Can a "Homophobe" be a True Libertarian?

From:  "[Smith]" <>
In the column at left is a series of emails concerning my stand on homosexuality. In this column is my response to each issue raised.
Subject:  had to stand up for you a LOT (laughs)
Date:  Sat, October 28, 2006 3:43 am
To:  "Kevin Craig" <>

Ok, the conversation got way ugly for awhile. Do not think you will be getting endorsed by any gays anytime soon. "[Smith]" is a Libertarian, a leader in the Missouri LP, and sympathetic to Christianity. His name has been changed to "[Smith]" throughout this discussion.
Please read everything written. Got a little confusing there.  I think I got them all in order but they may be a little out of order or I may have missed one or two.  I started after the email I sent you last.  
I have no desire to bring this up to the executive committee. A few people like Tom Knapp also monitor that list but I am sure he will stay out of it also.  
Am going to get preachy for a moment so please bear with me.  
OK, while I fully support your right to not believe in gay marriage, and while I haven't read your whole website, not much in fact, please refrain from alienating the gay population. You don't have to like them, but the Libertarian party does make a lot of effort recruiting in that market, so it would pay not to alienate them. Remember, as in this case, that not only your district reads your website, but apparently the whole world. As we get bigger, and become more of a threat to the Republicans and Democrats, they will use stuff like this against us. Please remove any anti-gay references. If you hate gays, don't put any pro-gay reference either which would be a lie. Just don't put it in print.




I could care less what you tell the prospective voters in your district going door to door at this point, unless there are TV cameras around.

I certainly deny any attempt to "alienate" any group, including heroin users, prostitutes, child molesters, and incumbents, but I do not deny the existence of opinions which are contrary to the actions/votes of the above groups. What does it take to avoid "alienating the gay population?" Would Thomas Jefferson's proposal to castrate sodomists have "alienated" the "gay population?" Would the unanimous opinion of the Signers of the Constitution that homosexuality is contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" alienate the "gay population?"
      What is an "anti-gay" reference? If I am asked by a Christian political action group if I believe what the Bible says about homosexuality and if I agree with what America's Founding Fathers thought about homosexuality, can I answer honestly (I do.)?
      The central question in this exchange, it seems to me, is whether I should conceal my views on homosexuality in an effort to avoid "alienating the gay population," or whether I should openly announce my views on homosexuality in order to gain the votes of a bloc which is roughly 50 times greater than "the gay population?"

I would never believe a candidate who claims in private to be for or against something but his website and all public appearances give another impression.

The other more serious point. Like I said I haven't read your website. I totally agree that we need to stop the creeping (ok, quickly moving) fascism in America, but we have to come off as believable and not get labeled as conspiracy nuts. And if there are any Jewish (or other ethnic) references please remove them immediately. If you know of a specific person of Jewish descent that is part of the problem, and have hard evidence, then name him, but not all of the Jews are involved in anything, so please leave out any generalizations of race. People are looking for any excuse to dismiss away your message and label you and this gives it to them.  This is also the fastest way to get yourself categorized as another Glenn Miller, and that is an impossible label to get washed off. The few people of Jewish descent I know here in town don't have a clue about politics or involvement in anything. I don't know you that well, so if you hate Jewish people as a whole, you should personally have that right, but not as one of our candidates representing us, so please keep it to yourself and your friends. I have no anti-Jewish reference on my website that I'm aware of. But again, this may depend on which "population" is complaining.
OK I am done now. Please read below and take everything said with a grain of salt. I just want to see you do good and not get badly labeled. I have had to help recruit candidates the last two election cycles, and help these candidate have believable campaigns, and one spot I never had to worry about till now was the US 7Th because I knew you were there.  
Take care and good luck on election day.  

Re: [OutrightLibertarians] This is a real problem  
[Smith], I'm sure he's a lovely, friendly, hard-working guy.  
It doesn't change the fact that his platform is conspiracy-theory Dominionist mumbo-jumbo which has absolutely zero to do with the Libertarian Party platform (or libertarianism in general). If everyone in my district were a "dominionist," it would be wise to show how the Libertarian platform is not inconsistent with "dominionism." If 90% of my district believes in a conspiracy theory, I would be wise to promise my constituents that I will call for a congressional investigation of the subject. Russo is mentioned. I would definitely call for a Congressional investigation of the Fed. Louisiana mentions the Fed, as does Alaska, and the subject is frequently discussed on the LP website.
A couple of observations:  
1)  Russo was not an LP presidential candidate -- he sought the LP nomination and failed to receive it.  One reason he failed was because his Constitution Party conspiracy theories don't have traction with mainstream Libertarians.  
I'm quite aware of his film, and I'll leave the critique of its numerous weak points to outlets such as Reason.  I simply note that Russo's film is *not* the Libertarian Party Platform or even close to the Libertarian Party platform.  In fact, in many areas, it's directly contradicting the LP platform.  
2)  There's a difference between saying "we have a legitimate policy difference and candidates don't need to march lock-step to the platform" and endorsing out-and-out lunacy about global Jewish conspiracies and "Bible-based marriage laws."  Libertarians can (and do) have disagreements about gay issues, the Federal Reserve, etc. without being absolute lunatics.  The end of this post will highlight some key examples of this from his web site. I nowhere "endorse" "global Jewish conspiracies." As an anarchist, I do not "endorse" "Bible-based marriage laws" for the State any more than I endorse them for the mafia. I passionately believe that the Constitution does not prohibit the federal government or the states from making laws which are consistent with or motivated by the Bible. Every single person who signed the Constitution would agree with me.
3)  One of the more disturbing things which I've seen occur in the LP community as of late (and keep in mind that I'm a bit more reformist minded than, say, our chair ;) ) is the use of the Libertarian Party to advance an agenda which has no relation whatsoever to libertarianism.  Russo's conspiracy theory, Irwin-Schiff line, with its "Christian anarchy" sub-plot, is simply not Libertarianism -- it's statism which grows out of paranoia about giant evil conspiracies.  And it's not accepted as part of the Libertarian Platform.
I'm not aware of Russo's "Christian anarchy sub-plot." I doubt Russo is either. What is "Libertarianism?" "Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force."
David Boaz, CATO: "Individualism. Individual Rights. Spontaneous Order. The Rule of Law. Limited Government. Free Markets. The Virtue of Production. Natural Harmony of Interests. Peace."
The very first chapter of Boaz' book, The Libertarian Reader is from the Bible.
According to American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
NOUN: 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

