New Jersey court to legislature: No no, gays are actually people

I don’t have terribly fond memories of the Garden State, but I gotta say that this improved my opinion of the place quite a bit.

From CNN:

In a decision likely to stoke the contentious election-year debate over same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that state lawmakers must provide the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

The high court on Wednesday gave legislators six months to either change state marriage laws to include same-sex couples, or come up with another mechanism, such as civil unions, that would provide the same protections and benefits.

The court’s vote was 4-to-3. But the ruling was more strongly in favor of same-sex marriage than that split would indicate. The three dissenting justices argued the court should have extended full marriage rights to homosexuals, without kicking the issue back to legislators.

This is why courts exist: to protect the Constitution and the liberties of America from the perversions of evil men. Perversion is not what goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults, but what goes on behind closed doors between all-too-consenting legislators.

The best part? This is really nationwide:

Opponents of same-sex marriage contend the New Jersey decision could have a national impact because the state imposes no residency requirements for people seeking marriage. In essence, it could open the door for gay and lesbian couples from other states to marry in New Jersey and challenge laws against same-sex marriage in their own states.

Thank you, New Jersey, for standing up for liberty and justice for all.

posted by Stuart Richards
  • DAP

    “the state imposes no residency requirements for people seeking marriage”

    First, New Jersey has to define what marriage is. As of right now, gays may still only be able to enter civil unions in NJ, not marry.

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2605937

  • Chris in NJ

    “Thank you, New Jersey, for standing up for liberty and justice for all”

    I’ve lived here my entire life, and that’s the first time I’ve EVER heard anyone say that.

    Trust me, NJ is one of the least free states in the country.

    It’s only a matter of time until they start taxing sex in this state – they’re running out of other things to tax – so anyone who’s horny enough to get married will have to leave anyway.

  • matt

    I have a hard time getting behind this ruling.

    The presuppositions that underlie this ruling are so repugnant to free people that they’re don’t even merit much attention. It makes no sense for the state to confer special “benefits” or “rights” to people based on how they decide to regulate their sex lives.

  • Gary

    Gays do not deserve the priviledges that come with marriage: Mortgage, nagging spouse, brat kids, mother-in-laws, father-in-laws, brother-in-laws, sexless existence, ball and chain, etc.

    They should just stick to licking carpet and packing shit up their asses.

  • paulie

    True, but so long as they do, they should do so in a non-discriminatory manner.

  • brian g

    this sucks for homosexuals, IMO. now they, like heteros, have to ask permission from the gubment to get married (to one’s partner and to the state), when before they were free to do it without restriction.

    i know that it really isn’t about getting married, it’s about using force for political and social gain.

    now government is into something they weren’t into before and that’s bullshit. i wish they had asked me to give away my state sanctioned marriage “rights” to homosexuals. they can have ‘em!

  • Emily

    Homosexuality, although a sin, shouldn’t have people looking down on you all. Everyone sins, why should one person judge someone stronger for being gay than someone who does drugs or is unfaithful or smokes? I have my beliefs and stand strong in them and oppose this decision, but I just want to let you know that unlike most conservatives I reconize my own sins are equal to any sin and I will keep you all in my prayers. Don’t look at this as a condecending post, but more of someone who voices their opinion without casting judgement.

  • http://www.frankieandthe4Qs.com Frank Worley

    While I’m glad the court did something I have to question the concept of sending it back to the legislature. THat that legislature should dictate the “rights” of a certain group of people seems to be flawed reasoning.

    Remember the words, “we are endowed by our creator with certain unaliable rights…”

    So far we have gone that now “rights” only exist if a legislative body dictates them. Thus granting the legislature the power to arbitrarily recind rights as they deem appropriate.

    Frank

  • http://www.hammeroftruth.com/about Stuart Richards

    Oh man, I’m sure all the homosexuals are just in tears over this.

    It’s a concrete step for freedom, my apologies that we didn’t get to libertopia yesterday.

  • paulie

    Yeah, they are probably all broken up by things like being allowed at their partner’s funeral, where previously the homophobic parents could have them banned, and other things of that nature too numerous to mention.

    Of course, just like the rest of us, they still have the right NOT to marry. Duh!

