Editorial
Are Mass. Libertarians Controlled by Homosexual Activists?

January 2002

The Libertarian Party in Massachusetts appears to have been co-opted by homosexual activists.

Because of this, it is dividing conservatives and doing damage to “small government.” It is not helping it.

The Libertarians may believe that “small government” is the total answer. But it will not bring happiness by itself. If all we are thinking about is our own happiness, without any thought to family or country, we will surely fail.

There are many indications that activist homosexuals have taken control. It was particularly obvious last year when homosexual lobbyists complained to Bay Windows that the Libertarians were working too hard for the cause and damaging it.

These actions of the Party are perfectly understandable if it is, in fact, controlled by homosexual activists.

It would not be difficult for a small group of dedicated people, who also have access to cash, to gain control because the Party is such a tiny organization. It’s difficult to get people to work in any of the parties, including the Democrats and Republicans. But in this small party, it would be rather easy to take it over for your own use.

One of the more surprising aspects is that the Libertarians do not even list the most prestigious libertarian organization in the country, the Cato Institute, on its website. Cato works tirelessly for small government and is widely recognized for its careful analysis of many important issues that all conservatives would applaud.

However, our state group does list Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, which it says is “a DC-area organization dedicated to the philosophy of individual sovereignty, both generally and as it applies to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transpersons.” It lists this group even though the link does not work, apparently because the organization has gone out of business.

Exec. Director Tried to Answer

We have to give credit to the Executive Director of the organization, Kamal Jain, who attempted to help us understand the dilemma, unlike Carla Howell who only wanted to run away.

But Jain’s answers would not make sense to any thinking conservative.

When he says, “Ultimately people need to face up to their own moral benchmarks. ... [A]s long as they don’t harm someone else, they should not be interfered with,” he is obviously not thinking clearly.

We agree with his statement in a theoretical sense. The problem arises in deciding when it is that a person’s beliefs “harm someone else.” When two adults engage in sexual conduct that results in a new life being born, almost everyone agrees that those adults should not be allowed to walk away with no responsibility whatsoever for the new life and let other adults assume its care.

One can argue that we will never be successful in forcing those kinds of people to assume their responsibilities if they don’t want to. That is very true. But we can certainly send a message to all of society that that is not what a mature adult should do. Otherwise, our liberty ceases to become a blessing and becomes a curse for selfishness.

The libertarian philosophy becomes a libertine philosophy of depraved conduct.

We have seen the number of children who live without a mother and a father grow to enormous numbers, and we have seen that such children have enormous problems.

This is an entirely new phenomenon that did not exist before the 1960s. To try to pretend that the childish conduct by many adults is not related to the serious problems of many of our youth can not be accepted as serious thought.

It is true that we will never be successful in making every marriage into a perfect relationship with every child in a loving home. But it also cannot be denied that we did a much better job of raising children when we made the attempt and had stronger marriages.

Postponement of Sex

When Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique she noted that sex at an early age was found in underdeveloped civilizations. In America, it was found in the slums. She said: “certain postponement of sexual activity seemed to accompany the growth in mental activity required and resulted from higher education and the achievement of the professions of highest value to society.”

In other words, free and open sex was not something new and modern. It was not a sexual revolution, but merely a regression back to a less advanced society.

The figures that Friedan quoted were from the Kinsey report which showed that men who went to college had a totally different outlook on women than did the rest of the men in the population. “Early sexual preoccupation seemed to indicate a weak core of self which even marriage did not strengthen,” according to Friedan. “The key problem in promiscuity is usually low self-esteem,” according to Friedan.

If Jain wishes to argue that the state should not enter into marriage in any way, he would have a sound intellectual discussion. Most of us would not agree with him, but at least he would be making sense.

But when he opines that homosexuals should be allowed to marry also, he is merely being cute. Why is he picking out just homosexuals? Does he believe that men who have multiple wives should also be allowed to marry? Or how about women in group sex? How about heterosexual couples who want the benefits without the burdens of marriage?

Either he is not being serious with us or he is so surrounded by homosexuals that he is controlled by them.

It is not fair for him to assume that he is the only one who has homosexual friends or that all homosexuals want to get married. Neither is true. Many of us have friends who are homosexual and we have other friends who smoke cigarettes. They are still our friends, but it does not mean that we want them to teach our children that cigarettes or homosexuality are healthy and enjoyable.

The same holds true for marijuana. One can argue intelligently that we should end the drug war. That does not mean everyone has to agree on the issue, but at least there can be intelligent discussion. But when Jain gets into the effects of marijuana and says that it is less harmful than alcohol, one must wonder why he strays into this territory. He obviously does not understand that alcohol leaves the blood stream within hours, whereas marijuana stays in the fatty tissues for a long time and builds up as one continues to use the drug. He gives the impression that he is a happy user himself.

Effect on Afghanistan

Our country has always been a model for the world, one which our ancestors saw from afar and came to with great joy. We were known as a Puritan country where families were strong and children were loved. But since the 1960s, we have had a great regression in our morals. It has not been a sexual revolution as everyone has claimed. It has been a regression to the pagan days of old. All of our culture has glorified sex and drugs. Our movies and our music have all done so.

The people at a Planned Parenthood institute are telling us to encourage teenage sex. They have just completed a study which they claim says that America has more problems with teenage pregnancy because we are still a Puritan society and haven’t accepted the idea of teenage sexual activity as they do in Europe.

However, most people in Massachusetts still disapprove of what has been happening to our moral code. In fact, 92% of 600 persons polled in a telephone survey for MassNews reported that teenagers should not be encouraged to be sexually active. Of the 47% of the respondents who said they are liberals, it was 91% who felt that way.

The people in the Moslem world are shocked and repulsed by what they see happening in our country. This certainly has not helped our image in the world.

The Moslems are disturbed by what they see here. And they have a lot to be bothered about. We must change that image and recover the moral one that we used to have, with a belief in a God who is far more capable than we could ever imagine.

We see what has happened to women in Afghanistan over the last few years. But the image we send of “liberated” women, many of whom have become as lewd and coarse as men, is not going to help the women in Afghanistan.

We need to once again see strong, resolute women who can work side-by-side with men as they used to, not radical feminists and lesbians who dislike men and seek to constantly fight with them.

When we start to send that image of women, the quality of life for all people all over the world will improve immensely.

Read an answer to this story