I can’t remember if I’ve said this before, but the Tea Parties make me extremely uneasy, which is why I have been so cautious about saying anything positive about them.

When they first started, I was equal parts hopeful and skeptical that in spite of being a mixed bag of Christian Fundamentalists, libertarians, and even some Objectivists, that the tea parties as a movement would turn to be explicitly and properly dedicated to promoting the defense of individual rights.

As time has passed, it seems to me that the tea parties (I think there are several by now) have been moving to meet my worst expectations.

This afternoon, though, I stumbled across this quotation from Ayn Rand:

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.

Are the tea parties going to become the new Libertarians for Objectivists?

I just saw this quote:

A strong middle class equals a strong America. We can’t have one without the other.  This Task Force will be an important vehicle to assess new and existing policies across the board and determine if they are helping or hurting the middle class.  It is our charge to get the middle class – the backbone of this country – up and running again.

Instead of working to make everyone part of the middle class, why aren’t these alleged do-gooders working to make us all part of the upper class?  I mean, judging from their actions and words, they don’t just want to lift up the poor, but they want to knock down the rich and just mush everyone into the middle.

It’s like an legislative orgy of mediocrity there in Congress.

It also strikes me as patently foolish to regard the “middle” of this relative hierarchy as some how a clear-cut objective goal for our economy.  If we want to drag more people up to where the middle is now, shouldn’t we do things to let the upper get even higher? And don’t tell me those folks don’t know that the hierarchy of incomes is relative because they’re constantly looking at how poor the poor are versus how rich the rich are.

Isn’t it clear that this obsession with the middle that so many in Washington have is actually fueled by malice and disdain for Americans both rich and poor alike?

LA Times: L.A. council bans most official travel to Arizona

The Los Angeles City Council, protesting Arizona’s tough crackdown on illegal immigration, voted Wednesday to ban most city travel to Arizona and future contracts with companies in that state.

[...]

The council also called on the city attorney’s office to review all of the city’s $58 million in existing contracts with Arizona companies to determine which can be canceled.

The resolution, which now heads to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, would still allow city officials to travel to Arizona under “special circumstances” that are in the city’s interests. Also, existing contracts with Arizona firms would be exempt from the ban if canceling them would lead to “significant additional cost” to the city.

So, this law in Arizona is mean, wrong, and offensive.  Unlike many, I am less concerned about the way it will undoubtedly lead to racial profiling than the way that it endorses and demands the continued violation of all individuals’ rights in the state.

But if that weren’t bad enough, the city of LA has taken it upon itself to comment officially on the legislation of a completely separate government.  I imagine Tokyo (not the country of Japan) passing a law about how much they don’t like some law passed in the Czech Republic and so they won’t do business there.

Also, the immigration law is something that the state of Arizona did.  I assume, perhaps I’m wrong, that the extreme majority contracts in question aren’t with the state of Arizona, but with businesses based there.  So, LA has decided because the state did something, they’ll punish these businesses.  What if those businesses are very pro-immigrant and opposed to the law? Doesn’t matter.  The fact that they’re a minority in the voting populace of Arizona warrants punishment by LA.

Not only does this activity remind me of how bloated and mutated government powers at all levels are in the US, I’m also reminded of how idiotic people who hold public office must be.

The only thing that I find interesting to really ponder in this mess is what it means for state and municipal sovereignty.  But even those thoughts aren’t interesting enough to describe at length here when I can just rant about how idiotic LA is.

I happened across this survey on Free Colorado in which candidate John Hargis gave a lot of wrong answers and it made me think about how frequently people mis-identify my political leanings.  So, I thought I would give it a shot!

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.
I’m not and given the current level of philosophical and moral corruption in our political environment, I wouldn’t.

ECONOMIC ISSUES
* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to “stimulate” the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

No, absolutely not.

Mr. Hargis also proposes not to have the government stimulate things, but he proposes what he considers a practical compromise in light of the fact that the stimulus happens.

Just because of my personality, I would not propose a compromise at all.  If anything, I would suggest more aggressive, socialistic solutions which would ultimately exacerbate the problem just because I don’t like half measures and I want people to get what they deserve.

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

No, I believe it is the role of the government to protect individual rights from the initiation of force and nothing else. Should the government take money from its citizens to fund projects like this, it would be no different than ConEd or any other utility company breaking into my house in order to steal money to build a new power station.

Mr. Hargis gives some practical justification for why he opposes this and the justifications he provides are ones easily argued against. That’s what you get for being pragmatic.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights be kept completely intact? If not, how should it be altered?

I’m opposed to involuntary taxation.

Again, I would not likely propose any sort of pragmatic justification for opposing it unless accompanied by suitable principled arguments. Any suggestions I provide to those supporting it would probably be designed to usher in policies of such widespread economic destruction that subsequent policies would be directed toward vacating the state for a generation while the earth heals itself. Get me?

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

Lower. Surely now I don’t have to explain why.

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

Repealed. It’s economically destructive and a violation of property rights.

Note: Mr. Hargis supports increasing it annually along with inflation and cost of living calculations.

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

No.

Mr. Hargis supports it in the form of scholarships.

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

Antitrust laws should be repealed as they represent the criminalization of free, fair, and just trade among consenting parties.

Mr. Hargis’ answer is a strange non-sequitur that seems to endorse these laws.

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?

It should be repealed completely as it represents another violation of property and economic rights.

Mr. Hargis supports the act even if he proposes alterations.

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

What do you believe is meant by the “separation of church and state,” and do you endorse it?

It means that the government will not refer to the mystic or supernatural in creating or enforcing the laws and will give no deference or special consideration to entities based on their view of those things. It means government by reason and, yes, I support it.

Mr. Hargis is a theist, however, and says, “our law’s [sic] were designed around God, representatives must have faith in God to honor the oath of office.”  This is pure poppycock.

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

No.

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

No.

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

No. I’m against tax-funded schools, but even in public schools students can pray any time they please as long as it doesn’t disrupt class or their work. I see no reason to take time from the school day when teachers are supposed to be teaching children to practice rational thought in order to entertain irrational thought.

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

No.

Mr. Hargis allows for it based on his incorrect understanding of the separation of church and state.

* Do you support gay marriage?

Yes.

Mr. Hargis does not.

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

Mr. Hargis supports separate but equal legislation for homosexuals.

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

Yes. There is no evidence that homosexual parents are unable to raise healthy, happy, well-developed children.

Mr. Hargis chooses to believe otherwise.

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

Always.  I actually agree with Mr. Hargis here.  A parent is responsible for the child’s welfare and medical care until the child is an adult.

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

No.

Mr. Hargis thinks so.

* Do you endorse the “personhood” measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

No.

Mr. Hargis gives a puzzling answer here. He says, “Life begins at inception,” which is very strange.  The question of when life begins isn’t really relevant to my views on abortion, but they seem to be for him. I just can’t really tell how. I can only assume he means “conception.”

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

Yes. Abortion should be completely and totally legal in all cases where that is the mother’s wish.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?

Yes.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman’s life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?

Yes.

Mr. Hargis’ responses to this series of questions disgusts me.

* Should elective abortion be legal?

Yes.

* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?

* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?

No.  Notably, Mr. Hargis seems to oppose the death penalty here in all situations and characterizes criminal punishments as “revenge.” I think his characterization of criminal punishment is simplistic and wrong and I support the death penalty.

* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?

Yes.

* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?

Yes.

* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

Unequivocally, yes.

Mr. Hargis provides a qualified yes to this.

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?

No. See above for my rationale.

Mr. Hargis is also opposed, but, again, gives a pragmatic rationale.

IMMIGRATION

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should the U.S. expand a legal guest-worker program or legal immigration, and, if so, by how much?

No. The immigration policy of the US is inhumane and should be overhauled to allow anyone who wishes to enter. The only exceptions would be violent criminals and people who might infect the population with some horrible plague. And if those allowed to enter want to work and someone hires them, fine.

* Should federal or state tax-funded benefits (depending on which office you seek), including K-12 education, be extended only to U.S. citizens, to legal immigrants and guest workers, or to everyone in the U.S. including illegal immigrants?

I’m against those tax-funded benefits, so I can’t really answer this question.

BUT assuming no one listens to me, I would propose that we do extend those benefits to anyone who asks just so we could more quickly bankrupt the state or country who has these foolish policies.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

Eminent domain should be revoked from the recognized powers of the state.  So, to answer your question: it should be restricted 100%.

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?

No.

* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

It should be repealed.

BILL OF RIGHTS

* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?

It should be completely repealed.

* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?

No. Government activity should be confined simply to protecting the licensed owners of a given frequency from infringement from others, just as it would protect property owners from trespassers.

* Should the FTC’s rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?

Yes.

* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

I don’t support tax-subsidized colleges and I think handgun owners should be permitted to carry their weapons wherever they please as long as they have permission from the property owner.  (Given that the state claims to own the property of those colleges and allows people to carry handguns, it perplexes me that it restricts carrying of handguns to large swaths of state property.)

