RE: [lpsf-activists] Gay Pride brochure

Thanks, Françoise. But I agree rather strongly with Starchild on this one. You’re right that the brochure has never been a generic civil rights brochure, so I agree that it should not discuss Black Pride, Deaf Pride, etc. But it has never been a gay pride brochure, either. The LGBTQQII designation isn’t totally inclusive of sexual variations, but we don’t have a better one as yet. Starchild is right that it took years of hard work to get the B word included in “Gay and Lesbian”; and, when it was finally accepted, the T word came along with it. It would be both unkind and inaccurate to imply by omission that we didn’t believe rights of other sexual minorities should be protected. I think the concept of consensual sexual variations or nonconformists or whatever is coherent enough to support a single brochure. Gender identity is separate from sexual orientation, but, I agree with Starchild, close enough to be included. The idea of separate brochures for gay rights, transgender rights, poly rights, s-m rights, etc., seems as silly and wasteful to me as having separate brochures on marijuana, psilocybin, heroin, etc. I’m aware that many people are jealous of their turf in this respect: When nudists, for example, have tried to participate in gay activities, or vice versa, there has often been an uproar. I see such squabbles as proceeding from an attitude of “My deviation is okay, but not any of these others.” As the present brochure makes clear, however, recognition of rights doesn’t imply personal approval. The concept of sexual variations is larger, but not necessarily less simple, than gay.

It's your brochure and you can do whatever you want with it.

Also, I am mot saying I am right, just putting out my thoughts for consideration



Thanks so much both for your original comments and for this gracious follow-up. Your point about marriage is a good one, one which was raised by libertarians in the debate about gay marriage, and one which deserves acknowledgment in the brochure: that libertarians don’t believe in state licenses for marriage, so why would we have joined the fight for gay marriage in the first place? I think the answer has to do with important legal benefits, like visitation or inheritance, that accrue to legal marriage. The state shouldn’t discriminate on that basis. If the LP is going to support gay marriage on that basis, as it always has, then it feels funny to remain silent on the poly question, which is the next step down the slippery slope that opponents of gay marriage warned us about. It seems natural to me to embrace it—and to place ourselves, once again, in the vanguard, as we did with homosexuality, now that polyamory (I hate that ignorant Greek-Latin mish-mash) is attracting more attention.

This is a meaty enough point, however, that I may have to delete something else to make room for it, or else reduce the font.

Not all the benefits are material. Visitation in hospitals doesn’t impose an expense on anyone else.

It imposes an expense on the hospital owners if they wish to limit visitation as they see fit.

Warm regards, Michael

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
415-673-2848 (24/7)
htttp:// <>

Author of Three Minute Therapy <>
Features help for anxiety, depression,
relationships, panic attacks and addiction

1. The racist origins of marriage licenses are a staple of the libertarian literature; here’s the first example I ran across:

2. “Number” referred to the number of parties to the contract. Why on earth would it matter to you what marital contracts other people entered into? Ditto for your question last night about pets. Libertarians would generally take marriage in a free society to be a consensual contract. How do you imagine a pet entering into such a contract? And, again, if it could somehow be arranged, why on earth would you take it to be your business? You’re sounding here much more like someone intent on controlling other people’s personal lives than a libertarian.

Private hospitals may of course discriminate as they wish, but that privilege is not a government benefit.

... Or why would I as a taxpayer want to pay for the family leave of someone's three wives when they find themselves all pregnant at the same time. I like the Libertarian idea of not paying for anyone's family leave!

I always thought "marriage equality" was a slippery slope, because marriage as we know it is an economic issue.


1. I gave you a link. If you can show me that the origin of marriage licenses had nothing to do with race, I’ll revise what I’ve written.

2. I don’t understand what you’re saying. “Why should the participants in a polyamorous arrangement be able to use government to force me to recognize a contract that I do not wish to recognize?” What forced recognition are you talking about? Does the current status of marriage licensing force you to recognize contracts you don’t want to recognize? How would legalizing poly marriages for you to recognize anything?

"Afraid of" in this context was simply a figure of speech, Marcy. Feel free to substitute "concerned about". Of course you're just offering your personal view on what should be in the brochure – we all are.

  But the specific downside of explicitly mentioning polyamory that you cited in your response to Mike (aside from the enigmatic statement that "marriage equality for everyone is economically unsustainable") was the danger of leaving someone out if we try to mention every group suffering State oppression based on sexuality or gender. I couldn't help but wonder whether that is really your concern here, and whether you would apply the same logic to the other examples I mentioned, where there is a choice between a deliberately limited list and trying to be comprehensive.

  I'm still wondering!

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))


I thought I was being perfectly clear but I guess I was not, so I will repeat that 1) in the case under discussion a laundry list detracts from the message of equality for everyone, and 2) the more relatives are entitled by law to receive benefits such as family leave the more economically unsustainable the law becomes (just ask any small business with employees).

Regarding your attempt at comparison, I will not presume to make statements that would cover all circumstances. So I am limiting my opinions to whether the brochure becomes more effective or less effective in delivering its message of equality if it lists all the non-mainstream forms of relationships.


A wonderfully generous response, Marcy; thanks for that, and for all those hours—I regularly marvel at your dedication!—distributing those brochures.

I agree that there’s something to be said for “and everyone else” in place of the laundry list, which could be never-ending. It seems clear from the present discussion, though, that libertarians themselves have rather different ideas about what “everyone else” includes. Since this is a political brochure rather than a philosophical article, readers will be looking for specifics, and poly marriage is becoming a hot topic. And, although the economic argument isn’t unimportant in principle, in this particular case I suspect the burden of poly marriages would be immeasurably small. (I personally like the concept of poly marriage myself, but it’s hard enough to find even one person you can live comfortably with long term!)

Mike, I laughed out loud at your last sentence! So true!

Yes, you are correct about the political message -- perhaps akin to a new frontier.