The increasinly dubious Duke lacrosse rape charges have a gay angle, but it's not what you might think. From the blog Durham in Wonderland (via Instapundit), we learn that prosecutor Mike Nifong, who persists in what increasingly seems like a witch hunt against the students (accused of raping a black stripper), is in league with black Christian-right activist Victoria Peterson, known for her fierce antigay rhetoric. Blogger KC Johnson relates:
In August, the district attorney announced that he was "very pleased" that Peterson had agreed to found and co-chair his citizens' committee, a development that "made me feel good."...
The state and Duke Democratic parties are fully aware that the Nifong/Peterson axis contradicts the party's basic principles, but don't care enough about those principles to stand up for them in this instance, lest doing so risk alienating the party's African-American base....
Regional and campus GLBT organizations likewise proved unwilling to challenge Peterson. Gay rights groups have an (appropriate) reputation for sensitivity to anything resembling homophobic statements, especially by figures in power or those with access to figures in power. Equality NC didn't reply to my questions; Triangle Community Works responded that because of its non-profit status, "We don't have a statement regarding Ms. Peterson."...
What happens when political realities and ideological commitments appear to clash? The pairing of Nifong's flagrant violations of civil liberties in the lacrosse case and Peterson's outrageous homophobic statements struck me as irreconcilable with the principles laid down in the state party's platform....
Neither N.C. Democrats nor the state's gay rights groups will be well-served by fair-weather fidelity to their basic principles. I suspect that these organizations will look back with shame at their silence regarding the Nifong/Peterson axis.
Once again, left-wing coalition-building with feminists and racial activists trumps all.
23 Comments for “‘Coalition-Building’ Over All.”
posted by ETJB on
I am curious; what would you have the state LGBT organizations do. Regardless of your thoughts on the serious crime that they students stand accused of, how is this committee going to have anything to do with gay rights?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Unlike partisan Democrats, I support the rights of all people to a fair trial; not having their name dragged through the mud for a partisan witch hunt; and accountability for powerful public figures who make anti-gay statements, regardless of party.
As a Libertarian, I know that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties will refrain from allying with homophobes, racists, or other bigots to collect power for themselves and their inner circle.
It’s less a question of “coalition building” and more a case of “partisanship in the gay organizations,” by the way. The “Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund” recently refused to support — in any way — an openly gay Libertarian in Texas. The rep slammed him in an external e-mail which was accidentally sent to him, suggesting that a Libertarian in Texas is a losing proposition for equality.
Of course, the same organization has no problem giving money to — and endorsing — gay Democrats in Texas who haven’t a chance in hell of winning. Libertarians, Greens and even the odd Republican or two, despite being gay and having a pro-gay approach to the issues, can count on receiving no money or endorsements from an organization which positions itself as non-partisan and interested only in getting gays elected.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Here’s what happened with the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund who refused to endorse or even acknowledge the only gay candidate in the Texas race — not based on policy, but based on party:
http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-victory-fund-thinks-of.html
posted by etjb on
“I support the rights of all people to a fair trial.”
Yeah, something that would require – gasp – government. I do not believe that this is a simple ‘partisan witch hunt.’
The anti-gay person on the committee has no power on that committe to impact gay rights. Heck, this entire trial has little to do with sexual orientation and everything to do with rape, and a town’s divide over class and race.
The Libertarian Party certainly has no problem “allying with homopbobes, racists or other bigots.” Heck, the Libertarian Party supports the so-called ‘right’ of people to be racist and bigots.
The “Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund” recently refused to support….a third party candidate with no chance of winning? On my! They have limited resources and thus can not support all candidates.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The “Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund” recently refused to support….a third party candidate with no chance of winning?
The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund regularly supports candidates who have no chance of winning — usually wacky leftists like yourself who are running in conservative and western states as Democrats. So it would appear that “no chance of winning” isn’t a criterion for them which is enforced consistently. It also isn’t true in Mike Nelson’s case — he’s polling quite competitively, and considerably better than many of the liberal Democrats who GLVF have given time, money and endorsements to in the past. I don’t believe he was even seeking cash, just an endorsement — and he is the *only* gay candidate in the race. The arguments against endorsing strong candidates like Mike Nelson have no factual basis — the e-mail in question didn’t even consider his electoral position, his polling numbers, the office he’s running for, etc. It rejected him out of hand, flippantly, just like Democratic party ward leaders do when gays seek to run in conservative areas.
They also decline to support gay candidates in the Libertarian, Republican, Green and independent categories who run competitive races who have an excellent chance of winning local and state offices — but can be counted on, time and again, to mouth the latest Democratic party talking points and tirelessly support candidates in that party’s elections even down to the local level.