Taken as a whole, my website promotes "libertarianism," not "Russo's conspiracy theory" or "giant evil conspiracies."

Conspiracy or Consensus?

I don't think it's radical to insist that our candidates have at least some libertarian bona fides and at least *basic* alignment with our party platform. I have linked to every section of the last platform (now having to re-do my links after last convention), and the basic structure of my website originated with the Cato Handbook for the 108th Congress
Read the quotes below and please indicate how Kevin's campaign positions are related even to reality, let alone the Libertarian Party platform (bullet points are quotes from the links):  
"Laisser-faire theocracy under God": This is linked from my campaign website, but is not part of it.

The Bible is a blueprint for human action in every field of endeavor. The Bible is a "textbook" in political science and economics just as much as it is a textbook in religion. The rejection of this textbook brings tyranny and mass death.

As one of Outright's bloggers, if a Republican party candidate posted this sort of thing, I'd have a field day.  Unfortunately, it's a candidate of my own party claiming that if the Bible isn't the basis of government, we have "tyranny and mass death."  
Censorship of "pornography":
I am against all censorship. The page cited begins with these words:

The 112th Congress should:

  • oppose all censorship

Pornography is a perversion of the gift of sexuality. By its nature, it diminishes the humanity of everyone involved. Those captured by camera images are not treated as human beings created in the Image of God, worthy of dignity and value. The viewer’s humanity is also diminished by becoming party to exploitation. People who view pornography, especially children, are psychologically and spiritually damaged by the viewing. Kevin Craig therefore supports and defends policies that will eliminate illegal hard-core pornography from the open market.

What is the best way to sell the complete abolition of all government laws against pornography to the Bible Belt or the Ozarks? I seriously doubt that "Outright Libertarians" could sell it.

The link in this paragraph is to a webpage that begins with these words:

Legal solutions to pornography (those involving State-imposed violence) are not the answer to the problem of pornography.

How is this consistent with the basic LP commitment to free speech?  Ironically, on the very same page, he claims he opposes censorship. How is this INconsistent with "the basic LP commitment to free speech?" How much more libertarian must a person be to be a true libertarian than advocating the abolition of all censorship laws?
On AIDS:  

The HIV-AIDS theory distracts attention from the destructive nature of the homosexual lifestyle.

Great.  Now I'm supposed to endorse the LP to gay people as a neutral party which believes in self-determination?  Absolutely.
I do not have to advocate heroin use in order to be an advocate of legalized heroin.
I certainly do not have to advocate government grants for AIDS research to be a libertarian.
Even worse, he links to a series of web pages from the HIV denialist fringe which claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV, but is. . . yep. . . a giant conspiracy. The webpages are written by Nobel Prize-winning biochemists and others. Libertarianism itself is "fringe" in the eyes of those who oppose these Nobel Prize-winning "denialists."
On homosexuality:  
Will homosexuals give up their quest to have the preaching of the Bible declared a "hate crime?"
This sort of paranoia is typical of the Constitution Party -- not our party.  He also links to a bunch of web sites from the Family Research Council, etc. which discuss the various dire and wicked things we horrible homos are up to. "Paranoia?" Which side believes in "conspiracy?"
On separation of church and state and the first amendment:  
     "The Separation of Church and State" is a myth. The phrase is not found in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights or any of America's "organic law." It is probably the most dangerous myth in American politics.
     "The Separation of Church and State" really means "the Separation of God and State." It is a denial that America is a nation "Under God." Not a single person who signed the Constitution agreed with this modern idea. A government that is not Under God is a government that thinks it is God.
     The Court is correct in suggesting that "one nation under God" could make an atheist feel like a "second class citizen," "left out," "not a full member of the political community," and other phrases various Justices have used. But this only proves that the Court is wrong to worry about how atheists feel. Obviously none of America's Founding Fathers were worried about how atheists felt when our Founders declared that God created us and will eventually judge us, and that these were "self-evident" truths. The Founding Fathers clearly endorsed and publicly promoted the true religion, Christianity.
This is just nuts, nothing more I can say there. That's correct. Nothing more can be said. Certainly nothing involving the facts of history or constitutional law.
I could go on, but you get the idea.  Such candidacies are dangerous for the party because:  
1)  They're so out of step with the basic purpose of the Libertarian Party (and our party platform); What is the "purpose" of the Libertarian Party? Promote the non-sinfulness of homosexuality?
2)  They allow our opponents to create a false caricature of libertarianism; Is a "true" caricature of a libertarian one who believes there exists no God who condemns homosexuality?
3)  They turn off core constituencies for whom libertarianism is a natural default with their nuttiness.  I've stuck around more often than the average potential Libertarian supporter would -- the moment they'd see stuff about Jewish conspiracies or Dominionist rhetoric, they'd be gone. In my District, "outright libertarians" would be considered "nutty," and would not draw the average voter to libertarianism.
4)  They're loaded with conspiracy theories.  The worst thing about candidacies such as this is not that they're advancing conspiracy theories, but that the conspiracy theories are so far distanced from the actual reality and empirical evidence.  Inevitably, these theorists simply "cite" their "work" by linking to other "theorists." I really don't understand why I'm being tarred and feathered with "conspiracy theorist" criticisms. Ask this conspiracy theorist if he'll endorse me. He called me to get on board with his conspiracy theories and after a few minutes angrily hung up, threatening to "expose" me to get people to vote against me.
The worst part is, if this guy was running as a Republican, we'd all be laughing and I'd be cutting him down rather easily in a blog post with a few libertarian rejoinders. Think about the implications of that for a moment.  

