When the stars gather in Hollywood to see who will win this year's coveted Oscars, we will be raising money for a youth agency - with a little help from some of the stars themselves.
On Monday, March 25, GLIL will again present an Academy Awards Celebration for Youth with 100% of the proceeds going to support the Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League (SMYAL). The event takes place at Club Zei where you can watch the awards ceremony on a three-story bank of television monitors, enjoy great food, and take part in a celebrity silent auction.
According to event co-chair Gene A. Cisewski, the auction was one of the most popular features last year. Already, he has gather an amazing array of items, including autographed pictures of James Earl Jones and Debbie Reynolds; autographed copies of "Breaking the Surface" from Greg Louganis, "Love! Valour! Compassion!" and "Master Class" from author Terrence McNally, "The Human Animal" from Phil Donohue, the "Chuckles Bites the Dust" script from Mary Tyler Moore, a cook book from Julia Child, "Free to Be . . . A Family" from Marlo Thomas, "Selected Plays of Edward Albee" from the author; an autographed baseball hat from Ted Turner, an autographed photo with T-Shirt from Anne Meara & Jerry Stiller, "The Tour" sweatshirt from Julie Andrews, and an official 1996 poster from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences.
There's another special item going on the block: one of the few remaining copies of the original "Happy Days" scripts from (and signed by) Henry Winkler, including hand-written notes on the front page. This script is from the episode originally titled "Not So Happy Days," with "3-On a Porch" penned in later. It was the 48th episode of 255 and bears the "received" stamp from producer Tony Marshall dated August 25, 1975.
According to GLIL president Odell Huff, "This year we'll have improved viewing in the Producers' lounge on the third floor of Club Zei." Huff said that the event is shaping up to be a huge success and organizers hope to raise nearly $10,000 for SMYAL.
SMYAL is a non-profit, volunteer-based group serving sexual minority youth in D.C., northern Virginia and Maryland. They provide support groups, healthy social programs, family counseling services, and a Hotline.
Tickets will be available from GLIL members, at SMYAL, or at Lambda Rising Books and are $100 and $30.
'CONSERVATIVES' CHOKE ON GAY 'MARRIAGE' ISSUE -
Since the "threat" that Hawaii will eventually legalize gay marriage has become credible, 18 states now have introduced legislation limiting "marriage" to opposite-sex couples, and three have considered bills which would void their recognition of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to honor other state's same-sex marriage. At the Iowa Caucus, "conservatives" gloat in their rallies to "Protect Marriage." So Bob Dole admonishes that resolutions to defeat gay marriage don't go far enough. We have to "provide tax incentives to married couples and tax credits for those couples who produce children" (Washington Blade)"
OK, Bob Dole, do you mean, that since I am an unmarried man without children, that I should further subsidize the raising of other people's children? Is the government once again going to define me as a second class citizen with (to quote the Cat talking to the Piglet in the satire-film Babe) no "purpose"? Does this give the government a "moral" right to pick my pocket?
And, really, do I need to have government tell me I'm a house cat and not a piglet?
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL ACTUALLY MAKES A LIBERTARIAN SUGGESTION:
According to Gary Bauer of the FRC, employers should offer "family-oriented workers greater discretion over when, where, and how they work for pay." Well, Gary, why not all workers? In other communiqué–s, the "pro-family" crowd is coming up with some doozies. "No society can afford a succession of Me generations" .... "If you produce your babies four or more years apart..." "The average household income for homosexuals is $59,000 per year, versus $32,000 for heterosexuals. Almost 60% have college degrees versus 8% if the general population."
THE MILITARY BAN DEBATE WILL GROW BACK: All the Republican candidates (now, even Forbes) are disapproving of "don't ask, don't tell" and implying an outright ban on gays in the military should be re-imposed. That is, the government is supposed to ask 17-year old male recruits about their sex fantasies or if they like girls yet. Sure. Watch what follows for civilians holding security clearances and for teachers. It's back to the closet of Hoover and Cohn, characters who, like the opera hero Lohengrin, tried to get through life without saying who they were.
