HBO’s documentary on the legal fight to overturn California’s Proposition 8, “The Case Against 8,” is undeniably a moving piece of TV. It will surely, among those who see it, reinforce their commitment to marriage equality.
But when you step back, it suffers from the same faults as journalist Jo Becker’s book on the case, Forcing the Spring—it’s as if the fight for gay marriage has no previous history, and the momentous fight in the case against Prop. 8, Hollingsworth v. Perry, was a world-changing victory won through the heroic efforts of three men, LGBT activist leader Chad Griffin (now president of the Human Rights Campaign) and superstar lawyers Republican Ted Olson and Democrat David Boies.
What’s most egregious, however, is that short shrift is given to the case that actually is leading to national marriage equality, United States vs. Windsor, decided by the Supreme Court on the same day. In only the briefest of mentions in the HBO documentary do we hear about this case, and its plaintiff Edith Windsor and her lawyer, Roberta “Robbie” Kaplan, go unheralded.
Hollingsworth may have sought to establish a nationwide right to same-sex marriage, but had the far more limited outcome of restoring marriage equality in California, and it did so on the exceedingly narrow grounds that the opponents to the lower court ruling against Prop. 8 lacked standing to bring the appeal (since the current governor, Jerry Brown, declined to do so). As Hank Stuever writes in his Washington Post review, the HBO documentary is “fascinating for all the wrong reasons.”
James Kirchick suggests in his Wall Street Journal review of Becker’s book (and a similarly themed book by Olson and Boies), Hollingsworth will be just a footnote in the history of marriage equality; Windsor is the decision that’s changing everything. Writes Kirchick:
Not only did the victory [in Windsor] grant federal recognition to every gay marriage registered in a state that recognizes such unions, but the decision has since been cited by multiple state courts in striking same-sex marriage bans from the books. Hollingsworth reversed Proposition 8—no small feat considering that California is the country’s most populous state but hardly the sort of victory that merits the mantle of “revolution”…
A similar point is also driven home by Alyssa Rosenberg in her Washington Post commentary.
Clearly, it’s Windsor that courts across the country are relying on as they grant gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry, including the 10th Circuit’s historic ruling. Thank you, Edie Windsor and Robbie Kaplan. Too bad you lack the PR machinery of Griffin, Olson and Boies.
More. The Cato Institute’s David Boaz reminded us back in 2010, when district court judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop. 8 (the ruling eventually allowed to stand by the U.S. Supreme Court), that when Walker was nominated by Ronald Reagan to the federal bench:
…such groups as the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the nomination.
In other words, this “liberal San Francisco judge” was recommended by Ed Meese, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and opposed by Alan Cranston, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, and the leading gay activist groups. It’s a good thing for advocates of marriage equality that those forces were only able to block Walker twice.
In the HBO documentary, Griffin jokes that if the chairman of the Cato Institute supports marriage equality, maybe he should rethink his position, demonstrating a lack of awareness about libertarians versus conservatives. (Cato’s chairman Robert A. Levy discusses Griffin’s remarks here.)
Furthermore. More on libertarians and gay marriage from Cato’s David Boaz, via (and with commentary from) Richard J. Rosendall, president of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance (GLAA) of D.C.
And Dale Carpenter adds: “Rarely have so few overlooked so many to claim so much based on so little.“
33 Comments for “It’s Not History, It’s HBO”
posted by Jorge on
James Kirchick suggests in his Wall Street Journal review of Becker’s book (and a similarly themed book by Olson and Boise), Hollingsworth will be just a footnote in the history of marriage equality
(Oh, yes, let’s all bow down before the sacred alter of lgbtqiiR history. The R is for Republican. I forgot what the second “i” stands for.)
Although I do not support the court cases, I must disagree. I think it should be pointed out that this is a documentary. It sounds like the film suffered the same problem the case did: great story, lousy ending. Things change so fast sometimes that what was once important quickly becomes irrelevant. I don’t think that’s good enough reason to abandon that which was once inspiring.
Perhaps that DOMA case was responsible for the legal revolution. But it was the Proposition 8 that inspired the social revolution–the rallies, the activism, the even more intense focus on marriage, and I am extremely thankful that the country paid attention to gay marriage and began to accept it, so that it was in a state to better accept the judicial activist court decisions.
