It is extremely hard to follow the lulzy and chaotic Republican primary (a serial adulterer, a google target in a sweater vest, and an indecisive hatchetman walk into a bar....) without noticing the long shot candidacy of Ron Paul, a cult hero among the Libertarian movement who is currently occupying the Republican primary. While it seems unlikely he will win said primary, he's in it to shake up the establishment.

So, what is libertarianism? The long and short of it is, it is a political philosophy that is supposed to be extremely fiscally conservative and extremely socially liberal, in other words, a belief that the government's only function is to pave the roads and lock up the bad guys (and free those who toke and hook). It is a political philosophy that looks good on paper, and I myself, have views on issues such as drugs, sex work, drinking age, and curfews that would make an Ayn Rand loving trust fund baby look like a real nanny-statist, however, in practice, it is a threat to vulnerable peoples, like myself, and assumes that everyone will treat each other equally, when in

Indeed, many on the left have even embraced Ron Paul for his anti-drug war, non-interventionist, and anti-managed trade agenda, including many in the Occupy movement, which of course, goes to show that many grassroots "fight the power" movements tend to be dominated by white, cisprivileged, heteronormative, able-bodied "manarchists" with enough subpoena envy to drive many people out of their movements, and could survive the otherwise 1% enabling of a Ron Paul regime.

For this post, I will attempt to break down many issues affecting the LGBTIQ community and how libertarianism, for the most part, would be counterproductive to those goals.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:

On this issue, Ron Paul has a view that neither supports nor opposes marriage equality as we know it now. On one hand, he believes that marriage should be a voluntary contract between consenting individuals and should be gender blind. On the other hand, he believes in "leaving it to the church" for recognition. While there are congregations who bless same-gender marriage, leaving anything to religious organizations is a bad idea.

And while we are on the subject of the church's role in Society....

WELFARE ISSUES:

Ron Paul has blasted George W. Bush's attempts to outsource welfare from a neutral, publicly funded arbiter to faith based organizations.
 

In a 2003 statement, Paul derisively labeled Pres. Bush’s faith-based initiative “a neocon project” that “repackages and expands the liberal notion of welfare.” In 2001, he proposed legislation to “amend” the faith-based initiative by offering a tax credit for private donations to faith-based organizations that provide social services. “Churches should not become entangled with government subsidies and programs because truly independent religious institutions are critical to a free society,” he said

While at first glance, this may be a somewhat enlightened stance, the fact of the matter is, it would lead to a situation in which the poor and hungry would be at the mercy of faith based organizations who have less than enlightened views on LGBTIQ issues. Even in the city of Pittsburgh, which I had to flee due to homelessness, the shelter system is run by religious groups who may not be enlightened on trans* issues, and the religious nature of these organizations often exempt them from any anti-discrimination law. Also, even in Austin, one of the most progressive cities in the country, a transwoman died because the local shelter was run by the Salvation Army. Do we want more Jennifer Gales to happen. Libertarians believe in self-determination, however, the unintended consequence is that those who are trans/gender variant will lose our self-determination under a libertarian regime. On the other end, Philadelphia (a libertarian would view many major cities as having a very "statist" government, and Philly would be no exception) has a city run shelter system that RESPECTS people's gender identity, thus, one could say that the extensive shelter system is supposed to, and has done at times, respected the self-determination of transfolk.

NON-DISCRIMINATION:

Having a non-discrimination law that covers sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accomodations, and education is, I believe, a cornerstone in LGBTIQ rights. However, libertarianism, at its very core, would oppose the creation of the enforcement mechanism (ie: terms like "Civil Rights Commission" in New Jersey and "Human Relations Commission" in Pennsylvania). In an email exchange with Det Ansinn, president of Doylestown Borough council (the municipality has had a non-discrimination ordinance since August 2010), he stated that there have been no complaints, and that the local human relations commission is all volunteer (which seems to be standard for many smaller municipalities which have done these ordinances), thus ending up budget neutral for the borough (and even if there was a complaint, the costs would likely be negligible). However, that wouldn't matter, as it would be hard for a libertarian to reconcile their opposition to big government with a need to protect the liberty of people who have differing sexual orientations and gender identities.

