Chuck Moulton - U.S. Congress - Questionnaires - Pennsylvania Gay and Lesbian Alliance

Pennsylvania Gay and Lesbian Alliance

Privacy

Should government have the right to regulate private sexual behavior between consenting adults?
Absolutely not! It's your life to do what you want with. Government exists to protect the life, liberty, and property of people from their peers. Legislating morality is outside the scope of government and not allowable under the Constitution. Further, the Fourth Amendment guarantees a right to privacy from government intrusion. What goes on in your bedroom is your business and your business alone.

Equality

Do you support prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation:
1. in Housing?
2. in Employment?
3. in Public Accommodations?
4. in Education?
5. in Health Care?
6. in Federal Programs?
Do you support sufficient funding to enforce such laws?
I support the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in government and would work to repeal all laws which implement institutionalized discrimination. Government should set the example by treating all people as equal under the law. All government hiring should be color blind, gender blind, sexual orientation blind, etc., seeking only the best qualified person for the job. I am opposed to affirmative action and quotas, but am in favor of laws facilitating redress of grievances for discrimination in the form of lawsuits for damages and/or an internal appeals process.

It's also important to note that as a fiscal conservative, I do not believe in public housing or health care, and federal programs would be massively scaled back in a Libertarian run government.

I do not support the prohibition of private discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I believe in freedom to contract, the right of every individual to do business with whoever he wants to and avoid doing business with whoever he wants to. While I hope that all Americans respect others and judge them on the content of their character rather than stigmatizing their sexual preferences, it is not the function of government to regulate thoughts and force people into business relationships.

I believe the free market is the best way to end discrimination. This is inherently a long term solution, not a short term quick fix hack. A business that refuses to hire homosexuals is at a competitive disadvantage with a business that hires the most qualified person for the job. Over the long term, discriminatory businesses will fail. Further, private "Consumer Reports" type organizations can alert citizens to bigoted companies. Americans can vote with their dollars, boycotting companies that have discriminatory policies. Private charities can offer subsidies to businesses with good policies. Dealing with these problems outside of government is Constitutional, less costly, less restrictive, and more effective.

To more specifically address the question as stated, I support prohibiting public (government) discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, education, health care, and other federal programs, but do not support prohibiting private discrimination in those same areas. I support funding to enforce laws prohibiting public discrimination.
The Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA - HR 3285 & S 1705) would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment.
1. Will you vote for this bill when it reaches the House floor?
2. Will you co-sponsor this bill?
I will not vote for or co-sponsor the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2003.

I believe in freedom to contract, the right of every individual to do business with whoever he wants to and avoid doing business with whoever he wants to. Although I am personally very against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it is not the function of government to force people into business relationships. I am in favor of a private solution to the problem.
Do you support amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity thereby prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations?
I support amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity with reference to public housing, public employment, and public accommodations, but not with reference to private housing and private employment.

I believe in freedom to contract, the right of every individual to do business with whoever he wants to and avoid doing business with whoever he wants to. Although I am personally very against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it is not the function of government to force people into business relationships. I am in favor of a private solution to the problem.

Further, I would work to repeal all laws that infringe on freedom to contract, including those elements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that deal with private employment.
As a member of Congress, will you implement an employment non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation within your office?
Absolutely. As a member of Congress I would always hire the most qualified applicant for the job, regardless of sexual orientation. I would not, however, utilize affirmative action or quotas because I see those as themselves discriminatory.
Will you sign a pledge stating that the sexual orientation of an individual is not a consideration in the hiring, promotion, or termination of an employee within your office?
Absolutely. And I consider signing this candidate questionnaire to be signing such a pledge.
Would you hire a qualified openly gay or lesbian person for a position on your staff?
Yes, if he or she is the best qualified applicant for the position.
Will you approve the appointment of a qualified openly gay or lesbian person to serve in a governmental position?
Yes, if he or she is the best qualified option for the position.
Shortly after taking office, President Bush issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in federal civilian employment practices. Amendments which would overturn the executive order may occasionally be introduced.
1. Will you vote for a bill or amendment which would overturn President Bush's executive order?
2. Will you support legislation that would codify this executive order?
No, I would not vote for a bill or amendment which would overturn the executive order prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in federal civilian employment practices.