  • Jim

    This is an interesting article with an opposing view:

    by Thomas Brewton
    American Ideals and Same-Sex Marriage

    A New York Times editorial dated October 26, 2006, proclaims, “The New Jersey Supreme Court brought the United States a little closer to the ideal of equality yesterday when it ruled that the state’s Constitution requires that committed same-sex couples be accorded the same rights as married heterosexual couples.”

    The Times editorial implicitly presumes that the “ideal of equality” means entitlement to actual equality in all respects. Same-sex marriage is just the latest in a long list of socialist intellectuals’ demands that judicial pronouncement, if not statute law, mandate equality of condition, rather than equality of …

    http://theconservativevoice.com/article/19748.html

  • IanC

    Personally, I am sick and tired of the ‘subconcious’ biggottry that is running rampant within the libertarian world with regards to marriage/civil union/domestic partnership rights.

    1) Legal associations are important to property rights. Who inherits your goods when you die? Family law is significant and had a place in the minarchist’s world.

    2) The world of libertarian idyl MUST by definition be better than what is happening now, or else why would we be pushing for it? Freedom has to be the better option.

    3) Anyone who advocates a state of affairs wherein someone who lived with and loved someone else for decades will be refused the *OPPORTUNITY* to hold their hand as they die is an enemy of freedom.

    Domestic partnerships & civil unions are about more than just ‘the gays’. They affect strict atheists, and elderly couples. In the state of Arizona, roughly 50% of all domestic partnerships are heterosexual senior couples.

    (cont’d)

  • IanC

    Anyone who talks about ‘proclivities’ and ‘special benefits’ doesn’t understand the most inherent, basic, underlying argument in favor of libertarianism:

    At no time is a law which creates an underclass permissible. Period.

    Marriage laws — that archaic beast of racism originally designed to prevent interracial marriage — are now being exerted to keep an entire class/subculture representing quite literally *MILLIONS* of people, ‘down’ or ‘subjugated.’

    Niemoller would roll in his grave. For those of you whom consider homosexuality a sin, consider also the following: Freedom is not freedom unless it applies equally to those whom you hate or loath as well as to yourself.

    Anything else is an ‘ideology’ of Freedom as espoused by our goodly president Bush Jr.

  • paulie

    Ian C: very well put.

    Even as an anarchist, I have to say that it is the height of pedantry to refuse to deal with these real world issues until we are realistically able to abolish the state. To refuse to deal with the present reality and leave people suffering in the meantime is wrong.

    Along the same lines, I had “libertarians” who argued against medical marijuana because somehow, in their confused world, it somehow prevents eventually going further to full legalization.

    So, in the meantime, we are supposed to let sick and dying people suffer while we have a majority in favor of medical, but as yet not a majority for full legalization?

    I think you nailed the subconscious motivation as well.

    Some libertarians, especially those who have not fully recovered from conservatism, use pristine logic to justify ugly bigotry they don’t state openly, or in some cases even recognize in themselves.

  • paulie

    This would be like saying it’s OK to have laws against interracial marriage just because, eventually, we want the state completely out of the marriage business.

    That would be an equally outrageous and absurd line of argument.

  • IanC

    Paulie — quick; talk more about anarchism! We’re agreeing too much… !!!

  • paulie

    OK.

    Your mama’s a statist.

    Better?

  • IanC

    Much. I was starting to worry that someone had reprogrammed my brain or something.

    ’cause, y’know, it couldn’t *POSSIBLY* be that fighting injustice is a worthy cause in and of itself…

  • undercover_anarchist

    I was watching the ACLU convention on CSPAN and they had a workshop on how to change people’s minds about same-sex marriage. They got all speech-police on people and said to call it “marriage equality.” Furthermore, they insisted that “civil unions” were a no-go because it was “separate but equal.”

    I support the ACLU, but this line of thinking is endemic in the Rush Limbaugh defined “liberals” of today. It’s fucking stupid.

    We all think that the government should be out of the marriage business. However, there are certain legal rights granted to married couples. Churches shold perform marriages, courts should perform civil unions – for all. But this isn’t going to happen. All of the religious idiots who need the state’s approval for their “marriage” would be up in arms at the notion that the state would discontinue its sponsorship of their union. The “homosexual agenda” would have won!

    So in reality, we should have marriage for all. If that offends you, you’re an idiot. But…

  • undercover_anarchist

    …equally idiotic are these “liberal” PC morons who compare calling same-sex marriage “civil unions” to “separate but equal.”

    Are you required to use separate drinking fountains? I’m confused.