The Olsen-Boies story was an important story in its day, well covered by this site, and still is important, because of its place in that social revolution. A big-name pro-Republican intellectual, indeed, the attorney who won Bush v. Gore, moved to hold as unconstitutional laws barring legal recognition of same sex unions. It was a big deal at the time. And it was the two Bush v. Gore attorneys who joined forces. This was a rare angle.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Serious histories of the struggle for equality will be written by historians, in time.
The insta-histories written by journalists like Becker, documentary film makers and attention-grabbers like Olson-Boies are almost always half baked nonsense.
Insta-histories might tell a good story, isolated from reality, but the Becker, HBO and Olson-Boies insta-histories primarily serve to reveal a profound ignorance of the decades of strategy, hard work, and perseverance that brought us to this point. I think we’ll start to see some serious histories by 2025.
The Olson-Boies credit grab is particularly weak in this respect because it distorts legal history. Olson-Boies gloss over the fact that the Prop 8 case was won on standing, a legal technicality, and ignores Windsor, which is the case that opened the door to the rulings that are now coming down all over the country. Windsor resulted from the legal strategy that Olson-Boies despise, and the work in the case was done by the people that Olson-Boies attack in the book. The Olson-Boies book will soon be on the remainder shelves, deservedly so.
Many, many people of the fight laid the groundwork for marriage equality, often long before marriage equality was a goal. The successes of the last five years — and in particular, the cases we are now winning — were built on a foundation laid by many others over the course of several decades, by people whose names most of us would recognize, and many other people whose names most of us would not.
When a serious history is written, it will provide the answer to question like these: “How and why did two straight lawyers who thought little and said less about marriage equality until the end of the road was in sight, come to view it as the “civil rights battle of the era”? “How and why did so many others evolve from disgust at the idea of “equal means equal” to support for marriage equality?”
That’s the real story, and it is yet to be told.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Just to be clear: I am not denigrating the contributions from Olson-Boies, HRC or anyone else.
What I am disgusted with is the grandstanding, and the self-aggrandizing that the self-appointed “stars” are engaging in at this point.
I am particularly disgusted with Olson-Boies’ rewriting of legal history to essentially write Windors out of the story because both are prominent lawyers who should know better.
We have a lot of work to do, still, particularly within the Republican Party, and we don’t have time for this kind of nonsense.
Let the historians write the history.
posted by Jorge on
So noted. I must admit I was a little suprised at your response at first.
posted by Doug on
“. . . until the end of the road was in sight. . . ”
It is worth noting that had these 2 cases been decided against us, LGBT rights would have been almost certainly set back for decades at both the state and federal level.
In my mind that makes these victories all the more stunning regardless of who is taking credit where not deserved. Things could have turned out very differently. . . I for one am extremely thankful for that every day.
posted by JohnInCA on
Interesting thing about people that have a “lack of awareness about libertarians versus conservatives”
In the national politics discussion, it doesn’t actually matter. Libertarians as a separate entity from conservatives or the GOP have a long way to go before the distinction matters again.
Personally, I hope it does someday. But I really doubt it.
posted by Houndentenor on
I agree with Stephen. All stories need to be told in context. Failure to do so distorts the truth of what happened. Certainly Olson and Boies did a fine job. But to tell it without the proper context (and worse, to have HRC staffers call out their critics without mentioning who they are is very bad form). I’ll take a pass on this one. The Case Against 8 is a documentary I’d recommend instead (and interesting enough a Mormon colleague who didn’t know about the documentary recently told me a story about being pressured to donate and use a California address and name to do so which confirmed exactly what the documentary presents.) It’s not enough to tell part of the truth. A half-truth is still a lie.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Houndentenor – I’m a bit confused. Wasn’t Stephen criticizing “The Case Against 8”?
