Libertarians Ask for LGBT Vote

Saturday, September 25, 2010

The Libertarian Party is reaching out to LGBT voters after a bid to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” suffered a humiliating defeat in the Senate this week.

Mark Hinkle, chairman of the Libertarian Party tells gays:

“Like abused spouses who keep returning to their aggressors, [gay people] need to stop need to stop handing their votes to the Democrats who abuse them.”

As proof, he points to the homophobic ban on gays serving openly in the military and a  Federal law that lets states not recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

“President Obama and the Democrats had almost a year of complete control of the federal government. They could have repealed ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.’ They could have gotten rid of the Defense of Marriage Act. But they didn’t do either.”

He adds “the Libertarian Party wants to break this self-destructive behavior” by gay voters who continue to support the Democrats.

The Libertarian Party’s executive director R. Clarke Cooper said President Obama is not a friend to the gay community, and cited Mr. Obama’s opposition to same-sex marriage and the administration’s Justice Dept. filing of an objection this week to a Federal court ruling against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

SOURCE: Wall Street Journal

This entry was posted in LGBT, News, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Libertarians Ask for LGBT Vote

  1. Brigadoon says:

    I think the “abused spouses who keep returning to their aggressors” simile is accurate. My ATM is closed to President Obama, the Democratic party and the HRC and won’t open until the gap between what they promise and what they deliver shrinks. I’m more than happy to never donate to any of them again if things don’t improve drastically.

  2. Rachel says:

    I agree, Brig. Not one, thin dime for Obama. The way his administration has treated the gay community by failing to deliver on several core campaign promises is nothing short of appalling. I thought we would get the change, we can believe in, but instead, we got empty promises and more of the blame game.

  3. Pechanga says:

    The Two Party System has failed the American people as they become increasingly indistinguishable from one another and more beholden to special interests.

    When I think of the Libertarian Party, I am reminded of Ron Paul who flirted with them (or maybe it was they, who flirted with him?), but I do think both the Democratic and Republican Parties are going to be slapped hard by the voters come November.

    And they only have themselves to blame.

  4. LM says:


    I agree the 2 party system is a problem, but without deep changes in the way elections work here that isn’t going to change. You need to have either Australian (ranked) balloting or a representational representation – or both.

    Without at least one of these changes you just end up electing people no one wanted, and occassionally trading out the two top party. But you don’t get a multi-party system.


  5. LM says:

    Libertarians won’t really do anything for at least a few more years, as their base remains non-urban, straight, white males. Threatening this core would be as idiotic as the Dems risking losing women voters.

    Hmmm…I guess maybe a party could be that stupid.

  6. feminazi says:

    Raw Story is linking to an Associated Press-GfK Poll that shows 60% disapprove of the job congressional Democrats are doing and 68% disapprove of the job Republicans are doing. Meanwhile, Obama’s numbers are frightening too. No poll I’ve seen has him higher than 50% and he’s not 2 years on the job yet! Frankly, I am not familiar with the Libertarian Party. I have a vague memory that they support legalizing pot and I agree with this completely. But, aren’t they pro-life and opposed to abortion?

  7. Jolly Roger says:

    Libertarianism, unfortunately, suffers from the same fatal flaws as Communism-as in, it depends on the good nature of mankind. the Libertarian vision is impossible in the world we live in, like it or not. Greed will always cause some of us to be pathological, and Libertarianism relies on people (and corporations) being good guys and policing themselves.

  8. LM says:

    feminazi, The libertarians aren’t prolife, but some of their membership are. They have a lot of slightly red-necky rank and file, so they downplay a lot of issues like pro choice and gay rights to avoid offending their base, which are mostly pro-gun, anti – taxes and opposed to limits on pornography and drugs (white, straight, skilled trade to bachelors level educated, less religious to atheistic males).

  9. Greg Equality Lengkong says:

    I’m not planning on voting in November.

    Spare me any flaming or BS chants of “if you don’t vote, you’re part of the problem,” because up to now, I’ve never missed voting in an election.

    But please remember, Madam Pelosi has been Speaker since 2006, Obama was elected in 2008, and with Democratic-control of all three branches of the government, we still have DOMA, DADT and ENDA is DOA, and the troops are still in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the Democrats think we should reward them?

    The Libertarians are correct. From what I read on blogs and hear from my friends, much of the LGBT community is thoroughly disenchanted by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and plan to punish the Democrats for failing to deliver.

  10. Arizona Leatherneck says:

    When you travel in the world you see many nations have a number of different political parties to rep the citizenry.