[Smith] wrote:  
Re: [OutrightLibertarians] This is a real problem  
All of the main points, of Aarons movie I had heard previously in Michael Badnarik's constitution class in 2004, two years before the release of Aaron's movie. Fallacy of the income tax, federal reserve, etc. You can choose not to believe the mounting evidence, but to say that reforming the corrupt government and restoring our constitutional republic is not Libertarian is misinformed on your part. If you choose not to believe so be it.  
Marriage originated with the church. There has only been licensing laws in recent American history. I don't know what your religious beliefs are, if any, but I personally agree that the Bible is a great blue print for everything, although my views aren't quite dramatic as Kevin's are. Being a Christian does not qualify you from being a Libertarian. Proclaiming your Christian beliefs does not disqualify you from being a Libertarian either. Marriage originated in the Garden of Eden before there was a "church." But the rest of this paragraph is well stated.
Also, I don't know what part of the country you are from, but in that part of the Ozarks, Kevin's Bible stance plays real well down there, and vote totals continue to grow. The Republican Roy Blunt will get elected down there with large majority vote totals, and he is way more of a bible thumper religious zealot than Kevin Craig. Kevin is getting a great response at the religious gatherings and forums he is speaking at. You, as our candidate in that part of the state, would be run out of town on a rail with your views.  That is just the way it is. To be a candidate, you also have to represent the people of your district. Your only legitimate gripe is that he is religious and doesn't support Gay marriage. Well, in the area he is running in, the populace voted 80% in favor of banning gay marriage in 2004, just two years ago. He is a local guy that shares one of the views of the voters in the district he is running in. You don't share the views of the people of that district.  

I would say Roy Blunt is not enough of a Bible-thumper.

Just so you know, this year White Racist Glenn Miller tried to run as a Libertarian after the Democrats turned him down as a candidate. and read down the page. If you want scary check out his webpage We (the Missouri state party) had to take legal action to stop him from getting on our primary ballot and running against Kevin. Do you know why we took action to stop him?  Because the people in that district would have nominated the white racist handily over Kevin Craig. That is the mentality of the people in that corner of the state. This is a district where you apparently think you are an expert in local politics. Please quit trying to tell us how to run things here and quit pretending to be an expert on all local politcs everywhere.


I hope white supremacism is not really that pervasive down here. I may be wrong.

Re: This is a real problem The following letter is an "outright" response to [Smith]'s letter
--- In, [Smith]
<SmithForOffice@...> wrote:
> Marriage originated with the church.

As Penn and Teller would say... BS! (I almost posted with something other than my chair@outright address just so I could spell that one out.)

Marriage existed THOUSANDS OF YEARS before the Church. In almost all languages, the word for marriage came into use long before organized religion was formed. Marriage started as a civil, community-based ceremony, and it only became a  "sacrament" in the Middle Ages. This whole "marriage is a sacrament, so the government contract must be called something else" argument is pure BS, made up by the same people who honestly believe the universe was created just 6,000 years ago.

Such would be America's Founding Fathers. Marriage history here.
> You, as our candidate in that part of the state, would be run out of town on a rail with your views.

No, he'd be run out of town on a rail because of his sexual orientation, not his political views. Actually, his fate would likely be far worse than that.
Only if he insisted that voters renounce God's views of his sexual orientation.
> That is just the way it is. To be a candidate, you also have to represent the people of your district. Your only legitimate gripe is that he is religious and doesn't support Gay marriage. Well, in the area he is running in, the populace voted 80% in favor of banning gay marriage in 2004, just two years ago. He is a local guy that shares one of the views of the voters in the district he is running in. You don't share the views of the people of that district.