Yes, I would support legislation that would codify this executive order.

Family Issues

In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages for purposes of federal benefits and taxes, and allows states to refuse recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state. Please elaborate on each question.
1. Do you support the Defense of Marriage Act?
2. Do you support Federal recognition of a same-sex marriage that may be legally performed in any state?
3. Should states have the authority to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples?
4. Do you support requiring states to legally recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states under Federal Law?
5. Do you support a legal equivalent of marriage, like domestic partnership, for same-sex couples?
  If yes, what benefits would be extended?
6. Do you support a legal equivalent of marriage, like civil unions, for same-sex couples that would extend all the benefits of marriage? (Civil Unions extend all state benefits of marriage, but no federal benefits).
7. For purposes of Federal Income and Estate and Gift Taxes, do you support recognizing the relationships of same-sex couples?
8. Do you support the District of Columbia's right to implement and fund its domestic partnership legislation?
States should be prohibited from denying marriage licenses to gay couples.

As a Libertarian Constitutional scholar, I am acutely aware of the differences between rights and privileges: privileges can be licensed, rights cannot. If government licenses an activity, that gives it the power to deny the license when it wants to. Government does not have the power to prohibit rights.

Marriage is a right, not a privilege. The government has no power to license marriages. When the United States was founded, we had common law marriages. Marriage was recognized as a religious ceremony and as a contract between two consenting people. Marriage licenses were created to prevent interracial couples from marrying. It is hardly surprising that a government practice conceived to promote institutionalized racism is now being used for institutionalized discrimination against gay Americans.

The solution is simple: Government needs to get out of the marriage business and return the institution to religious ceremonies and private contracts where it belongs. In addition, all government marriage benefits should be eliminated. Until all states eliminate marriage licensing, gay Americans should be treated as a protected class, prohibiting states from continuing with their institutionalized discrimination by prohibiting them from denying marriage licenses on the basis of sexual orientation.

Businesses can choose to give or not give any benefits they want to married couples; they don't have an obligation to recognize contracts to which they are not a party, i.e. marriages. Because I believe in freedom to contract, I do not support requiring businesses to confer any special benefits on married couples, gay or straight. Employees and businesses can choose to negotiate their contracts any way they want to.

To more specifically answer your questions: No, I do not support the (misnamed) Defense of Marriage Act. Yes, I support federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Yes, states should have the authority to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Yes, I support requiring states to legally recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states under federal law, which is in fact already required by the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Yes, I support domestic partnerships and civil unions for same-sex couples extending all the benefits of marriage, though I also support ending all government marriage benefits for both gay and straight couples and repealing all laws that force businesses to give special benefits to married couples. Yes, I support recognizing same-sex relationships for purposes of Federal Income and Estate and Gift Taxes; however, I would also work to eliminate Estate and Gift Taxes, eliminate the marriage penalty in Federal Income Tax, and replace the progressive Federal Income Tax with a 5% Flat Income Tax. Yes, I support the District of Columbia's right to implement and fund its domestic partnership legislation.
Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) and Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) have introduced a constitutional amendment that declares that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. The amendment also would prohibit the US Constitution or any state constitution or any state or federal law from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. Do you support this amendment to the US Constitution?
I find that proposed amendment repugnant and un-American. In my opinion, all Constitutional amendments should limit government more and/or confer more rights on citizens. In contrast, this amendment would take away rights. Its only analog that was allowed to deface that venerable document was the Eighteenth Amendment, which began prohibition of alcohol. Institutionalizing discrimination in our founding document is a terrible idea.

