Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 14:18:06 -0500 (EST) From: "David J. Edmondson" Subject: GLIL newsletter for 9/95 The Quill Q-Liberty Volume 3, Number 3, September, 1995 GLIL Schedules Elections September 26 If you are interested in the future of GLIL, you are invited to attend a meeting to elect officers on Tuesday, September 26, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. at 1400 Q Street, NW, Washington, D.C. President David Morris announced last month that he would not seek reelection, throwing the race wide open. During the past 14 months Morris has led a rapidly growing new voice in the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community. One based on the principles of freedom. Morris, an elected ANC Commissioner in Washington and Libertarian Party of DC Treasurer, will be stepping down from his GLIL position shortly, but during his tenure, he's revitalized the organization and put it on the right track. In recent months, GLIL became a membership-based organization and a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational group. In February we hosted a forum at the National Press Club that drew over 100 people to hear a panel discuss the FDA and HIV home test kits. For the first time in this debate, free market voices were heard on a national platform. In March, GLIL hosted an event to raise money for the Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League. This privately funded youth services agency was chosen because of their humanitarian work. According to Morris, the reason GLIL put so much energy and time into raising over $7,000 for the group was because, "it was time to put our money where our mouths were." Because Libertarians always talk about what private charity can do, GLIL felt that it was important to actually demonstrate the point. Morris and GLIL also received national media coverage on two recent issues. First was his criticism of the Virginia Supreme Court decision that said the state has the right to take a child away from its mother if she violates the so-called Sodomy laws. In the second issue, GLIL stood apart from all other lesbian and gay organizations in being the only such group to praise the Supreme Court decision allowing the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade organizers to decide who should march in their own parade. David Morris has made an important contribution in reshaping the debate about the place in society for gays and all minority groups; based on libertarian tradition. Breaking the Left-Right Dichotomy Gene A Cisewski Forget the Log Cabin Gay Republicans and their homophobic cousins on the far right. Depart from Gertrude Stein Democrats and their dependent friends on the far left. Instead of the left wingers or right wingers, consider a libertarian view, what Rush Limbaugh sarcastically called "up wingers." Gays & Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL) represent just that. In doing so, they stand apart from the two traditional flanks. The mainline gay groups who see government as our mommy don't get it. Got a problem, call a politician. Somebody hurt your feelings go tell the police or some "equal" sort of commission. These left wingers don't include GLIL as a part of the rainbow. GLIL's blend of individual liberty with personal responsibility creates a shade that doesn't fit into their spectrum. On the right, Log Cabin types just seem to want a place at the right wing table and even squishy moderate Bob Dole doesn't want to be seated next to them. Dole just gave them the boot when he returned their campaign contribution. You hear a lot of talk about smaller government coming from the right. Do they believe it? If Virginia governor George Allen honestly believes the Jeffersonian admonition for smaller government, he should be leading the charge to repeal Sodomy laws in that state. How can libertarian approaches protect our community; a diverse people that have historically faced hostility? Our heritage of racism gives people vivid examples of the vicious impact of discrimination. Add that to today's perverted free market a marriage of big business and big government that concentrates power unjustly in the hands of special interests and a sense of victimization is not altogether unreasonable. So now what? Massachusetts Governor William Weld told a meeting of the Human Rights Campaign Fund in Boston that they have to "find a bridge to the Gingrich revolution." Or else, he said, things will be worse off for gays and the whole country. Weld called for small government libertarianism. That's exactly what GLIL advocates. To see the benefits, we first have to separate intertwined government and private policies. America's tragic record with racial civil rights was government policy. In county court houses, rest rooms were segregated on racial lines. On city busses African Americans were forced to the back. Jim Crow laws subverted economic opportunities for blacks. Chain gangs often served businesses who made corrupt deals with prison and law enforcement officials. And it was the military that segregated black and white under a guise of "unit cohesion." All this was government policy not private enterprise. GLIL believes the best government is the one that governs least in all parts of our lives. One of the few positions held in common by these libertarians and the mainline gay rights movement is the desire to repeal Sodomy laws. It is not a proper role of government to rule private, consensual intimate behavior. The lack of laws banning such behavior is not an endorsement. Otherwise one could ask why there are no laws against children lying to their parents. Surely the lack of that kind of law is not an endorsement for child liars. And comparing the voluntary behavior of adults with pedophiles who initiate force against children is not valid. It is that element of