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

I’m not familiar with the restrictions on gun ownership. It’s likely that I think they should be repealed.

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?

No.

* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?

No.

OTHER

* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

They should be completely repealed.

Based on his responses, I think Mr. Hargis is a terrible candidate for office.

Check out the rationalization behind this madness!

Hat tip: Blue Owl

The Blue Owl tipped me off to this article on Fox News this afternoon.

Fox News: Kerry Calls on FDA to Lift Longstanding Ban on Gay Men Donating Blood

Sen. John Kerry called on the government Thursday to abolish a “discriminatory” law that bars homosexual men in the U.S. from donating blood, saying “not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban.”

In a letter sent to the Food and Drug Administration, Kerry, D-Mass., along with a host of other Democrats, urged Commissioner Margaret Hamburg to change existing law that bars gay men from giving blood.

Kerry also called on the FDA to review its donor screening questionnaire to ensure a healthy blood supply.

“A law that was once considered medically justified is today simply outdated and needs to end, just as last year we ended the travel ban against those with HIV,” Kerry said in a statement on Thursday.

Before I became sexually active, I used to donate blood regularly.  I always thought it was cool, interesting, and a nice thing to do.  When I recognized the fact of my homosexuality, I was more than a little miffed by the ban on gay blood, but I have to acknowledge that I do believe the ban on gay blood was at one time justified.  You see, men who have sex with other men are statistically more likely to carry certain blood-borne pathogens.

What makes this restriction appear nonsensical today is the simple fact that all donated blood is tested for those pathogens.

Statistics are only really useful for making actionable decisions about things you can’t test directly. For example, if you would like to know whether or not you should pack an umbrella for your trip tomorrow, you check the weather forecast and it tells you that given the current conditions there is an 80% chance of rain tomorrow for your destination.  So, you pack an umbrella.

But you would not use the weather forecast to tell you if you should pick up an umbrella for running out and checking the mail right now.  For that, you’d look out the front door and see if it’s raining.

Because every batch of donated blood is tested, it appears that the FDA’s use of statistics is foolish and unreasoned.  After all, there is no reason to use statistics to predict whether or not a given batch has a given disease when you’re going to check the blood for that given disease anyway.  That’s just foolish.

The challenge to this argument in favor of lifting the prohibition comes from the fact that the tests for said diseases are not 100% correct.  They are correct within a certain margin of error. I’ve read that HIV tests, for example, are about 99% accurate.  I don’t know if this means that they tend toward false positives or false negatives, but for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that it means there’s a 1% chance of a false negative.  This means that 1% of the time a batch of HIV+ blood will get into the blood supply.  Out of 1MM donations, that’s 10,000 batches of tainted blood being pumped into sick babies and injured firefighters and whatnot.

Given that we don’t have a way to reduce the risk of diseases slipping into the blood supply to absolutely nothing, we have to decide what level of risk is acceptable to us.

Whatever is decided, the risk of diseases slipping into the blood supply would be reduced by restricting high-risk groups from donating blood.  Those groups include “men who have sex with men.”  I’d hasten to point out that just because prohibition is applied to intravenous drug users and prostitutes as well as men who have sex with men does not mean that the risks associated with each group are equal.  All it means is that the risks are above whatever threshold of comfort was used in establishing these prohibitions in the first place.

The real outrage here is why the government is dictating to us whose blood we are allowed to accept or not.  That is a decision that could be easily and well managed by free markets.

What if you had the option to choose between screened blood and not-screened blood?  Not-screened blood would be much cheaper but would carry higher risks.

What if you could choose blood that was screened and was guaranteed to not come from any risk groups?  The more risk groups you choose to apply to blood you accept, the more expensive it would be, because the blood you accept would be harder to find.

What if you had a disease like HIV and you were willing to accept HIV+ blood, but only if it contained viruses with matching genetic qualities to your own?  You’d likely get some kind of bargain on blood for which there is very little demand.  Or what if you have malaria or some other disease that lives in the blood? You could accept similarly infected blood and get a deal if you’re in the hospital.

In all cases, you’d just have to specify your preference with your primary care physician or in documents given to the people who drag your unconscious body to the hospital when necessary.

The blood you choose to accept is a personal health decision and not one that should be dictated to Americans by the nanny-state.  Once again we have the FDA interfering with the health and livelihood of Americans everywhere.

Update 9:04am ET 3/5/2010: Corrected an instance of hyphen abuse.

This past weekend, I was thinking about how wildly idiotic the Obamacare plan is and the irony of the fact that our first black president is proposing legislation which will expand slavery in this country.