    If my daughter’s birth certificate said “Gnoffblerg Certificate” instead of “birth certificate” would it mean that she wasn’t born? Would it matter to me?

    Maybe there can be something said for calling same-sex and differently-sexed unions the same thing, but the religious fascists are never going to let go of their precious “marriage” term, at least not in the near future. Let them have it.

    The “marriage equality” argument should be about insurance, survivorship, hospital visitation, child custody, taxes, etc. – NOT ABOUT THE STATE LEGITIMIZING YOUR LOVE. Fuck the state.

  • IanC

    u_a: Another trick people don’t realize; whenever domestic partnerships or civil unions are legalized, they are made equally available to heterosexual partners.

    There are many valid reasons why a man and a woman might enter a domestic partnership rather than a marriage, despite the fact that the two grant equal treatment under the law. The greatest of them? One or the other partner is a widow/widower whom refused to either forget the deceased OR cease living their lives.

    I think it more publicity was centered on protecting the elderly in this, it would help fight the Theocratic Right’s dictum of it being solely about “Gay marriage.”

    If I had my druthers, domestic partnerships would be available to multiple parties (not just two) regardless of age or gender, and represent nothing more than a single household pooling income — a ‘partnership’ of the home. Simple enough.

    (cont’d)

  • IanC

    That would make domestic partnerships essentially tax shelters / arrangements. Simple enough.

    Civil unions would be available to any couple / group that wanted recognition separate from being within one household that they are essentially ‘family’ in the eyes of the law.

    This would relegate the question of marriage to nothing more than the church. Let each church hold their own “divine law” as they see fit.

    This, of course, will never happen in my lifetime. But it seems the ideal solution.

  • Timothy West

    thats the best political solution for the LP to advance. But it binds the LP into a box. They cant stand for the state to have a hand in it, so they flounder on the issue and have nothing to advance these people. On the one hand, they would force churches to do something they dont want to do, on the other hand they accept a state role, and the LP doesnt even offically accept the state. What to do, What to do?

  • paulie

    Who is for forcing churches to do something they don’t want to do?

    There’s a state role in the short term, so it should be non-discriminatory.

    Likewise, I would eventually like to replace state welfare with private charity.

    But in the meantime, it would be wrong to pass a law that only blonde white people can get state welfare.

    Why is there a contradiction?

  • undercover_anarchist

    I have a lot of respect for Tim West. But if someone else said what he did in post #23, I would have called them every name in the book for “stupid.”

    Inter-racial marriage is legal. However, no church is FORCED to perform inter-racial marriages. Come the fuck on! Churches are PRIVATE and free to discriminate. The Catholic Church doesn’t have to marry protestants, and the Church of Scientology doesn’t have to marry human beings. No gay marriage law would ever force churhces to perform same-sex marriages – it would just give legal standing to the thousands of churches that already do.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    OK… since there are no laws in most states preventing gays from shifting power of attorney to their parnters and things like that, why is this ruling a good thing? It’s an usurpation of the legislature’s authority.

    Ironically, that very thing 9 times out of 10 results in a tragedy for individual rights, but you’re cheering it on because it happened to make you happy this time.

  • IanC

    MikeT — Here’s your answer in short

    1) Power of Attourney oftentimes only extends to state borders in the case of competant individuals.

    2) PoA is either blanket (or in the case of Medical PoA) prevents the individual from making decisions for himself/herself.

    3) PoA does not infer filial associations. Family members can override PoA with court injunctions.

    4) MPoA, PoA, Living Wills, et al, often require multiple forms and the attendance of a retained attourney, increasing the cost severalfold.

    5) One could make the same argument about the continuance of heterosexual marriage recognition in the eyes of the state.

    6) PoA does not confer inheritance rights; separate will documents must be established for that; this is inclusive to point #4.

    7) Liberty must confer a certain level of egalitarianism to its philosophy for freedom to be free; either everyone has the *opportunity* without judgments from 3rd parties, or… nothing; there is no ‘or’.

    (cont’d)

  • IanC

    8) “Since there are no laws in most states” … “In *MOST* states” … how long do you think would that take before there were?

    9) Libertarianism MUST be the proponent of the underdog; isn’t our argument always that in a free-society, with a truly free-market, questions like this would resolve themselves freely?

    10) What right have you to object to two (or more for that matter) people wishing to be legally considered family of each other?

