Petersen said that he supports the Supreme Court ruling that the 14th Amendment outlaws any discrimination. When pressed on it, he explained that he favored this power grab by SCOTUS because of the outcome: the outcome was supposedly libertarian, and therefore he’s in favor of giving the federal government more authority.
As Deace said, that doesn’t sound very libertarian to me. And that’s ignoring the fact that most libertarians I know are fervently anti-14th Amendment. Apparently, Petersen disagrees with them on that point. He made it even worse by repeating his earlier claim that many social conservatives may just “hate” gay people and that he could see their hatred in their eyes.
No, Austin, they just believe that God has given mankind certain laws and that we should obey them, regardless of our feelings.
Secondly, with regards to abortion Petersen said several times that although he is pro-life, he’s against declaring the “right to live” a federally protected right because… it would mean that all pregnant women would have to wear an ankle bracelet with a chip in it so they can be monitored all day long, which is supposedly what pro-life conservatives want.
I’ve been a conservative libertarian for years and I know many social conservatives (who are my friends), and I’ve never heard one of them say something like that. As Deace pointed out, perhaps there are some progressive commenters on radical leftist websites who pretend that this is what social conservatives want, but that’s about it.
It’s a crying shame — because Petersen should be able to get some disenfranchised Republicans conservatives and libertarians behind him, but he clearly wasted this opportunity. Instead of butting heads on these social issues, he could’ve just taken a step back and forced Deace to talk about other issues, issues he and conservatives do agree on like pursuing entitlement reform, cutting government spending, and supporting free trade.