Let me explain: any time the government obliges people to cover some particular service, services like welfare, but also military, courts, police, roads, medical care, fire departments, schools, postal services, and all those other things, they are using the police powers of the state, complete with guns, bombs, and handcuffs, to compel use to support them in their needs and whims.

Tax payers are forced to work for the state.  We’re slaves. That’s all there is to it.  It does not matter whether the particular item is a legitimate function of government like police, courts, and military, or an illegitimate task like school lunch, Obamacare, or issuing licenses for dancing.  The fact that it is involuntary makes it a violation of your rights and as such you are a slave to the state.

But what I was musing over is that when people were enslaved in this country by their skin color, the collectivists who endorsed such depravity had a convenient means of identifying who is and is not a slave: skin color. But when the country grew enlightened and abolished slavery based on skin color. Unfortunately, the demand for slaves didn’t go away and there is a need for some sort of objective standard for telling the slaves apart from the free men.

So, I think it was really a perverse stroke of genius that the slavers decided to just make everyone into slaves.

Hoplophobia, (pronounced [ˌhɔpləˈfoʊbiə]), from the Greek hoplon, or weapon, is defined as the “fear of firearms” or alternatively, a fear of weapons in general

an·thro·po·pho·bia
Pronunciation: -(")pO-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: a pathological fear of people or human companionship

I only bring these things up because of all the outcry — usually from people on the left — about people carrying guns to events attended to by the president.

I understand the security concern here and it is the responsibility of the Secret Service to handle the president’s safety.  Notably, I understand from HLN that guns are not permitted on federal sites and wherever the president is is a federal site, so we should be clear that no one has actually brought a gun into the president’s presence.  They’ve simply brought guns near to where the president is.  And they aren’t waving them around menacingly.  They’re just carrying them.  And as far as I know, none of these people have threatened to kill the president.

As an aside: it seems to me that once upon a time MOST of the people at political events were carrying guns.  Some how there managed to be a minimum of slaughter, too.

This makes me wonder about all the people who are freaking out about this.  What’s the problem here? The only explanation I can come up with is that there seems to be a pervasive, irrational fear of guns, hoplophobia, out among our fellow Americans.

I know everyone is familiar with the debate around our right to bear arms, so I think this irrational fear of guns is reflective of a deeper, irrational fear: anthropophobia, a fear of other people.

What difference does it make if someone else has a gun?  Do you have any reason to think some particular other person is going to shoot you?

Anti-gun folks will likely respond pointing out that there are crazies out there who really might shoot the president or anyone they just feel like shooting.  Isn’t that always the case with crazies, though?  Crazies might also try to bite your face off, but we don’t go around knocking everyone else’s teeth out, do we?  But that’s what these anti-gun folks would do.  This idea that guns have to be prohibited because of crazies implies that everyone is a crazy and I resent the implication.  I am not a crazy.  I do not have any intention of shooting the president and I don’t believe those other people at those rallies do, either.

So, it really comes down to these people fearing other people.  They’re really just scared of everyone.  I suppose if you’re inclined to make everyone your slave to pay for your health insurance, your bankrupt company, your union, your overpriced farm crops, or whatever… you have some good reasons to be afraid of your fellow man.

We often talk about our culture and the ideas commonly held by people around us, but it’s important to remember that ideas do not exist in an amorphous cloud floating over our heads. They are held in the minds of individuals.

I should be clear from the start: it is useful to talk about dominant philosophy and commonly held ideas within various groups.  It’s not even invalid.  For example, we could say, “The dominant philosophy of the Weimar republic was marked by mysticism in metaphysics and altruism in the area of ethics.”  Similarly, it is true and accurate to say, “America is a Christian nation,” in the sense that the majority of Americans are Christian.  (More than 74% according to Pew Research!)

Silly people will often protest statements like this saying, “Well, I’M not a Christian! So, don’t say America is a Christian nation!” As ever, context is vital to understanding.  But these silly people do highlight the fact that I want to call to your attention.

Ideas are held by individuals, not groups.

For this reason, it is idiotic to attempt to legislate rational thinking.  You simply cannot prosecute people into having good ideas.  In fact, attempts to do so will only result in additional bad ideas.

Philosophically-speaking, do you believe that Russians are more scientifically inclined just because religion was outlawed under socialism for many years? According to the Russian Embassy website, 40% of Russians believe in magic. Although this is far from a majority, it clearly shows that outlawing religion did little to promote reason.

Are you surprised?  It’s not rational to attempt to force people to be rational, so it does sort of beg the question of why anyone would thinks it would.