So, [Smith], I live in Cambridge, Massachusetts. And here, 80% of the people believe in universal government-run healthcare, a 90% income tax for anyone who makes over a million dollars, and forcing all children to attend government-run schools. Are you saying that if I run for office here, I should adopt those absurd, non-Libertarian positions, because those are the views of the voters in my district?

Believing that God instituted heterosexual marriage and prohibits homosexuality is not an "absurd, non-Libertarian position." If it is, then the Libertarian position will forever be confined to 1-2% of the population, and will never win over the more than 100 million people who uphold the traditional "absurd, non-Libertarian position."
> This is a district where you apparently think you are an expert in local politics. Please quit trying to tell us how to run things here and quit pretending to be an expert on all local politcs everywhere.

I think what Brian is trying to say is that there are probably some districts (Bibletown, Missouri and The People's Republic of Cambridge, Massachusetts) where Libertarians may not have a chance right now to win with our platform, but that doesn't mean you abandon the platform. It means that you run educational campaigns to try to get the voters to think in a way they've never been asked to think before. If Libertarians don't challenge people's stupid, heretofore unquestioned bigotries and myths, we'll never get to the kind of society we want.




Where does the LP Platform explicitly require repudiation of Christian ethics? Where does the LP Platform require "educational campaigns" to get voters to repudiate the Biblical teaching on marriage and heterosexuality? Where does the LP Platform call Christianity "stupid, heretofore unquestioned bigotries and myths?" What "kind of society" does libertarianism call for? What kind of vision for society does the Libertarian Party exclude? Surely not that of America's Founding Fathers.

[Smith] wrote:  
Re: [OutrightLibertarians] Re: This is a real problem  
Rob <chair@...> wrote:  
>--- In, >Marriage existed THOUSANDS OF YEARS before the Church. In almost all
>languages, the word for marriage came into use long before organized
>religion was formed.
Well, no, there is a book called the Bible, which is the word of God. To keep it simple for you, Got created Adam and Eve, and made them Husband and Wife. God created marriage. He did not at the same time create the marriage license. That was done by evil hate filled men in modern times. If you get a copy of the Bible, you can find this in the first book called Genesis, but I would recommend reading the whole Bible. It is a really good and important read, and the last book in the collection is called Revelation and lets you in on a whole bunch of cool stuff that is coming up in the future.  

I really don't think those who invented marriage licenses were "evil hate-filled men." They simply wanted some way to record legitimate marriages.

I think the book of Revelation is all about stuff in the past, but I wouldn't say that [Smith] should never be permitted to express his views. Intro | Contents

>So, [Smith], I live in Cambridge, Massachusetts. And here, 80% of the
>people believe in universal government-run healthcare, a 90% income
>tax for anyone who makes over a million dollars, and forcing all
>children to attend government-run schools. Are you saying that if I
>run for office here, I should adopt those absurd, non-Libertarian
>positions, because those are the views of the voters in my district?
No, as usual you totally missed the point so I will try again and type a whole lot slower this time for you. Kevin Craig does not believe in same sex marriage. He is not adopting any different position from what he has always believed.  You do not have to be a perfect Libertarian to be one of our candidates. He is not pretending to be anything he isn't. Now, in this case, his not being for same sex marriage is the same position that 80+% of the population that live in his district also believe. There may be a few Libertarians out there that don't like guns. There may be a few Libertarians out there that like the fraudulent tax system. Just not agreeing with the party on one point in the platform does not disqualify you from being one of our candidates, and I don't care how much you bitch and moan,  you live in Mass and don't get a say in who we choose to be our candidates here in Missouri. If you don't like it, then move to his part of Missouri and run against him next time. Quit sitting here bitching and whining because he does not meet your criteria as the perfect candidate. He is a Libertarian and an active one.  

Why is someone who believes in heterosexual marriage an "imperfect" libertarian?

I don't like guns. I'm happy to argue my pacifism with all the gun-toting rednecks in the Ozarks. In the end, I think they'll respect me more for being consistent and well-thought out. The LP Platform does not require candidates to "like guns." It only requires candidates to not like GOVERNMENT guns. And there are no guns I like less than government guns.

Now if you want to be a candidate in Mass., and would happen to have adopted and believe in one of the planks you mentioned, say the government run healthcare, because you thought it was the right and proper position, but otherwise followed the Libertarian platform, and wanted to run, I would say thank you for running, and not be bitching to the LP of your state about how crappy their candidate is, because you don't have to follow lockstep with the party on your pet issue. Any LP candidate who supports government-run healthcare deserves to be bitched at, and I'll join the chorus. That's a conflict with the heart and soul of libertarianism, IMHO. Opposition to covetousness, lust, gluttony, or homosexuality is not in conflict with the LP Platform, as long as you don't advocate the initiation of government force against them.
>I think what Brian is trying to say is that there are probably some
>districts (Bibletown, Missouri and The People's Republic of Cambridge,
>Massachusetts) where Libertarians may not have a chance right now to
>win with our platform, but that doesn't mean you abandon the platform.
>It means that you run educational campaigns to try to get the voters
>to think in a way they've never been asked to think before. If
>Libertarians don't challenge people's stupid, heretofore unquestioned
>bigotries and myths, we'll never get to the kind of society we want.
First of all, that is not the society everyone wants. It is what you want, and in fact also sounds like a good version of society to me. But, having your vision of society as someone's goal is not required to be a Libertarian. Kevin is not abandoning anything. He is saying what he believes to be the truth.  He is simply running on his beliefs and is not hiding it or making excuses. If you don't like it, then find someone that you believe in to run against him, or move to his district and do it yourself next time and see how far you get in that corner of Missouri. There are two visions of society in conflict here. One is a society where everyone (apparently) believes that there is nothing immoral about homosexuality. The other society is one where everyone agrees with God that it is immoral. The Libertarian position is that the means to the end is non-violence, that is, you cannot work for your vision of society using the initiation of force. But the LP Platform does not rule out one vision (Biblical or anti-Biblical) or the other.
But whatever you decide you want to do, go find someone else to do it with, because you are again as usual wasting my time. I have candidates to take care of and campaigns to run and only 12 days to do it in, and am not going to waste anymore time listening to you whine because a hardworking Libertarian candidate does not meet your personal one issue litmus test.  

