Celebrating LGBT History Month

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will deliver remarks on “The Human Rights of LGBT People and U.S. Foreign Policy” at an event co-hosted by the State Department and Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), on Monday, June 27 at approximately 10:25 a.m., in the Dean Acheson Auditorium at the Department of State.

The event will be open to credentialed members of the media and streamed live on www.state.gov. Press access times will be forthcoming in the public schedule.

Preceding the Secretary’s remarks, Under Secretary Maria Otero will lead a panel discussion with senior U.S. Government Officials at 9:30 a.m. The discussion topics will include the status of LGBT people around the world and how the U.S. Government can promote the protection of their human rights. The panel discussion will also be open to credentialed members of the media. Press access times will be forthcoming in the public schedule.

The event is part of a series of LGBT Pride Month celebrations at the U.S. Department of State.

GLIFAA, officially recognized by the U.S. State Department, represents lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) personnel and their families in the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Foreign Commercial Service, Foreign Agricultural Service, and other foreign affairs agencies and offices in the U.S. Government. Founded in 1992 by fewer than a dozen employees who faced official harassment simply because of their sexual orientation, GLIFAA continues to seek equality and fairness for LGBT employees and their families. For more information, please visit http://www.glifaa.org/ or follow @GLIFAA on Twitter.

Media representatives may attend this event upon presentation of one of the following: (1) A U.S. Government-issued identification card (Department of State, White House, Congress, Department of Defense or Foreign Press Center), (2) a media-issued photo identification card, or (3) a letter from their employer on letterhead verifying their employment as a journalist, accompanied by an official photo identification card (driver's license, passport).

PRESS CONTACTS

Michelle Schohn

GLIFAA Spokesperson

(703) 881-6117

Department of State

Office of Press Relations

(202) 647-2492

LP Monday Message: Debt limit, videos

Dear Friend of Liberty,

I just noticed an article from the Cato Institute, talking about how Republicans and Democrats are likely to use accounting tricks to pretend they're cutting spending, when they really aren't. Republicans want to give themselves some cover before they vote for more debt.

The article reminded me of our January poll, where the majority of you predicted that something like this was going to happen.

I also wanted to let you know, we've been posting more LP videos on our blog. Here are the most recent ones:

LP at Gay Pride DC 6/12/11

Dept. Of Agriculture - Helen Whalen-Cohen

War On Drugs - Mark Grannis

Have a great week.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict

Executive Director

Libertarian National Committee

P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.

Students Fight Back, Swinging Blindly Part 4

By Zach Foster
Continued from Part 3

5.      “End Racism, Sexism, and LGBT Bigotry.”

Racism and sexism, though still alive today, are clearly a thing of the past.  Such evils can only be overcome by all people treating each other with kindness and compassion.  People also need to practice what they preach.  Before feminists scoff at housewives, they need to consider the strong possibility that these are women who are educated and did have a career, but instead choes to stay at home and raise their children.  They are not domestic slaves; they are empowered, and as adults, they made their choice.  In regards to racism, people also need to practice what they preach.  If people wish to think less of someone else because that person looks different, then they might as well take it all the way and show hatred for any person that isn't a mirror image of him or herself.  Many left-wingers and fans of political correctness turn their noses at black Neo-Confederates like H.K. Edgerton for being an "Uncle Tom Negro," yet they themselves unknowingly contributed to such "benevolent racism" when they voted for Barack Obama simply because of his skin color and not because of his qualifications.  Treating someone differently because of their race or gender, no matter how good the intentions are, is ultimately a form of bigotry.

Homophobia is a poison that can only be harmful to American society in the long run.  There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the way an adult chooses to live his or her life.  If that adult were to go breaking laws, an action with the main or side effect of violating the rights of other citizens, then it would be acceptable to try to make laws preventing such oppression and to enforce them.  In the case of homosexuality, whether this lifestyle is a crime is subject to the interpretation of individuals.  Many might see homosexuality as a crime against God and fully ignorant of the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, while others see it as a physiological trait they were born with but nonetheless find highly preferable, while most people simply don’t care what other people do.

Many conservatives are horrified by homosexual lifestyles and, while they claim to want the government out of their backyard and to have less government overall, they invite the government into other people’s back yards when they lobby for legislatures to pass laws to keep marriage exclusively heterosexual.  Despite their beliefs and efforts, as well as the beliefs and lifestyle choices of the homosexual community, neither the State (meaning the large government apparatus) nor any local government has any place to dictate what consenting adults can or cannot do with their lives.

