Our very own Outright DC Chair and Mayoral Candidate Bruce Majors, a long-time and well-respected Libertarian advocate in our nation’s capitol recently completed a candidate questionnaire for GLAA, a local network of activists that publishes a scorecard based on results.
Despite his well-written and nuanced responses, many of which speak even more deeply to the heart of issues core to the queer liberation movement since its inception, their dismissal of his candidacy by way of a public slam is a shocking breach of queer solidarity.
We think Mr. Majors is worth at least the basic decency of being heard with dignity and respect, when gays judge other gays, one can at least presume that common courtesy would apply.
After all, while Outright was once listed in the Wikipedia as an “anti-gay rights organization”, the days when people could responsibly claim ignorance of our political theory have long since passed. Our advances in recent years make it extremely disingenuous for our ideas to be characterized so falsely by people claiming to speak for the interests of LGBT-Americans.
The right-libertarian press has gleefully seized on the issue, and with bad publicity being better than none at all we are inclined to welcome them to our fight. Let the Twitter wars ensue!! When prompted for a public statement for this blog, Bruce provided the statement below with permission to publish. We wholeheartedly commend Bruce Majors for his past and current successes in Washington politics, and we invite locals to consider contacting his campaign to find out how you can help put a Libertarian mayor into office.
—
“In some ways I think the GLAA rating is hilarious and what GLAA has really done is rate itself into irrelevancy and give itself a failing grade.
“I actually belonged to GLAA briefly in the early 90s and participated in one candidate rating (where no Libertarian candidate was involved) and was upset to see that they automatically gave incumbents extra points over challengers, as long as the incumbent had done even a slight bit for gay gay rights. An incumbent for example who had slowly evolved to supporting civil unions would get more points than a challenger who campaigned for gay marriage.
“I think it’s clear the surviving GLAA members (who are not very numerous – this is a rating put out largely by a few people – if you dig through their website you find only two names, Rick Rosendall and Bob Summersgill, their third active member, Barrett Brick, a Republican, passed away this year) are statists. (One of them actually tweeted two years ago when I ran for Congress as a Libertarian in 2012 that no one need pay any attention to me picking up petitions, since I was running as a Libertarian – and I then got a high enough vote, 16,700 votes, to get the Libertarian Party permanent ballot status in DC). They actually say in their press release on the scoring that they “interpreted” my (lengthy) answers as “negative or non responsive” because they don’t like libertarians, because it is an “unusual” ideology that “mistrusts” government. Which this year of all years means the GLAA has shown themselves to be completely antiquated and out of touch with public sentiment.
“But beyond this there is a brown nosing/rent seeking element to GLAA’s ratings. They actually rate the Green Party members almost as low as they do the Libertarians, and give their high rankings to, as the headline of their press release crows, incumbent Democrats. One suspects the Greens would fund all the programs GLAA likes to put gays on the dole and give them a government housed, state controlled gay community center at a much bigger budget than the Democrats. But since the Democrats are much more likely to be elected, GLAA members want to curry favor with them.”
Also, see this article.
Shane said: “The LGBTQ community may very well be the farthest away from accepting individual responsibility than any demographic”.
I don’t agree with that statement at all, but I’ll pass on posting arguments of what groups are less willing to accept responsibility, in my view, because I don’t want to pass along any of my personal prejudices. I do try very hard, always to judge a person individually, rather than by the group he or she is in.
According to an article published shortly after Chelsea Manning publicly announced her name change and intent to live as a woman, she is willing to pay the costs of her own estrogen treatments while she is incarcerated:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/army-pvt-chelsea-manning-willing-pay-for-hormone-therapy-herself-while-in-prison
The Private Manning Support Network is apparently raising money to help cover these and other costs:
http://www.privatemanning.org/featured/help-us-continue-the-battle-to-free-prisoner-of-conscience-chelsea-manning-in-2014
Hopefully this means prison authorities are allowing her to receive medical treatment for her gender dysphoria, but I could not immediately find any recent or definitive information answering that question even on the Support Network’s site.