So there’s precious little consistency here. The “you have no chance of winning” canard clearly is not applied to any Democrats but suddenly becomes a big issue when it’s someone who isn’t a Democrat. The organization has not, to my knowledge, *ever* endorsed a Republican, Libertarian or Green for any major (or even minor) office — if it has, you’re going to have to look hard to find the endorsement.
About the only consistent thing it does is consistently shill for Democrats — and try to force gay candidates from other parties seeking an endorsement based on the issues to switch to Democrat affiliation before they’ll consider it.
Some “non-partisan group” you guys have got going there.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
the Libertarian Party supports the so-called ‘right’ of people to be racist and bigots.
We do indeed, because people have a right to be stupid and obtuse if they want to be.
I find liberty for all — including the right of bigots to be bigots — far more preferable to the politically-correct micromanagement police state which Democrats and Republicans alike seem fond of imposing upon the populace. One must, under the big government speech and thought regulations you’re so fond of, watch everything he says or does, lest he be labelled a “bigot.”
Of course, when Democrats like John Kerry campaign for anti-gay laws, that’s not “bigotry” however. It’s only when someone like Peter Tatchell or Dan Savage slams radical Muslim clerics for their homophobia, or blasts feminists who lesbian-bash, that your plan to “illegalize bigotry” is shown for the farce it is — not an effort to stop bigotry, but rather control the thought, speech and actions of everyone around you.
The only area where you differ from your Republican “opponents” on this is in what areas of our private lives and thoughts you’d like to regulate. Whereas Libertarians think that one’s private life and thoughts should be beyond the purview of the thought police on both the right and the left.
By the way, your party has no shortage of bigots in it either. You’re on awfully shaky ground taking pot-shots at Libertarians in that regard — our candidates for major and minor office could hold up their progressive credentials on race and religion and gender and sexual orientation to yours any day and it would be the Democrats who would be waving the white flag.
From your homophobic 2004 Presidential candidate all the way down the line, our candidates are vastly better on race, religious and gay tolerance than yours. Period.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
It’s only when someone like Peter Tatchell or Dan Savage slams radical Muslim clerics for their homophobia
Oops, I meant to say that “It’s only when someone like Peter Tatchell or Dan Savage GETS ATTACKED FOR SLAMMING radical Muslim clerics for their homophobia. . . ”
posted by raj on
I hope that you all understand what Miller is trying to do: tarnish the NC Democratic party, and Democrats in general, by alleging a link between a local NC prosecutor and an anti-gay black woman, which link was not criticized by the state Democratic party. I’m not sure how relevant any of this is to much of anything gay, but I’m sure that Miller will not tell us.
Regarding Miller’s link to KC Johnson’s Durham in Wonderland blog entry, it would be nice to know (i) why Johnson, who purports to be a professor of history in NYC, apparently takes a personal interest in the Duke Lacrosse case in NC, and, what is more important, (ii) why KC Johnson brings the “gay” issue into what is obviously a “race” case: his profile does not suggest that he is gay. I’m sure that Miller will email KC Johnson to get answers to these questions. /sarcasm.
posted by raj on
Northeast Libertarian | September 27, 2006, 4:22am |
The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund regularly supports candidates who have no chance of winning — usually wacky leftists like yourself who are running in conservative and western states as Democrats. So it would appear that “no chance of winning” isn’t a criterion for them which is enforced consistently.
As I have said here repeatedly (mostly regarding Stevie Miller), if you don’t like what the G&L Victory Fund is doing, start a fundraising drive that is more to your liking. Stevie is a partisan Republican, so I would expect his belly-aching here. You are not. And, you are more than free to start your own “G&L Libertarian Victory Fund.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
As I have said here repeatedly (mostly regarding Stevie Miller), if you don’t like what the G&L Victory Fund is doing, start a fundraising drive that is more to your liking.
That’s a legit criticism IF my complaint was that they weren’t funding my preferred candidates. That’s not my complaint — it’s their right to fund, endorse, or withhold same from any candidate anywhere.
My beef is with their fraudulent pretensions of “non-partisan, open to everyone” status. It’s clearly not true — it’s a Democratic partisan group masquerading as a “non-partisan” entity.
If the GLVF were only giving money to Republicans, or only giving money to Libertarians, there would be a massive outcry on the liberal blogs, John Aravosis and Mike Rogers would be organizing “direct action” and posting executives’ mailboxes for a sustained mailbombing campaign by supporters, and generally raising a ruckus.
