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 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.

I'm not aware of Russo's "Christian anarchy sub-plot." I doubt Russo is either. What is "Libertarianism?"

www.Libertarianism.com: "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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Will homosexuals give up their quest to have the preaching of the Bible declared a "hate crime?"

     "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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

Rob

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

Ditto for FRC.

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.

~Chris

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.

National Platform of the Libertarian Party

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?

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.