But the Dec. 31 In Newsweekly reports there are four (TV or cable) films on gays in the military in production or at least negotiation. I can imagine what is coming for this fall's campaign. This subject needs to be on a 70-mm Panavision screen.
INDECENCY
A Federal judge in Philadelphia temporarily blocked part of the Communications Decency Act, making it a crime to make "indecent" material available to minors (even incidentally) over computer networks. The undefined work "indecent" will leave reasonable people perplexed, the judge wrote. Indeed. Could AOL have allowed its Gay and Lesbian Forum to continue? Would our own WWW page be jeopardized?
The ACLU, which outside of the affirmative action quagmire is becoming more libertarian, has criticized the mandated TV V-chips because they carry precoded ratings of minor acceptability, allowing the government to decide what TV programs are suitable for children.
GAY TEACHERS: In Michigan this fall, religious conservatives have tried to force a school board to fire a music teacher upon rumors that the teacher had engaged in a same sex marriage. At one point, the school board try to buy the teacher out to get him to leave. The story has been widely circulated on the Internet. It shows how the mentality underneath the military ban surfaces in civilian occupations.
DRUGS:
National Review is now publishing a series of commentaries, "The War on Drugs is Lost." The case is made that the drug wars simply hand over to government the job of preventing otherwise responsible adults from harming themselves through self-medication. Furthermore, our Constitutional protections are perverted by witch-hunts, and "civil" asset forfeitures How decriminalization should be done is not year clear. With some substances, the medical case for "victimlessness" may be more complicated than it looks. Homosexuality and drug-use are very different issues morally, and the consequences of government suppression are not as identical as libertarians usually presume.
GUNS.
In Virginia, it may soon be legal to carry a concealed weapon into a bar. You may be able to protect yourself in the parking lot. Though, we have no bar now in Old Town to get mugged walking to.
BIG GOVERNMENT.
I was talking a the FHA the day after the second government shutdown ended, about a foreclosure I am having to do. The clerk was more concerned about her job than my question, and she blurted out that the FHA might soon be abolished, along with its mortgage insurance. Good riddance! Government mortgage insurance just makes homeowners think they don't have to cover deficiencies if they default after they lose when they gamble with other people's money.
So Bill Clinton is laughing because a plurality of voters in some states don't recognize Buchanan for what he is, a "national collectivist" who will put gays and lesbians together with Wall Street Bankers as the next group for Cultural Revolution re-education and relocation. Right folks. If Buchanan really gets in, expect Big Government to "ask" a lot, and not just in the military. He would bring back the draft, anyway.
David Morris, past president, is running for DC City Council.
Gene Cisewski holds the positions in the LP of Chair of the Libertarian Party of the District of Columbia and National Coordinator of the Libertarian Party Council of State Chairs (elected by my peers from the other states in October).
On February 12, Gene A. Cisewski took the stand in U.S. District Court as a Libertarian Party co-plaintiff in the Black Police Association, et. al. vs. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics. The suit, sponsored by the ACLU and being argued for the plaintiffs by the D.C. law firm of Ross, Dixon & Masback, seeks to overturn the strict campaign contributions imposed on D.C. residents by Initiative 41.
According to Cisewski's testimony, the severe limits put minority parties at a serious disadvantage because establishment parties were able to create huge lists of potential donors prior to the established limits. New parties have to spend a far greater proportion of their resources just to develop lists that will generate enough funds to mount campaigns. Cisewski said, "just because the limits may be struck down does not mean we'll find the bigger donors - but at least it gives us a chance to raise the money it takes to get media attention. The current limits, while well-intentioned, close the system to new parties and new ideas.
Saying that "the party of slavery and corrupt city bosses" no longer represents working and middle class citizens, Gene Cisewski also called on his party to target Democrats in an address in Long Beach, Calif. He said that while the Constitution doesn't limit voters' choices to only two parties, that's the way the system has evolved. "It would be a serious error on our part not to build us as the Democratic alternative."