You agree with Stephen, then recommend the same doc Stephen has been disparaging. (And not only Stephen – Andrew Sullivan has been having a cow about the book ‘Forcing the Spring’ and this movie. Sullivan just moderated a review of the doc at the Provincetown Film Festival – where he and the doc filmmakers were tabled together to ‘discuss’ Sullivan’s problems with the book/movie.)
btw – a participant at the film festival remarked that they were bothered to see two hetero men get all the attention from the book, movie – while historically our legal path was cleared by many (lesbian) women. Mary Bonauto, here’s to you…
Anyway – I usually enjoy your comments. Just wasn’t sure if I was reading you correctly on this one.
posted by Houndentenor on
Oops. I meant to recommend “The Mormon Proposition” instead. Unfortunately I can’t go back and edit because that’s a pretty bad mistake but it was a mistake. I should learn to drink more coffee after storms keep me up half the night.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I’ll check out “The Mormon Proposition”. I’ve caught a few minutes of “The Case Against 8” on HBO, and I watched the doc makers get grilled by Andrew Sullivan at Provincetown Film Festival. The doc makers basic retort was that their documentary provided a certain perspective – and that there are other perspectives that need to have documentaries made as well. (They specifically mentioned the history of Massachusetts and marriage equality – of course, they were in MA at the time.)
Anyway. I also have posted when too tired, or too distracted, only to realize after posting – I should have been taking a nap instead. Live and learn…
posted by Houndentenor on
I really wish this comments section had an edit button. It’s embarrassing to hit send only to see a typo or other error immediately after.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
One other thought. I have a few serious ‘libertarians’ as friends (at least, they are on my facebook page. lol )
I receive a daily fill of Cato Institute, etc… from these guys.
I have noticed, though, that ‘libertarians’ tend to often vote Republican. And if a ‘libertarian’ is voting for a Republican Tea Party activist who wants to enshrine discrimination against me into state/federal law – then what is the difference between that libertarian and that Republican.
Re: Judge Walker. Yes, it’s been noted how wrong the usual suspects were in re: to this judge. Turns out he is gay, and he crafted a strong shot across the bow for equality.
However – I don’t think that means the ‘usual suspects’ are wrong most of the time in their endorsements, or in their opposition.
And Stephen, thinking that a Reagan appointee will look anything like a (fill in the blank) Cruz, Jeb Bush, or Bush 2 appointee – well, that tells me you’ve got the blinders on too tight this time…
posted by Eric on
In the 10th Circuit ruling handed down yesterday favoring marriage equality, it’s reported:
“…the 65-page majority opinion, authored by Judge Carlos Lucero (a Clinton appointee), was joined by Judge Jerome Holmes (a George W. Bush appointee who is generally pretty far to the right but refused to vote for a stay of the lower court’s decision). Judge Paul Kelly (a 74-year-old George H.W. Bush appointee) dissented on the substance of the opinion.”
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Cool. I’m glad to hear that Holmes joined the majority on this one – I recall reading that many thought he wouldn’t.
(I like BSG btw…)
But I still think my assertion would be correct. The current (contemporaneous to GWB) Republican crop of appointees would be markedly different in judicial ‘temperament’ than the appointees of previous decades.
posted by Eric on
Actually, there was nothing anti-gay that I can see in Judge Walker’s history prior to his nomination to the federal district court. He was opposed by HRC, Lambda, etc. because of his critical views toward over-reaching by the regulatory state. It reminds of how HRC and Victory Fund are refusing to support Carl DeMaio’s congressional bid because he favors public pension reform.
posted by Jorge on
And if a ‘libertarian’ is voting for a Republican Tea Party activist who wants to enshrine discrimination against me into state/federal law – then what is the difference between that libertarian and that Republican.
What did your libertarian friends tell you when you asked them?
posted by Don on
Every hetero libertarian friend I have stomped furiously at the religious conservatives with mighty indignity and then votes with them every single time. I don’t blame them. No one gets the candidate that agrees with them 100%.
So, should they vote for a principled stand on non-government interference in LGBT lives or vote for lower taxes on themselves? Not hard to guess which way they’re going to vote.
Remember, social conservatives would like a higher tax state provided it took the money and used it to fund church work to help the poor and expand their ministries. But they won’t vote with liberal Democrats because that coalition would never give the money to a church-run social program.
As they always say politics makes strange bedfellows.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
@ Eric – I don’t know where you’re getting your info, but I would suggest you look at your history a bit more.
Judge Walker was opposed for his nomination (the first time) by Dems because of 2 main factors: (1) Walker was a member of a male-only club (the Olympic Club) – and there was a lot of kickback at his membership in this club, and (2) he represented the US Olympics against the SF group that was trying to put on what they called the “Gay Olympics”. I’m not justifying the opposition by the Dems – but let’s get it right, ok, Eric?