Re: [OutrightLibertarians] Re: This is a real problem  
[Smith], you believe the Bible is the word of god. I believe it's a book of myths modified by medieval European monarchs to justify their regimes and practices. There should be room in the party for both of us, but your position and candidate shuts out not only people like me, but anyone who has a different religion and even Christians who take a different view of things. That's why religion rightfully has no place in politics or public policy.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

This position is self-contradictory: "room in" -- "no place in" ~ which is it?

My position does not "shut out" anyone except one who believes in the initiation of force as a solution to personal or social problems.

Re: This is a real problem  
Wow you said a lot of things there [Smith].

But I disagree with most of it.

You must realize that Craig is being very contradictory in many things he's said (see He says that Christians ought to have the right to call out homosexuals, as long as, homosexuals the right to continue their "lifestyle" - but then turns
around and says that Congress should only recognize marriage as an union between a man and a woman. So at first he says that Christians and homosexuals should be on equal footing with the law, but then turns around and says Congress should not recognize
homosexual unions.
Analogy: I'm against U.S. Postal Monopoly. But it's in the Constitution. There is nothing un-Libertarian about voting for an amendment that recognizes that the USPS is in the Constitution and that no federal judge can abolish it without amending the Constitution.

A federal judge that seeks to declare that two guys can be "married" is attempting to do something that the Constitution gives no power to do. My position is that Congress should be abolished. Until then, there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress recognizing that "marriage" is defined by God as the union of one man and one woman for life. Nor is there anything un-Libertarian about Congress recognizing one of the most central facts in all of human history. As I stated it on my blog:

As long as any proposed marriage amendment which recognizes marriage as defined by the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God does not advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals, I would vote for it.

There is nothing un-Libertarian about Congress "recognizing" that "lasagna" is an Italian pasta, and that federal judges do not have the power under the Constitution to declare "lasagna" to be a Japanese sushi.

I am still a fledgling Libertarian but the fact that he wants Congress to recognize marriage at all flies in the face of Libertarian beliefs in my opinon. Less government right? Take government out of private lives right? But yet he wants Congress to recognize romantic notions of heterosexuals but not homosexuals. Sounds like government being very involved in my life. From the LP Platform: "Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships". Craig's stance is against the LP platform. So was it un-Libertarian for Congress to acknowledge Mothers?

Events: The History of Mother's Day

Mother's Day, 2003

Is this an un-Libertarian involvement in the lives of Fathers?

I agree that Government does not have the legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. But government does not act in an un-Libertarian way by acknowledging what God defines.

In which case is government more "involved" in people's lives, by acknowledging that "marriage" is a union of a man and a woman, or government ordering churches to baptize atheists? Why do homosexuals want to get "married?" What right does government have to change the time-honored definition of "marriage?"

Not only that but he believes in this "Liberty Under God". He believes that the separation of church and state is a myth. From the LP Platform: "In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State." Craig's stance is against the LP platform. I advocate a separation of ecclesiastical bodies (to use the terminology of James Madison) and the State. The modern concept of "separation of church and state" is "separation of God and Government." This is an unconstitutional concept. The government is not "separate" from God, it is "under God." Is it really, officially, the position of the LP that belief in America as a nation "under God" is un-Libertarian and "against the LP Platform?"
Read about his beliefs on how "self-government" can stop abortion: He calls for teachers (in our government funded schools) to teach pro-life principles even in classes where such issues are not necessary. Again violating a strict separation of church and state. Craig's stance is agianst the LP platform. This is either ignorance or a lie. I advocate the abolition of government-funded schools. Until that time, I believe there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits government-funded schools from teaching "pro-life principles." Advocating the abolition of public schools cannot be "against the LP Platform." My belief about what the Constitution teaches cannot be "against the LP Platform."
It is not just the same-sex marriage issue but the entire spirit of Craig's campaign which I feels that flies in the face of the LP party. I feel he wants to create this entire nation under Christianity and to promote Christianity - and I honestly believe he wants to do so through the government. The Libertarian Party says it wants to promote diversity and freedom without hinderance from the government. I do not honestly believe Craig wants to do that. I honestly believe that if elected he will use his seat as his Christian pulpit and preach to us all from it. While he says he is for repealing of certain laws that restrict our lives, I feel that he will find ways for the government to promote Christianity further. The entire nation was created under Christianity long before I was born.

I want to abolish the government.

Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that Government should "promote Christianity further."

