Press release at LP.org reposted to IPR by Paulie.
America’s third largest party wants government out of marriage entirely
WASHINGTON – America’s third largest party Monday praised officials in Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia for taking recent steps toward marriage equality, and urged legislators in all states to scrap government licensing, taxation and regulation of marriage.
“The government’s power to define marriage has historically been used as a tool to retaliate against minority groups, and the right to marry is the newest frontier of civil rights. Libertarians everywhere applaud this advancement of civil rights, but warn the only way to guarantee true marriage equality is to get government out of the question entirely,” said Catherine Sumner, LBGT policy advisor for the Libertarian National Committee.
“Removing government from the equation entirely allows gay and lesbian couples to enter into the same legal agreements and arrangement as heterosexual couples, and it would allow individuals and businesses to decide for themselves who to grant the benefits of marriage to,” said Sumner. “No individual, straight, gay or lesbian, should be forced to accept someone else’s definition of marriage.”
On April 3 the Iowa Supreme Court ruled the state’s “one man, one woman” definition of marriage violates the state constitution’s equal protection clause. On April 7, Vermont’s state legislature overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a marriage equality bill, nine years after the state was the first to allow civil unions. The next day the District of Columbia City Council, which allows domestic partnerships, voted to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere, with an expected final vote coming May 5.
“The power to define is the power to discriminate. There’s a reason why the government doesn’t decide who can be baptized, who can be ordained, who can receive Communion or who can celebrate a Bar Mitzvah. Libertarians think the same should apply to marriage, and seek to end all government intervention, licensing and taxation of marriage,” said Sumner.
For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 703-200-3669 or 202-333-0008, x. 225, or email Donny.Ferguson@lp.org.
47 responses so far ↓
1 mdh // Apr 13, 2009 at 7:30 pm
We have an LBGT policy advisor? Interesting. Is this someone that the outright folks have ever heard of? Her name doesn’t ring a bell for me at all. I’ve been to their convention parties and don’t remember meeting her.
2 paulie // Apr 13, 2009 at 7:38 pm
I didn’t know this either, and I’m not sure whether I’ve met her.
3 Don Grundmann // Apr 13, 2009 at 7:40 pm
It is good that the citizens of the nation can see the Libertarian Party openly working to stab the families of the nation in the back and betray our future generations of children by promoting homosexual marriage.
Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
4 Ross Levin // Apr 13, 2009 at 7:47 pm
With all of this tea party business, it’s nice to see the LP differentiate itself from the Republican Party.
5 George Phillies // Apr 13, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Rumor has it that Outright learned indirectly sometime last month that someone had appointed her.
George
6 libertaraiangirl // Apr 13, 2009 at 7:55 pm
What a friggin slap in the face to Rob Power and other well known gay LP members.
7 mdh // Apr 13, 2009 at 8:09 pm
@3 – lol. You should stop making Christians look like draconian asshats, as I happen to know some very nice ones who wouldn’t appreciate you behaving that way.
@5 – Heh. Interesting. Any idea from whence she cometh? Why are relatively unknown folks being given positions of that sort when well known ones exist? I’m not thinking from an “oh, they have worked hard and deserve it” angle, either. Strategically speaking, the known factor is always preferable to someone whom you have less foreknowledge of – even if you have some negative foreknowledge of the known entity. If that makes any sense. It does in my head.
8 derkel // Apr 13, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Not surprising to see the CP openly supporting discrimination. Still trying to warp the Constitution to fit their biblical beliefs.
9 paulie // Apr 13, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Any idea from whence she cometh?
http://www.linkedin.com/in/catherinethegreat
http://catherinesumner.com/pb/wp_3d0f84d4/wp_3d0f84d4.html
10 libertaraiangirl // Apr 13, 2009 at 8:31 pm
she’s a flippin hottie , she can advise me on how to be gay anytime:)
11 Ross Levin // Apr 13, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I still don’t understand how gay people getting married affects children or straight marriages.
12 paulie // Apr 13, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I still don’t understand how gay people getting married affects children or straight marriages.
Apparently, some right wing big government fanatics are afraid that if LGBT folks are allowed to marry, they themselves will not be able to overcome their longings for members of the same sex. As it is already, they are right on the brink. This would be the last straw for them.
Or something.
13 mdh // Apr 13, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Perhaps it effects children by showing them that we live in a society where rights are not taken away and replaced by regulated privileges?
Tom, you up for going to Iowa to perform the first gay marriages there? I totally am.
14 derkel // Apr 13, 2009 at 8:39 pm
“I still don’t understand how gay people getting married affects children or straight marriages.”
Because it will ruin the sanctity of the institution that has a 50% rate of failure and the drive-thru wedding.
15 Mik Robertson // Apr 13, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Good Job Catherine!
16 sunshinebatman // Apr 13, 2009 at 9:34 pm
If Utah legalizes polygamous marriages, is it sexist against polyandrists? Where is Utah LP on this?
17 Libertarian Joseph // Apr 13, 2009 at 9:48 pm
sunshinebatman: I’m for legalizing both
18 mdh // Apr 13, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – I want three wives and two husbands, and they’d better all be smokin’ hot!
19 Morgan Brykein // Apr 13, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I can’t even wrap my brain around the stupid arguement that same-sex marriage harms families.
I thought the Constitution Party supported state’s rights.
20 paulie // Apr 13, 2009 at 10:23 pm
21 Steve // Apr 13, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Its great to hear the LP actually taking the libertarian position on this and calling for an end to all government licensing and regulation of marriage instead of just congratulating gay couples for getting their sip at the white’s only fountain at the expense of the single, celibate, and asexual communities.
As for Ms. Sumner, she seems to have a good head on her shoulders and has a respectable career in history, but it is curious that the LP would need to hire a LGBT advisor when we have many activists from that community who could be consulted.
mdh – you’d better get to Iowa quick for the fight. I hear the straights are bringing in two of their greatest champions to defend traditional marriage – Bristol Palin and Octomom : )
22 paulie // Apr 13, 2009 at 10:35 pm
but it is curious that the LP would need to hire a LGBT advisor
I may have missed it, but I did not see anything saying it is a paid position.
23 Thomas M. Sipos // Apr 13, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
I thought the AIP was no longer affiliated with the CP.
24 paulie // Apr 13, 2009 at 11:13 pm
That’s the other AIP faction, which is aligned with Alan Keyes and took control of the AIP ballot line through the courts.
Grundmann is with the AIP faction which is still affiliated with the CP, but as far as I know is still not recognized by the state government.
Kind of like what the LP Arizona went through in 2000.
25 sunshinebatman // Apr 14, 2009 at 12:34 am
Polygamists and polyandrists are both homophobic against polyamorists, mdh. You should picket those narrow-minded bastards.
26 sunshinebatman // Apr 14, 2009 at 12:36 am
And many homosexuals are heterophobic against mdh’s omnipolyamory also. Purtians, basically. I think it has to do with COBRA health insurance coverage somehow.
27 Cork // Apr 14, 2009 at 1:26 am
Finally, the LP does something right. Now if only they would issue something about the war on drugs (there couldn’t be a better time) or Obama’s imperialism.
28 Catholic Trotskyist // Apr 14, 2009 at 3:13 am
Bad job LP, good job CP.
Go far right on family issues. Ban gay marriage, ban abortion, ban divorce, ban artificial incemination. Go far left on everything else. Socialist economy, no wars, no imperialism, enact environment regulations, labor rights, universal healthcare, strong education, open borders. This is the Catholic Trotskyist way, and the way the world soon will be, amen, Praise the Risen King on this Eastertide.
29 Tomcat // Apr 14, 2009 at 7:35 am
I’m still hoping to read an answer as to how two guys or two girls getting married does jack to my marriage. I mean, come on! If marriage is so fragile that gay marriage can destroy it, then you’ve got bigger problems than what two people of the same gender do.
I just love the people who want to make government just small enough to fit in our bedrooms.
30 Chris Cole // Apr 14, 2009 at 7:39 am
I live next to the district of Republican State Senator Jim Forrester, who is promoting a “defense of marriage” amendment to the NC state constitution. Like Grundmann, he promotes his amendment with bait-and-switch tactics. Notice how the LP release advocates removing government marriage restrictions, but Grundmann characterizes that as “promoting” same-sex marriage. Those are logically-distinct questions. It is as if opposing government rules against high-fat fast food were described as advocating unhealthy diets.
I have this question for him: since he is silent on the effect of divorce on marriage, does he therefore promote breaking up families?
31 Libertarian Joseph // Apr 14, 2009 at 9:24 am
solution to marriage:
step 1: eliminate the marriage license
step 2: take away all other state involvement in marriage/divorces
hmmm that’s all I can think of. Now THAT’S equality!
And how is the LP “finally’ acting libertarian? I never saw the LP take an anti-gay marriage stance. Are you dense?
32 Erik Geib // Apr 14, 2009 at 11:31 am
I feel like some in the IPR community need their own “jump to conclusions” mat.
Catherine is the LGBT advisor for the LNC, not the LP as a whole. This means that she’s a volunteer (to my knowledge) who comes into the office once a week to help work on LGBT issues. It doesn’t mean anyone ‘ordained’ her as *the* point-issue person; it means that since she is willing to come in the office so often, she has the title in relation to the LNC (the LNC being the office). And yes, she came in about a month ago.
33 pdsa // Apr 14, 2009 at 5:37 pm
This is exactly the type of position statements the the LP should be issuing if they are truly serious about appealing to the liberal/left side of the political bipolarity. I am glad to see this. The state has no legitimate right impairing free contractual agreements, made between lawful adults, based solely upon the genders of the contacting parties.
As to why right-wingers might view this as being a threat to “traditional” marriage, one need only consider what the politics are of persons who have been arrested for pandering in the public potties. If same sex marriages are no longer prohibited by law, many right-wing activists, will put down their politiking, and start actively seeking their own personal Man Dates.
The use of “right-wing” above was intentional, as no REAL Conservative would be opposed to same sex marriages. In the words of Mr. Conservative himself:
“The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they’re gay. You don’t have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that’s what brings me into it.” – Senator Barry Morris Goldwater, as quoted in: Lloyd Grove, “Barry Goldwater’s Left Turn “, Washington Post, July 28, 1994
34 Don Grundmann // Apr 15, 2009 at 4:05 pm
In response to #33 above –
1) There is no such thing as ” gay.” ” Gay ” is a marketing term for homosexuals.
2) Homosexuals have all of the rights that heterosexuals do. They are NOT being discriminated against. When the homosexual movement attempts to impose its culture and societal organization on the rest of the nation the normal ( i.e; not sick ) citizens have a right and duty to defend not only themselves but all future generations.
3) Homosexuality is a emotional pathology that results from the collapse of the family unit. Homosexual marriage is not a end in itself but is intended to open the door to a mass attack upon the children of our nation as a result of the lawsuits which will demand that all textbooks be revised to promote homosexuality when homosexual marriage is legalized.
4) Real conservatives protect the family. Real conservatives protect children. Real conservatives protect the future generations of our nation. Hence no REAL conservative would ever in any possible way do anything but oppose homosexual marriage.
5) On a deeper social/cultural level REAL men will never promote, endorse, support, or encourage homosexuality in any way. Only feminized males ( inferior men known as ” femen ” ) will promote such cultural pathology.
Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
35 Monroe Ficus // Apr 15, 2009 at 4:13 pm
You know what they say about guys who are really, really, REALLY anti-gay.
36 paulie // Apr 15, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Case in point: TroyKing
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/troy-king-reported-to-be-dating-troy-university-homecoming-king/
37 Ross Levin // Apr 15, 2009 at 4:55 pm
1) Have you heard of the term “synonym” before?
2) Except they don’t have the right to marry in most states. Hmmm. And you call gay people “sick?” That’s interesting. And how exactly is giving gay people the right to marry imposing “their culture” upon you? As a clever protest sign said, “Give me the right to marry my boyfriend or I’ll marry your daughter!”
