Libertarianism and the Dilemma of Bigotry

If you want to destroy the movement toward greater human liberty, there is no better method than to poison it. And the poison I refer to is bigotry. Now, bigotry takes many forms. Some people only hate gays. Others only hate Jews, immigrants, women, or black people. But, in my experience bigotry, like other forms of human ignorance, tends to come in clusters. Someone who tends toward bigoted thinking toward one group, tends to hold similar positions toward other groups.

What Ayn Rand said about racism applies to all forms of bigotry. She said racism means, “that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions.” She said it “negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.” She called it the “lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.”

All bigotry, regardless of the objects of its hatred, treats the individual based on some collective trait, not their individuality. It denies the groups so targeted the same rights that are granted to others. It singles them out as somehow, inferior based on who they are, not on what they’ve done, or more particularly, not on what they’ve done to others.

That last part is important. Libertarianism holds that individuals are free to make their own choices and act provided they do not violate the equal rights of others.  This is what Herbert Spencer called the “liberty of each, limited by the like liberty of all.” This, he said, was the primary rule on “which society must be organized.”  Practicing Jews act Jewish. Judaism is not just a set of beliefs, but of actions centered around this faith and culture. But, acting Jewish does not inherently violate the equal rights of others. It doesn’t infringe on the life, liberty or property of other people.

Similarly, being black, or Mexican, or gay, does not violate the “like liberty of all.” There is nothing inherent in any of these collective identities that violates the rights of others. As such, none of these groups should be treated unequally before the law.

Proposition 8 Invalid Says Appellate Court: A Synopsis

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the decision to overturn Proposition 8, which stripped gay couples of their right to marry.  The Court said, “We consider whether that amendment (Prop 8) violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does.”

The Justice noted that Prop 8 had only one intention: “It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right—the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California’s interests in childbearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples raise children on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition have any effect on religious freedom or on parents’ rights to control their children’s education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties.”

In essence, they found that Proposition 8 was intended to harm one class of people. They said it served no purposes except “to less the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow ‘for laws of this sort.’”

Bullying in Public Schools Remains a Major Problem

DOMA Threatens to Rip Family Apart

The High Cost of Government-Mandated Discrimination: DOMA and the Regulatory State

Conservatives frequently talk about the cost of regulations. For instance, Freedomworks, a well-known conservative organization, published a piece called The Hidden Cost of Regulation. It said: “Complying with regulations is not cheap,” noting that regulations aren’t paid for by just corporations, but by “the entire economy.” It notes that consumers pay higher prices as well, due to these regulations, and that they “act as a drag on economic growth.”

Allow me to add two other points Freedomworks did not mention, but which I believe they would agree with. 1) Motives of the regulators do not change costs imposed by the regulations. That is, costs are not lower if the motives of regulators are good. 2) Costs are not changed if regulations are imposed by one political party rather than the other. In other words, the cost of Republican-imposed regulations would be just the same if Democrats had been the guilty party.

With this in mind, let us turn to a set of regulations Republicans put into place, with the claimed motive of “protecting the family:” The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Why a Rugby Star Resigned and His New Cause

A Tale of Two Polls

In recent weeks Gallup has done two polls on the state of equality of rights for gay and lesbian people—which remains the major civil rights battle of the day. Looking at each poll alone is fascinating but considering them together is very enlightening.

The most recent poll on support marriage equality showed that a majority of Americans now view gay marriage as an acceptable option. Now this question is only for full-on marriage rights. The marriage-lite option, civil unions, is not included here. Numerous polls show that when that is offered into the mix then support rises to about 66% with one third firmly opposed to any legal rights for gay relationships.

At least he's honest about it.

Here is an interesting exchange on the floor of the Minnesota state senate between Senator Patricia Torres Ray and Senantor Warren Limmer. Limmer is a Republican who has sponsored legislation to "protect marriage," by which he means to continue to deny marriage rights to gay couples. Throughout this debate on equal rights before the law for gay couples I have heard anti-gay opponents pretending that they are really just "protecting marriage." They are vague and imprecise about what harm will be done and what is being protected. They want to continue to use state power to deny equality of rights to one class of people, they want to use big government to enforce a moral agenda.

They say it must be done to protect marriage. So, Senator Ray asks Limmer how his legislation will protect her marriage. His admission is enlightening.



If these pieces of legislation do NOT protect marriage in any tangible way, then what is the purpose? May I suggest the obvious answer, one that comes to mind ever time one of these people insist that they do not hate gay people. May I suggest that they do in fact hate gay people and this is how they express their hatred.

No Marriage Rights: Kill Them Instead

Religious opponents of equality of rights for gay people held a rally in New York to oppose measures that would give gay couples the same recognition that heterosexual couples currently have. The National Organization for (sic) Marriage was one of the sponsors.

