Dee Taylor, a Green from Utah and writer at Green Party Watch reports:
This was posted on the GPUS National Committee’s Discussion (Affairs) list today:
We have completed our analysis of your platform and the Libertarian party’s platform as they apply to LGBT equality. The details are at eQualityGiving.org
Per the platforms, we have rated the Libertarian party as Heartbreaker and the Green party as Pro Equality.
Feel free to post or distribute this information as you feel appropriate.
We will do the same analysis of the Democratic and Republican platforms as soon as they are ratified.
Best regards,
Juan Ahonen-Jover, Ph.D.
cofounder, eQualityGiving
The Online Donor Community
for LGBTQ Equality
As a Catholic I’ve always been offended by the Gay Marriage debate and attempts to define marriage in state constitutions. This is not because I oppose gay marriage but because I oppose the state being involved in marriage. I was raised to believe that marriage was a contract between two people (man and women) and god (no mention of the state). Yet the states feel they have the power to nullify a contract involving God though divorce. I have never fully been able to rap my head around religious groups seeking to ban Gay Marriage when what I feel the goal should be is to ban the state from issuing marriage licences. The states should only issue civil-unions licences and leave marriage to religions.
After all isn’t the United States one Nation UNDER God – not equal to
Hate crime laws do criminalize thought.
If A murders X because he hates X for personal reasons, A gets 10 years (let’s say) for the murder.
If B murders X because he hates X’s skin color, B gets 10 years for the murder, plus an additional 10 for hating X’s skin color (as opposed to hating X as an individual).
The additional 10 was for thought crime, and one of the problems with hate crime laws.
Another problem is that they’re inconsistently (i.e., politically) enforced. Indeed, it’s very hard to discern the “thoughts” behind every crime.
I wrote about the problems of hate crime laws, in greater detail, in this LPC op-ed.
Hate crimes do not criminalize thoughts – they add criminal penalties to acts that are committed with evident malice towards a particular group. By placing a victim within a group and expressing malice towards that group, the effect is that the entire group may be coerced. The coercive effect on the victim alone may also be heightened if he is made to feel that he is the target of bigots. In either case, the idea is to punish the (admittedly implicit) threat of force.
As a Libertarian, I’m not sure how I feel about hate crime laws. But the intent of such laws seems to be very much in accord with the LP’s philosophy.
PJ,
There’s a difference between “intent” and “motivation”. Your argument conflates these two concepts, and results in a flawed “apples-to-oranges” conclusion.
“Support for hate crime legislation is asking for special treatment from the government?”
Yes.
If Murderer A kills Victim B because he wants to steal his car, and Murderer X kills Victim Y because Murderer X is a homophobe and Victim Y is gay, is Victim Y any more or less dead than Victim B?
If not, why should Murderer X’s punishment be any more or less harsh than Murderer A’s?
Part of the libertarian message is “there is NO excuse for the initiation of force.” Treating similar initiations of force differently because of motive is an attempt to replace persuasion with social engineering that undermines that message.
“The biggest difference though is probably the “Hate Crimes†issue – I understand the desire, but I think hate crime laws are absolutely wrong from a moral / ethical standpoint because they criminalize THOUGHTS… If “A†beats up, or kills “Bâ€, “B†is injured the same way regardless of whether it was done for a “hate†reason or for something that was “not-hate†(are those “love crimesâ€?) – so why should the penalty be different?”
Arthur,
We punish intentions all the time. Would you suggest a cold-blooded killer deserves equal punishment as someone who murders in a fit of rage after seeing a loved one die? How about a cold-blooded killer with an accidental vehicular homicide? After all, why should it matter whether they planned the murder out ahead of time, or whether they even intended to commit a murder at all?
I understand why hate crime legislation is controversial, but your argument is not one of the good ones against it.
Greens do not see government as the solution to most problems. We tend to see centralized power as bad regardless of whether it is government power, corporate power, theocratic power or personal power. It’s one of our Ten Key Values.
If Greens applied that consistently in platform and policies – seeing government power as being just as bad or worse than corporate power or theocracy – I would definitely be a Green.
ronaldkanehardy // Aug 3, 2008 at 7:02 pm
The problem with Sivarticus is that a few years ago several gay black Greens pooped on his proper-tay. He’s never forgiven them. Now he lives in fear that gay black nationalists waving black-red-green flags are going to come and take his land backed by the government.