Though the author has enjoyed elaborating philosophically on the matter of civil liberties, even people’s right to their own sexuality, he knows that this topic is almost completely irrelevant to education and student life.  The only shroud of relevancy that the Marxists of Students Fight Back can latch onto is the idea that potential students might be barred from some private universities because of their sexual orientation.

First and foremost, that kind of discrimination is highly illegal.  Though it may periodically happen when administrators aren’t concerned with breaking the law (and they get sued and prosecuted), the vast majority of institutions do not discriminate.  When accepting students, they study each case individually to see what the potential student can bring to the school.  Private universities have the right to pick and choose, and unlike public universities and colleges, are largely unhindered by politically correct quotas.  Privatized education can pick whatever kinds of students an institution would deem desirable.  This is the reason why there are some all-boys or all-girls schools, Christian Schools, Jewish Schools, Muslim Schools, all-Mormon schools (Brigham Young University), military schools, boarding schools, etc.

If Sherry Wolf, author of Sexuality and Socialism, were to apply for the graduate or PhD program at Azusa Pacific University, a Christian university, they would assess her résumé and background to see what she would bring to the school.  They might conclude that she would most likely be there to promote, through her studies and participation of campus events, socialism, atheism, and an LGBT agenda.  This would appear counter-productive to this university, and her application would probably be declined.  This would not be the case in a public university, where the only picking and choosing is based on academic performance, extracurricular activities, and a million quotas of fairness and political correctness imposed by the state government.

If Glenn Beck, right-wing political pundit, were to apply for a graduate or PhD program at China’s Shenyang University School of Marxism, or an American university with many classes in Marxist Theory, it would be concluded that his activities would be pro-capitalism, Mormon fundamentalism, and right-wing politics.  This would be considered counter-productive to a very left-leaning university.

This does not mean that conservatives don’t make it into left-leaning schools, nor does it mean that members of the LGBT community are excluded from Christian schools.  There are many conservatives maintaining a low profile on left-leaning campuses, and there are many gay and lesbian students at many Christian colleges across America.  There are even Buddhist and Muslim students at Azusa Pacific University, and they are treated with respect by their Christian classmates.  They are not discriminated against because school administrators know these are all good students with excellent records.  It is known that they are more dedicated to their education than they are to a political or social agenda.  These students have true respect for diversity and will not try to impose their own values and ideas on other people.  The same credibility might not be extended to others students whose agenda clearly comes first, perhaps even to members of Students Fight Back.

Continued in Part 5: Illegal Immigration and Union Rights... in school or in the workplace???

U.S. Accomplishments at the UN Human Rights Council's 17th Session

The seventeenth session of the Human Rights Council came to an end in Geneva today. This is the sixth regular session that the United States has participated in since joining the Council in September 2009. U.S. engagement has reshaped the Council's agenda, leading to a number of new tools to address urgent human rights situations and focus international attention on some of the world’s most egregious human rights abusers. Key accomplishments at this session include:

LGBT RESOLUTION

The Council took bold, assertive action to highlight violence and human rights abuses faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons around the world. This is the first UN resolution solely focused on LGBT persons. The United States co-sponsored and lobbied heavily to support this initiative by South Africa, which was joined by countries from every UN geographic region. The resolution will commission the first UN report on the challenges faced by LGBT people around the world and will pave the way for sustained Council attention to LGBT issues in sessions to come.

DEEPENING ENGAGEMENT IN COUNTRY SITUATIONS AND ADDRESSING URGENT HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS

Syria:  The United States joined Canada and over fifty UN members to deliver a forceful joint statement addressing the deteriorating human rights situation in Syria, calling for an end to the on-going human rights violations committed by the Syrian authorities, and urging the Government of Syria to allow the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Office access to Syria to conduct their fact-finding mission. This statement further demonstrates the international community’s resolve to highlight the ongoing campaign of violence by the Syrian Government.

Yemen:  The United States joined the Netherlands and 73 other countries in delivering a statement on the ongoing violence and human rights abuses in Yemen. The Council made a decision to hold an interactive dialogue on Yemen at its next session. The statement and decision mark the first HRC action on Yemen. We applaud the Government of Yemen for supporting both the statement and the decision and inviting OHCHR to visit the country to aid in its reporting.