No, I emphatically do not support this amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Do you support the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (HR 832 & S 1510) that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to treat permanent partners in the same manner as spouses, including allowing gay and lesbian Americans to sponsor their foreign partners to become US residents?
Will you co-sponsor this legislation?
Yes, I support and would co-sponsor the Permanent Partners Immigration Act. This logically follows from prohibiting public discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

However, I am also in favor of relaxing immigration law to allow any American to sponsor one other person to become a U.S. resident, regardless of whether they have a relationship. This would require that immigrant to be employed and not receive public funds for anything, including welfare and public education. That position of mine makes the Permanent Partners Immigration Act moot.
Do you support the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (HR 2426 & S 1252) that would provide domestic partnership benefits to federal employees?
Will you co-sponsor this legislation?
Yes, I support and would co-sponsor the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. This logically follows from prohibiting public discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Do you support the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act (HR 1430) that would extend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to cover employees taking leave to care for their domestic partners with a serious health condition?
Will you co-sponsor this legislation?
No, I do not support and would not co-sponsor the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act. This logically follows from not prohibiting private discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

I believe in freedom to contract. Employees and businesses can negotiate their contracts to include family and medical leave if they want to, but the government should not force them into that business relationship.
Do you support the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act (HR 935 & S 1702) that would amend the Internal Revenue Code to end the taxation of health insurance benefits for domestic partners and treat them the same as health benefits for legal spouses and dependents?
Will you co-sponsor this legislation?
Yes, I support and would co-sponsor the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act. This logically follows from prohibiting public discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Do you support legislation for the District of Columbia that prohibits any couple not related by blood or marriage from jointly adopting a child?
No, I do not support legislation for the District of Columbia that prohibits any couple not related by blood or marriage from jointly adopting a child. This logically follows from prohibiting public discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Any group of people that would provide a loving family and good environment for a child should be eligible to adopt that child. Gay couples are just as qualified as straight couples to be loving parents.

Service in the Armed Forces

Do you support a ban which would prevent gay men and lesbians from serving in the armed services?
No, I do not support banning gay men and lesbians from serving in the armed services. I want the best soldiers possible defending my country from foreign invaders, and turning away good soldiers due to their sexual orientation would reduce the quality of our military.
Should new recruits be asked whether they are gay or lesbian?
Absolutely not. Sexual orientation is a private matter, and soldiers have a right to privacy just as every other American does. The recruits' sexual orientation is none of the military's business.
Do you support the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in dealing with gay men and lesbians in the Armed Forces?
Why or why not?
Absolutely not. Instead, I support a policy of "Don't Ask, Tell if you want (with no negative repercussions)". Soldiers have a First Amendment freedom of speech right, which allows them to talk about their sexual orientations or not at their own discretion. The military is a branch of the government, and I support the prohibition of all public discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
There is no question 20.
Military discharge papers (DD214) for service members discharged because they are gay or lesbian currently list the reason as "homosexuality".
1. Do you support removing this notation and any indication of sexual orientation from DD214's?
2. Do you support retroactively removing this notation from already discharged veterans' DD214's?
Yes, I support contemporaneously and retroactively removing the "homosexuality" notation and any indication of sexual orientation from DD214. Gay soldiers have a right to privacy.
Do you support discharging service members who are HIV+?
No, I do not support involuntarily discharging members who are HIV+. HIV+ soldiers have a right to privacy. Discharging good soldiers also would reduce the quality of the military.

Bias Crimes

The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (S 966 - formerly the Hate Crimes Prevention Act) which would give local law enforcement the resources needed to combat hate crimes based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender or disability and would expand federal jurisdiction to cover serious, violent hate crimes.
1. Will you vote for this bill when it reaches the House floor?
2. Will you co-sponsor this bill?
No, I would not vote for or co-sponsor the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act.

Although I find hate crimes based on sexual orientation reprehensible, I do not believe in punishing people for their thoughts. Punishing people for hate or increasing existing punishments with hate as an aggravating factor is a slippery slope that could lead to the "Thought Police" from Orwell's 1984. People have the right to think anything they want without fear of government punishment.

I also do not believe in treating crimes against one demographic differently from crimes against another demographic. Murder and assault are horrible acts no matter if they are committed against a black person or a white person, a gay person or a straight person. Giving stiffer sentences for those that attack gay Americans than straight Americans is discrimination. I support the prohibition of all public discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Do you support requiring the FBI to collect and report statistics of bias or hate crimes, including those motivated by the victim's sexual orientation?
Yes, I tentatively support requiring the FBI to collect and report statistics of bias or hate crimes. Unlike most of the other questions though, I'm not very passionate about this topic. My position could change depending on a cost/benefit analysis of the implementation. I see no harm in collecting these statistics, but I don't see a government benefit either. Since I don't believe in treating hate crimes differently from normal crimes, law enforcement wouldn't get much use out of the data.

