-25 votes

Gary Johnson Endorses Effort To Repeal Ohio Gay Marriage Ban

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson on Friday endorsed an effort to repeal Ohio's constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual union.

Voters in 2004 overwhelmingly approved the amendment. Freedom to Marry Ohio in May began collecting signatures to put the state's ban up for a vote next year.

At a campaign stop in Toledo, vice presidential nominee Judge Jim Gray urged voters to back the campaign.

“Unlike Mitt Romney or President Obama, Governor Johnson and I believe the right to marry who we choose is a constitutionally protected right,” Gray is quoted as saying in a statement released by Freedom to Marry Ohio. “”People of different faiths and different beliefs are free to follow those beliefs when it comes to embracing or opposing same-sex marriage within those faiths and beliefs. However, it should not be the purview of government to impose one set of beliefs over another. And government absolutely should not sanction discrimination against gay Americans who choose to marry.”

Continue:
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=12592&MediaType=1&Ca...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Do people at the DP not read?

Do people at the DP not read? This is an OHIO state issue that Gary supports. He is endorsing Ohio's attempt to repeal the gay marriage ban. Get a grip people.

Gary Johnson is a fraud and a turncoat, Johnson exposed!!

Take a look at the real Gary Johnson, this fraud don't fool our great grandma!

http://www.lewrockwell.com

What?

Why the unspecific link? I've never heard Rockwell directly mention Johnson's name. Maybe you can point me to the specific instance(s).

Johnson exposes himself:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2012/06/gary-joh...

Throw this fraud from the rafter tops!!

Lew Rockewell didn't post that...

Scott Lazarowitz - whoever that may be - did.

Isn't the government's stance (Federal or State)

on recognizing a marriage as only between a man and woman a violation of the Equal Protection clause. I though that government's must treat ( I know it doesn't happen always or rarely) people equally so if one version is recognized than the other must since marriage is really just a contract between two people.

I still have no problem if a church does not want to marry certain couples but the state (Federal or State) must still recognize the contract.

Gary Johnson's a big

Gary Johnson's a big government liberal with some fiscally conservative views. Still better than some other candidates.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

Debbie's picture

I don't know why this is such a big issue for him.

What's he so concerned about it for?

Debbie

Something to think about

Many people on this site were very upset over Kelo v. New London, the case where the Supreme Court allowed the state of Connecticut to take private property and give it to a developer.

As a (small L) libertarian, I was upset as well- the government, state or federal, should not be in the business of taking people's private property for someone else's private use.

Now, many people here are essentially saying here, "let Ohio do whatever it wants regarding same sex marriage." So how come the argument back then wasn't "let Connecticut do whatever it wants regarding eminent domain?"

(And note, the eminent domain clause of the Constitution applies only to the federal government, unless you argue that it has been incorporated through the 14 amendment, which is an idea that doesn't seem too popular on this site)

This is

One of the may reasons I cannot vote for Johnson and will not vote unless there is miracle in Tampa. He does not understand the real threat is federal power. As such the Federal Government should not even be involved in marriage. Yet he would strike a further blow to state power by striking down state law.

Did you not read the title?

It says Ohio is repealing the ban on gay marriage. Ohio is a state last I checked.

Besides that, what if the congregation of a church that has performed traditional marriages for years - that have been recognized by the state - decides to perform same sex marriages?

All of the marriages up until that decision were treated a certain way under the law. Should that particular congregation be forced to change their views to accommodate other churches in the state? Should the state government mandate that churches cannot independently decide to support same sex marriage?

Should the law be allowed to be applied differently on the basis of religious circumstances when a legit church decided to change its position? Would that not be a violation of freedom of religion? Should you dictate the views of other churches? Should the government be able to - either locally or centrally?

I say no. Such actions are prohibited by the Constitution by any level of government.

Why should any particular religious group be able to use the government to gain a discriminatory, uniquely recognized status under the law?

From a libertarian point of view, how does a gay couple getting married affect your liberties?

The Constitutional argument would not be required, if states didn't outright ban it.

That is just another form collectivism. No level of government has a right to be involved - state or otherwise.

..

why is GJ even involved in this?
This is a state issue, GJ needs to raise money for his broke campaign and stop worrying about issues that are used by government LACKEYS to divide the people on both sides.

GJ needs to raise money because his campaign is in massive debt and he continues to spend and not know if he will be able to pay back hundreds of small business owners and staffers to his campaign, not to mention the venues he has to pay for that arent all ready mooched...

GJ needs to become a conservative before he can win.
and he needs to learn not only Ron Pauls message but also WHY THOSE POSITIONS are taken by Garys Mentor, Ron Paul.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Even as a state issue, why is

Even as a state issue, why is this New Mexico guy saying what should go on in Ohio?

End The Fed!
BTC: 1A3JAJwLVG2pz8GLfdgWhcePMtc3ozgWtz

Why do states have any say in who gets married?

Churches should be the only places where people get married.
Governments have no right recognizing anybodys marriage at all!
It gives governments too much power to determine what marriage is.

Ron Paul on Gay Marriage:

Ron Paul on Gay Marriage: None of the State's Business
http://youtu.be/yundkf6EfdA

Are people on the DP....

for Ohio banning gay marriage?

Sounds like Ohio is standing up in a way that supports States' rights. What's wrong with that?

Romney voting spammers

Relax my friend.

Enjoy your weekend.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

So much for state's rights.