I believe the concept of "the government" is unChristian.

While I am not in Missouri either, Craig running as a LINO may very well affect me, my LP candidates, and my life through his votes in Congress. So if anything I say persuades someone to NOT vote for Craig, then I am more than happy.
This guy is trying to persuade people to NOT vote for the Libertarian candidate, and he calls ME "against the LP." This is insane. Think about this. I'm an anarchist. I want to abolish all government laws. But I'm not in favor of the government abolishing the concept of "sin." And because this guy wants me to agree that his habit is not a sin, he would rather elect a fascist than an anarchist. Unbelievable.

I've read the entire Bible. More than once. I'm a recovering Methodist (an addiction the President still suffers from). :-)

But I don't debate with Fundamentalists. If you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, preferring Creationism over Physics, Biology, Archaeology, Anthropology, History, etc., then that is your right. But I'm not even going to try to debate you on this, because a debate where one side always argues "because my book says God says so" is no debate at all.


It was not "Physics, Biology, Archaeology, Anthropology, History," that drove people to become evolutionists. It was love of fascism and adultery and their hatred of Christian libertarianism. No creation-scientist has ever publicly debated an evolutionist and relied on the line "my book says God says so." The debates have always centered around the facts of science, and increasingly, evolutionists are staying away from such debates because the creationists too often win the crowds. The leader of the Human Genome Project is now a Christian, so let's put an end to superficial stereotypes of Christians as anti-science.

My apologies for wasting your time, though, discussing the LGBT-friendliness of Libertarian candidates on an LGBT Libertarian discussion list. What the heck was I thinking? Please send an email to OutrightLibertarian s-unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com and none of us will waste any more of your time. I promise.

Since when does a political candidate -- even a libertarian one -- have to be "LGBT-friendly?" Does a libertarian candidate have to be "pederast-friendly?" Why not? There are undoubtedly child molesters in every precinct. Am I required to court their vote in order to be a "perfect libertarian?" You may say that a sexual orientation toward children is wrong, and you don't have to be "child-molester friendly" to be a "perfect libertarian" because you believe child molestation is wrong. But why is it someone else is not allowed to believe that LGBT is wrong -- just like you believe child molestation is wrong -- and still be a "perfect libertarian?" Why is your moral disapprobation acceptable and the other prohibited? Advocating an end to government violence against prostitutes, heroin addicts, child molesters, and homosexuals is one thing, advocating their moral legitimacy is an entirely different matter. The former is required by libertarianism, the latter is not.

Well said, Rob.  That's precisely my point, in a nutshell.

We're Libertarians for a reason.  We have a Libertarian Party for a reason.  If we're going to run campaigns which are unLibertarian, why even run campaigns?  The whole point of the LP is to advance libertarianism as a political philosophy -- that's not done by discarding large swathes of it for a populist campaign in Libertarian drag.

How have I "discarded large swathes" of libertarianism? If there are 100 components of a libertarian political philosophy, that sounds like I've discarded at least 30. Which are they?


I live in the middle of Hillbilly country, Knoxville, Tennessee; which is a southern, Bible Belt state.

We have a candidate for Representative who is a Democrat but he is running against Gay Marriage and generally trying to appear conservative (even more conservative than southern democrats usually are) just to get elected.

Last Monday night, I was one of the speakers at a gathering of Gay Men in Knoxville (about 30 in attendance). I was invited to speak about the LP, Outright and libertarianism. During the discussion period, the candidate mentioned above was named as a good choice in the upcoming election (no Libertarian is running against him). I and others expressed misgivings about some of the things he has said in the campaign, yet several people said that they know he would vote with gay people once he got into office. And I answered that if he can lie to get into office he will certainly stand by his campaign lies to stay in office. And that this is one thing I like about libertarians, they will not lie to get into office, that they say what they mean and mean what they say.

By what you said (as if it is perfectly acceptable and expected) you proved me wrong.

Fitting your message to the temperament of your audience is one thing, lying about your political philosophy to your audience to get elected is quite another.

"Y'all come back now. Ya'hear?"
-Allan Wallace

What am I lying about? What will I vote for that I promised to vote against?
Re: [OutrightLibertarians] This is a real problem  
Oh dear. Worldnet Daily articles as citations. Links to the FRC. Anti-gay Republican rhetoric. Zero understanding of basic libertarian principles. Now all we need is a Berkeley-based candidate calling for a maximum wage, universal health care, and talking about capitalist conspiracies -- citing the Worker's World Daily -- and we'll be "fair and balanced."