Libya:  After considering the report from the UN Commission of Inquiry detailing allegations of human rights violations in Libya, alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Qadhafi regime, the Human Rights Council extended the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry. The Commission will continue to provide important, credible, and independent information on the human rights violations and crimes committed by the Libyan authorities.

Cote d'Ivoire: The Council debated a mandated report by the UN Commission of Inquiry on Cote d'Ivoire, established in an emergency Council session in December. The Council authorized continued monitoring and reporting as well as technical assistance. It agreed to name an Independent Expert to follow up on the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and assist the Government of Cote d'Ivoire to combat impunity. Acceptance of this sustained oversight is a strong indication of the Ivoirian Government's commitment to respect human rights and take steps toward reconciliation.

Iran:  On June 17, the Human Right's Council appointed Ahmed Shaheed as Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran. The Special Rapporteur will serve as a voice for the millions of Iranians who have suffered egregious human rights violations and are not heard by their own government.

Other Country Specific Resolutions:

•Belarus: The Council adopted an EU-led resolution on the human rights situation in Belarus, highlighting the abuses committed since the December 2010 Presidential election in Belarus, and ongoing crackdowns against civil society and the democratic opposition in the country. This renewed UN scrutiny of human rights in Belarus for the first time since an earlier Commission on Human Rights mandate on Belarus was abolished in 2006.

•Somalia: The Council adopted a resolution acknowledging the constructive engagement of the Transitional Federal Government in the Universal Periodic Review process earlier this year. The resolution encouraged technical assistance from the international community for Somalia and renewed the mandate of the Independent Expert on Somalia for one year.

•Kyrgyzstan: The United States and Kyrgyzstan worked together on a new Council resolution to support the Government of Kyrgyzstan's efforts to address and reform current law enforcement practices and ensure fairness, security, and due process in the judicial proceedings arising out of last year’s violence. The resolution encourages further efforts to promote national reconciliation and invites states to continue to provide technical assistance.

BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The United States worked with the Government of Norway to pass a resolution that welcomes the groundbreaking work of the UN Secretary General's Special Representative, Professor John Ruggie of Harvard University. Professor Ruggie has developed a set of far-reaching Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and built support for them among governments, corporations, and civil society stakeholders worldwide. The resolution creates a working group of five independent experts and establishes a forum on business and human rights to discuss trends and challenges in implementing the Guiding Principles. The forum will maintain the multi-stakeholder approach that was a critical component of Dr. Ruggie's work.

INTERNET FREEDOM

The United States worked with Sweden to develop a joint statement, supported by a cross-regional coalition of 40 countries, affirming Internet freedom. We appreciate the timely focus of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression on access to electronic communications and freedom of expression online. The dramatic events unfolding in North Africa, the Middle East, and beyond highlight the importance of new communications tools for political expression and the realization of democratic aspirations.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

The United States continues to join UN members to call attention to violence against women and girls around the world and improve international efforts to eliminate and prevent that violence. The United States strongly supported a Canadian-led resolution addressing Violence Against Women, took part in annual day discussion on addressing sexual violence against women in conflict, and responded to the report of Violence Against Women Special Rapporteur Rashida Manjoo on the United States.

Libertarians say marriage equality only one step toward ending legal discrimination

WASHINGTON - While supporting steps taken over the past several years to end the unequal treatment of gays in the area of marriage, Libertarians say a just society is one in which no law depends on one's sexual identity.

"Permitting couples to marry when they are of the same gender is a step in the direction of equality before the law, but a truly free society would not have government in the business of defining relationships at all," said LP Chair Mark Hinkle. "Frankly, the idea that someone's legal rights should depend on whether they've entered a government-approved relationship ought to be repugnant to all of us."

Hinkle continued, "The Libertarian Party opposed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) while it was being passed overwhelmingly in 1996 by a Republican Congress and signed into law by Democrat Bill Clinton and has consistently called for its repeal in the intervening 15 years. Because of DOMA, even same-sex couples married in states that permit it face higher federal income taxes, gift and estate taxes, and immigration restrictions than opposite-sex couples, and can have their marriages effectively nullified by another state if they move to it.

