Brian Miller wrote:
BM) I typically have decided to indulge myself in my new policy of ignoring
Brian Holtz posts (BM
I'm here, I'm pro-queer, get used to it.
BM) but this was such an outrageous post that I decided to respond. (BM
Note that your "response" does not even bother disputing the nature of the
lie mentioned in the subject line. Could it be I've finally found a fact so
demonstrably true that you are too embarrassed to deny it?
BM) 1: The LRC's proposals thoroughly "de-gay" the platform (BM
Thus you repeat the lie mentioned in the subject line.
BM) and make it clear that any strong support of LGBTQ equality, as opposed
to wishy-washy language that may or may not apply to gay people, based upon
interpretation, is NOT on their agenda. (BM
Our language says:
* "Leave marriage decisions to loving couples and their faiths."
* "We favor the freedom of all adults to engage in any consensual
amorous or reproductive behavior or relationship that does not violate the
rights of others."
* "Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual
practices and personal relationships."
* "Government should not deny, abridge or enhance any individual's
rights at the expense of other people's rights based on sex, wealth, race,
color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or
sexual orientation."
It's yet another lie to say that any of the above "may or may not apply to
gay people". Further, my message
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/message/13221> Individual rights
are not a "lifestyle" could not make it any clearer that I consider gay
rights "a winning issue" for the LP. On my blog I've made the case
<http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=478> that gay rights should be
one of the LP's six first-tier issues.
BM) 2: If the LRC was serious about LGBTQ equality, it would have directly
engaged with (and involved) Outright Libertarians in consultation (BM
Sorry, but you don't get to use group quotas to define the seriousness of my
commitment to individual liberty. However, it just so happens that my
extensive discussions on PlatCom with Rob Power led me last month to add
this language to what I propose to be the new LP Platform: "Sexuality or
gender should have no discriminatory impact on the treatment of individuals
by government, such as in marriage, adoption, immigration, or military
service." I've twice forwarded this language to the OutrightLibertarians
group for comment, and haven't got any substantive feedback that originated
here.
BM) Our membership has been more than happy to assist candidates (at all
levels) and organizations (of all types) with wording and policies related
to LGBTQ issues and Libertarian Party policies. (BM
I've been underwhelmed by the assistance I've gotten from your membership in
reviewing my draft language. However, despite all his paranoia and
disinformation, Rob has on PlatCom provided valuable input on how to improve
the existing Sexuality and Gender plank, and (as I said) last month I
already incorporated that input into my draft platform.
BM) Not only has the LRC not engaged with Outright, but their primary proxy
in California has launched a number of very public, unethical attacks on
both our national chair, Rob, and the California chair, me, including
copying a private e-mail that I sent from my primary (private) e-mail
address to LP of CA board members. (BM
I stand by every syllable I've ever written to or about you or Rob. My
unrebutted defense of the email in question is at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/2114. (Starchild
publicly wrote <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ca-liberty/message/5248> to
me: "I don't blame you at all for making this email public under the
circumstances; Brian Miller's insinuations here seem unjustified.)
BM) Given this sort of behavior, any rational observer would chuckle at
Holtz's assertions that LGBTQ people are part of the LRC's "strategy" --
except as a group to marginalize and remove. (BM
Sorry, but my commitment to gay rights isn't measured by whether I give one
or two Outright leaders a free pass to broadcast disinformation about me and
the LRC.
BM) 3: So far, all of my contact with the LRC has been through heterosexual
middle-aged white men. (BM
If I thought group quotas were how the Outrights measure the commitment of
fellow Libertarians to individual liberty, then I'd simply be embarrassed
for the Outrights, and hope they grow to find a deeper understanding of
libertarianism. However, my extensive interactions with gay Libertarians in
California in the years before you showed up here a few months ago leaves me
convinced that you are an outlier.
BM) The last time I encountered this sort of hilarious spin, shrill attacks
on queer leadership, and efforts to drive gay people in a national political
party "underground" and out of the platform, it was when I was observing
Republican party politics. (BM
When in doubt, just keep repeating your Big Lie smear that if I dare
criticize you I must be a Republican sympathizer. As I already told you on
Sep 18: "I despise the GOP's pandering to the religious right and its empty
lip service to free markets. I regularly vilify the GOP for its tolerance of
laws regulating prices, minimum wages, maximum hours, equal pay, plant
closure, family leave, hiring, firing, occupational licensure, insurance
policies, zoning, rents, product safety, drug efficacy, fuel efficiency,
pollution mitigation technology, parental media control, media copying
technology, etc. I berate the GOP for its failure to use its legislative
majority to start privatizing any of our socialized systems of education,
health care, health insurance, agriculture, and retirement savings. I
bitterly attack the GOP for its support of regulations and bans on gambling,
suicide, substance use, pornography, gay marriage, sexual services,
reproductive services, and cloning."
BM) I invite queer folks and their allies to do a little digging and
reflection on what Holtz and his gang are asking the LP to do with gay
people -- while *completely* excluding queer folks from their platform,
their process, and their verbiage. (BM
I and my gang invite all libertarians to participate in our process, and it
remains an outright lie to say I or the LRC "completely exclude queer folks"
from our platforms or process or verbiage.
BM) If you compare their platform to the LP platform of 2004 (and years
past), you'll see that the language is such that anti-gay laws are now
possible to support when they weren't under prior years' platforms. (BM
Yet another outright lie. Our relevant language is quoted above.
BM) it's also interesting to note that this year, so far, the biggest
attackers of Outright Libertarians hasn't been Democrats or Republicans, but
rather members of the LRC (BM
Sorry, but calmly and systematically rebutting the disinformation you choose
to disseminate about me -- like your false claim that the entire LPCA ExCom
had ignored a complaint that I as an ExCom member had never even heard of --
does not constitute an "attack" on all Outrights. My vast respect for the
Outrights comes from my years of association with California Outrights like
Rich Newell and Beau Cain and Mark Johnson and Starchild. Each of them over
the years has set a standard for integrity and dedication and intelligence
and fairness that your first few rabid months on the LPCA scene don't even
begin to put a dent in. You can pretend all you want that you personify the
Outrights, but I've worked for years with Outrights in California, Outrights
are friends of mine, and from what I can tell, you're no Outright.
BM) -- who have not accepted any meaningful feedback or participation from
Outright's membership (BM
Yet another blatant lie.
BM) My inbox has quite a few e-mails from Outright members expressing their
anger and disgust at the proposed platform changes and the fact that they've
had their own human rights concerns "explained" to them by LRC members who
aren't queer and aren't interested in their perspectives. (BM
I don't doubt that your carefully calculated disinformation has reaped its
desired harvest of anger and disgust. The LRC reiterates its oft-stated
desire for input from ALL libertarians, which our web site
http://reformthelp.org has been accepting for over two years. The Platform
Committee anounced last month that it is accepting feedback at
PlatformFeedback@lp.org. Even before that I sought feedback from the
Outrights, and for months I have publicized as much of the PlatCom's
deliberations at http://marketliberal.org/PlatComWiki as our rules allow.
Anyone who hasn't gotten their feedback to us about our proposed platform
changes simply isn't trying.
BM) under the LRC platform as proposed, DOMA and other laws will be
"justifiable." (BM
More disinformation and another fabricated quote. Yawn.