Second, re: DeMaio never applied for Victory Fund support (as required). He only conveniently turned around and denounced the Fund after he didn’t get the support (not bothering to mention that he never asked for it).
And DeMaio’s position re: lgbt legal equality is somewhat, shall we say, suspect? Or, at least to the point that some legt groups don’t find him a person who would counter the anti-gay strain in the current Republican-led House.
Listen, Eric (and Stephen). If DeMaio actually wins and then turns out to be a lgbt civil rights hero – I will be very happy. But there is nothing in his record to think that he would (become a civil rights hero). In fact, per his own words, he’s basically said he isn’t concerned with social issues at all. Why would a lgbt lobbying group support a politician who has implied he doesn’t want to be bothered by the very issues that frame that organization? Oh, because he’s gay?
And Don – yes, that phenomenon (libertarians criticizing social conservatives, then voting for them) is what I’ve encountered as well. I’m not as convinced as you are that these folks are actually voting in their best interest – but I definitely agree that they think they are… :).
posted by rusty on
Totally random, but great story. . .became aware of
http://greencoalitionofgayloggersforjesus.us/History_of_the_GCofGL4J.html
posted by Lori Heine on
It’s good to hear from you, Rusty! I hope all is well.
Concerning the subject of libertarians being misunderstood, that’s happening on both the left and the right. And, I think, for one main reason.
There are libertarians on both the left and the right. Though we agree that state violence should not be used to implement our goals, beyond that we have very different goals. The happy-talkers who tell us that we’re a “third way” (I used to be one of these people) are full of it.
I want basically the same kind of world the statist left wants — I just advocate a very different means of reaching that end. And right-wing libertarians want the same kind of world the statist right wants. That doesn’t always mean they agree with social conservatives–but at the very least, many tolerate them to a far greater degree than makes sense for libertarians.
On both sides of the political spectrum, libertarians are making great inroads. More and more people, left and right, are converting from statism to libertarianism. Neither Fox nor MSNBC can stand this — which explains why almost everybody, at both networks, lie like troopers about libertarians.
I hear a lot of regurgitation, in various comments here, of talking points from people like Chris “Pom-pom Girl” Matthews, who’s one of the biggest slanderers of libertarians I have ever heard. To be better informed about us, it would be helpful to break out of the bubble and become familiar with the diversity that exists in our movement.
From its very beginnings, it’s drawn as much from the left as it has from the right. And I mean, long before Ayn Rand was ever born.
posted by Lori Heine on
One suggestion is to Google “left libertarian” and track down what comes up, by those who advocate that position, explaining what they believe.
That certainly won’t convert everybody, but at least some of the absurdities repeated here may — mercifully — cease. You won’t learn much about how broad the movement really is by bringing up the Libertarian Party or Cato Institute websites.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Lori, thanks for the info. I am aware of the left/right ‘orientation’ of libertarians. However, as I tried to describe previously, my experience has been that even those I’d consider on the left end of that spectrum (supporting marriage equality, supporting a woman’s right to choose, opposing foreign intervention by our govt., etc…) would still end up voting for the R when it came down to the nitty gritty.
One of the reasons you haven’t mentioned is how the Rs have adapted ‘libertarian’ bullet points in their meme (the small govt meme, that is) – while concurrently advocating positions that run totally counter to some central libertarian tenets.
I don’t think the Dems have been as adept as the Rs at this practice. Though perhaps that has more to do with which Party is holding the White House. It’s hard to advocate libertarian policies when your Party’s leader (Obama) is backing warrantless cell phone searches, the Patriot Act, etc… Of course, the same could have been said about GWBush as well.
posted by Lori Heine on
Aubrey, the issues you listed (marriage equality, anti-war, etc.) are very standard positions for ALL libertarians–even those, like Rand Paul, who are very far to the right on the libertarian spectrum.
Left-libertarians, on the far end, want a radically different society than do people like Rand Paul. If the country ever “went libertarian,” the Rand Paul wing and mine would be at it hammer and tongs on a variety of issues.