I’m not advocating the same — I’m just pointing out the Democrats’ hypocrisy on this issue.
posted by etjb on
“The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund regularly supports candidates who have no chance of winning…”
Again, the GLVF understands that America is a two-party system and tends not to endorse an independent or third party candidate. Most interet groups, on the left and right, that do endorse candidates tend not to endorse anyone outside of the two-party system.
posted by ETJB on
“We do indeed.”
So, you have no grounds to be upset when other people do the same. Especially when in this case, the connection to an anti-gay activist has little or nothing to do with gay rights.
“Of course, when Democrats like John Kerry campaign for anti-gay laws, that’s not “bigotry” however.”
Well, then you have a odd definition of bigotry.
“illegalize bigotry”
Ah, the Libertarian Party – the party of bringing back the days of “white only” or no Jews signs.
“By the way, your party has no shortage of bigots in it either.”
Perhaps, but they rarely have as much power in comparison to the Republican Party. They also tend to support greater levels of equal rights then the Republicans or the Libertarians.
“our candidates for major and minor office could hold up their progressive credentials on race and religion…”
How is abolishing all Civil Rights laws even remotely “progressive”?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
the party of bringing back the days of “white only” or no Jews signs
Gosh, and here I was thinking that David Duke and Fred Phelps both ran for office as Democrats, not Libertarians.
ETJB, I’m going to ignore your ridiculous and desperate attacks on the Libertarian Party, as ad-hominems are an understandable attack from someone whose criticisms have no factual basis.
Let’s instead, focus on the one assertion you’ve made which is worth discussing:
the GLVF understands that America is a two-party system and tends not to endorse an independent or third party candidate
Let’s assume this (amusing) assertion is true for the time being and live in your shallow Republicrat world for a little while.
Can you name a single gay Republican candidate who the GLVF has endorsed in the last several two election cycles?
The GLVF focuses on primary elections and on general elections. Can you cite me a single instance of the GLVF making an endorsement in a Republican primary, or an endorsement of a Republican in the general election, for the 2004 or present election cycles?
There’s no shortage of gay Republicans to endorse. I’m not even asking you to cite instances where a candidate received actual funds — I’m asking for a no-skin-off-their-nose endorsement.
You’re going to have a very, very hard time finding one, if at all, and that’s precisely my point. GLVF are a partisan Democratic front group, and to pretend otherwise is only to make yourself look ridiculous.
posted by raj on
Northeast Libertarian | September 27, 2006, 12:10pm | #
Gosh, and here I was thinking that David Duke and Fred Phelps both ran for office as Democrats, not Libertarians.
Duke ran for office as a Democrat, but lost. Duke ran for office as a Republican, and won.
I have no evidence that Phelps, although a registered Democrat, ever ran for office. Note that the political parties cannot control who registers with them.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Oh sure, was just pointing out that efforts to swipe at Libertarians on civil rights issues, coming from the Democrat corner, are tenuous exercises at best. In general Libertarians have an enviable record on civil rights issues, especially gay issues, which the Democrats simply cannot match.
Incidentally, I’ll answer my own question which I posed to ETJB, given that he’s apparently decided to cop out.
According to the Advocate, the GLVF has endorsed 77 candidates for office. All but two of those candidates are Democrats — of the remaining two, one is a Republican and one is an independent.
That means that a whopping 2.6% (if you round up) of their endorsements are for candidates who aren’t Democrats. Even HRC is more likely to endorse non-Democrats.
Pretty damning stuff.
posted by ETJB on
“Gosh, and here I was thinking that David Duke and Fred Phelps both ran for office as Democrats, not Libertarians.”
I hate to burst your bubble, but just about anyone can get on the ballot in a major party primary election. Yet, who does get on the major party primary ballot has little to do with the major party’s values or beliefs.
Duke ran as a Republican and that seems to be the party for him.
The reason that third or minor political parties candidates tend exist in more of the ‘strong party’ tradition is because it is often impossible to get on the general election ballot with the support of the third party in question.
The Libertarian Party would welcome a return to signs that said, “Segregated”, “Restricted” or “Irish need not apply.” They oppose all such civil rights laws. This is not some wild fantasy that I cooked up; The Libertarian Party opposes ALL CIVIL RIGHTS laws that seek to provide equal opporunity in the workplace or anyother realm, i.e. housing, health care or education.
You can try to dodge the issue or squirm, but the fact is that the Libertarian Party’s civil rights platform would take America back before the 1960’s.
It is rather odd, to see you complain about my ‘personal attacks’ against your political party, while you call me ‘shallow.’ Especially since I bet I have done more work on election law reform legislation then you have even tried to do.
