The following was my unsubscribe message sent to the Libertarian Radical Caucus, a caucus belonging to the National Libertarian Party. Their foundation is strict adherence to Libertarian principals in promoting personal freedom (or as it’s description says: a free-ranging discussion via email about the Radical Caucus and its role in the Libertarian Party).

Their moderation is spotty at best, they’re highly infiltrated by liberals promoting cultural agendas instead of real promotion of freedom.

The discussion was originally about Bob Barr’s support of the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) as success for Libertarians in handing more freedom and control back to the state level instead of the Federal level.

I think I’m done with this discussion group. Rules of moderation prevent me from singling you out and saying exactly what I think of you, but since this is my parting shot, I’m not going to hold back.

I know what the legislation was meant to achieve, but when the intent behind the legislation aims for something but achieves another thing, I think it’s mighty hypocritical for you as a libertarian to call upon libertarians to ‘repeal it.’ As I stated before, it deregulates marriage and de-regulates the definition of marriage down to the state level. This is a step in the right direction.

The only reason for the Federal government to recognize marriage is for taxation purposes, and moral gerrymandering. The federal government has no business in my romantic or spiritual life, or the lives of anyone (not to mention income taxing in the first place). Marriage is a social contract with your significant other, your community, with your family and friends, and depending on your religion, with God. If you can find a church and a community that will accept your lifestyle choice, then you should do so.

Deferring to the state on the definition of marriage makes the definition actually easier to change. Local platforms are easier to speak from than national platforms. Again, I reference the Howie Rich initiatives.

If you are supposed to be a libertarian radical through and through, you don’t get to pick deregulation when it doesn’t line up with your pet special interest group’s wishes.

And finally, as a general aside and pet peeve of mine – I’m tired of being dismissed (by you) and accused of not “being in the same universe” (by goldrecordings) simply because I don’t walk in lock step with politically correct LGBT rhetoric. The LGBT rhetoric, more than any other set of rhetoric, is full of logical and philosophical holes that thorough thinkers are expected to overlook simply because it’s treason to offend someone from that special interest group. I’m not a racist, and I’m not a homophobe, and I’m not trying to justify some sort of anti-gay agenda.

I’m not here to promote liberal agenda under the guise of LPism. The right to define the word marriage is not one of the pressing social issues of our age. There are very few, if any, enslaved homosexuals being denied basic human rights, so attributing the same amount of fervor and venom to the LGBT movement as the Black Civil Rights movement is disingenuous.

On the other hand, I am here to promote civil liberties of Americans. Americans have been held without having been charged for years at at time, and it has been since way before the Patriot Act (anyone remember Kevin Mitnick anymore?). Attention to laws that abuse freedom are significantly more important than adhering to cultural liberalism and what are frankly tertiary issues.

Having said that and flouted moderation rules, I’m going elsewhere.

Peace, Love and Revolution.

/mark “rizzn” hopkins

On 3/7/07, Starchild <> wrote:


It’s hardly just my “personal opinion.” Ask any politically
well-informed person whether the people behind the “Defense of
Marriage” Act were trying to make it easier, or more difficult, for
same sex couples to have their marriages recognized. Again, please
don’t quibble about the precise wording of the act. You know the effect
the legislation was meant to achieve as well as I do.

Love & liberty,

On Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Mark “Rizzn” Hopkins wrote:

> Your personal opinion of the intent behind the bill aside, it’s a step
> towards, not away from, deregulation of marriage.
> On 3/7/07, Starchild <> wrote:
> > Let’s not mince words — I’m speaking of the plain intent behind the
> > law.
> >
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 09:31 AM, Mark “Rizzn” Hopkins wrote:
> >
> > > The “Defense of Marriage” Act does not forbid same-sex marriage.
> > >
> > > On 3/7/07, Starchild <> wrote:
> > > > Very good; in the United States, we can start by repealing the
> > > > “Defense of Marriage” Act and other laws forbidding same-sex
> > > marriage.
> > > >
> > > > <<>>

Update: Susan sent a personal message to me after I unsubscribed:

That’s showing real class there, Mark. *sigh*

/mark “rizzn” hopkins
For my blog, profile, and wikipedia entries, simply Google “rizzn”

intelligent discussion:

%d bloggers like this: