In the past few years several states have put initiatives on the ballot or proposed state constitutional amendments which would severally limit gay advances in civil rights reform and pose potentially dangerous consequences to the civil liberties of all Americans. Proponents of these initiatives have had limited success thus far, with only Colorado's Amendment 2 having successfully passed the ballot test.
Are these efforts an attempt to stop the spread of "special rights" or are they an attempt to deprive an identifiable segment of the population certain fundamental rights? As with any law we should ask: "What will the effect be on the individual in relationship to the state if this initiative becomes law?"
Should these initiatives become law they will place free speech restrictions on what teachers may and may not teach in public schools, will limit what counseling services may be provided to young people, will restrict access to specific books in libraries, will mandate a constricted standard of morality, and will institute official state definitions of what constitutes a family.
These initiatives are often based upon a deeply stereotypic views of gays and lesbians as predators of young children and destroyers of the family structure. Libertarians should question themselves seriously to decide whether or not discrimination based on sex, race, religion, sexual orientation or whatever, is truly in keeping with the basic tenets of libertarian philosophy. It can be argued that the core tenet of libertarianism is the individual and the protection of the sovereignty of the individual from aggression. Discrimination based on invidious bigotry has no place in a libertarian society, for bigotry has no other purpose than the demeaning and destruction of individual identity.
When Colorado's Supreme Court handed down an opinion affirming the injunction against Amendment 2 and proclaiming it unconstitutional, the court in its decision affirmed the doctrine that "One's right to life, liberty and property ... and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote." The thought of people actually voting to restrict the civil rights of targeted groups of people should frighten everyone.
These initiatives should be viewed as a clear warning to libertarians. The vigilance which we apply to the State must also be applied to groups who seek to use the power of the state to tyrannize and encroach on the rights of others. Vigilance must extend to protecting everyone's right to live as they see fit; the only intervention warranted by the State is when someone interferes with the rights of others. Rights which are inherent within each of us cannot always be easily defined, but when they are sufficiently defined and acknowledged, they should be protected with zeal. Only with this constant awareness can each of us be allowed to live our lives to the fullest.
It may be unsettling for many people to come to grips with the issue of civil rights for gays and lesbians, and, quite frankly acknowledgment of those rights may cause major disruptions in our society, but come to grips with this issue everyone must. It is unfortunate that people must continually fight battles for their liberty and the right to live their lives as the sovereign individuals they are.
Libertarians are well positioned to enter the debate of "special rights" versus "basic human rights." The discussion that should emerge from these proposed initiatives is not what are or are not "gay rights," but rather whether the basic human rights of gay or lesbian people have been subverted or violated by the state. Fundamentally, liberty means that we are all sovereign individuals, with differing views as how to live our lives peacefully. However, no one is better able to decide how each of us should live our life, than ourselves. Should not we as libertarians be actively concerned in taking a stand to preserve everyone's rights, no matter how differently lifestyles are perceived. Is this not the essence of liberty?
EDITORIAL REPLY: It is very important that we recognize the distinction between government discrimination v. private discrimination. Government actions that use race, gender, religion, orientation, et. al. are morally wrong because government is owned by all people. On the other hand, when the government goes too far and coerces the private sector, we get a special rights situation like that which arose in Madison, WI when a lesbian sued to other women for not accepting her as a roommate. Surely, the government has no place forcing people to choose folks with whom to live based on a quota system of sorts.
Similarly, we must also make a distinction between rights and privileges. A right is something we all have equally and which exists without denying somebody else if their equal rights. A privilege is something often called a special right when one person gets the access to such privilege through the use of government force at the expense of somebody else's equal rights.