Agreed, other than that I don’t equate regime edicts with law.
I’ll try to be equally polite. It will be a challenge. Wish me good luck 🙂
Yes, that was indeed a major fail.
Agreed!
She should be referred to how she wants to be referred to. Quit being a penis, or focusing on one. It’s actually a small part of gender identity whether a penis is physically present. 90% (at least) of gender identity is mental.
All true. Especially given that the pretrial detention consisted of prolonged torture that violates both the US constitution and accepted international standards, making the US regime a pariah nation for violating human rights of political prisoners.
Hell no, she shouldn’t! She revealed that the US military is commiting “collateral murder” with the footage leaked via Wikileaks. A very valuable public service and it would not have come to light otherwise. A very admirable thing to do given the risks involved and the cost she is paying now.
The LP should solicit donations to pay for it and then make an issue about it if prison authorities don’t accept the money. Worth far more in publicity than any associated costs. Chelsea Manning is a true American hero. She should get a ticker tape parade along with Mr. Snowden. They are the true living heroes of our age, along with Julian Assange.
The community is a lot of separate individuals and many of them are libertarian. Organized groups that claim to represent the community are not the same thing as the community as a whole. And the same sort of dynamic is applicable to many other groups as well.
I suppose Chelsea did technically break the law, but that doesn’t make her any less of a hero to me. To paraphrase one of my favourite songs: “When criminals make all the laws, anyone breaking them fights a just cause.”
Actually, I can think of a few other words I could use to describe you, that would be more appropriate, but I’ll be polite and refrain from doing so.
I understand. Thank you langa. From now on, please refer to me using the pronoun “langa”. God bless.
Well said, Thomas Knapp and Langa. I agree we shouldn’t pay for Manning’s gender reassignament surgery (or whatever the correct name is). In the meantime, there’s no harm to me by honoring her request to be called Chelsea. It is indeed courteous, and my little way of thanking God I don’t have to deal with such an awful problem/illness.
L. Neil Schulman expressed himself very badly about this on video at Libertopia in San
Diego last fall. I believe the incident did tremendous damage to his already not stellar reputation.
And, yes, I believe it’s a good litmus test for libertarianism, and, frankly, whether someone really believes in personal freedom or not.
Look at it like this. Even if you think someone spells or pronounces their name in a weird or even stupid way, you still show them the common courtesy of spelling or pronouncing it the same way they do. Similarly, even if you think Manning is wrong about her gender classification, you should still show her the common courtesy of going along with it.
God bless the whistleblowers and God bless you langa, but Manning should be referred to as “he” until he cuts off his penis.
Well, it’s only intended to disqualify people who claim to be libertarians, but aren’t. Since you don’t claim to be a libertarian, it wouldn’t really apply to you.
I don’t think that test would be narrow enough, though. For instance, I don’t think that Manning should be in jail, but I’m definitely not a libertarian.
People frequently throw around the idea of a “litmus test” to determine whether or not someone is a libertarian. Well, how about this one? If you think that Manning should be in jail, you’re not a libertarian. I think I could definitely give that particular litmus test a ringing endorsement.
And no, that doesn’t mean the taxpayers should be on the hook for the surgery. Rather, it means she should be released and given standing to sue everyone, from Obama on down, who had the authority to help her, but instead chose to do nothing.
Well, no, the taxpayer shouldn’t be footing the bill for Manning’s treatment.
But the taxpayer wouldn’t be stuck with footing any of Manning’s bills if Manning hadn’t been stuck in jail after an indisputably illegal show trial.
Even assuming that the government has a right to keep secrets from its employers (it doesn’t), and even assuming that every last piece of information Manning released was “properly” classified (at least some of it was illegally classified), and even assuming that the release of that information “damaged the security of the United States” (a claim for which not one iota of evidence has yet been produced) …
… the government held Manning for more than four times the absolute, non-negotiable, no-exceptions maximum legally permissible length of time before charging her, and the pet judge allowed the illegal trial to go on because she claimed the government had been “diligently” trying — for two fucking years — to figure out something they could charge her with.
