Yes, it matters to the future of the Libertarian movement what Bob Barr or Ron Paul thinks about gay rights

This is from I Like My Fic Like I Like My Bunnies, and for me at least it puts the whole issue of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and the question of gay rights in the Libertarian movement in a different perspective. Fair warning: this is going to piss off a lot of Libertarians:

I'm a campaign volunteer for a Senate candidate here in Michigan, who is a Libertarian named Scotty Boman. Naturally (because I wouldn't be working with him otherwise), he is in support of equal rights for the GLBT community. Now I'm more of a liberal on this issue than most Libertarians, but I think that the Libertarian path to equality is the most effective. It's a divisive issue, and many conservatives feel that liberals advocate *special* rights for homosexuals. By maintaining a hard-line constitutional position on this issue, I think we can actually achieve progress. It's a stance that can appease both conservatives and liberals, which is really the only way to get anything done in this country. I'm very dedicated to third-party politics because the partisanship is holding us back as a nation, and I'm sick of it. But that's another rant.

Anyway, so my candidate is pro-equality. I've been sending emails to Ron Paul mailing list members on Scotty Boman's behalf, and tonight I got this back:

To my brothers in the Revolution,

I'm for Ron Paul But the first issue that Scotty Boman's website talks about is the marriage amendment. It should not be a federal issue but our country is so decayed that people are fighting for Gay marriage.

In biology a man has sperm and a woman has an egg. The sexual reproductive organs of men and women are BIOLOGICALLY made to fit together. Homo sex says that nature got it wrong sperm are useless for people with same sex attraction, or eggs for women. Yes sex is a unitive act but it is also a procreative act and procreation is one of the foundation blocks of marriage.

I will not support a candidate that doesn't understand the biological fact that male organs are biologically made to interact with female organs. You can be against the federal government dictating that FACT to the states but you had better be very vocal about those biological facts if you do. Based on Scotty Boman's website I believe that he leaves the issue opened ended which is why I will not support him as of now. Homo sex is an act of aggression against nature. Their bodies were made one way but they WANT something contrary to reality. I believe that same sex attraction is something real but being attracted does not justify the act of having sex with someone of the same gender.

I have been debating people on this issue on Ron Paul videos on youtube. If the Revolution doesn't clarify it's position on this basic issue of human plumbing I will no longer be a part of the revolution. I have all the sympathy in the world for people who live with same sex attraction but I will never say that it is ok for them to have sex with people of the same gender and that means Marriage is out of the question. When gay people have sex it is actually an act of mutual masturbation. Masturbation is an act of simulation of having real hetero sex. A simulation is not the real thing. If sex and procreation are directly linked to the status of being married then there is no physical way for an imitation to have the same status as the real thing. Homo sex is an act of aggression against nature. It would force sterility into marriage. Two men will never have children together. Their sexual organs were not made that way. Even if both of them have potent sperm they will never fully live out the purpose of that fertility. Human desire does not trump Natural Biology. Sure they can engage in those acts but it will always be an act of force against the way there body's naturally function.

This issue has the potential of sinking the Revolution and this issue also has the ability of sending our country into civil war. If our country vindicates living in aggression against nature then our country does not have long before civil unrest destroys our peace.

What the fuck? Seriously? This kind of thing makes me literally sick to my stomach. "Aggression against nature?" Are you fucking serious, dude? Really? I really, really want to write a nasty response, but as a representative of the campaign, I have to hold my tongue. But I just had to vent about this... You know what, guy? There's a reason that Ron Paul people call their movement "The R3VOLution." Because it contains love. And healing. And stands for equality. You, dude? We don't want you.

Things like this make me want to go back to the Green Party. At least people like this know to stay away. I can't stand the damn Neocon Bob Barr who got the Lib presidential nod (barely), so it'll probably be either Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney for president for me, anyway. But more on that in the future... God, I hate people sometimes.

What's essential about reading the passage above is to understand that discussions of sexuality in this culture evoke the most visceral possible responses on all sides, often precluding rational discussion. So it's simpler and more immediately gratifying to just let fly with the venom that's been secretly held within for too long a time.

Libertarians have to do better than that. Americans have to do better than that. At the moment, embarrassed as I am to have to say it, from the perspective of LGBTQ (I forgot how many other letters to add) American citizens, if you are a single-issue voter based on which presidential candidate will actually treat you like an American citizen, your only choice is Senator Barack Obama. I am not surprised that Senator John McCain doesn't offer you anything; I am devastated that the Libertarian standard-bearer has such a limited understanding of human freedom that he can't figure out how it applies to people with different sexual orientations.