    The USA is a large, diverse nation and needs more than 1 1/2 parties to represent our national interests.

    Why stop at three? Why not five or six. I’m serious.

  11. R.J. says:

    Don’t be fooled by them. Bob Barr was their presidential candidate two years ago and AUTHORED the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

    Do you gays really want to align yourself with that?

  12. lea-lea says:

    Do you gays really want to align yourself with that?

    Hell to the no!

    I think we’re witnessing a complete and total realignment of the parties.

    Everything is changing and in flux. When Obama is to the right of some Republicans on gay rights issues, and the Libertarians are begging for gay support, I think when the dust settles, the entire political landscape will be different from today.

  13. Rem says:

    I won’t vote for Mr Obama again. But, as a liberal, secular humanist, there is no fucking way I would ever vote for a Libertarian. Here are a few things Libertarians want to eliminate:

    1. Social Security
    2. Abolish the FDA
    3. No public schools

    This is just a partial list, but the Libertarians are nothing more than extremely right wing Republicans.

    My feeling is that these rabid animals don’t give a shit about us; they just want to diminish any progressives in Congress.

  14. Peace Nick says:

    Christopher – No, No, No! No Libertarian Party!

    I know this is just informational but I hope you’re not considering joining them? I’ve had some of the worst encounters in my life with Libertarians. They are like the John Birch Society.

  15. Mets Fan says:

    Voting Libertarian is like voting for the Green Party: meaningless.

    Don’t waste your vote because it will have zero impact on the Washington establishment.

  16. LM says:

    Arizona Leatherneck,

    I agree, you do see multi-party systems in some other countries, but their political structures and electoral systems are very different. It can’t work here.

  17. LM says:

    I actually think it’s kind of weirdly entertaining how those who understand why we can’t have a significant 3rd party actively work to keep that fact quiet. Changes to the constitution would of course be a huge and unlikely deal – though what we would need to have a representative government. But ranked balloting *would* allow 3rd parties at least to be players, if not actually to be proportionately represented.

    But this is a major threat to the Democrats and Republicans, and they’ll fight it every inch of the way. It might work for them in the first and second rounds, but in short time it would reduce their power.

    And subsequently seeing that rapid change would help people to see that other changes might take place. Ignorance of comparative politics is only part of the misunderstanding about how our democracy is inherently 2 party. There’s also the repeated propaganda of the US having the “best system of government” which allows people to live in ignorance despite our government being one of the least representative elected governments in the world.

    But it’s all academic since none of this is really likely to change. Instead people, rather than changing the democratic system to allow realistic existence of third parties, will keep banging their heads against the wall creating these parties when they serve nothing but a purpose of propaganda (some supporters realize this and create them for that purpose…but most of the rank and file really believe these parties can fly). But the Dems and Republicans LOVE people creating 3rd parties, because that means they are to oblivious to be out fighting for the changes that would allow those parties to survive.

    On the other hand a two party system, with which we are stuck, does have some advantages. Certainly it keeps out radical progressives who we might want to see in office, but it also keeps out other extremists we wouldn’t want to see. It’s a moderating force that can be good or bad depending on the time and perspective.

    At least you’ll be happiest if you believe that, because the 2 party system is not going to change – at least not in any of our lifetimes.

  18. LM says:

    I think one of the reasons people are so unhappy with the two party system is that they want to believe parties in the US are ideological, rather than marriages of convenience. A little pragmatism goes a long way to accepting the imperfection of the two party system.

    This means you generally have to give up hating the enemy, once you realize how diverse its members are – and that does take a bit of the wind out of activism. Being ignorant enough to hate is, unfortunately, often a prerequisite of action.

  19. Rinaldo says:

    There is nothing in the US constitution that enforces a two-party system. There have always been “third” parties and sometimes independent candidates that win seats in congress. And at one time, before the civil war, democrats and republicans did not exist at all. Yes, it has been a long time since then, but maybe soon we will see a once-every-150-year realignment … birth of new parties and if the people want it, coalition governments? Three or more parties can exist within our system, but to govern they would need to form coalitions, same as they do in a parliamentary system, to form a majority.

    It will happen if the people want it.

  20. LM says:

    Enforcing a two-party system and presenting an environment in which only two parties are realistic are very differnt things. A third party *can* last a short time here with a few votes, but withing a very few years, either the new party will replace an existing party, or it will be shot down.

    We won’t form coalitions here as in a proportionally representative parliamentary system. That’s done after an election. To get there you have to first be able to actually elect people who represent the populace – that can’t happen the way our government is structured.