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

What's wrong with WorldNetDaily? What's wrong with FRC?
I have "zero" understanding of basic libertarian principles? Really?
Re: [OutrightLibertarians] This is a real problem  
Hi Allen, either you missed what I said or I didn't word it well. I will have to go back and read what I wrote.  
First of all. Thanks for standing up for Liberty and going out publicly and spreading the word.  
I am never advocating that a Libertarian candidate lie. I tell all of our candidates to tell the truth. What we have here is a Libertarian candidate who does not believe in same sex marriage, most likely from religious upbringing reasons. If anyone asks him what the Libertarian party says about same sex marriage, he should say that the LP believes as a whole in same sex marriage, but personally he is against same sex marriage. What other people were saying here is he shouldn't be allowed to be a candidate. If you give him the WSPQ he will probably score an 80 and a 100. That puts him smack up in Libertarian range. He qualifies to be one of our candidates. In this case it is convenient for him to be against gay marriage because that is what the area he lives in also believes. By the way, he does not hate gays or want them dead or anything, his attitude is live and let live.  And I am saying flat out that one of our candidates does not believe in same sex marriage, and we aren't making excuses for that. No one is lying or encouraging anyone to lie. If you happen to live in his district and that bothers you, don't vote for him (of course the other three candidates are way more critical of gays) so if that stand qualifies him as evil to you, then he is definitely the lesser of four evils. I emailed him a copy of the original complaining email and my response, leaving out names, etc. This was his response:  

Is there room in the Libertarian Party for 100 million WorldNetDaily-reading Christians who believe that child molestation and "same sex marriage" is an abomination to God? When that day comes, will I be forced to say that "the LP believes as a whole in same-sex marriages?" What if it's not true? Do the By-Laws require it to be true?

I'm 100-100 on the WSPQ. I'm an anarchist.

Correct; I do not hate in any sense opposed to "live and let live." However I do believe God hates homosexuality.

The Democrat candidate in 2006 was way more homosexual-friendly than I am, but he was also big-government. I think it's insane for a Libertarian to vote for a pro-homosexual socialist over a "homophobic" Christian anarchist.

Thanks [Smith]!

I hadn't heard of "Out" Libertarians
("An organization of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual
and Transgendered Libertarian Activists;
and all those who love liberty!").

I admit I have strong opinions about
homosexuality, but I'm an anarchist,
and can't be accused of seeking to
"impose" my views. "Outright libertarianism"
may play well in San Francisco, but not
the Ozarks, where there is a happy coincidence
of my views and +200k voters in the district.
I see my goal as convincing them not to
use the State to advance their agenda,
not to change their agenda.

The critic may be referring to my anti-SPP website:

You may not have seen it.
I take it you've seen Corsi's new website:

For Ameros, direct the critics to:

I admit I've had a couple of comments on my
blog which are anti-Jewish, and I suppose I
better publicly repudiate them. I have already
done so (repeatedly!) in private correspondence
with the posters. They were commenting on an
earlier version of my new website, directed
to the Christian voting bloc, "Is it a SIN
to vote for Roy Blunt?"

I get a lot of positive reaction from my speaking
gigs, and there's no doubt in my mind that
I'm the most qualified candidate to get "homophobic
Ozark country bumpkins" to switch to libertarianism,
and would do a whole lot better than an
"outright libertarian" would. Funny that a
"libertarian" would not extend me the liberty
to do so.

Thanks again for going to bat for me.
I'm sending out lots of emails to churches
and Christian businesses, and don't have
time to argue with "outright libertarians."

Kevin Craig
Libertarian Party Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives, MO-7th
Powersite, MO 65731-0179
So, there you have it, you are welcome to go to his website and email him if you want to try to convince him otherwise, but like all of our candidates he is going to be really busy the next 12 days.  
But, no one is lying or trying to be something they are not. Just the opposite. Everyone is sticking to their beliefs. He does not believe in gay marriage, that does not mean he hates gays like his opponents profess to do. Not all LP candidates believe in gay marriage. Not all LP candidates believe in every plank of the LP platform. That is ok. This is one of our congressional candidates here in Missouri, who drove hundreds of miles to the state capital and paid $100 and spending all available funds buying campaign supplies and gas and goes out every free minute he can and campaigns. This is what he believes. On one issue he differs from most LP members. He is still a Libertarian and has everyone's blessings in Missouri to run. The MOLP committee last month in fact made him membership chair for the party to work with the LP database program they are trying to implement between the national party and the state. My question is, can I work for a Libertarian Party in which most LP members are Christian anarchists who believe homosexuality is a sin? Why not? Must the LP always be proportionate in size to the LGBT population, rather than the size of the Christian population? Such a policy strikes me as suicidal.
Maybe in the future will recruit someone who will end up being a 100 and 100 candidate on the WSPQ. Right now this is what we are working with. I'm 100-100. The WSPQ does not ask about what is and what is not a sin.
Hope that helps. Thanks again, Allan for getting out and spreading the word in person. That gives me a lot of respect for you versus the people that lurk around the internet all the time whining and never get out and spread the word to those that need to hear it. We should all be out handing out campaign materials for our candidates, carrying water to the desert, not sitting here on the internet arguing amongst ourselves, carrying water to the ocean.  
Take care.  

From [Smith]:  
Yeah, you are right. I would never use Worldnet Daily as a source for evidence. I shuddered before copying and pasting,  however wanted to pass along his message exactly as was sent to me. There are a lot better reference sources out there that I would have used as as evidence on those points.

hightechfella@... wrote:
I'd like to see a link to something which explains why WND is so bad.

Ditto for FRC.

Oh dear. Worldnet Daily articles as citations. Links to the FRC.  

xxx" <xxxxx@xxxxx. org> wrote:  

Outright Libertarians is a national organization focused on the intersection of the Libertarian Party and GLBT rights. The fact that our chair currently lives in Massachusetts has nothing to do with his opinion about a Libertarian Party candidate in Missouri; he is chair of a national organization, and this list is for discussing national GLBT Libertarian issues. A Missouri candidate's position on same-sex marriage is entirely on-topic here.