One speaker invited to address the several hundred sized crowd was Rev. Ariel Torres Ortega, who preached in Spanish, with an interpreter translating into English. The two-minute video below is of that incident.



The Reverend launches into a list of all the awful sins that will follow if you allow gay men to exist, the Bible says nothing about lesbians, an oversight I'm sure. The disjointed nature of the "sermon," being translated phrase by phrase makes it a bit difficult to follow. But  it goes something like this:

Committing sexual acts between man and man. And receiving the retribution of the things that they have done....(long list of other sins)...those who practice such things are worthy to death, not only do they that do it, but those who also practice it.

So, apparently at this NOM Rally one of their prime speakers, instead allowing gay men to marry, wants to have them executed.

This isn't the first time this sentiment has been expressed at a NOM rally, though I believe it is the first time they turned the microphone over to someone who wants gay men killed. (Please note the verse in the Bible only mentions men, and that the Bible no where even acknowledges that lesbians exist.) At a rally in Indianapolis the following sign was held by one minister. It is titled: "The Solution to Gay Marriage" and shows two nooses. It then quotes Leviticus saying that gay men "shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." It then references  Cross Bearer Ministry and gives their contact details.

I fear most Americans do not understand the absolute depth of hatred that these fundamentalists have for gay people.

Below is a second video, this time from a rally for gay rights in Australia. The peaceful rally when disrupted when a group of fundamentalists literally stormed into the rally shouting at the people assembled that God hates them. I had read accounts of this but hadn't seen any video until now. It appears these fundamentalists were quite intent on disrupting the event. Who is aggressing against whom here? No doubt, the Religious Right will portray these fundamentalists as victims of hate, but the video shows the opposite.

Fundamentalism and Intolerance

Today I stumbled upon Andrew Himes, as well a relative of his, Stephen Lamb. The reason I found them of interest is that both are descendants of fundamentalist power-house John R. Rice, whose publication The Sword of the Lord, was a major voice for fundamentalist intolerance in the United States. To get the relationships clear: Stephen is the great-grandson of Rice, Himes is the grandson of Rice, and uncle to Lamb.)

Above Himes talks about how black children were treated in his school in Tennessee. It is god-awful to listen to the description and I fear, had I been there, that I would have broken down emotionally as he did. It is shameful. But this is par for the course in the fundamentalist South.

Many people simply don't understand the origins of the "Christian school" movement in America. They think the inspiration was godlessness in government schools. Such secularism was a factor, but it was a minor factor. The real inspiration for the Christian schools movement in the United States was racism. Most these schools cropped up in the American South as a means to avoid having to send white children to school where black children would be allowed to attend.

Are Families Really that Different?

Zach Wahls is a 19-year-old university student in Iowa. Republicans are beginning a campaign to strip gay couples of the right to marry. One reason, sometimes given, is that gay people can't be good parents, at least not as good as heterosexual parents. Zach was raised by a lesbian couple and he addresses that issue.






I knew a young man who worked for one of the political parties in a British Commonwealth country. He worked in parliament with one of the parties there. A debate arose whether to allow gay couples to have civil unions or not. Conservatives opposed the measure, while both modern and classical liberals supported that right. Most of the members of his party supported the move but a couple of conservatives opposed it.

Blood Brothers

The GOP and Bigotry

McCain learns there are gay Mexicans!

It strikes this writer that the Republican Party represents the organized forces of bigotry in America. Consider two issues that came up before the U.S. Senate today: the repeal of the widely unpopular Don't Ask, Don't Tell regulation and the Dream Act. The GOP cast lopsided votes against each.

First consider the Dream Act. American regulations and red tape make it virtually impossible for hard working immigrants to come to America legally. My ancestors "came to America legally" but that was because it was relatively simple to do so. These days it is almost impossible without decades of trying, lots of money and the use of attorneys. I looked into the matter to help a friend get out of a dangerous country, where his life was literally at risk. I was told it would take tens of thousands of dollars to hire an attorney, just to get a shot at things, that it would take anywhere from five to 10 years to process everything and that, the chances were almost 100% that all efforts would fail.

Does the TSA discriminate against gay people?

The Washington Post reports that a growing number of the public are becoming disgusted by government agents groping and fondling them in the name of airport security. In addition the government has imposed x-ray machines that basically look through your clothes and take very realistic, nude images of your body and transmits them to government agents in another room.

Anyone concerned about having federal agents take nude photos of them can "opt out" and instead go through enhanced pat down security. The Post says this involves "the touching of breasts and genitals" and "invasive searches designed to find weapons." Please note that if anyone else walked up to you and fondled your genitals, without your consent, they would be put on the sex offender list after serving time in jail. So, if you don't consent to the pornoray machine you will be punished with state-mandated fondling.