In my opinion it would be better for a private organization to collect these statistics.

AIDS / HIV

How much funding would you support overall for AIDS programs in the next fiscal year?
If you are able to give a dollar amount, please do so and explain why you support this figure.
Please break down this figure into major categories (such as research, treatment, support, and education) or attach a copy of your budget.
I support $0 in government funding for AIDS programs.

I support AIDS programs, but it is not a proper function of the government. Private charities are a better alternative. Private charities waste less money, are better run, and would be more successful. Concerned citizens could vote with their dollars for the AIDS charity that works best. This competition coupled with a marketplace of ideas would inevitably lead to the best charities getting the most money and poorly run charities going out of business.

In a Libertarian government with a 5% flat income tax or a 5% retail sales tax, all Americans would have vastly more money to donate to their favorite charities.
What modifications would you make in current policies for the care and treatment of people with AIDS (drug approval, home care, medical subsidies, etc.)?
I would end all government medical subsidies and eliminate the Food and Drug Administration.

Government medical subsidies should be replaced with private charities for the reasons outlined above.

By dragging the approval process out many more years than are needed, the Food and Drug Administration kills countless more Americans than it saves. Government regulation cripples drug companies, tying their hands preventing them from releasing life-saving drugs to the marketplace. A better way to regulate the pharmaceutical industry would be private testing modeled after Consumer Reports. Educated consumers could pick drugs based on their doctor's recommendations and the certifications of private testing agencies. Government has no right to tell a willing buyer and seller that they can't make a transaction. Again, it boils down to freedom to contract.
What modifications would you make to current policies regarding public education on AIDS by government agencies and schools?
Education policy should be left to the states and school boards. The Tenth Amendment leaves education to state governments. When the federal government mandates things on state and local governments, we get uniformity. A better system results when localities are allowed the freedom to innovate, creating a marketplace of ideas. In a marketplace of ideas, schools can look around at what their neighbors are doing, adopting the practices that work best. It's free market economics at its finest.

If I were on a school board I would support AIDS education that gives people the facts instead of propaganda, suggests condom use as an option instead of just abstinence, and refrains from vilifying homosexuals portraying them in a ridiculous light. But I am running for U.S. Congress, not school board. Educational policy would be outside the scope of my job.
Do you support requiring the names of individuals who test positive for HIV to be reported to the Dept. of Health?
Absolutely not. I do not support requiring the names of individuals who test positive for HIV to be reported to the Department of Health because that is an unacceptable breach of their right to privacy.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees a right to privacy. Even if it didn't, the Ninth Amendment and preamble to the Bill of Rights both point out that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of rights, but merely an explicit listing of some of the most important ones. I believe a right to privacy is fundamental. Indeed, I am in favor of legislating a more explicit right to privacy through statute or a Constitutional amendment because the Fourth Amendment has been regularly misinterpreted as not conferring that right.

Medical privacy is the most important privacy frontier we are grappling with now. I am greatly disturbed that any government agency can access anyone's medical records for any reason under new laws, as well as any insurance company or company related to payment of medical bills. It's time patients' privacy rights advocates started writing our privacy laws instead of health insurance companies and other health care corporations.
Should HIV testing be mandatory?
If yes, for whom?
Absolutely not. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. The government has no power to force people to be tested for HIV. It's your life, your body, and your money. Do what you want with it.
Would you support a bill guaranteeing confidentiality of HIV status?
Absolutely. The right to privacy is fundamental. HIV status should be confidential.
Do you support needle exchange programs used in conjunction with drug treatment to fight the spread of HIV? Do you support government funding of such programs?
I support privately run and funded, but not government run or funded, needle exchange programs. Such a program is outside the scope of government, which is enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Besides, a privately run needle exchange program would be cheaper, better quality, and more effective because free market competition ensures its success.
Should funds be denied to AIDS service and education organizations that have programs which present homosexuality in a positive light?
Why or why not?
The question is moot because government funding shouldn't be given to AIDS service and education organizations in the first place. Such programs are outside the scope of government.