"Marriage equality is not enough, however. I've heard some people express concern that allowing gay marriage would send us down a slippery slope. I hope it does. We should settle for nothing less than a society in which the legal code is wiped clean of references to a person's sexual identity or depends on how many sexual partners they have. It is disgraceful that we grant government officials the power to even examine such things, let alone criminalize any peaceful conduct between consenting adults or punish them with unequal marriage, adoption, tax, or immigration laws."

Just as Stonewall Democrats and Log Cabin Republicans have represented LGBTQ members of those parties, Outright Libertarians (OL) represents LGTBQ members of the LP, but with a big difference. "Our focus is on outreach to non-Libertarians," notes former LP National Treasurer and current OL president James Oaksun. "Full equality before the law is already the consensus position among Libertarians, and has been so since the party was founded. And the party's platform has always embraced full equality before the law. The strength of the LP's commitment to full equality is a great advantage for the party in the LGBT community."

The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:

"1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."

"3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs."

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

For information about Outright Libertarians, visit their website.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.

Book review: What Liberals Believe

By Zach Foster

What Liberals Believe, edited by William Martin, is an interesting collection of quotations by various writers, thinkers, and pundits, assembled into one large 700 page volume.  All readers can be warned that this book is targeted to liberals, predominantly members of the Democratic Party.  Most of the quotes in this book directly attack conservatives and at times the entire Republican Party.  Therefore, Democrats will highly enjoy and feel extra intellectual, while Republicans will be nothing but offended and possibly self-righteous.

Speaking of self-righteousness, such is what this book emanates on a grand scale.  After all, the subtitle is Thousands of Quotes on Why America Needs to be Rescued from Greedy Corporations, Homophobes, Racists, Imperialists, Xenophobes, and Religious Extremists.  It is understandable that members from any school of thought will naturally believe that they have the moral and intellectual authority on matters, but it flawed reasoning and outright arrogance that would make anyone believe that all of the above are attributed to conservatives. Ironically, there’s a full section on arrogance in this book.

The flawed reasoning might even be excuseable, given that this book is edited by a member of the liberal school of thought and marketed to members of the same school.  However, the sources for quotations often undermine the book’s purposes.  This book is meant to be an enjoyable and quick guide to the basic philosophical positions of the American liberal on various issues.  Undermining this are many out of context quotes from: the Bible, the Talmud, and the Koran, religious texts which are apolitical; populist writers and thinkers like Jim Hightower and Benjamin Franklin; socialists such as Albert Camus, Howard Zinn, Albert Einstein, Ghandi, and even Karl Marx.

The book would have much more credibility had it stuck purely with American liberal thinkers and writers.  The most erroneous quote the editor mines from is the socialist camp.  Socialists have no respect for the mainstream American liberal.  They see John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama as sellouts that betrayed the working class to the bourgeoisie.  Quoting Karl Marx and Lyndon Johnson in the same book to outline one system of beliefs is purely erroneous.  It’s one thing to quote a political or philosophical rival as an example of what one stands against, but not as an example of what one stands for—otherwise such a rival would be an ally.

The book can be obtained on Amazon and other online bookstores for just a few dollars—an excellent price for a 700 page hardcover book.  Let everyone keep in mind that only American liberals will fully appreciate it as it was intended.

Legislating Morality in the Nanny State

By Zach Foster
Best read with companion article: Free Market Consequences of the Nanny State

If anyone is reading this piece, the chances are that the reader is a fairly well educated adult conscious of making his or her own decisions.  The reader knows and fully understands that his or her decisions have consequences and impacts on his or her life, and that no one is forcing the reader to make these decisions.  Whether the reader studies and works hard to become a professor emeritus at an Ivy League university, or recreationally experiments with narcotics and becomes an addict and full-time user, this choice is being made by the individual and the individual alone.

In today’s American society, there are many thousands of laws on the books designed to protect citizens.  Some of these laws are necessary, but certainly not all of them.  The purpose for establishing laws with penalties if violated is not to protect citizens from themselves, but to protect them from other people.

