t looking for solutions via the government.

  13. Rarely can one get much done without organizational backing. The bigger the organization the more the possibilities. He is going to miss the apparatus of a party if not the platforms.

  14. Like I said, David, I hope you’re right on the first part. I just find it all a little suspect. The “why now” seems to get a lot of handwaving. And the vision he sets out doesn’t really sound very libertarian.

    “Think of how much energy that we could spend finding new and innovative solutions to make our country better rather than trying to fix a broken machine”

    Does that sound particularly libertarian to you? To me, as I said, it sounds a lot more like the meaningless platitudes palmed off by the “No Labels” crowd.

  15. Hmm, he’s leaving the GOP — who could blame him? — because the party’s stance on gay marriage is like Ron Paul’s — and a shade or two worse than Rand Paul.

    1. What’s that? The last time I checked, Ron Paul is a Christian who believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he does not feel the federal government should be endorsing any type of marriage. He wants it left up to the states, sort of like what’s in the constitution. He has repeatedly stated his preference to get government out of marriage altogether, meaning that marriage would be handled by private contract and religious groups. Why would that drive out gay members? And please explain how that is the GOP’s stance at large. We’re all ears.

      1. The last time I checked

        Check again.

        He wants it left up to the states, sort of like what’s in the constitution.

        States have no such power. Read the Ninth Amendment.

        Why would that drive out gay members?

        Ron Paul cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act … and would have voted for DOMA if he’d been in office. So it’s a state matter, except when it isn’t! Next his words to the Iowa caucuses

        “Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.

        “I supported the Defense of Marriage Act ? I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

        Now the 9th Amendment.

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        Some claim the 10th and unenumerated powers to the states. Huh-uh. Libertarians have spent 40 years pointing to the 9th Amendment, which secures our unenumerated rights. Rights trump powers.

        No real libertarian would claim that ANY level if government may deny fundamental human rights — which is what liberty means.

        Obviously, the 9th also applies to abortion … BOTH persons (which “nobody” acknowledges)

        1. States have no such power. Read the Ninth Amendment.

          I’d love to hear any working libertarian definition of rights that would empower the government to license and register particular types of sexual relationships. Government handing out privileges to certain people in certain types of sexual relationships doesn’t constitute any legitimate “right” that could be disparaged. Which begs the question of why government is even allowed to be involved in the matter in the first place.

          Obviously, the 9th also applies to abortion … BOTH persons (which “nobody” acknowledges)

          Which court does the fetus file in to seek damages?

          Seriously bud, find a new schtick.

          1. PM … I’d love to hear any working libertarian definition of rights that would empower the government to license and register particular types of sexual relationships.

            Only people have rights; governments have powers. And government has none here.

            PM… Government handing out privileges to certain people in certain types of sexual relationships doesn’t constitute any legitimate “right” that could be disparaged.

            Only people have rights.

            Which begs the question of why government is even allowed to be involved in the matter in the first place.

            NOW YOU GET IT!!!!!

            But there are LEGAL rights, like inheritance, which can only be defended by the state. And legal rights are not constitutional rights.

            HIHN .. Obviously, the 9th also applies to abortion … BOTH persons (which “nobody” acknowledges)

            PM … Which court does the fetus file in to seek damages?

            It works the same as killing a one-year-old baby!!! And ?

            How do murder victims file for “damages” when they’re, ummm, dead? And damages apply to civil cases, not criminal cases.

            Seriously bud, find a new schtick.

            Have I clarified your confusion on rights vs powers .. and civil vs criminal proceedings? Any more questions, bud?

          2. The same court as the infirm,retarded or anyone else incapable of advocating for themselves.

  16. Why the need for recognition of marriage in the traditional/religious sense? Federal tax benefits? If not, desire to be married in the Catholic Church? If so, tilt at windmill? If so, that is what this is all about?l

    1. Yes, tax benefits. And rights of inheritance. And the right to be the medical decision maker in the event of incapacitating illness. And the right to even see your spouse in the hospital. All of those things are wrapped up in the marriage discussion. If the state treated married individuals the same as everyone else, this wouldn’t really be much of a discussion, but it doesn’t.

      1. And rights of inheritance. And the right to be the medical decision maker in the event of incapacitating illness. And the right to even see your spouse in the hospital.

        Not one of which requires (or should ever require) a marriage license to resolve.

        1. Spousal privilege? Immigration? Those kind of do, as it stands today.

        2. Not one of which requires (or should ever require) a marriage license to resolve

          (yawn) But it does require a license now. Are you saying that gay couples should be denied equal rights … until marriage licenses disappear?

          Do you reject the entire concept of equal rights under the law? If so, on what authority?

      2. Seems like all of these things could be handled with contracts…

        1. Until a person dies without a will and then someone demands that a judge makes a decision on who gets their “stuff” based on…

          1. Well, if someone can go get a marriage license than they should be capable of making a will if that is what is so important.

            1. So straights should get the benefit of intestate succession laws and gays shouldn’t?

  17. Well I left the GOP over the Drug Laws. The socons are insufferable.

  18. That dude jsut looks corrupt as the day is long.

    http://www.Anon-Works.tk

  19. Nothing I didn’t expect, but over the past 2.5 years, the Libertarian movement and its associated philosophy, have turned cannibal.

    I have noticed in the last 6 months a shift away from accepting that folks who are for very limited government will have differences over abortion and gay marriage.

    Most sought limited government as an expression of the US Constitution. Nowadays, not so much.

    Expression of hate and contempt are very much on the increase, esp against those who morals based on religion or tradition.

    Such feelings are best conducted through the Democratic Party. Please log in to CNN and give a rant or snark there.

    Really, you sound like PETA or the NAACP, so sure of how government should give sanction to, or enforce your ideas upon the rest of us.

    Go back, go back to your leftist religion.

    1. I make the average Republican look like a socialist and i’m an atheist bisexual.

      Did you know there’s no scientific evidence of spirits or an invisible man in the sky? However there is plenty of evidence that debunks all religions.

  20. ” I am every bit as conservative as I’ve always been, but I just can’t bring myself to carry the Republican label any longer.”

    OK. What the hell is a conservative? Because, I can’t picture an activist gay being conservative today…and especially not in the 80’s. In fact, advocating for acceptance of different lifestyles is pretty much diametrically opposed to conservative, as I understand it.

    It would seem that Conservative has been hijacked like the word Liberal? And now they have no meaning since people define them any way that they wish.

    IMO – This guy is probably a Classical Liberal – which were pretty much hunted to extinction in the GOP over the past two decades. So it makes sense that he’s jumping ship.

  21. Why is Big Government even involved in marriage?

    A true Libertarian view would be that no marriages are promoted by Big Government.

    Keep it between the couple and their god.

  22. It’s really easy to be so empathetic when the sacrifice of others at the tip of your fingers.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.