However, if they were within the scope of government, the funding stick and carrot should not be used to promote institutionalized discrimination in government programs. I support the prohibition of all public discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Do you support the Early Treatment for HIV Act (S 847) that would allow states to expand Medicaid by making it available to low income people living with HIV before they develop AIDS? Will you co-sponsor this legislation?
No, I do not support the Early Treatment for HIV Act and would not co-sponsor it.

Medicaid itself is unconstitutional and should be immediately eliminated. As a Libertarian, I am against the welfare state and would like to see private insurance and private charities as a substitute. Private insurance companies and charities may decide for themselves how they want to deal with HIV patients.

Women's Health and Insurance

Would you support legislation that requires insurance companies to waive the deductible and other fees and pay completely for mammograms and pap smears?
Absolutely not. I would not support legislation that requires insurance companies to waive the deductible and other fees and pay completely for mammograms and pap smears.

I believe in freedom to contract. Insurance companies and their insured may decide for themselves whether they want mammograms and pap smears to have a waived deductible when they negotiate the contracts. In the free market, insurance companies that provide for such a waived deductible would likely attract more customers and their competition would suffer. Further, the insurance companies could find that encouraging frequent mammograms and pap smears leads to saved money overall by catching cancer earlier when it is cheaper to treat. Customers also have the option of deciding waived deductibles for mammograms and pap smears are not a priority.
Should health insurance companies be permitted to deny insurance coverage or raise rates based on sexual orientation?
Yes, health insurance companies should be permitted to deny insurance coverage or raise rates based on sexual orientation. This logically follows from not prohibiting private discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The free market would punish discriminatory companies and reward tolerant companies. Insurance companies that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation will lose potential customers and be at a competitive disadvantage. Their public image would also suffer greatly though boycotts and other such protests.
Should health insurance companies be permitted to offer gay and lesbian couples the opportunity to purchase family or domestic partnership coverage?
Absolutely, health insurance companies should be permitted to offer gay and lesbian couples the opportunity to purchase family or domestic partnership coverage. Again, this is a basic freedom to contract issue.

Education

Do you support legislation that would deny federal funding to schools that have programs, whether counseling or academic, which have the purpose or effect of presenting homosexuality in a positive light? Why or why not?
The question is moot because the federal government has no authority to deal with education. The Tenth Amendment coupled with the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 leaves education to state and local governments and to the people. When education policy is set locally, we get a marketplace of ideas instead of uniform stagnation.

If education were in the scope of the federal government, I would not support legislation that would deny federal funding to schools that present homosexuality in a positive light. This logically follows from prohibiting public discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Do you support a "Safe Schools Bill" that would require all School Districts adopt procedures to deal with harassment and bullying against students - including students perceived to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender?
The question is moot because the federal government has no authority to deal with education.

Community

If endorsed by the Pennsylvania Gay And Lesbian Alliance (PA-GALA), Will you publicize the endorsement in your campaign literature and on your campaign's web site?
Absolutely, if endorsed by the Pennsylvania Gay And Lesbian Alliance I Will publicize the endorsement in my campaign literature and on my campaign's web site.

In my opinion, gay rights is a key issue this election season and it is one of the cornerstones of my campaign. In fact, regardless of whether I receive an endorsement or not and regardless of whether I receive a high or low grade by PA-GALA, I will post my full responses to your questionnaire on my website and link to your evaluation of my candidacy.

I realize the Libertarian fiscal policy is not the liberal spending your organization is promoting and that my opinions on hate crimes and private discrimination may be offensive to PA-GALA and gay Americans -- that alone will probably prevent me from receiving the PA-GALA endorsement. However, I hope PA-GALA members have an opportunity to evaluate my candidacy by reading my own words and even those who disagree with me will see that my stances on the issues are principled and logical.
What message would you like to send to the lesbian and gay voters in your district?
The Democrats and Republicans will continue to stab you in the back while they assure you they care about your issues. Compare their questionnaires to their voting records and it becomes clear they don't practice what they preach. If you want a candidate who will do what he says and won't compromise on your rights, vote Libertarian.

If elected I will work tirelessly to keep the government out of your bedroom, to make your right to marry universal, and to ensure your medical privacy. That's a promise.