And he thinks Greens live in a fantasy world!
Yes – gay marriage is not “special†treatment it is equal treatment. Stating that “government is the problem†thus the government shouldn’t do anything is living in denial that for now there IS a government and there ARE laws, and until the government collapses we should ensure that there is equal treatment by the law.
Those that are opposed to homosexuality are the ones demanding special treatment by having their religious-based opinions enforced by the law.
Providing for gay marriage, call it “civil union†or whatever, is not “enslaving†those opposed to homosexuality, it is ensuring that the law is enforced equally instead of subjectively.
Exactly!
I’m still more of a Libertarian than a Green, but attitudes like what Sivarticus expresses here, and widespread inability to deal with simple facts like the ones you mention, are making me more of a Green and less of a Libertarian (big L).
The Communist Manifesto called for the collectivized rearing of children. That’s what we have today (along with several more of the planks).
Parents may be fallible but the vast, vast majority of parents have an interest in their child’s well-being.
The state DOES NOT.
Fair enough, Gregg. I just wanted to point out that most libertarians don’t see themselves as utopian navel-gazers…although this may be the way that others see us.
“(and I think it’s pretty clear children can make this decision themselves)”
Should be “cant”
“nor do I trust or support many parents making that choice for their children.”
….what?
So you do not support the right of a parent to decide what is best for his/her child? You’d rather that decision be made by George Bush (or the State Sec. of Education, or the local school board)?
After the individual (and I think it’s pretty clear children can make this decision themselves), the family is the smallest and most localized unit of control/governance. Why do you trust the local school board over the family?
langa…as I said, that is one example of why we are not in the same party.
“In the United States at the current time school, especially government sponsored schools, are where many children learn stuff.”
=Do you call what they do at school currently “learning”? I went to Public school in South Louisiana–I know what a crappy job our public education system does. As for “learning stuff” about sexual education at school–I think this is a clear line that should not be crossed. Do you want George Bush (or even your state-level Secretary of Education) teaching your kids about sex?
“If it makes sense to feed hungry children, and it does to me, it also makes sense to provide them with condoms and other forms of birth control.”
Does it make sense to feed hungry children? Of course. What doesnt make sense is to take money from a family, who may or may not have hungry children, recycle that money through the government, with 40% going into paperwork, red-tape, or a beauracrats salary–and then back to the Hungry Child in the form of a crappy school lunch.
G.E. I don’t trust nor support almost any federal government intervention. I also don’t trust nor support 8 year olds deciding between class and play, nor do I trust or support many parents making that choice for their children. Again, people without rights must have protection, and children fit the bill under current law.
I believe the appropriate age to make such a choice is in the area of 12, but only after careful evaluation.
Government of all sorts can be harmful, but to believe it is always thus is wrong. Almost all education, as with almost all government functions, should be developed, funded, operated and evaluated by the smallest societal unit capable of consistently delivering quality. For most of us that is our local school board. Not George Bush.
Then again I assume that was intended to rile up, not actually illustrate a point. Could be wrong.
“Fundamentally I believe the argument comes down to this:
Do you want to express an opinion about what a perfect world would be, or take actions today and tomorrow to make the current situation less difficult for as many people as we can?”
This rhetorical question rests on the very dubious assumption that state action solves more problems than it creates, and on the equally dubious assumption that it is morally justified to make the world worse for a small group of people in order to make it better for a larger group.
“Then again, I personally believe we require kids to attend school for too long for many.”
Here we agree.
I think kids should be required to attend school for exactly 0 hours per day, 0 days per week, 0 days per year.
How can you Greens trust George Bush’s government to educate? That’s what I don’t understand. So long as there are government schools they will be nothing more than propaganda mills churning out automatons for the war machine. Whether or not they have condoms is of little concern when they’re just cogs in the corporatist-militarist regime.
RKH – I agree with everything you said in post #16.
If a state does not have gay marriage, then I think the appropriate tactic is to attack state marriage in general, not agitate for “equal privileges” for another group.