I voted for Obama in 2008 — and very enthusiastically. I did not in 2012, because I was disappointed he’d basically turned out to be so much like a continuation of Bush. No right-wing libertarian would tell you that; they disliked Obama from the very start, and have been lecturing us former Obama supporters for six years about how gullible they think we were.
In the way so many Tea Party people seem to have “gotten religion” about libertarianism, we can never underestimate the power of polling. They’ve been told, over and over again, that to win power they must appeal to a populace that is growing more liberty-conscious all the time. So they’ve re-branded themselves as “libertarians.” That no more makes the label accurate than calling themselves turnips would turn them into turnips.
Pom-pom Girl Matthews will, if challenged, make his big brown eyes very wide and say, “Oh, but THEY say they’re libertarians! That’s THEIR word…not mine!” But Pom-pom’s host of a program called “Hardball” for a reason (he wrote a book by that title years ago, and I read it when I was in college).
Lefties in the media know better than to believe anything else Tea Partiers say about anything. But when they call themselves libertarians, then, oh–THAT must be gospel.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Lori, I will totally agree with you that I need to read some more left-libertarian thought, etc… As I’ve noted – these observations of mine are nothing more than anecdotal, based on my own experience with those who call themselves libertarian.
But, to also apply some context – my ‘libertarian’ friends do not think of themselves as ‘right-leaning’. As Don posted – my experience reflects a similar dichotomy (i.e., ‘libertarians’ who rail against social conservatives, while turning around and voting for them because of other issues, such as taxes, etc…Or, to be fair to them, because they find the (usually) Dem to be too ‘big government’ for them. How they decide a social con doesn’t favor their own form of big govt, I don’t know).
One last item. Rand Paul has a mixed bag re: marriage equality. He’s actually opposed to it. He’s signed questionnaires during his Senate election where he committed to opposing marriage equality. Where he called himself a ‘Christian social conservative’, etc…
Since then he’s tried to frame himself as ‘allowing’ for states to legalize same sex marriage – but only to bide time so that he and his christian social cons can change the culture back to one of ‘Christian values’. He and his dad have a very limited libertarian perspective, in many ways.
And Lori, I think you’re spot on re: the way the Republicans have appropriated the ‘libertarian’ tag, while leaving the substance behind….
Do you have anyone you would suggest I read re: left-leaning libertarian thought? I’m curious – I would be up for some research.
posted by Lori Heine on
Hi Aubrey,
Last time I tried to put links in a comment here, it got held up in moderation, so I’ll just start by directing you to Google. The first page brings up those that are most often frequented, which is sometimes enough. In this case, it gives a good start.
There’s the Alliance of the Libertarian Left (ALL), which is a wonderful resource from which you can also find more. Bleeding Heart Libertarians is a great and thought-provoking blog. Center for a Stateless Society is also quite good. YouTube has a video from the Left Libertarian.
Not first-page-Google material are organizations like Common Struggle, which would be sure to leave our right-wing statist trolls spluttering. I’m currently very absorbed in a book compiled from talks given by Noam Chomsky — “Understanding Power” — though everything I’ve ever read by Chomsky has been fascinating. He’s an eye-opener, to be sure.
In my last mention of Rand Paul, I didn’t do justice to his position. It’s actually the right-wing libertarian position, which is that “government should treat LGBT’s equally” — though it comes off meaning absolutely nothing in the real world. Straights won’t give up their special marriage benefits from the state, but Paul and his ilk lamely claim that government should “get out of the business of marriage”–which they know is not going to happen. Left-libertarians tend to believe that same-sex marriage must be as legal as hetero marriage–whatever that comes to mean, given the reality of how the world works.
I don’t intend to vote for any more Republicans–perhaps ever. Having worked with them and seen them up-close and personal, I think the GOP is a brood of vipers and I want nothing to do with them. I was a Democrat from the time I was 18 until a couple of years ago, and I basically know, like and trust them. On the liberty issue, I think many can be brought to see the light.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. It is possible that this particular documentary wanted to just focus on one particular aspect of marriage equality and not try and cover everything. It is also possible that the documentary had to work within certain time and budgetary constraints.
2. I very much doubt that President Reagan intended to put a “liberal” justice on the bench. The civil rights groups that opposed this particular judge’s nomination – unsucessfully — probably had a reason for doing so, or just looked at say, Robert Bork as an example of the type of candidate then President Reagan thought was “ideal”.
posted by Jorge on
Bork was a Bush nominee. Ronald Reagan’s judicial appointees cannot be though of in the partisan terms of today.