In making his case, Cisewski cited more than 100 elected officials who have crossed party lines in the past 12 months, the high number of Democratic retirements facing Congress, and President Clinton's "State of the Union message where he sounded more enthusiastic for Republicanism than the anemic Bob Dole did in his response."
With Libertarians planning to run more than 1,000 candidates this year, including candidates for more than half of the Congressional seats, this strategy could have a profound effect on who controls government after the elections. In close contests, the LP has been credited with throwing a growing number of tight races, including the recent special U.S. Senate race in Oregon.
Cisewski was critical of the GOP's agenda, but said that's "a fight we have to save until after we put the Democrats out of their misery and we have some power to fight them in our city halls, our state houses, and in the halls of Congress."
With more than 2,000 members and the largest Libertarian voter registration, the California party represents more than 15% of the national party. According to Gail Lightfoot, the LP-CA Chair, her organization will mount challenges for 43 U.S. House seats this year.
Robert Cassier will soon publish a play "Second in the Realm" about the historical background of the Magna Carta.
Do you believe government should get out of the social engineering and wealth confiscation business? Do you also believe should get out of the bedroom and back out of legislating ambiguous areas of cultural morality? Do you believe that commitment to others in intimate relationships should remain the prerogative of the individual or family and not become predicated on government approbation? Are you a person who keeps promises out of own character and honor regardless of what the government does?
Then, you are a libertarian. GLIL can help give you a voice.
Dear Friend of Liberty,
The gay individual rights movement has made great progress the past decade. We owe gratitude and tribute to the individuals and groups that have helped gays and lesbians become comfortable with themselves, helped us come out, helped regain some of our rights, and cared for our sick.
However, much work remains to be done.
The government is still the chief oppressor of gays. Big Daddy continues to exclude qualified soldiers from the military because they are honest. We still cannot form legal domestic partnerships in any state.
Our children are forced to "learn" in schools that teach intolerance and not much else. Non-teaching educrats work to eliminate parental choice in schooling and then allow statists to propagandize, bullies to terrorize, and deny gay and lesbian students their dignity.
Our health care choices are severely limited by an FDA that arrogantly dictates what risks we are allowed to take and what care is right for us, and then denies our dying friends medicines that could ease their pain. I don't need to remind you of the pain that each of us has seen in the faces of our friends as they waste away and die one by one-the pain which I'm sure Bill Clinton so acutely feels.
What do the establishment gay leadership organizations propose as the solution to these problems? Why, ask the government to protect us from our victimizers! The irony of looking to the Great Oppressor to deliver us from the problems it itself creates is not lost to GLIL members. Since when has the government been our friend? We do not have faith that the state can deliver us from its own addiction to coercion.
While we must always be grateful to the establishment groups for the good they have done, we also must have the courage to depart when their policies are misguided.
We must speak up when they deny the ideological diversity of our sub-culture and pretend that all gays and lesbians are big-government socialists enamored of social engineering, income redistribution, and laws that erode our right to freely associate, as well as the rights of straights. We must oppose when they propose to eliminate our liberties in the name of protecting them.
Pro-freedom gays can provide options to the gays and lesbians throughout the country who feel alienated by the establishment gay leadership. I believe that most gays do not want to desecrate the family, the church, and the community. They are angered by the tactics of the gay agitators who serve mainly to stir-up political backlashes, such as Colorado's Amendment 2, to promote negative stereotypes, and to solidify anger and fear among religious groups and mainstream families that are offended.
I believe most gays do not see themselves as victims-except by the government-and are offended by the notion that we need the government to protect us in our jobs and housing decisions. Gays and lesbians discover, by coming out and treating our straight friends, family members, and colleagues with patience and understanding, that bigotry is usually eroded. They know that bigotry and hate are no threat to us unless it can be institutionalized and legitimized through government force.