    11) PoA doesn’t confer health-benefit coverage, nor does MPoA, nor Living Wills, nor the ordinary kind.

    … I could go on. Easily. But this is a good place as any to stop.

  • IanC

    Tim: I don’t see my personal solution as binding the LP in a box. It certainly flies in the face of anarchist ideology — as it recognizes a legitimate authority of the state (in its role as protector of private property), which family law & association are *SPECIFICALLY* inherent to — but as you know, I don’t consider it rightful or legitimate for the LP to solely endorse the ideology of one wing of the LP’s constituency.

  • Timothy West

    I don’t consider it rightful or legitimate for the LP to solely endorse the ideology of one wing of the LP’s constituency.

    Neither do I, but thats the truth. The LP is prohibited from endorsing any form of government, and has a censorship panel in place ( the APRC ) to make sure it never publishes anything about government that could be construed as positive, and to make sure no pro government bylaws ever surface.

    The LP is perfectly willing to take the money of limited government supporters and constitutionalists, but it offically does not allow anyone in unless they also pledge to no government.

    SO the LP cant endorse the idea of civil unions. Thats endorsing a state purpose, and the LP cant do that. Whether it increases liberty for gay folk is not the issue, the LP CANT endorse any state, offically. There’s winking and nodding here and there.

    I say let the churches do as they please, and give them the legal protections of marriage through the state. Dont call it marriage.

  • Timothy West

    U-A,

    exactly what did I say that had ANYTHING to do with race?

  • paulie

    I don’t see my personal solution as binding the LP in a box. It certainly flies in the face of anarchist ideology

    As a permanent solution, yes.

    But there’s nothing inherent in all forms of anarchist ideology that says we are precluded from real world practical steps while the state still exists.

  • http://www.outrightusa.org Brian R. Miller

    As a gay LP member myself, I support an incremental approach:

    1) Open marriage up to gays;

    2) Then open up its rights to everyone (single, married, etc.)

    3) Then get government out of the marriage business entirely.

    Incidentally, I disagree that there isn’t a serious reason why marriage equality is preferable to civil unions. Besides the “separate but equal” thing (which is a legitimate moral point), you also have the situation of extra bureaucracy — when “civil unions” are done in various US states (or in Europe), an entirely different “civil union” bureaucracy is created with new employees, regulations, etc.

    Britain’s Civil Partnership Act (which gave gays the rights of marriage in all but name) took over a year to implement so that they could “train and recruit” civil servants to understand all the differences between CPs and “real marriage.”

    It’s much easier and less time-consuming to simply open up the institution to everyone, and that *is* the preferable option.

  • paulie

    33: makes sense.

    Too much for a lot of people, I guess.

  • Timothy West

    but thats not incremental.

    1) Open marriage up to gays;

    good luck with that. You’re done before you start. I would advance that state civil unions give gays more freedom than the church will ever give you. You wont get anything from them, and you will be dead from natural causes and old age and have achieved nothing. You just wanna fight your moral enemies to your death. Fuck if you actually get 90% of what you say you want in another way…… Becuase thats the Libertarian way.

    What you want is Religious Approval of your sexuality. You wanna make them change to give you the (insert religion here )stamp of approval.

    BTW, I’m not a Christian, or any form of mainstream good bookism person. Dont believe in em.

    It’s no longer about stuff and legal protections. If that was the case, you’d jump at the chance. Get it voted on and approved, and then they consent to the deal. It’s no longer theft. I think you having equal protection under the law is more important.

  • paulie

    Tim,

    I think you’re confusing the word “marriage” used throughout this discussion with “church performed marriage”. Is that right?

  • Timothy West

    But this is what the libertarian is ignoring with taxes. For the vast majority of people taxation is not taking place without consent. Sure you can get them to “Honk, if hate taxes.” but try a sign that says “Honk, if you believe all taxes are wrong.” You would be greeted by a deafening silence in most cases.

    Most people believe that taxes are legitimate. They may whine about the kind of taxes or the level of taxes or the way the taxes are spent. But they simply do not believe that taxes are theft. And for them taxes are not theft. They consent!!! Get it! They think they ought to pay taxes.

    The libertarian argument is circular. It argues that taxes are theft without consent but then assumes that no one consents. Most taxpayers believe that taxation is legitimate and that government has the right to tax. It doesn’t matter why they believe this. They could be brainwashed, have a divine epiphany justifying it, simply think it’s a good idea, or have never given it any thought at all. But at the core they believe the state has the right, if not the duty, to collect taxes.