And then that same judge allowed illegal “additional testimony” AFTER CLOSING ARGUMENTS in the trial, which in any actual non-show trial would be grounds for immediate declaration of mistrial and sanctioning of the judge for being at the very least a fucking idiot and actually, by that point, a serial felon.
Don’t want to pay for Manning’s treatments? No problem — let her go. And garnish the paychecks of the judge and prosecutors to reimburse her for the crimes committed against her. Otherwise, STFU and pony up.
Manning shouldn’t be in prison? Look, we all opposed the Iraq war but what Manning did was clearly illegal and just a way for him to vent frustration with the Army and himself. He is no hero. He is an attention seeker and a violent psycho.
There is a stark contrast between Snowden and Manning. Snowden attempted a whistleblower path with material he believed to be massive constitutional violations (and was correct). Manning chose to release objectionable material after receiving non-judicial punishment for chronic lateness.
Manning was simply mental and crying out for help — attacking a female co-worker and sending a picture of himself dressed as a woman to his supervisor — on top of a string of disturbing/unlawful conduct.
Manning deserves the punishment and should not be rewarded with a medically unnecessary, tax payer-funded treatment. I’m a little surprised that you feel that we should foot that bill — again, preferential treatment.
Why not hormone replacement therapy, Viagra and liposuction, to any inmate who makes a request?
Shane,
Isn’t it obvious from gay libertarian candidate Bruce Majors being given a lower rating than all the non-gay candidates who returned their survey that the BLAA (nee GLAA) does *not* represent the GLBTQ community, but rather establishment Democrats? It’s true many other GLBTQ groups share a similar agenda — but many in those communities do not.
The cost of Chelsea Manning’s hormone therapy has been estimated at less than $1,000 and will likely be paid for via donations if prison authorities allow that. Contrast that with the around $40,000 per year cost of incarcerating a prisoner — in this case a person who performed a major public service and is being persecuted for it and shouldn’t be in jail in the first place. And you’re going to begrudge her the ability to live in what she feels is her natural gender, because it might cost taxpayers $1,000?
If most of the groups claiming to speak for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people don’t really stand for their interests, then there is an obvious opening there for other groups who will. But at least in the case of the transgender community and to a large extent that of the other communities as well, that chance to be seen as community leaders or spokespersons is not going to be filled by groups whose leaders do not respect community members’ gender identities.
Jill, in reading the candidate survey, I’d say that just about every question was geared toward preferential treatment — which is typical. Taxpayer funded sex change operations (an elective surgery); health studies, police training and even job training for the LGBTQ community.
What’s next? Free Crocs and dental care for Filipino Tilt-a-Whirl operators?
The LGBTQ community may very well be the farthest away from accepting individual responsibility than any demographic — which is pathetic as they are proven to be more financially responsible. GLAA and many other groups want to use the force of the state to deal with any minor perceived slight — from a sex change for Bradley Manning to gender neutral public dorms.
Sounds kinky.
Thane – Actually I believe the correct acronym for the group is BLAA — the Boot Licking and Ass-kissing Alliance (“ass” like in donkey).
Can’t we all just get along?
I went to the International Students for Liberty Conference yesterday, in part so I could addictively record my amateur video for posterity to my BruceMajors twitter channel and found out about the twitter fight after it happened. Very funny. And as a candidate I really couldn’t participate.
I actually told a friend at Breitbart about this as well as people at Reason and Daily Caller. But RedState seemed to find it instantly without my help the day before.
