On the left is the Libertarian
Platform, and my comments on the right, on Sexuality
Sexuality and Gender
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.
child molestation, bestiality, and other issues are not merely
"popular fears" or "taboos." They are contrary to
"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's
God." All government laws impose
a particular code of moral and social values.
adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices
and personal relationships.
- Government does not have legitimate
authority to define or license personal
- Sexuality or gender should have no
impact on the rights of individuals.
- By using the phrase "consenting adults," the
Libertarian Party concedes that the government has the right to
prevent adults from having sex with children. Why it is that the
government has the right to keep an 18-year old from having sex
with a 17-year old, but does not have the right to keep two
18-year olds from having sex in a manner that violates "the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" is not spelled out.
- If Congressman Mark Foley committed homosexual acts with a
16-year old Congressional Page, that would constitute a "personal
relationship," but the LP would probably concede the
right of the government to define, license or prohibit it.
- The LP would also qualify the last sentence in this section, by
admitting that felonious child molesters could have their right to
vote taken from them by the government.
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.
||A contract with a garbage
man to pick up trash is not in the same category as a marriage vow
between a man and a woman. A nation should always be at
"war" with cannibalistic
culture, or any other culture which is contrary to "the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
- 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
- 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
- Upgrade all less-than-honorable
discharges previously assigned solely for such reasons to
honorable status, and delete related information from military
- 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.
- Laws written and enacted by state legislatures or federal
agencies do not define "marriage." They simply
acknowledge marriage for what it is. Marriage is defined by "the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
- Just because a relationship is "private" or
"personal" does not mean the government cannot address
it. Nor does it mean that neighbors, employers, teachers, clients,
buyers, sellers, or anyone else cannot address another's
"sexual orientation" through conversation, nagging,
bribery, boycotts, or other pressure to repudiate that
- The government has the right to lower taxes for heterosexually
married people. Lowering taxes is libertarian.
- Everyone has the right to say that the "adoption" of a
child by a homosexual couple is not a legitimate
"adoption." There does not need to be, nor should there
be, an entity called "the State" to make any
declarations one way or the other concerning adoption
- Tax-supported armed forces should be
abolished. There is nothing unconstitutional about the Defense
Department discharging those who are "oriented" toward
pedophilia. Similarly, there is nothing unconstitutional about the
Defense Department discharging those who are "oriented"
toward homosexuality. The Defense Department should discharge everyone,
- There is nothing unconstitutional or even un-libertarian about
the Defense Department discharging homosexuals for violating a
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy against homosexuality.
There is nothing un-libertarian about a symphony orchestra
discharging a basoonist for unauthorized breathing.
Being conscripted into the armed
services (or an orchestra) is un-libertarian. There is no
constitutional "right" to join the armed forces
- Ultimately, a
"nightwatchman" state would have nothing to say
about labor law or family law.
back to: Sexuality and