    Remember the difference between rape and seduction. The state often seduces. It promises the taxpayer nice things if they consent to being taxed. And most citizens, by far the overwhelming majority of them, like the promises enough to consent. They may try to reduce their taxes. They may even cheat on them the same way a husband may cheat on his wife -that is he still wants the marriage but he also wants a little cheating on the side. But most people simply do not think that taxes are a violation of their rights. They consent to them.

    Now this poses a problem for the libertarian. If you are trying to get the public to abolish taxes you will go almost nowhere. They may be willing to abolish a specific tax but they would overwhelmingly reject any proposal you make to abolish all taxes.

    The moral principles of libertarianism certainly do resonate with some people. But they only resonate enough to a small number of people to turn them into some sort of anarchist. Even most self-identified libertarians are not anarchists. They believe that some government is necessary.

  • paulie

    Most people believe that taxes are legitimate. They may whine about the kind of taxes or the level of taxes or the way the taxes are spent. But they simply do not believe that taxes are theft. And for them taxes are not theft. They consent!!! Get it! They think they ought to pay taxes.

    No problem – let them pay the taxes then, just leave the rest of us (no matter how few or many) out of it.

    Of course, millions of people actually don’t pay income taxes. So perhaps not as many people think government has the “right” to collect taxes as you think.

    It may just be that a lot of people haven’t thought it through on a philosophical level, or don’t intend to make it a political issue, but instinctively know that it’s theft.

  • Timothy West

    I am saying he will never get his stamp of approval from the church – just like the USA will never be anarchist – and that demanding what is not possible is a sure way to lose and never get closer to your ideal.
    after 40 years of civil unions, it would be 100X times easier to mount a successful campaign to have the church do what he wants. But he wants it all now.

    You will never get an anarchist USA unless we first slow the rate of government growth, then get rid of ONE LAW. then get rid of several. Then elect a congressman. And you go on from there. In time, you might make a case for ditching government when government is 1/100th the size it is now. But when you demand the LP promote anarchism, you make it a lot harder for people to accept the steps in bewteen, and there have to be those steps. Getting back to the legit 4 reasons for a federal government is something possible in the political marketplace. Not right away, but it can be done.

  • Timothy West

    It may just be that a lot of people haven’t thought it through on a philosophical level, or don’t intend to make it a political issue, but instinctively know that it’s theft.

    The average consumer thinks about politics less than 5 minutes a week. And thats mainstream R and D shit. They dont think about this stuff AT ALL!

  • paulie

    I am saying he will never get his stamp of approval from the church – just like the USA will never be anarchist – and that demanding what is not possible is a sure way to lose and never get closer to your ideal.

    How do you know what will “never” happen? I don’t think you do.

    after 40 years of civil unions, it would be 100X times easier to mount a successful campaign to have the church do what he wants.

    I didn’t see him say anything about wanting the church to do anything at all. Again, it seems you are confused by what is meant by marriage in this discussion?

    You will never get an anarchist USA unless we first slow the rate of government growth, then get rid of ONE LAW. then get rid of several. Then elect a congressman.

    I can see lots of other ways it could happen, such as the government collapsing in chaos, or gradual persuasion and more people withdrawing support/consent/acceptance, as well as other ways. And I’m not against incrementalism.

  • paulie

    Tim 40:

    Yep, I’m well aware of that.

    But I’ve also run into lots of regular people, many of whom don’t even know the LP exists or how to use the internet, and yet they agree with basic anarchist principles when I put them in plain language.

    They’re the ones least likely to vote or show up for a philosophical seminar. Hmmmm.

  • Timothy West

    OK, I’m tired. Going away. Spot you laterz.

  • http://www.outrightusa.org Brian R. Miller

    I would advance that state civil unions give gays more freedom than the church will ever give you.

    What *is* a “civil union?”

    Nobody ever quite seems to be able to define it. It’s a nonsense term, sort of like “collateral damage” or “Social Security Trust Fund.”

    You just wanna fight your moral enemies to your death. Fuck if you actually get 90% of what you say you want in another way”¦”¦ Becuase thats the Libertarian way.

    The people who make these sorts of contentions always seem to be posting from a position of 100% of what they want. Funny, that!