force that makes the issues unrelated. In light of today's enforcement tactics, Sodomy laws violate a precious element within our Constitution. The equal protection clause is ignored when the only people who suffer persecution are same-sex violators. Read the laws. Heterosexuals make up most of the people violating these laws, but they don't get arrested or lose their children. On the national policy front, Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask Don't Tell," head-in-the-sand policy against gays in the military is wrong in GLIL's eyes. Retaining people for whom they are, not how they perform in their jobs, goes against true capitalism. Barry Goldwater got to the core of libertarian philosophy. He said that it shouldn't matter if a soldier is straight, but if he can shoot straight. The best military requires objective qualifications, skills, and obedience to orders. And the Tailhook scandal proved that acts of individuals ruin unit cohesion, regardless of orientation. But take note: the moral underpinning of why the military should not discriminate against gays is the same one that makes affirmative action quota laws wrong. If one accepts that qualifications and skills should be the basis for military service, laws forcing employers to hire people based on class violate that argument. You cannot have it both ways. In a true free market, there are ways to deal with the immoral practice of discrimination against classes of people. There's the mass distribution of information and boycotts, of course. But there are even more effective tools. Nobel economist Milton Friedman laid down a moral code for companies. He said that the management has a single obligation to stock holders: earning honest profits. When managers deal with anything short of how well employees do their jobs, they violate their fiscal responsibility to the share holders. In a real free market, this would allow share holders to sue for a correction in the policy and damages. Beyond that legal remedy, people with talent and skill will beat small-minded firms in head-on competition. As employers are free to choose who they want working for them, employees have to see their own value. Workers have to have a sense of empowerment and self-worth. Take your talents away from a bad company and bring them elsewhere or better yet, start your own business. All over the U.S. gays and lesbians prove this natural element of the free market. Like ethnic immigrants early in this century, many have naturally segregated in urban areas; providing our own sense of community and our own businesses. The gay gentrification of urban areas from Dupont Circle to West Hollywood shows the power of the free market in our own community. On other issues, gays seeking a truly just society share more in common with Ralph Reed than Barney Frank. For instance, when one applies the tenet of equal protection for all, one can see why hate crime laws are a bad idea. To enforce laws that make acts of violence against gays worse than violent acts against somebody else only creates animosity. Whether the person hates you, is mad at a spouse, or steals your grandma's pension check shouldn't matter. An intentional and violent act against another human is enough reason for society to intervene swiftly and severely. A real free-market offers us the best opportunity to pursue our own happiness. And it does so without stepping on the equal rights of other people to pursue their own happiness. The problem posed by the left and right wings is that they will step on the folks they oppose to get their way. A little more libertarianism from the left and the right will mean a more peaceful world for everybody. GLIL Press Release: On the Freedom of Speech Ruling (Washington, D.C., June 19, 1995) The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston was warmly applauded today by Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL). The decision, delivered by a unanimous Court, states that organizers of Boston's annual St. Patrick's Day parade may exclude the participation of a gay and lesbian organization. The Court argued that for the government to force the parade organizers to include the gay group would amount to coerced speech, something forbidden by the First Amendment. "The Supreme Court today unanimously affirmed our fundamental freedoms to associate with whomever we wish and to say whatever we want without the interference of the government," said David Morris, President of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, a Washington-based organization. "On Sunday, I was privileged to march in the annual Lesbian and Gay Freedom Festival Parade in Washington, D.C. Thousands of other people participated. It was an exhilarating experience," said Morris. "But what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled that organizers of gay pride festivals around the country had to include groups that disagreed with lesbian and gay pride? What would happen if a homophobic 'ex-gay ministry' wanted to march in our pride parades chanting: "Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Barney Fag Has Got to Go"? Would we let the government force us to include that hateful message with our celebrations? I don't think so." Morris said he expected many of his gay and lesbian friends and associates to disagree with his position. "On such a fundamental issue freedom of speech and association we set aside our personal feelings and stand up for what is universally right. GLIL members know that the First Amendment protects gay and lesbian Americans, but only if it also protects those who disagree with us or those who to exclude us. True freedom means we respect the rights of others as much as our rights." ED note: Indeed, we would wisely use our free speech rights to keep NAMBLA from marching with us. The same free speech argument conceivably can serve as a