GLIL will work to solve the serious problems of gays and lesbians through peaceful, voluntary means. We will try discover and promulgate solutions that protect the liberties of all individuals. And we will continue to offer an alternative to the failed promises of statist establishment groups.
If you are not a member of the GLIL, but want to become involved with our work, I invite you to join us today. Our ideas and strategies are different than any other group. I believe our ideas are the best hope for gays and lesbians to leave peacefully alongside our straight friends, families, and colleagues. Help us create the institutions for a new generation of gays and lesbians that will help them become happy, healthy, productive, and responsible adults.
Yours in liberty,
Odell Huff
We invite you to become a member of GLIL. Please see our membership form.
-----
HIV home testing video tape forum from February, 1994 may be ordered from GLIL for $19.95.
Send check to GLIL at PO Box shown in the membership form.
-----
From our membership coordinator:
Everyone with e-mail should send a note to "sonogalt@aol.com" with their e-mail address, current snail-mail address and phone number. Our membership coordinator is trying to clean up the mailing list and to prepare for moving people into electronic distribution for meeting notices, mailings, etc.
Note also our GLIL web site (home page). It has a library of past Quill/Q-Liberty newsletters online. There is a friendly Internet news group at "alt.politics.libertarian.gay"
by Gene A. Cisewski
With legal battles in Hawaii, legislative initiatives from the right wing and the usual gay activists, the gay marriage issue is rapidly consuming us. Before the battle lines become any more rigid, are there options yet to be explored? Maybe nobody should get a marriage license!
The gay community could take a page from conservative rhetoric. Consider a couple of key terms from House Speaker Newt Gingrich: privatization and less government intrusion into the everyday lives of Americans.
Start with fundamental questions. Why should government regulate marriage? What does a government issued marriage license mean?
One assumes that to get a driver's license, one must demonstrate a certain degree of competence in driving. The same reasoning is true of cosmeticians', morticians', law, and medical licenses. Such is not the case with a marriage license.
One can hardly make a case for encouraging marriage to sustain the population. We won't run out of people. And with the teen birth rate, nobody has to encourage child bearing.
That leaves one argument that conservatives use; the institution helps stabilize families. In light of their attacks on lesbians and gays, it seems they should embrace same-sex unions.
Those who frequently bash lifestyles different from their own rarely talk about negatives in marriage. Dead beat dads, battered spouses, and incestuously abused children grow ever more common within these licensed units. Certain family models may provide statistically better environments for the masses, but this collectivist argument for public policy goes against individual liberty and responsibility.
Consider a separation of marriage and state. Eliminate marriage licensing. Strip the law of references to marital status. Decide that affairs of the heart are none of the government's business.
That would reduce the intrusion of government into our everyday lives. But do conservatives really mean what they say about less government? This idea would also mean that all people are equal before the law. Can that satisfy gay and lesbian activists?
Family life and matrimony will not end just because government gets out of the business. People got married long before officials issued little pieces of paper. With government out of the way, the private sector will fill the void.
Each religious denomination would continue to marry people. They can offer marriage contracts to pick up where Common Law falls short. No law should ever force a community of faith to perform a ceremony for those who don't share their values.
For those choosing to marry without a religious context, lawyers and paralegals can prepare the partnership contract. Office Depot could even carry standardized forms.
As far as government is concerned, marriage is a voluntary contract entered into by individuals. That won't change. One just wouldn't have to ask permission to do it. All of the legalities would still be in place with the courts to arbitrate any dissolution as necessary.
When adults fall in love, it's none of the government's business. These matters properly belong with families, churches, and the individuals involved. When that love grows to a point where individuals want to form a permanent union, there should be no governmental authority higher than that love. The responsibility to develop the relationship and the consequences of those actions belong to the individual parties.
by David D. Doss
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.
The Editor welcomes comments, by eMail (to JBOUSHKA@aol.com) or mail to the GLIL PO Box shown in our membership form. To be considered for publication, letters should be concise, stay on one topic, and run fewer than 400 words.