If a state does have gay marriage, then I would of course oppose any efforts to eliminate gay marriage while maintaining heterosexual marriage.
But history shows it is a mistake to equalize one government intervention with another. This is what the labor movement has done and it has not helped the working man.
Sivarticus…now you just sound silly.
My suicidal impulses stopped the day I stopped gambling.
Sorry to disappoint.
Trent,
In the United States at the current time school, especially government sponsored schools, are where many children learn stuff.
If it makes sense to feed hungry children, and it does to me, it also makes sense to provide them with condoms and other forms of birth control.
I also believe parents should have the right to excuse their kids from said classes.
Then again, I personally believe we require kids to attend school for too long for many.
I don’t give a damn what ways are or what they do. But it is true that they want to go running to government to save them. Most of them want state endorsed marriage pacts, just like straights, rather than getting government the hell out of marriage altogether.
And if you believe hate crime laws are a good thing, then just kill yourself already. You are too far gone to have the least tiny inkling what freedom is in this country. I have never seen a sicker example of Soviet-style thought policing than hate crime laws. But saying so is borderline hate speech to most lefties, another commie-like measure they’d love to transplant into this country from their model entities like Canada and the EU.
ART,
Your assessment of how the group views the LP and GP is similar to mine. As I have said, if I were a Libertarian I would be asking for a review. But I don’t believe it is OK for health plans to provide for breast enlargements and deny sexual reassignment surgery, most especially when they are entangled with the government, as they all are.
Fundamentally I believe the argument comes down to this:
Do you want to express an opinion about what a perfect world would be, or take actions today and tomorrow to make the current situation less difficult for as many people as we can? It’s one of the reasons we are not all in the same party.
Gregg,
Why is it the government’s business to educate my children on sex or give them condoms?
eternaverse…there is no call for government action other than sex education and distributing condoms. If you are opposed to that then we will simply have to disagree. But don’t assert that this somehow makes Greens into Big Government Socialists.
The GP platform section provided under the title Freedom of Gender says:
blockquote> “We support the right of all persons to self-determination with regard to gender identity and sex. We therefore support the right of intersex and transgender individuals to be free from coercion and involuntary assignment of gender or sex. We support access to medical and surgical treatment for assignment or reassignment of gender or sex, based on informed consent.”
“We support the inclusion of language in state and federal anti-discrimination law that ensures the rights of intersex individuals and prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, characteristics, and expression. We are opposed to intersex genital mutilation.”
Again, paragraph by paragraph. And let me be clear. I am not suggesting that Libertarianism is not an attractive philosophy to members of the LGBT community, but I am suggesting that the LP may not do as good a job of representing the values held by this particular LGBT group. Undoubtedly many will differ.
Paragraph 1 is questionable to me personally. I don’t believe gender identity is a choice so the phrase “self-determination” as regards gender identity seems out of place. Of course I would assume that Libertarians would suggest that all government mandated standards of treatment are unacceptable, but Greens would suggest that justice would demand that healthcare delivery systems of whatever sort should cover sexual reassignment surgery after appropriate medical evaluation and informed consent.
Paragraph 2 expresses what I think most Greens believe; that anti-discrimination laws are good, and including intersex and transgendered people in the class of individuals who cannot be discriminated against is reasonable. Libertarians may disagree. I don’t know. But Greens, I believe, are comfortable with speaking up for expanded equality through protecting people from harm caused by bigotry. While you may be comfortable saying that transgendered people should just suffer the consequences of discrimination, Greens would disagree. Again, apparently the same is true for eQualityGiving.org
I did look at the chart, and it appeared to me that they had most of the platform planks colored green on both sides – I didn’t see any explanation of their coding, and they didn’t give any specifics of WHY they didn’t feel the LP platform was unacceptable – but I assume that where both parts were green they considered them equally positive.