    It’s easy to blame “the people” but it’s not the people that are the problem. The issue is much bigger and much deeper than anyone wants to face, so nothing is going to happen. If it makes you happier to believe it will, go for it, but if you actually want to get things done, work on constitutional change, ranked balloting proposals, supporting an existing party, or supplanting one (though that just leads to a different 2 parties, which is ultimately the same thing).

  21. Rinaldo says:


    I’m not “blaming the people” … I meant that the people have the power to create parties, run for office, vote for whoever they want. Here’s a thought for the LGBT community: let’s say there was a progressive third party that supported the LGBT agenda, in fact was created specifically for that purpose, and worked to elect 8 or 10 congressmen in key districts. Then, the time would come eventually when the house is evenly divided and neither republicans nor democrats have a majority. The LGBT party could then say to the other two: we will caucus with you but only if you promise to repeal DADT, etc.

    I know, I know, this has been tried many times before (e.g. green party) … and nothing has come of it. But that is only because the people voted against them. I’ll bet there are plenty of people who voted green in 2000, blamed election result that time on Green Party and so went back to democrats … and maybe now they regret that decision?

    It’s entirely possible the congress will be very evenly split after this election, and a third party with just a handful of seats would have HUGE leverage.

  22. LM says:

    But people voted against the green party largely because they feared the likely result of splitting the vote and ending up with a republican. You only have to get bitten by that error once to be very, very reluctant (wisely I believe) to risk it again.

    You don’t consistently get “a few seats” here. This isn’t a proportionally representative government. You actually have to have an outright majority in a region to get a seat. That’s very, very hard compared to governments in which you can get a seat with as little as 5% in a region. This is why we are unlikely ever to have minorities represented proportionately in government. You’d have to have people move around the country in mass migrations.

    This is a crappy form of government if what you want is representation for anything but the majority and a few other regional anomalies. Think about the total size of the joined democrat and green population you need for a significant green win? And how many times that would instead turn into handing the election to the Republicans on a platter? It will be the vast majority of the time…and when it ceases to be, the democrats will cease to exist – returning us to a 2 party system.

    In all honesty, I’m a bit to cynical to really care too much which way it goes – democracy is just mob rule the way I see it, and to me this is largely academic. But if I were going to take action to getting 3rd parties elected, I’d work first to change the underlying structure because that’s the only way its likely to work.

  23. LM says:

    Think of it this way, in a govt that gives proportional representation at 5%, you only need 5% to get a seat. Here, if you have 5% of the population on board, you need at least 20 other equally strong candidates competing to have a chance to win. No one gets a seat at 5%. Or 10 or 20% for that matter. You’re lucky to get a win in the 30s, at which point your biggest enemy is also there, increasing the risk.

    It’s hard core gambling, and just not a game most of us want to play.

  24. Mr Whipple says:

    As a member of the Libertarian Party, I would like to clear up some misconceptions, here.

    Bob Barr: Yes, Bob Barr won the LP nomination in 2008. He narrowly beat Mike Gravel. Barr now supports the repeal of DOMA.

    Libertarians do not wish to eliminate Social Security, the FDA, or public schools, we wish to eliminate the need for these things. We believe in school choice, where the money follows the student. Education is a “good”, and should be treated as such. Government should not have a monopoly on education. Imagine if you went into the supermarket and there was only brand of peanut butter, that was manufactured by the government. Consumers benefit because there are many different brands and “styles” of peanut butter. Consumers are free to choose which brand best suits their needs. Manufacturers compete to best serve the needs of the consumer. A pilot program, known as the DC Voucher Program, was a huge success, yet Obama and Congressional Democrats cut the funding for it, why?

    The FDA is little more complicated, but, in short, libertarians feel that their function would be better served by private, third-party organizations, that have a vested interest, like a quasi-insurance company. Company executives, and Board members would be held accountable for their action,or inaction, in the perpetration of fraud and misrepresentation.

    The linchpin of modern libertarianism is the non-aggression axiom. However, with freedom, comes responsibility. Individuals should be held responsible for their actions, or inaction. Government does not have a responsibility, people do.

    Feel free to visit the LP platform page:

    and the LP facebook page.

  25. Mr Whipple says:

    One more thing. Libertarians are the only truly anti-war party. You certainly can’t say that about Democrats. Libertarians support a non-intervention policy. No wars, no “nation building”, and no colonialism.

  26. Of all parties, the gay community should align themselves with the Libertarian Party politically.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s