Now, I missed how the conversation started. But it seems unlikely to me that this candidate wants the Outright endorsement, and it seems unlikely that anyone here is going to support giving it, and further discussion seems unlikely to me to change anyone's mind, especially since we're getting into the area of literal truth of scripture. Let's let it drop.


This issue here is not whether the Bible is true or not. The issue is whether someone who believes that it is can be a libertarian. The issue is whether 200 million Americans who believe the Bible is true are invited to join the Libertarian Party, or whether they are to be excluded on the grounds that they believe homosexuality is a sin.

From: OutrightLibertarian s@yahoogroups. com [mailto:OutrightLib ertarians@ yahoogroups. com]
On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:43 PM
To: OutrightLibertarian s@yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [OutrightLibertaria ns] Re: This is a real problem
You are right Chris. We are 11 days away from the election, and no matter how much anyone here dislikes a candidate because he is not same sex friendly, nothing is going to change that in the Nov 7, 2006 election coming up. Some people here apparently think that even if I wanted to, I have a way to change this. Assuming I took this to the exec committee, no one is going to vote to do anything about it, expecially  this close to the election. We are to busy with campaigns campaigning, something everyone should be out doing versus sitting around whining on an email list. We took great legal risks blocking Glenn Miller, a white racist, non-Libertarian from the ballot, and had he decided to sue I don't know that we could have stopped him. I am not going to try and stop an actual, hard working, although not perfect Libertarian from running on our ballot. I really object to the idea that an anarchist cannot be a "perfect libertarian." I equally object to the idea that a "perfect libertarian" is ONLY one who does NOT believe that homosexuality is a sin.
I am going to be sending him all of the comments and suggestions made, minus names, etc. when I get time in hopes that he starts softening his beliefs on the few areas he is not in line with most other Libertarians, and do a better job of marketing his message. Why condemn the LP to being a small party that consists only or "mostly" of those who deny that homosexuality is a sin? Why shouldn't the Libertarian Party consist of 100 million Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin and a few thousand who believe it is morally legitimate, instead of only those who believe it's OK? Why should anyone entering the LP have to have his views of sin "softened?"

I'd like to think I did a fine job of marketing my message. Even though I got more votes than a lot of LP candidates in Missouri, I can't be sure that it's because I did a good job of marketing my message. Perhaps most of my votes were simply anti-incumbent. I know for a fact that some were Democrats ticked off at an incompetent Democrat candidate. But by the same token, I don't think anyone can prove that I'm doing a lousy job of marketing.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, wrote:  
I'd like to express my appreciation to all the participants in this exchange.  This is just the sort of discussion that usually gets really ugly, and makes me want to run from whatever group it's occurring in.  This one was recognizably headed in that direction, but both sides amazingly pulled back.  Remembering Dave Nimmons' wonderful observations, in his book Soul Beneath the Skin (www.manifestlove. org), about the peacefulness of gay men (Alcohol and testosterone are usually a bad mix, but a fistfight at a gay bar is about as likely as a fistfight at the opera.), I'm inclined to take that as a credit to our sexual orientation (honorary or actual, as the individual case may be); and I'm enjoying at the moment a fantasy of our setting a model for the rest of the Party.  


National Platform of the Libertarian Party

Adopted in Convention, July 2, 2006, Portland Oregon  
I.9 Sexuality and Gender  
The Issue: Politicians use popular fears and taboos to legally impose a particular code of moral and social values. Government regularly denies rights and privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. All government laws are the imposition of a particular code of moral and social values. All morality stems from a religion.

I don't agree that "Government regularly denies rights and privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity." What rights are being denied?

The Principle: Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality or gender should have no impact on the rights of individuals. Most non-anarchists would disagree with this. They would contend that government has the right to deny rights (i.e., punish) child molesters, which is to say that "sexuality" impacts rights.
Solutions: Culture wars, social friction and prejudice will fade when marriage and other personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is not allowed. I disagree with this claim. If a secular government is out of the picture, Christian morality will flourish, and "Culture wars, social friction and prejudice" -- that is, Christian morality -- will not fade, but will increase in strength.
Transitional Action: Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state laws and amendments defining marriage. Oppose any new laws or Constitutional amendments defining terms for personal, private relationships. Repeal any state or federal law assigning special benefits to people based on marital status, family structure, sexual orientation or gender identification. Repeal any state or federal laws denying same-sex partners rights enjoyed by others, such as adoption of children and spousal immigration. End the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for sexual orientation.  Upgrade all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned solely for such reasons to honorable status, and delete related information from military personnel files. Repeal all laws discriminating by gender, such as protective labor laws and marriage, divorce, and custody laws which deny the full rights of each individual. Many of these proposals will increase government power -- in an effort to impose acceptance of homosexuality.

DOMA should be abolished only after all jurisdiction over marriage has been removed from courts, otherwise anti-Christian judges will define marriage in anti-Christian ways.

I am opposed to ending tax-breaks for heterosexual married couples. How can it be libertarian to advocate increasing their taxes?

I am against government involvement in adoption.

I support and encourage the Defense Department discharging all homosexuals -- and all heterosexuals. And if there are any who do not fit in either of these two categories, they should be discharged as well. I am a pacifist.