I do not disagree with the efforts of groups like the NAACP and GLAAD insofar as they encourage people to be rational in their approach toward people of color and alternate sexualities and even so far as they encourage minorities to be more rational about their own minority status themselves.  For instance, if black women aren’t paid as much as any other person for the same work of the same quality within the same organization, then not only should the business examine how they assess the value of such employees (Perhaps they’re paying everyone else too much!) but those employees should also examine the value of their time and effort within their lives and the market and see if they can engage in more profitable activities.

But I am vehemently opposed to such groups’ efforts to legislate rational thinking.  Hate crime legislation is an affront to justice.  Affirmative action is a violation of property rights. Anti-discrimination laws are all kinds of wrong, but even more offensive when they apply to government employment and activities — not because we want our government agents behaving irrationally, but because they should simply be fired if they are found doing so on the grounds that they are violating the rights and trust of citizens everywhere.

So, if you want to fight racism and homophobia, you have to work to promote rational thinking among your friends, coworkers, employees, neighbors, and compatriots in all contexts.  But don’t try to twist their arm into it!

This editorial turned up on CNN today.

Commentary: Gay is not the new black by LZ Granderson

In their [gay activists' and commentators'] minds, Obama is not moving fast enough on behalf of the GLBT community. The outcry is not completely without merit — the Justice Department’s unnerving brief on the Defense of Marriage Act immediately comes to mind. I was upset by some of the statements, but not surprised. (After the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, President Ronald Reagan’s initial handling of AIDS and, more recently, Katrina, there is little that surprises me when it comes to the government and the treatment of its people.)

blah blah blah…

Despite the catchiness of the slogan, gay is not the new black.

Black is still black.

blah blah blah…

Not to split hairs, but for most blacks, the n-word trumps the f-word.

blah blah blah…

The theme of this commentary is this: gay activists are impatient, petulant, and foolish.  Black people have suffered institutionalized and legislated injustice for way longer than gays, so gays need to settle down and be more patient.

There are so many idiotic things about this article that it’s tough to know where to begin.

First of all, I don’t agree with the notion that “gay is the new black” and I don’t know how has ever made such a remark.  Yes, people may have compared injustices committed toward gays to injustices committed against blacks, but this article does the same thing — to the same conclusions.  So, this whole editorial is based upon a strawman.

Also, where does it say that because one protests injustice against one person or particular group that one is pleased with or even tolerant of justice committed against another group.  Frankly, I am outraged by legislated racist as well as legislated homophobia.  I’m also outraged about legislated sexism, socialism, fascism, and the enslavement of our doctors.  My outrage about injustice and tyranny is really only bounded by the extend of tyranny and injustice itself.

And can we just come back to the full-on stupidity of this “debatable” claim?

If blacks are less accepting of gays than other racial groups — and that is certainly debatable — then the parade of gay people calling Obama a “disappointment” on television is counterproductive in gaining acceptance, to say the least. And the fact that the loudest critics are mostly white doesn’t help matters either.

Let me get this straight: black gays don’t support equal protection for gays because other gays are calling a black man out for vacillating on his campaign promises.  I have a word for that, too: bigotry.

If there is a problem with equal protection under the law facing black people in America today — and I am not aware that there are any such issues, even if there are instances of problems with equal enforcement of the law  — that does not excuse anyone for being ambivalent or apathetic toward issues facing any other individual.  An injustice against any American is an injustice toward us all.

Let me say this again: an injustice agaisnt any American is injustice toward us all.

I resent the idea that these problems are couched in terms of tribes, clubs, groups, and segments of the population.  That’s just not how the law works.  Either it is protecting the rights of all individuals or it’s not.

I am not going to discuss which is worse: slavery or DADT.  It’s not relevant because neither is tolerable to people who truly value individual rights. That anyone is thinking about these issues in terms of “us versus them” among wronged people is symptomatic of the underlying problem: collectivism.

And here’s Barack Obama himself making remarks to the same end:

The thing that gay rights activists and other such collectivists do not want to admit is that stupidity is a fundamental right — insofar as you don’t attempt to force others to go along with your idiocy.  You, as an individual, are permitted to be as unwise as you care to be with your person and property.  This means that if you’d like to discriminate against others, you’re free to do so.  That is your right. And everyone else is allowed to call you the fool that you are and avoid you.

But all these collectivists want to take away that right and, as a result, you’re not allowed to be as wise as you’d care to be, either.

Stupidity is a problem for individuals.  Bigotry is a problem for individuals.  Tyranny is a problem for everyone because tyranny only handicaps the wise and encourages the foolish.