“Gay D.C. Libertarian Mayoral Candidate Slammed by GLAA for Supporting Limited Government”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/14/Gay-D-C-Libertarian-Mayoral-Candidate-Slammed-By-GLAA-For-Supporting-Limited-Government
Nitpicky footnote: GLAA = Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance (unless I am mistaken the article isn’t talking about Great Lakes Alpaca Association nor the Greater Lexington Apartment Association nor the Great Lakes Adventist Academy nor the Girls Leadership Academy of Arizona nor the General Laws Amendment Act nor the Gay/Lesbian Alcoholics Anonymous [I think] nor the Gay Liberation Army of Australia [I think]),
This seems like a sensible approach to the issue:
http://networkedblogs.com/TQbvr
Jill wrote in reply to Shane that ” I keep hearing about them, but could never get anyone to explain what special rights gays expected.”
HATE CRIMES are a class of “special rights” legislation.
Discrimination is wrong but not a crime.(and shouldn’t be). Violent acts are crimes and should be punished irrespective of the specific race, nationality, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation
of the victim!
All this debate over the alleged negativity of the phrase “cat fight” is plain silly and a huge waste of time an energy.
Derans comment: “I’m not gay, but the use of the term “cat fight” in the headline seems to me meant to recall a derogatory slang term for fights between women. It seems to me that the usage of the term “cat fight” in the context of this headline portrays gays as all sissies per se”
…..is PURELY subjective and non-contextual !
It has LONG been a practice of referring to libertarians as “a herd of cats”, so how much of a leap does it take to infer that a “cat-fight” is simply an argument between competing libertarian viewpoints.
Shane said: “They don’t want equality, the want preferential treatment.”
So THIS is the type of special rights the gay community is supposedly demanding? I keep hearing about them, but could never get anyone to explain what special rights gays expected.
I have to say, that’s pretty darn weak.
I didn’t know the headline was from the original source, so I retract my concerns.
Eggshells? Words have a real impact in the real world. I’m pretty much blind and I use a white cane. I don’t like people refering to me as a cripple, unless it’s another disabaled person and were sitting around talking sh*t. And I feel it is only reasonable to afford other minorities the same courtesy. I know people may complain abt “political correctness”. But I can tell you it has made a real difference over my life time when people now think of me as disabled, rather than a cripple. Cripple being a word loaded with negative conotations. I hate terms like “differently abled” or denouncing an” ocularcentric world”. But by reducing the popularity of words/terms that imply negative things do have a prositive effect, imo.
I still say GLAA is doing a disservice to all lgbt people by trying to restrict the political culture of lgbt people.
You’re all making too much of this. I never thought twice about it.
What if there’s a battle when herding cats?
I tell you, it’s a dog-eat-dog world out there.
On another truly important matter, once I poured the coffee into the teapot. Not sure what I created but it was not potable.
Seriously, looks like Outright Libs. want to be provocative (which is their right and no doubt part of the mission), so as long as IPR (whose mission is reporting) did not coin the phrase, there is no issue. Manhattan LP did the same thing a few years ago with our “Guns for Tots” campaign. Purposely provocative and garnered more publicity as a result.
Maybe if you only use it to refer to women and/or gay people. But I wouldn’t think twice about reading or writing, say, “catfight on Capitol Hill,” referring to mostly male and presumably mostly straigt (or at least straight-identified) politicians.
Now if they happened to be female or gay – I wouldn’t be referring to that, but if someone took offence I would just say it was inadvertant and try not to do that again. Not even remotely worth fighting over.
As for quoting others: yes, we have more flexibility, but some things I would rather we did not even repeat. I don’t think this is even close to that level by a long shot.
“Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.”
And you may be right. I was just pointing out that if it IS a problem, IPR isn’t the source of the problem, IPR is just QUOTING the source of the problem.
Some people certainly think that the term is a problem. I took a pretty good ass-chewing from two prominent female third party figures a couple of years ago for using it in describing their interactions.
Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me. I wouldn’t have though twice about the headline if it used the same word in reference to a presumably overwhelmingly heterosexual group of people. Or is teapot too stereotypically gay? Should I say coffee pot instead? And do coffee pots have tempests in them, or only tea pots?
“Why walk on eggshells?”
Well, the propriety of the verbiage is certainly something that can be debated. And unlike some people might, I’m not going to defend the language based on who it is using it.