The only significant differences that I saw were some areas in the green platform that looked like “positive rights” issues (things where you must TAKE from another to supply them) which Libertarians oppose on principle (Example – you don’t have a RIGHT to force someone else to pay for your health care)
There were some calls for “equality under the law” – In most cases Libertarians would rather get rid of the government laws to begin with, (i.e. repeal marriage laws, privatize adoption, etc) but I firmly believe that so long as a law exists, all should be treated equally under it…
The biggest difference though is probably the “Hate Crimes” issue – I understand the desire, but I think hate crime laws are absolutely wrong from a moral / ethical standpoint because they criminalize THOUGHTS… If “A” beats up, or kills “B”, “B” is injured the same way regardless of whether it was done for a “hate” reason or for something that was “not-hate” (are those “love crimes”?) – so why should the penalty be different? If a person escapes a penalty as in the case Gregg mentioned previously, the problem is NOT with the existing law, but with the people enforcing it…
Thus I don’t think the PLATFORM comparison is valid / fair… However if you were to be talking about CANDIDATES, I certainly would agree that Bob Barr, and a few of the down ticket candidates like Sonny Landham or Kevin Craig, a congressional candidate in Missouri are definitely “heartbreakers” to put it mildly…
However I think the vast majority of the LP’s candidates, and certainly the BTP’s candidates are as good or better than the Green candidates on GBLT issues.
ART
Gregg- I also agree with all those thing but it is the job of the childern’s parents to do those things not of the government. It is not the job of the government to teach children anything.
If parents want to to these things good for them, but the govement should have no involement.
Here is what the GP platform says about Protecting our Youth:
Paragraph 1 is just a statement of fact. Surely none of you believes that children have the same rights and therefore protections as adults. It may be wrong, but children have no right to vote, own property, enter into a contract, determine independently where to live and what to do with their time. Therefore, right or wrong, there are fewer protections for children.
Paragraph 2 is an opinion, but in no way calls for government action.
Paragraph 3 As with paragraph 2.
Paragraph 4 calls for what Greens, and apparently the LGBT group, consider reasonable things for government to do to protect those with no rights they can use to protect themselves.
Now personally I believe that the paragraphs that only express an opinion are 100% right on, and perhaps the LGBT group felt likewise.
G.E. – If we accept the premise that government recognizes NO marriages, then it is irrelevant because gay couples would be equal to straight couples before the law.
However, as long as government DOES recognize marriages (whether one agrees that it should or not), it should recognize all unions equally, both gay and straight.
We agree ENTIRELY that granting special privileges to married couples is WRONG.
RKH – Government marriage IS special treatment for people who choose to be married. It is government social engineering. Government has no business bestowing benefits to people on the basis of their lifestyle choices.
The Freedom of Gender segment is not realy needed because libertarians belive that as long as you do not hurt anyone you can do whater you want.
Libertarians belive if a crime is committed against someone then the criminals deserve to be punished. This goes for youth or not. It’s once goes without saying.
All eQualityGiving is copying the format of the green party platform and compearing it to the libertarian one. It is done in an unfair and partisan way.
Here is what the LP platform says that sums up all libertarians beliefs:
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
Gregg, the platform doesn’t need to cover every single one of these little issues. They could have put all of those issues in one sentence. What the greens are doing is putting every thing they can in the platform to try and look like the only party for equality.
Frankly I don’t see why they would object to the language on non-discrimination in the Libertarian platform. In fact, if I were a Libertarian I just might write them and ask why they find that language unacceptable.
The Freedom of Gender segment the Libertarians don’t address at all apparently, or at lease the group doesn’t believe they do. Likewise Protecting our youth.
In short, Libertarians are “Heartbreakers” not because you fail miserably by their standards, but come achingly close to meeting their standard.
For more on the case I site above, visit http://www.SeansLastWish.org
Support for hate crime legislation is asking for special treatment from the government? When the prejudiced prosecuting attorney and laws conspire to allow a man to kill another because he was gay and serve only a few months because the prosecutor and laws said the murderer had to “intend” to kill? When the blow to the young man’s face was so hard that it shattered his skull and disengaged his brain from his spinal cord? THIS is special treatment??
Of course you can say “change the laws, change the politicians, end government discrimination and all will be well with the world”…but that is not the world I live in.
I looked at the chart.
From what I see, for each issue they support legislation for this, recognition for that. Nitpicking on an issue that can be so simple. Like I said, government forced equality creates more hate.