So much for state's rights. This is just another area where Gary has flip flopped. His former position was that the federal government had no business being in the marriage business. He said last week that the federal government should FORCE states to recognize gay marriage.

He keeps changing his positions, flip flopping, and waffling on a host of issues (The Fed, gay marriage, what drugs should be legalized, foreign wars and for what reasons and on...and on...and on....)

He should not be running for POTUS. He should be trying to land the job as the CEO of the Waffle House.

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

Waffle House!

Good one Ron Paul Rocks!! Careful, all DP Ron Paul supporters voting her down are being called Romney bots! LOL
Geesh, If Hitler himself were reincarnated and running a popularity poll, he'd win over her.
NOTICE: She's Canadian and can't even vote in the election. She's just spamming the DP.
Romney bot trying to disrupt the RP support???

Deekey

By the way...

did you not read the title?

"Gary Johnson Endorses Effort To Repeal Ohio Gay Marriage Ban"

Last I checked Ohio was a state. Maybe your map has it different.

He didn't flip-flop...

provide me with the source where Johnson said anything other than gay marriage was a Constitutionally guaranteed right - which IMO is correct if the government continues to recognize marriage.

That's the position that I have heard him state in the past; the same argument Judge Gray gave.

If you say he flip-flopped, back it up. I haven't seen it.

By the way....

Anyone who believes any kind of marriage (gay, straight, or otherwise) is protected by the Constitution has no business running for president. The Constitution does not address it and therefore, according to the Constitution, is an issue that is left to the states.

Now perhaps you and your candidate would like to amend the Constitution to protect gay marriage?

Good luck with that.

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

Equal protection under the law...

If the government chooses to recognize marriage in any way, it cannot enforce the law in a collectivist manner - granting privilege to certain groups over others.

For instance, it is perfectly within the rights of a church to support gay marriage if it chooses to do so. Suppose this church has performed several traditional marriages over the years that have been recognized by the state. Now - upon the acceptance by the congregation - the church begins marrying same sex couples. Does the state have a right to give certain privileges to one group over another? Isn't this protected in the Constitution?

It seems to be clearly stated in my copy.

If the States - in addition to the federal government - would stay out of marriage, the Constitutional argument wouldn't be required. However, it is banned in many of the states.

Equal protection under the law

Marriage is not what the writers of the 14th amendment had in mind.

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

The 1st Amendment

The free exercise of religion is protected by the Constitution, and marriage is a religious ordinance. A church is Constitutionally protected in solemnizing any marriage it wants.

I disagree. The 1st Amendment

I disagree. The 1st Amendment protects a church only from Congress, but not from state government. In fact, at the time of our founding some states had state sponsored religions and mandated Sunday church attendance.

Johnson's new position that the federal government can and should mandate a state to recognize gay marriage is not Constitutionally sound at all.

In fact, since you acknowledge that marriage is a religious ordinance, it would seem the 1st Amendment expressly forbids the federal government from acting.

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

Hey, Sounds.... Federal Case

...maybe Lawyers 4 Ron Paul could take it on. They have some free time now.

fonta

Since you are one of the most

Since you are one of the most ardent GJ posters, you really should try and know what you are talking about before posting.

Gary has flip flopped on this and many other issues. But since you are not the Johnson expert you claim to be and need a source....Here you go.

When asked by Scott Holleran on Aug. 21, 2011 about his position on gay marriage, Gary said the following.

..."The government shouldn't be in the marriage business..." http://www.ontheissues.org/gary_johnson.htm

However, in May, and again last week, Johnson made clear that he believed Gay Marriage is a federal issue that SHOULD NOT BE LEFT UP TO EACH STATE. http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-johnson-criticizes-obama...

He now believes that the federal government should MANDATE states to recognize gay marriage and blasted the president for not taking this position.

Last August Johnson said that the federal government should not be in the marriage business...In May he stated that it should. That my friend is a flip flop, Gary Johnson style, and there are many more where that came from.

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

I had never...

saw the other interview.

Here's a link to the actual interview - http://scottholleran.com/interviews/interview-with-gary-john...

This is the from the transcript:

Scott Holleran: You oppose gay marriage, though you favor civil unions. Why?

Gary Johnson: I wouldn’t say I oppose gay marriage as a matter of public policy. The government shouldn’t be in the marriage business. I would not be opposed to belonging to a church that supports gay marriage.

-----------------------------------------------

The text from the Johnson website that you cited says:

Libertarian nominee for President and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson today said he’s “disappointed” with President Obama’s position on gay marriage. Obama told ABC Wednesday he would let each individual state decide the gay marriage question instead of seeking federal protection of the right to marry. Johnson noted that more than 30 states already ban same sex marriage in one way or another.

-------------------------------------

In the first statement, Johnson said he was against government being involved. He did not specify whether that be the state or federal government. He just said the government should not be involved. Is that inconsistent with preventing the states from banning it - especially if you take the Constitutional argument that Judge Gray makes? Should the States be able to go against the Constitution?

Judge Gray is in a better position to argue the Constitutionality issue better than you or me.

From what he has said, I think Johnson believes that the only way to get government out of marriage is to put the discrimination to rest with the Constitutional argument.

For instance, suppose slavery had survived until today - or that you were transported back through time - would you suggest the solution would be for the States to release the slaves all at once using a Constitutional argument? Or, would you suggest that the States be allowed to enslave people as long as they saw fit?

Given the Constitutional argument, Johnson may not be off base here. And, what you have provided is not absolute proof of a flip-flop.