You asked: “Can you name a single gay Republican candidate who the GLVF has endorsed in the last several two election cycles?”
No, but then again I dont pay too much attention to whom most interest groups in America endorse or don’t endorse. I take the time to learn about the candidates on my own.
So, let us visit the GLVF online and send them a little email asking them about it.
“There’s no shortage of gay Republicans to endorse.”
Openly gay Republicans? Yeah, their is certainly a shortage of openly LGBT Republicans who serious candidates, running a serious campaign.
In MN we have one openly gay Republican state lawmaker, who barely won a recent primary challenge and by coming out has pretty much ended his chances of going far up in the state party. Did the GLVF endorse him? I doubt it, as he opposes equal rights.
Heck, they certainly did not rush to endorse me for Moorhead city mayor when I ran in 2001.
So, as a Libertarian which civil rights laws do you want to abolish first?
posted by ETJB on
I am not sure how I can make the truth any clearer;
It is a basic Libertarian Party principle that civil rights laws need to be abolished just as they seek to basically abolish all other laws, regulations, protections and rules. This would mean taking America back to the pre-1960’s civil rights era.
In California most of the LP candidates endorsed the statewide initiative that banned gay marriage. In Congress, the sole Libertarian Ron Paul (R-TX) not only opposed gay marriage but has been peddling a bill to overturn Lawrence v. Texas.
In Vermont the sole Libertarian state legislator joined with the right-wing Republicans to try and impeach judges that voted for civil unions.
This is not a political party that could be see as having a great record on LGBT rights issues.
posted by raj on
I should have indicated that Duke ran as a Democrat in a Louisiana election, which is basically “at large.” There is no primary. If none of the candidates for a particular office gets a majority, the top two vote-getters run in a run-off election.
Regarding the Libertarian Party, libertarians have been referred to as Republicans who want to be able to smoke marijuana. Probably true. I was appalled to discover that Ron Paul, LP candidate for president in 1988 (I believe) was a Republican representative from Texas in the House. How did I discover that? When we received a fund-raising letter from him to benefit Jesse Helms’s last run for the Senate. It was then that I determined that the LP was basically BS.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Ron Paul quit the Libertarian Party to become a Republican. In fact, the LP has run candidates against him since. Demanding that an entire party be responsible for the actions of a couple of former candidates is like demanding that Democrats defend Joe Lieberman, or that the Democratic Party is BS because I received a fundraiser letter from Zell Miller endorsing George W. Bush for office.
_It is a basic Libertarian Party principle that civil rights laws need to be abolished just as they seek to basically abolish all other laws, regulations, protections and rules. This would mean taking America back to the pre-1960’s civil rights era._
It is not a basic Libertarian Party principle to banish “all other laws.” In fact, that is an idiotic statement to make.
Libertarians believe in freedom of association. In a Libertarian society, gays who were fired for being gay could go to the marketplace and let them know what happened (as is happening now with the anti-gay American Airlines incident). Conservative Christians who discriminate against, or create a poor working environment, for gays could be fired — without falling back on “religious discrimination” laws.
Gay people who are concerned about being attacked by individuals who cite their “religious beliefs” or “cultural traditions” could demand action from HR which is decisive, rather than fear that race and religion “rights” laws could be used against them in a homophobic way — as they are every day today.
Further, for all the talk that Democrats do about “civil rights laws,” they’re able to run lots and lots of racists — Zell Miller, David Duke, etc. They’ve also been instrumental in ensuring that “gay civil rights” aren’t the equal of “black civil rights” or “religious civil rights” (statements by Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama, respectively, more than indicate this).
Rather than create a hierarchy of “civil rights laws” in which one minority has more “civil rights” than another, Libertarians seek a world where *everyone* has not only civil rights, but human rights, and nobody has a legal leg-up on another group of people which they can use to bully that group of people.
_In California most of the LP candidates endorsed the statewide initiative that banned gay marriage._
A patent falsehood.
_In Vermont the sole Libertarian state legislator joined with the right-wing Republicans to try and impeach judges that voted for civil unions._
Too bad you didn’t tell the whole story here.
The state Libertarian Party *ejected* that lawmaker for taking an anti-gay position. He was immediately asked to resign from the party.
When was the last time an anti-gay Democrat was ejected from the Democratic Party for opposing equal rights? A number of Vermont’s Democrats were, and remain, vocal critics of civil unions — none of them were ejected from the Democratic Party.