The government, at this point, are the biggest discriminators. Get rid of that discrimination, it’ll change this country more than any legislation you put forth.
And I believe that many if not most Greens would be perfectly fine with taking the government out of the marriage business. But, until that wondrous day arrives it seems to make sense to try to bring more justice to a system that is so clearly unjust.
Greens do not see government as the solution to most problems. We tend to see centralized power as bad regardless of whether it is government power, corporate power, theocratic power or personal power. It’s one of our Ten Key Values.
To be honest, I don’t think many of the people writing here have even bothered to look at the raw data from the eQualityGiving.org website.
The problem with Sivarticus is that a few years ago several gay black Greens pooped on his proper-tay. He’s never forgiven them. Now he lives in fear that gay black nationalists waving black-red-green flags are going to come and take his land backed by the government.
And he thinks Greens live in a fantasy world!
Yes – gay marriage is not “special” treatment it is equal treatment. Stating that “government is the problem” thus the government shouldn’t do anything is living in denial that for now there IS a government and there ARE laws, and until the government collapses we should ensure that there is equal treatment by the law.
Those that are opposed to homosexuality are the ones demanding special treatment by having their religious-based opinions enforced by the law.
Providing for gay marriage, call it “civil union” or whatever, is not “enslaving” those opposed to homosexuality, it is ensuring that the law is enforced equally instead of subjectively.
Hello Sivarticus,
You’ve stumbled upon our plan. We were going to sneak into the welfare system under the guise of equality. But not anymore, as you’ve uncovered our ruse.
Jackass.
Now, let me ask you. Is our ability to marry favoritism and special treatment?
Or our we all “loudly and proudly” trying to shove some evil agenda down your throat.
Jeepers cripes on a cracker, what’s wrong with you?
That is an idiotic comment Sivarticus. By saying all gay people or all black people want this you sound very stupit. It’s the same thing as saying that all straight people or all white people. Just because you are born into a group does not mean you subscribe a certain political philosophy.
And the vast majority of both gay and black people don’t want special trement they just want equality. ir’s just soeme don’t complety understand what the are doing or saying.
Gays are just another faction looking for government favoritism, much like blacks. There are always exceptions, of course, but a large bloc of voting gays and blacks are definitely up for this. And loudly and proudly up for it. They WANT Special Treatment. So, no surprise they would choose the big government socialist Greens as their third party idol.
As a gay Libertarian, I say pah! Leftists define equality as the right to other people’s property. By that definition the Greens ARE better. But I believe that the only equality the government can properly give is equality under the law. Leftists resent that no Libertarian, gay or otherwise, would ever agree that ANYone has the right to enslave another person, either in his conscience or in his property. I would prefer to be discriminated against than to receive “equality” at the point of a government gun.
I agree with Mike Theodore, the Greens try to use goverment to make things better when in fact goverment is the problem. The greens try to give your rights but you can’t be given something that is yours. Freedom is something your born with not something goverment can give you.
A laissez-faire system whould not only fix all of our economic problems but also our social problems. In a purest libertarian society all forms of racism, sexism, homophia and zenophopia whould end because it would suit everyone.
The Greens along with all liberals and conservatives use goverment to push thier own agendas only libertarians use it for what it is meant for: protection of the people from force and fraud.
Ashame they have to draw such lines, we don’t.
http://capitaloutsider.org/2008/07/show-30-same-sex-marriage-why.html
Seriously?
Ok, world according to Mike (brace yourselves).
The libertarian idea towards all equality is that the government doesn’t really have a say in it. The government can get rid of government approval for marriage, and there you go.
Green position goes ahead and says that the government “allows” us to marry. Well, they still have the power to tell who and who can’t get married. People shouldn’t need to get the governments permission. Once you eliminate government discrimination, the rest of society may follow suit. But when a continuously large government lands itself everywhere and demands that some people HAVE to like other people, they’ll just keep hating each other.
Small example: My school, although slightly biased towards straight folk, try’s a few things to push LGBT equality. The people that hate gays just get angry at it. So…should we make that part bigger?
The true equality, as I’ve seen, comes from people’s hearts. How their raised, and how their mind works. I’ve never met someone that is tolerant because the government made them tolerant.