HEALTHCARE:

This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. Ron Paul has stated on the issue of Medicare and Medicaid:
 

In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector. 

I am not 100% against, say, pro bono clinics which deal with more cut and dry issues (they are often found in Philadelphia on a scattered basis), they are not solutions that we can bank on. I have exhaustively argued for single payer, and believe that it is the most efficient and cheapest way to take care of people's healthcare needs, and would also relieve burdens on business and volunteer organizations; the former being forced to be at the mercy of HMOs, and the latter becoming much more overextended under a theoretical libertarian regime.

Then again, we come back to religion. As one may notice, such religious organizations as the Catholic Church and the Salvation Army seem to love to take over where government should be involved. They are a well oiled machine which, if an indigent trans* person was left at their mercy, would not receive the care they deserve, either through refusal to acknowledge gender identity, refusing to prescribe 'mones on religious grounds, or even telling them to get out because "we don't serve crossdressers". Not to mention that there are people who believe that hormones are a luxury rather than a necessity (see George Pataki), and the expense of transition, plus the marginalization of transwomen, means that there is a need for transition related expenses to be covered under a national healthcare system.

ANTI-BULLYING/SAFE SCHOOLS/VOUCHERS:

Given the "let's bash government for the sake of bashing government" views of libertarians and Ron Paul, its safe to say that the average libertarian would OPPOSE anti-bullying laws (much like "New Jersey's Anti-Bullying Bill Of Rights") not only as an abridgement of "liberty", but because it is an "undue burden" on public schools. Since libertarianism at its very core, erroneously believes that people can pull themselves up by the bootstraps

Perusing Ron Paul's views on education, he claims that he is not 100% against the dismantling of public schools (surprisingly), but encourages homeschooling (which does not always produce consistently good results and shelters the child), and has voted to support vouchers to private and parochial schools, which drain money away from public schools. I do not believe that parochial schools, given their theologically conservative views on gender roles and sexuality, indoctrination towards an anti-choice position, and censoring out responsible sex ed, should receive any solace from the government at the expense of public schools, which, by their nature, are more neutral and students should never have to leave their liberties at the schoolhouse gate.

Basically, should I have to give up my pro-choice views or my gender transition just so I can get an education?

WOMEN'S ISSUES:

It is hard to decode Ron Paul's position on reproductive freedom. On one hand, he has said some extremely anti-abortion statements:
 

Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you’re going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as President. But it’s been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at conception. That’s not a political statement, but a scientific statement that I’m making. We’re all interested in a better court system, and amending the Constitution to protect life--but sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. My bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion. If a state law says “no abortion,” it doesn’t go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order.

He has also received a 0% from NARAL, however, he has also stated that laws should stay out of the abortion issue.

They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant; if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know how you're going to police it. We have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? Nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.

Despite these convoluted stances, Ron Paul believes that it should be harder for those who are low income to be able to terminate their pregnancy, and, sticking with libertarian anti-government philosophies, he opposes the funding of Planned Parenthood, which provides many women's (and yes, even men's health services) outside of divisive social issues (think, HIV screenings, breast cancer, testicular cancer, ovarian cancer). Of course, each dollar spent on Planned Parenthood saves money in the long run, but try telling a libertarian that.

In terms of gender equity, Ron Paul leaves a lot to be desired:
 

Today the lack of understanding and respect for voluntary contracts has totally confused the issue that in a free society an individual can run his or her business as he or she chooses. The idea that a social do-gooder can legislate a system which forces industry to pay men and women by comparable worth standards boggles the mind and further destroys our competitiveness in a world economy.

The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea of the voluntary contract. The idea that a businessman must hire anyone and is prevented from firing anyone for any reason he chooses, and in the name of rights, is a clear indication that the basic concept of a free society has been lost.