Who did Reagan appoint? Two moderate conservatives and Scalia. He couldn’t even get an anti-Roe slate.
posted by Doug on
If you don’t think Scalia is a total partisan conservative you are delusional. That comment doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Jorge, you’re wrong re: Bork. Reagan nominated Bork in 1987 for Assoc Justice of SCOTUS.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
(Sigh) Bork was nominated by Reagan. Justice O’Connor initially voted with the conservatives. She became a moderate swing vote later on.
Justice Scalia would probably loved having Bork on the bench. It was how Reagan wanted things. I am not sure why anyone would see the hypothetical scenario as being good for gay rights.
Reagan hoped for “conservative” justices like Bork and Scalia. He didn’t get everything he wanted.
Sometimes the president judicial selection turns out to be more conservative or more liberal then expected. It not something we see too often.
posted by Eric on
I very much doubt that President Reagan intended to put a “liberal” justice on the bench.
No one is saying he did. The point being made is that if there is not a history of anti-gay opinions by those nominated the the federal bench by GOP presidents, why are the supposedly nonpartisan gay groups all lining up to oppose them (often citing nongay issues).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A nominee’s judicial philosophy can be a relatively reliable predictor of future decisions.
For example, an “originalist” judicial nominee may have said absolutely nothing about gays and lesbians, and may, in fact, be gay or lesbian, but knowing that the nominee is an “originalist” is a strong indication that the nominee will stand in opposition to the Griswold line of cases on which much our progress has been based.
For that reason, I would be leery of any nominee with ties to the Federalist Society or with a history of writing/ruling in opposition to the Griswold line, whether or not the nominee had given any indication of his or her views on “equal means equal”.
Judges often evolve in their thinking after a few years on the bench. Most of them do, most likely. But not all of them evolve in the direction of judicial moderation or mainstream judicial philosophy. Scalia, for instance, has evolved in the direction of “originalist” judicial activism, if he has evolved at all.
We are looking down the barrel of decisions coming out of the 5th, 6th and 7th Circuits, probably this fall or winter. The 5th, 6th and 7th (in that order) are considered the most conservative circuits in the country, and we may well see adverse decisions on marriage equality coming out of those circuits in a few months.
In the 7th Circuit, which will decide the fate of my marriage, the likelihood of a decision one way or the other is bout 50:50, pretty much dependent on the luck of the draw when the 3-judge panel is appointed. It is almost certain that two of the three judges on the panel will have been appointed by a Republican President (the split is 7-3 in that regard).
If we get Judge Easterbrook and Judge Sykes (both affiliated with the Federalist Society), our prospects are dim. If we get Judge Rovner (who ruled against the “religious exemption”), we have a good chance. If we get Judge Posner, who is idiosyncratic (to say the least) but a harsh critic of Justice Scalia, he could vote either way. And so it goes down the line.
At the Supreme Court, we can count on Justices Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayer. We can probably count on Justice Breyer. We can almost certainly count on Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas to vote against equality. The leaves Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts. I can see either one of them going either way, based on past decisions and past statements, although I think that Justice Kennedy is more likely to be with us than not, and vis a versus with Chief Justice Roberts.
We are going to have to see how it all turns out. But I don’t fault LGBT advocacy groups for supporting/opposing judicial nominees on the basis of judicial philosophy in general in the absence of statements about “equal means equal”.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. The Cato Institute was certainly helpful in 2003 when it came to Lawrence v. Texas. Another libertarian law firm was as well. Incidently, I met the guy who help persuade both groups to get involved and write friend of the court briefs.
2. However, their has been an internal struggle within the Cato Institute as to whether or not they should be a conservative or a libertarian think tank. No doubt they have loved appealing to both crowds (and their respective wallets) , but [straight & religious] conservatives got upset when Cato helped promote gay rights (probably the first time it actually did so) and so they been trying to takeover the group.
3. Ron Paul and his son (now a Senator) both enjoy being associated with the libertarian label, which probably does not do much good for any actual libertarian. Again, it was probably financially good to be able to write newsletters that appealed to both right-wing American Independent /Tea party sentiment as well as libertarian sentiment.