The Constitution guarantees people the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The right to life is self-explanatory—such is why murder and manslaughter are felonies.  The right to liberty is slightly more difficult to interpret, since some people assume that “this is a free country, therefore I can do whatever I want.”  However, this is a free country in theory.  The rights of the individual end when that individual is actively working to deprive another individual of his or her rights.  This is why self-defense killing in a life threatening situation is not illegal.  Once a potential attacker becomes an attempted murderer, the law no longer protects the attacker’s right to life.  Impediment of other people’s rights is also why sex must be between equally consenting adults, otherwise rape would be legal and performed on an even larger scale than it is today.

In the realm of drug use, distributing narcotics to other people is more punishable than simply being caught with narcotics.  This is because a distributor of narcotics puts other people’s life and health in dire jeopardy while knowing that such substances are highly dangerous and illegal.  For this to be illegal would be a necessity, since this dealer or distributor could hurt other people.  However, being penalized for simply being caught with substances is a different story.  The fact that narcotics like cocaine, heroine, and methamphetamines are illegal has not stopped drug addicts from being users.  Most drug users are users not because of some desire to be outlaws, but because of a behavior pattern.

After all, marijuana is called a gateway drug not because it is addictive or because it is a catalyst that will automatically turn marijuana users into crack addicts, but because people with certain behavior patterns of irresponsibility assume that, just like marijuana, narcotics will be non-addictive and risk free.

Creating laws doesn’t stop people from doing drugs at all.  In fact, making narcotics illegal only feeds the black market which produces uninspected and unregulated narcotics.  This places citizens in more danger.  Furthermore, prisons are being filled to accommodate petty drug users instead of robbers, rapists, and murderers.  If a person wishes to take his or her own life down a path of self destruction, let them.  Let them destroy themselves and cease to be a burden on society, so long as they do not force others down the same path.

Just because a current illegal act may be decriminalized tomorrow does not mean that the streets will overflow with masses of people doing that act.  Just because gay marriage may be legalized tomorrow doesn’t mean that every man will marry a man and every woman will marry a woman.  Keeping anti-gay legislation intact does not prevent homosexuality, nor does it prevent gay couples from living together, having civil unions through court, and having wedding ceremonies in gay-friendly churches.

If crack was legalized tomorrow, people would not scream “Help!  I don’t want to do crack!  I need the government to pass laws to stop me!”  Nor would they say, “Hey, now that gay marriage is legal, I’m highly afraid I won’t have the willpower to continue being a Christian fundamentalist, and that I might marry a man and jump into Hell with both feet!”

The best way to preserve people’s liberties is to allow them to govern their own daily lives so long as they do not take away the rights of other individuals.  Morality cannot be legislated by a nanny state.  Such legislation only restricts individual freedom.  If one set of individual rights is legislated away, nothing but the artificial barrier of time will protect the rest of a citizen's rights from the same fate.

Remarks for LGBT Pride

By Daniel Baer

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Washington, DC

June 8, 2011

Hi, I’m Daniel Baer, a deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Democracy Human Rights and Labor here at the State Department and on behalf of Secretary Clinton and my colleagues here in Washington and at embassies and consulates around the world, I’m delighted to be able to wish everyone a Happy Pride.

The first Pride celebration was held in New York over 40 years ago, and since then, in an ever-growing number of cities across the United States and around the world, Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender people and their friends, families, and allies have come together to celebrate dignity, community, and equality.

From Cape Town to Beijing, from Mexico City to Sydney, from Lima to Talinn, this year’s Pride celebrations reflect local cultures and a universal message—that all people are entitled to live with respect and dignity regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and regardless of where they live.

Discriminatory laws and practices on all continents continue to feed stigma and shame for LGBT people. Pride gatherings are an opportunity to reject that shame and the inequality that it suggests, and to assert in its place the legitimate entitlement of each person to enjoy universal human rights, and the equal place of each person in the human family.

As people come together in many places around the world, it’s important to remember the individuals who are blocked by law or fear from gathering where they live, and the people who have been imprisoned or even killed for who they are. They, too, deserve to be free from hate and shame; they, too, deserve to know that they are not alone. They remind us of the work left to be done.

I’m proud to work for a Secretary of State and a President who are committed to equality and dignity for everyone. Let’s all work together to make sure that the next year is one of continued progress toward making that principle a reality. Happy pride everyone.

It Gets Better

President Obama, Vice President Biden, and White House staff recorded video messages to give hope and support to young people who are being bullied or harassed because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Watch the videos and find resources for youth at http://www.whitehouse.gov/itgetsbetter#staff.