In the name of equal rights, Montana has forced insurance companies to charge women additional premiums to make the fees equal to those charged men, regardless of the economic realities that allow for a lower premium.

But once again, if we had a single payer system, THERE WOULD BE NO PREMIUMS TO WORRY ABOUT.

BUT WHAT ABOUT LGBT LIBERTARIAN GROUPS:

The Outright Libertarians are a group dedicated to bringing LGBT people into the libertarian fold. Needless to say, a perusal of their issues page indicates a myopic, bare-bones approach to the LGBT issues of the day.
 

Marriage
Libertarians believe that the government has no role to play in the relationships of people, other than possibly as a record keeper. While there may be privately-provided benefits to registering a new relationship with the government (lower insurance rates, for example), there should be no law saying you must do so or who cannot register. There ought to be no government-provided benefits to such registration (such as Social Security survivor benefits), but if such government benefits do exist (and there are currently over 1100 of them), then it's vital that distribution of those benefits not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (since LGBT folks aren't exempted from paying the taxes that fund these benefits). So, while Outright Libertarians supports the Libertarian Party's eventual goal of treating marriage and other personal relationships as private contracts, we are very glad that the Party's platform calls for the Transitional actions of repealing current laws and opposing future laws defining marriage or assigning special benefits on the basis of sexual orientation, both at the state and federal level.

Adoption
The government shouldn’t have any role in the adoption of children except as a record keeper; unless the government itself has custody of the child or children involved. Adoption, custody and legal guardianship are private issues to be dealt with between the custodial parent(s) or agency and the person or people who wish to enter into these types of commitments. Neither the government nor the police should become involved unless there is evidence of fraud, coercion or abuse.

Gays in the Military
If the government needs to keep a standing military to defend our shores, then there should be no greater difference made between gays and straights than is made between males and females (such as a stricter standard of what constitutes improper fraternization or sexual harrassment). And, in our opinion, no such differences should be made at all. Tasks should be assigned according to an unbiased assessment of the individual’s physical and mental abilities, not by some prejudice or preset formula that lumps people into groups.

In terms of adoption, it sounds like a reasonable plank; if a loving family with the financial and emotional stability wants to adopt a child, they should be able to, unless there is a compelling reason. However, a look at the phrase "Neither the government nor the police should become involved unless there is evidence of fraud, coercion or abuse" bears further examination. Consider the prevalence of Catholic charities, which had $30.6 million worth of contracts with the state of Illinois Department of Children and Family Services before the state wisely severed that relationship. One has to have a lot of buy-in power in order to contract with the state, and in a libertarian everyone-fends-for-themselves world, the Catholic charities would drown out others, and with the libertarian opposition to civil rights accountability mechanisms, it would sneak theocracy in adoption through the back door, as "coercion and abuse" could mean many different things.

As for "Gays in the Military", note how they did not include the transgender community as well. As for joining the military, Ron Paul's views as well as those of most libertarians call for a rightful draw down of the military and an end to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. This will mean that under a libertarian world, there would be less people in the one place where sexual orientation non-discrimination is guaranteed. Of course, I have opposed the repeal of DADT as a pro-war and trans-exclusive piece of legislation; the LGBTIQ community being served better by non-discrimination in civilian employment.

Of course, there is a reference to marriage equality, and do I have to explain the flaws here.

IN CONCLUSION:

Libertarianism, as it relates to the queer community, is something that would look good on paper, however, it assumes that everyone has the same abilities and same life experiences, and is on equal footing to succeed in the world, and frankly, I would not be too surprised if these Outright Libertarian groups end up being mostly cisgender white able-bodied gay males. Unfortunately, with healthcare disparities and ignorance bred by lack of education, among other ills, there needs to be a mechanism of accountability to act as a "great equalizer" or else, advocacy of LGBT rights will be an exercise in futility.

-Jordan Gwendolyn Davis