So Libertarians were willing to give up our only representation in Vermont at the time, for our principles — whereas, Democrats sell out gay people every day and tell us to shut up because they need the power.
You see, such simplistic talking points, thrown out in rapid succession, underscore the hypocrisy of Democratic partisans and their friends.
They hold Libertarians to a standard of 100% perfection and when we fall short of that (as all human enterprises do), they condemn the entire party. Whereas, their party is far and away worse on the issues.
That they would spend such time spreading FUD and developing consistent talking points shows that they’ve developed some worry over our ongoing success, increasing representation in offices across the country AND the spoiler role we’re going to be playing in key elections against anti-freedom Democrats and Republicans alike.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Openly gay Republicans? Yeah, their is certainly a shortage of openly LGBT Republicans who serious candidates, running a serious campaign.
No there isn’t. There are over two dozen which come to the top of my mind, running as Republicans in areas with strong Democratic support — often against anti-gay Democrats. There are another 10 or so running in strong races where they have a strong chance of success.
So the GLVF will endorse gay Democrats running no-hope campaigns in conservative districts — dozens of them, in fact. But they won’t endorse a single gay Republican or Libertarian or Green in a similar situation.
The GLVF will endorse only 10% of the gay Republicans with a chance of winning an election — and none of the gay Libertarians or Greens, even incumbents, who are running for election/re-election.
They’re a partisan Democratic organization. Deal with it.
posted by ETJB Part I on
“Ron Paul quit the Libertarian Party to become a Republican.”
Yeah, but whenever I talk with LP members that always sing his praise.
“Demanding that an entire party be responsible for the actions of a couple of former candidates is like demanding that Democrats defend Joe Lieberman, or that the Democratic Party is BS because I received a fundraiser letter from Zell Miller endorsing George W. Bush for office.”
So, the party of principle is not really the party of principle? Ok, we may have a weak party system but how many major LP leaders speak out when Ron Paul rants against gays freedom? I know plently of Democrats that speak out when Liberman opens his mouth and he lost the primary.
Um, yes. The LP Party opposes all or virtually all regulations on the private sector, i.e. civil rights laws. Some major differ in the degree, i.e. some may want public police or roads.
“Libertarians believe in freedom of association.”
As I said, the Libertarian Party wants to abolish civil rights laws and return to the days of ‘Gentiles only’ or ‘Irish need not apply.’
“gays who were fired for being gay could go to the marketplace and let them know what happened..”
Or they could hopefully be able to call a lawyer and let them know what happen because frankly the ‘marketplace’ really does not care or really punish people to too much for discrimination.
Blacks and whites could be segregated in private and public (which in a LP world would become private) employment, housing, etc.
“Gay people who are concerned about being attacked by individuals…”
Can they call the police? Well, in a LP society the police and fire department would be privatized.
In most states, a major political party has little or no control who runs in the party primary. I kinda of thing that that should, but that is an entirely new topic.
David Duke found much more luck running as a Republican, and the Republican Party leadership continues to oppose equal rights.
Let me see here, Jackson and Bareck support civil unions. Bush things we should still be criminals.
“Rather than create a hierarchy of “civil rights laws”
Their is no hiearchy of civil rights laws as any other undergraduate student in law can tell you. If it is on the books then it applies to everyone equally. Yes, thier is a three level hiearchy in the 14th amendment but it mostly because of the conservatives on the court.
Libertarians oppose civil rights legislation and all or most regulations on the private sector.
The Libertarian Party of California opposed the anti-gay California initiative, but most of all its candidates supported it. When I called the Ca. LP on this, they admitted as much.
“The state Libertarian Party *ejected* that lawmaker for taking an anti-gay position. He was immediately asked to resign from the party.”
Pity, the Cal. LP could not do the same thing.
“When was the last time an anti-gay Democrat was ejected from the Democratic Party for opposing equal rights?”
Well, most Democrats in power dont oppose equal rights. They support civil rights.
Your comments about electoral freedom are out of line. I am a member of Ballot Access News and Fair Vote.
I started up an organization called Friends of Democracy that lobbys for election law reforms in MN and the Dakotas.
I have made several efforts to get a ND ballot inititive on the ballot to secure equal rights for independent and third party candidates.
posted by etjb on
Please provide me a list of serious, openly LGBT candidates?
They will not endorse a third party candidate for the same reason that just about every interest group in America does not endorse such candidates.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
whenever I talk with LP members that always sing his praise
You’ve shown so little knowledge of the LP to date that I have to wonder if you’ve ever really talked to any.
The rest of your posting is tiresome Dem Party boilerplate which I’ve popped a half-dozen times before.