3) Even if homosexuality is an emotional thing, why does that make it right to discriminate against these people? We don’t stop schizophrenics or people with bipolar disorder from marrying each other, do we? And if it is a psychological disorder, as you claim, then what do you propose we do about it – put every gay person into psychoanalysis? That’s just unrealistic.
Plus, how the hell would this be “attacking our children?” If their real agenda (as if gay people all did things en masse with all of the same goals!) is to change our text books (which is one of the crazier things I’ve ever heard) you don’t think they could do it without getting married?
4)OK, you still haven’t explained how two gay people getting married affects anyone but those two people (and maybe the local economy where they got married and their guests and friends, but that’s all positive).
5) I’m pretty sure being a man is determined by your genitalia. I might be wrong about that, but I’m almost 100% sure.
38 Trent Hill // Apr 15, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Ross,
Im no medical professional, but im quite sure you’re right about the genitalia determining your gender.
39 Michael Seebeck // Apr 15, 2009 at 5:16 pm
To Don @34:
1) “Have yourself a Merry Little Christmas, make the Yuletide gay.” Mixes Bing Crosby, Christianity, Paganism, and happy homosexuality all together in one compact lyric. FAILED IN THE MANGER
2) “Do you take this man to be your husband?” Woman: “I do.” Man: “I can’t, the state won’t let me.” FAILED AT THE ALTAR (not to mention the tax return)
3) That’s so laughable there’s no place to start, except that the failure of the family unit has everything to do with government tax policy and intervention in the workplace that causes stressed families to have to work two or more jobs at depressed wages to meet their tax burden and still make ends meet, killing the family unit from lack of time to actually be a family. My parents’ family unit failed not from homosexuality (there was none) but from dysfunctionality–and that problem knows no sexual orientation. FAILED SQUARED
4.) Real conservatives let people be responsible for their actions, including the ability to make them in the first place. Secto-authoritarians are the fools trying to regulate and legislate behavior in the name of subjective morality. FAILED BY THE CHURCH BELL
5.) REAL men are secure enough in themselves that they don’t give a flying f*** about sexual orientation. FAIL 180.
Got any more fish in that barrel?
40 Michael Seebeck // Apr 15, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Trent and Ross, I give you Exhibit A in counter-example: Governor Arnold Schwarzennegger.
41 Morgan Brykein // Apr 18, 2009 at 11:37 pm
I don’t see why you have to be a “feminized” male in order to support rights for others. The reasoning that we only evolved from Old Testament (Kill everyone who pisses you off) definition of “manhood” because of “feminization” makes me want to vomit.
42 paulie // Apr 18, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Grundmann is a manly man. He drinks Brawndo, the thirst mutilator.
43 paulie // Apr 19, 2009 at 12:05 am
44 Some Gay Agenda With A Side Of “Feman” // Apr 19, 2009 at 12:24 am
[...] Independent Party, the California affiliate of the national Constitution Party. He posted on this article, leaving some comments that outraged [...]
45 paulie // Apr 21, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Grundmann is very manly, like Sizzle over here…
46 Nate // Apr 22, 2009 at 3:33 am
Does the promotion of homosexual marriage involve a two for one deal? I do know a few homosexuals who are queens, perhaps I should ask if they used to be pawns and were promoted when reaching the other end of the chess board.
Seriously though, as if chess weren’t serious enough, do please elaborate on this promotional textbook theory. What textbooks are we dealing with here? How will one go about promoting homosexual marriage therein?
As to the whole “think of the children” argument, I always wonder why some people would rather force their children into an unhappy relationship or no relationship at all, rather than let their children be in a healthy one. I would think religious folks who really care about their children would side more with this quote from a Lawrence Block book: “Happiness is when your son marries a boy of his own faith.”
47 Gary // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:28 am
I just wonder how this plays with Donny Ferguson also being campaign manager for the leader of the anti-gay movement.
Leave a Comment