October 02, 2008

Dear America

Why do almost all of your political leaders hate fags and dykes so much? Why do they absolutely refuse to grant fags and dykes equal treatment under law?

What the hell is wrong with you moral cretins?

All best wishes, mixed with considerable sympathy for your colossal stupidity,

Some Queer

I'll publish the relevant excerpts from the vice presidential debate later this evening or tomorrow, when the transcript is available. Meanwhile, a brief excerpt from an essay written over four and a half years ago by "Some Queer":
Make no mistake about this: even if one believes that the state has no business in marriage to begin with (which is my view), the fact is that in this country, and in this world at this time, the state is involved in marriage in countless ways. And it is nothing less than the most revolting form of discrimination for the state to provide benefits to one group (heterosexuals) while denying those same benefits to another group (homosexuals). And to do this solely because one particularly powerful pressure group, the Religious Right, has a visceral dislike for gays and lesbians is beneath contempt. And to enshrine such irrationality and discrimination in the Constitution itself earns the proponents of such a loathsome idea an eternal date with the devil.
I like the way that Queer writes.

I republished that essay from long ago in October 2006 (it had gone offline with much other writing when the archives were corrupted). I added some prefatory notes to the earlier piece, including these thoughts about my evolving political views:
Given my support of state-sanctioned gay marriage, I should perhaps mention the following. In terms of popular labels, it would probably be closest to the truth to describe my overall political position as being leftist-anarchist-libertarian. Theoretically, I unquestionably find anarchism to be the preferable alternative. History demonstrates over and over again that once any state is granted power, it will always seek to expand that power, until it finally tramples all traces of liberty underfoot, if it does not destroy them altogether. But as I indicate, that is only theory. For this historical moment, and certainly for another several hundred years at least, states as organizing political entities are here to stay. We shall see if the human race manages to survive them. With regard to the gay marriage issue, my argument is informed by an approach I have referred to as "contextual libertarianism" -- which I have described in some detail in this essay (which discusses general considerations and foreign policy), and in this follow-up (which concerned whether pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to provide contraceptive devices because of their personal views; for the reasons I explained, I maintained they should not).

I will be writing more on the following point shortly, so now I only mention this glancingly: for anarchy even to be possible (and to be a positive good, rather than only immensely destructive), a profound transformation of human consciousness would be required. I don't mean that fancifully; I intend it quite literally. The disavowal of a single overriding authority -- a power that commands the obedience of all under its sway, under penalty of law -- could only rest on a radically different conception of our own nature and, of equal importance, of how we relate to one another, in contrast to the ideas almost all people accept today. In fact, I think evolution may take us to that point at some time in the future; there are small indications supporting that possibility to be found here and there. But I doubt it will occur on any significant scale when you or I will see it.
A recent essay discusses certain related concerns from another perspective: The State and Full Spectrum Dominance, Abroad and At Home. There will be much more on these themes in upcoming articles.

On general cultural issues concerning gays and lesbians, you might want to read, "We Are Not Freaks." I should mention that the TAPPED post that gave rise to that essay in large part seems to have disappeared into the ether. But if you follow the links to the earlier posts of mine on the same topic (as is suggested in the opening of the "Freaks" piece, with those links provided), you'll find the critical passages from the TAPPED post reprinted as part of my own entries.