controversial cornerstone to constitutional claims against the military ban. The point concerning publicly-owned space is met as long as the state gives reasonably comparable access to all groups wishing to apply for parade permits and able to pay for them. Carbon Copy: Response to NGLTF on Affirmative Action Your call for help on affirmative action while recognizing that your heart is in the right place shows a lack of intellectual depth with regard to the freedom movement. Affirmative action programs have proven to be a failure of righting wrongs of the past. Instead, they have created bureaucratic nightmares and generated ill feelings between classes of people on and off the job. How can you set yourself up to fight this battle while there remains the so-called Sodomy laws on the books in 20 states? It would seem that you need to send your centralized Washington organizers out to the field and work at righting that injustice. So long as government can claim that private acts between consenting adults are felonies, no serious justice will ever be achieved. Forgive me for suggesting this, but there seems to be an overwhelming appearance on the part of NGLTF to embrace an authoritarian approach to solving problems facing many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals. Instead of working in the trenches, you appear to be happiest where you can hobnob with those liberal/authoritarian politicians who will welcome you to the White House for the full, white (albeit rubber) glove treatment. Consider the dichotomy that emerges with your philosophical inconsistencies for a moment. On the one hand, you rightly argue that lesbians and gay men should not be prohibited from military service based on their classification. Instead, they should be judged on how well they do the job. Then you turn around and dismiss that entire line of reasoning when you embrace affirmative action programs and rigid quota systems they have so often engendered. True justice is blind. Programs forced upon people at the point of our government's guns ignores that fact don't help us in the long run. Gene A. Cisewski Chair Libertarian Party of D.C. Make More Drugs Available Over-the-Counter Mark N. Hertzendorf In this essay I enumerate several important reasons for making more drugs available over-the-counter ("OTC"). Less Government Equals More Equity: Prescription drugs are "generally" available to the wealthy and middle class. However, lower-income individuals and families often don't have the same access to doctors as the rest of us. This often causes poor people to suffer disproportionally, as the result of untreated medical conditions. Permitting many more drugs to go over-the-counter would, therefore, provide tremendous benefits to the poor. Consider two drugs: the acne medicine Retin-A, and the anti-depressant Prozac. The main hurdle to acquiring Retin-A is, of course, the need to get a doctor to prescribe it. Since doctors are expensive, this hurdle is much more readily jumped by the rich than by the poor. While some rich people are taking Retin-A to reduce wrinkles, poor people with serious acne are left untreated. Given that the drug has been around for years, and used by millions, it is hard to believe it is not safe enough to go OTC. The main side effect seems to be that if you use too much of it, your face will become temporarily irritated. Of course, if you're a mouse and live under an ultraviolet lamp, you might get skin cancer. But if you're a human and don't live under an ultraviolet lamp, it can make precancerous lesions disappear. The main side-effects of Prozac are a reduced sex drive and insomnia. I don't recall if a study has been done, but based on what I see, many of the homeless people on the street are either depressed or suffering from schizophrenia. Now, it seems to me that if I was a terribly depressed homeless person, I'd be willing to risk the side effects. If it works for some people, then perhaps homelessness can be reduced as people overcome their illness and become functioning members of society. There doesn't seem to be any risk of abusing the drug since it doesn't make you high. I'm not suggesting that the poor should have access to exactly the same health care as the rich. What I am suggesting is that inequalities which are the result of government over-regulation are despicable. Reducing Medical Expenditures: The necessity of going to the doctor to get a prescription for a common malady wastes money and drives up the cost of medical insurance. Although, no one will doubt that some medical conditions require the intervention of a professional, the majority of doctor visits are probably used to acquire routine prescriptions such as allergy medicines (and antibiotics, ED). There can be no question that the primary beneficiaries of prescription medicines are doctors, not patients. For example, the main group lobbying against bringing Gynalotramin over-the-counter were gynecologists. Reducing the Stigma of Disease: Bringing more drugs OTC would reduce the stigma associated with various medical conditions and thereby increase the level of treatment. For example, putting condoms on display in drug stores has reduced the embarrassment of purchasing contraception, and has made it a routine part of life. How many people, I wonder, are left undiagnosed or treated because they are too embarrassed to admit they have serious conditions? In some professions (politics) it is even a death sentence to admit that you are suffering from depression. OTC drugs could help make the treatment of depression a "nonevent." Or consider impotence. How many men are left untreated because they are too embarrassed to admit they have a problem or to discuss it with their doctors? OTC drugs permit treatment to be a private affair and thereby reduce the stigma associated with having various diseases. Reduce smoking: Millions of American are addicted to nicotine. There is a safer alternative to smoking: nicotine gum. It is only available by prescription, and then only if you can convince your doctor that you want to use it to help you quit smoking, The death and illness associated with smoking could be reduced if nicotine gum were available OTC so that people could use it as a regular alternative for smoking. A safer cigarette that heats the tobacco rather than burning it, is also in the works. Let's hope the FDA does not decide it's a prescription drug and thereby needlessly condemn hundreds of thousands of citizens to lung cancer. The FDA will nag us into our own demise: The FDA's traditional response to criticism has been thalidomide -- the drug that caused birth defects in Europe during the 1960's, but was never approved here in the U.S. However, thalidomide is irrelevant for the current discussion. I have only discussed taking drugs that have already been approved by the FDA as safe and effective, and making them available OTC. Besides, for the FDA to bring up thalidomide every time its competence is questioned, is a bit like NASA trying to avoid budget cuts by referring to successful Moon landings 25 years ago, The real question we should be asking the FDA is: "What have you done recently?" Perhaps some would argue that consumers are too irresponsible to self-medicate themselves. Certainly the FDA has encouraged us to be irresponsible. By making sure that drugs have their potency curtailed before going OTC, the FDA has encouraged consumers to ignore directions and exceed the recommended dosages. If this is a habit consumers have gotten into, we can thank the FDA. In addition to the FDA, and a plethora of litigation, have encouraged drug manufacturers to warn us about an endless collection of extremely unlikely and not too serious side effect associated with every medicine. The procedure of warning us about "everything under the sun, " distracts consumers from a more balanced and appropriate consideration of potential side effects. Finally, I have no doubt that some consumers are currently abusing, and will continue to abuse OTC drugs, but this cost must be weighed against the enormous benefits associated with OTC drugs. Given enough time and enough dangerous drugs, most consumers will gradually learn to treat themselves sensibly. The alternative is to make us forever hostage to the power of doctors. (ED note: nicotine gum would still exacerbate circulatory system problems and heart disease. But personal use should not be the government's business.) Editorial Talk Radio I have a favorite dream: getting to make my case for a libertarian approach to public policy, as a gay man, on talk radio - the more "conservative" the host, the better. Our basic message is simple enough. We ought to build a culture in which individuals fee l empowered to manage their own expressions and destinies; we ought to blow down the crybaby "victim" blame-game talk that balkanizes society into "loyalty" factions playing teams in a zero-sum game. Libertarian culture would hold very person totally accountable for personal actions, regardless of "axiom of choice." No exceptions. People would be held to their promises and contracts. Such would be the narrowest definition of "morality." And why doesn't this work today? People, like baseball teams in April, start the "season" with uneven rosters. Some people get what they have by immorally exploiting others, while creating debits on their "akashic records." The trite solutions, from the "Left" and "Right", have been confiscatory "liberal government" and "family values," respectively. The political challenge is to make personal accountability (through private, rather than government, mechanisms whenever possible) rectify this bad karma of "undeserved" wealth. The revolution in information technology gives people both unprecedented opportunity to craft their own lives and, at the same time, to be held responsible for what they do. The work specialization that goes with technology hints at the new work-ethic morality, justified as "customer service." And there is personal challenge. Reducing government doesn't just make the "moral" issues go away. A wider-scoped morality might be construed as the compass by which one makes the a personal expression a benefit, rather than a cost, for others. This gives gay men and lesbians a good chance to act in synergy with the libertarian movement. For the competitive nature of today's market place has done more to discourage irrational discrimination on a personality trait such as personal (and private) sexual orientation, than could any government edict. And the position of gay men and lesbians in modern culture, as its downtown "melting pot" and its unusual experiences with "responsibility" in dealing with problems such as AIDS and the military gay ban, gives the gay community a unique pedagogical opportunity to provide the rest of society a unique perspective. The debate that "gay culture" provokes seems hardly to have started. Policy will have to face consciously, the question of balancing the needs and efforts of those whose lives center on personal expression, versus those socialized through marriage and procreation. The question goes beyond just accounting for one's own personal actions (like raising one's children); it invokes the suspicion that the values one expresses affects others in insidious ways. Gay culture, with its seemingly narcissistic focus, is accused of destroying the incentive for more "masculine" boys (of otherwise unremarkable talents) to channel their base power and self-image needs into expression through long-term self-giving intimacy - marriage - and parenting. Our day behind the microphone is rapidly approaching. Talk show hosts eventually get to do other things, like run for President. Rush and Ollie - are you ready for us?