But just keep in mind who it IS that is using it: The source of the verbiage is not IPR or Jed, but Outright.
I won’t.
I don’t, but I generally try to stick to more or less neutral language in headlines if I am writing them myself. If I’m quoting someone else there’s a lot more latitude, although there are still some things I would not put in a headline here even by way of a quote.
Yeah, I’ll generalize on that one.
I missed Deran not being gay but the point remains the same. Why walk on eggshells?
Deran started out by saying he’s not gay, so he’s just trying to make sure we aren’t being offensive. But given the source of the article I would say we’re OK, and Jed confirmed that so I see no reason to be concerned.
As for preferential treatment, I wouldn’t generalize.
So if it’s a gay source that uses a seemingly derogatory headline it’s okay. However if it were a straight source then it would be offensive.
Whatever . . . Deran and countless others need to get over themselves. Reference to a cat fight is funny. Gays typically portray themselves as “sissies” in popular culture and that’s the stereotype. Go attack the men who give you that stereotype if you don’t like it.
Deran and the GLAA are good examples of what’s wrong with the entire LGBTQ community. They don’t want equality, the want preferential treatment.
It’s taken from a gay source (Outright) and reposted here by a gay activist, so I’ll defer to them and say it’s OK.
The GLAA decision was discussed on Red State. They are the very not-left wing, but often not Libertarian.
“Jed–
Do you want to comment?”
Not much to comment on, the headline was taken directly from the Outright Libertarians site. I don’t have a problem with it.
First of all, God bless homosexuals. Second, God bless you Deran, but what does you being homosexual or not have to do with this?
Deran–
I had the same thought and of course could not express it as eloquently as you did.
It does seem unnecessarily provocative to me.
Jed–
Do you want to comment?
On another point, it appears GLAA like most Democratic organizations, exists in part to promote class warfare while the LP exists to expand individual rights and opportunities.
I’m not gay, but the use of the term “cat fight” in the headline seems to me meant to recall a derogatory slang term for fights between women. It seems to me that the usage of the term “cat fight” in the context of this headline portrays gays as all sissies per se?
Some will say nit-picky, some will say politically correct, but I thinks words do have an impact of the general tone of both popular culture and political discourse.
Post-Liberationist L&G leaders support the Democrats because the Democrats do champion the assimilation of lesbians and gays in to mainstream society. But I think they do themselves and everyone a disservice by not opening their minds to third parties.
The GLAA discriminates against third party candidates, period. It didn’t matter what the Libertarians & Greens answered, they were always going to get negative ratings. “fails to demonstrate an understanding of the issues” is code for “is a third party candidate” and talks of their record means they deducted points for not being part of the political establishment.
I like Bruce’s response to the survey. It’s too bad this group doesn’t put principled individual rights ahead of their own statist agenda.
All libertarians who returned answers got a two.
Pranav Badhwar, DC Councilman 6
http://www.glaa.org/archive/2014/cqbadhwar.pdf
Martin Moulton, Shadow Congressman
http://www.glaa.org/archive/2014/moulton4shadowrep.pdf
Seems to be a front group for the Democratic Party. Look at Statehood Green ratings.
Statehood-Green candidate Eugene Puryear (+4.5) has an ideological stance often at odds with GLAA’s perspective. His answers were often interpreted as non-responsive or negative. He has a limited record on LGBT issues. (Actually a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, a Marxist Party.)
Statehood-Green candidate G. Lee Aikin (+3) agrees with GLAA on most issues, but fails to demonstrate an understanding of the issues. She has no known record.
The Greens gave statist answers but scored low for being to the left of the GLAA. It’s statist, but a Democratic brand as opposed to a Green one.
I wasted my afternoon debating Rick Rosendall of the GLAA. While they claim to be a gay rights organization, they clearly promote a statist agenda with no tolerance for alternative parties & views. It was at least entertaining to see him struggle to defend his “organization”, which is a farce.