    I didn’t see him say anything about wanting the church to do anything at all.

    Yeah, the whole “church” thing is irrelevant. I am an atheist, I couldn’t care less what religious “authorities” think, and don’t see any role for the government in that domain.

  • IanC

    Brian: My layman’s definition of a civil union?

    The state of affairs wherein two adult individuals have “adopted” each other into being considered family in all non-biological matters.

    Domestic partnership’s a far, far better term; more accurate as well — wherein a group of individuals establish themselves in a legal sense to be of one household, with rights of kinship extended to all within.

    Please note that I do not place arbitrary restrictions on polygamous/polyandrous relationships.

  • http://www.outrightusa.org Brian R. Miller

    The problem is that politicians define “civil union” however they see fit. There’s no consistent definition, so when a politician says he favors them, it could mean anything from nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper some bureacrat gives you for $50 and 30 minutes of your time, or “marriage lite” or “marriage in all but name” or something else.

    One of the more annoying problems with “new libertarians” is that they’re so unwilling to let go of their command-and-control social conservatism. And many other libertarians who claim to be “pragmatists” cover up their disdain for gay people in the cloak of “you just want everything and won’t compromise” rhetoric.

    The sad thing is that if the LP consistently attracted the gay vote in elections, it would over double its base of support — and the Libertarian Party is the natural party for gay Americans. We tend to be successful, hard-working people for whom socialism should have little appeal.

  • IanC

    Brian: I get you with regards to civil unions being vague in nature. I remain convinced, however, that it is a practicably workable solution. In most all cases, civil unions are used to confer “all the rights associated with marriage.”

    So long as the continual legal transferance from marriage benefits to civil union benefits continues, I suspect the whole issue might become moot.

    And as far as ‘getting the gay vote’ as it were… I have witnessed this problem personally. (Obligatory disclaimer; I’m an incorrigably heterosexual man.) I would cite Barry Hess. as I am an Arizona resident, and his stance on the abolition of domestic partnerships in the state of Arizona. (Mind you, it’s not *the creation of*, but *the ABOLITION of.*) Prop 107. This problem is prolific in nature.

    Of course, most gays are irredeemably affixed to the Blue Party. Regardless of what real benefit they get.

    ‘Nough said.

  • paulie

    Brian 46: good points.

    There are numerous constituencies like that which should be the LP’s, but never will be as long as it keeps making itself sound like a far-reich con-servitude party.

    http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/opinion/31tierney.html

  • undercover_anarchist

    Why would civil unions create a new bueracracy? Just call it a “civil union” and let it be 100% the same as marriage. Fuckin’ A.

  • IanC

    UA — c’mon man. You know better. It’s *government.*

    rofl

  • http://www.outrightusa.org Brian R. Miller

    most gays are irredeemably affixed to the Blue Party. Regardless of what real benefit they get.

    That’s only because more people in the LP aren’t helping those of us working to change that. With Hillary and Obama quoting Dick Cheney on gay rights, the LP has a huge opportunity. Bruce Guthrie and similar candidates have been a MASSIVE success in the gay community and are costing the Dems votes, big time.

    The problem is that the National LP, in my view, seems more interested in courting social conservatives than any other constituency. The LP could do a lot by taking on the GOP and Dems on gay marriage and offering a libertarian solution to the problem which doesn’t have the sniff of diffidence towards queer folk that the party’s press releases have had in the past.

    As for the civil union bureaucracy, please see Connecticut, Vermont and the UK and the separate organizations they’ve set up for civil unions. ;)

  • http://www.outrightusa.org Brian R. Miller

    By the way, if you don’t believe that there’s an opportunity for Libertarians here, check out this discussion on Hillary Clinton.

  • IanC

    Brian — I very much so believe that homosexuals in particular (sad that that word has a ‘dirty’ tone to it), would be far better served by casting their lot with the true cause of the LP.

    It’s just that so many *PEOPLE* have the “team” mentality, and when it comes to politics will politely allow themselves to be raped up the ass repeatedly and thank them afterwards.

    Because many GLBT’s see the Republicans so viciously, and see the LP as “More Republican than Republican”, I see it as an uphill battle in places like here in AZ.

    I wish it weren’t so — but that certainly isn’t the fault of the GLBT “community.”

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    The problem is that the National LP, in my view, seems more interested in courting social conservatives than any other constituency.

    Bingo!