-23 votes

Gary Johnson is a statist!

"Marriage equality is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right on par with the civil rights of the sixties." - Gary Johnson (third party debate)

This is loose-constructionism at its worst. Everybody reading this knows that the Founders did not believe this and the Framers of every single Constitutional amendment did not believe this. If you were to go back to 1868 and ask the Framers of the 14th amendment if they believed their amendment guarantees homosexuals the right to marry, they would have laughed at you. Homosexuality was ILLEGAL back then.

If Gary Johnson supports activist judges who want to reinterpret the Constitution to match their social mores, he's not fit to lead a town council. What ever happened to following the Constitution? Do Ron Paul supporters now believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document that can and should be dragged kicking and screaming into each new "modern era?" If Gary Johnson believes homosexual marriage should be legal nationwide, he should support adding a Constitutional amendment to make it legal nationwide.

Secondly, he equates homosexual marriage with the civil rights of the sixties. Which civil "rights" is he referring to? The one passed in the Civil Rights Act of '64 that basically eliminates property rights? Is he referring to the housing act passed in the late sixties that takes people's right away to choose who they want renting THEIR property? Does Gary Johnson think like all Progressives and most Conservatives who don't have a backbone that the federal government has a right to force an individual to allow a person he doesn't want on his property to come on his property and rent his house out?

It is becoming more apparent daily that many Ron Paul supporters never really did support the free market or freedom in general. Many of you do not believe in local government, self-determination, Constitutionalism, or the classic liberal ideals that this nation was founded upon and made this nation great. So, you want unelected judges having the right to reinterpret the Constitution and mandate requirements on the states, practically eviscerating the Tenth Amendment? What about unelected bureaucrats doing the same?

Gary Johnson is a hippie-wannabe trying to get all the hippie wanna-be votes. He's a Progressive pretending to be a classic liberal - a wolf in sheep's clothing.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I voted for Bradley Cooper

because he was the RIGHT CHOICE.

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Who cares? Johnson won't win, but I'm voting for him

just the same. Anything to try and break the two party system down. At least Johnson is humble about his chances. Too bad the system is so rigged for the Democrat/GOP farce.

alan laney

agreed

and still when you look at all the issues, he's the most like ron paul, who btw wants govt out of marriage completely
which would result in the same outcome.

gary johnson 2016

adam kokesh 2020

The two-party system will never be broken down.

Third parties are good for protest votes - the equivalent of not voting at all, but, yet voting just to "show" the party that you normally would vote for.

But, we've been a two-party system since John Adams and with 24-hour news networks who thrive on a horse-race, breaking that duopoly is even more impossible today than it was in the 1800s. Even in the 1800s, if a third party gained prominence, it didn't compete with the other two, it replaced one of them.

Even If We Had 3 Parties...

...TPTB would just corrupt the 3rd party. The solution (that I see) is to try to greatly reduce government power to prevent people from trying to buy their power.

Marriage is a Contract

IMHO, Marriage is a contract between two people (and frequently their God).

The State should not decide who can enter into a contract.

Comprehension...

"Marriage equality is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right on par with the civil rights of the sixties." - Gary Johnson

This statement alone conveys no more that his belief that all marriages should be treated equal under the law. Nowhere does it mention sexuality in any way.

I'm not suggesting anything about his beliefs or personal opinions. I'm just pointing out facts about the quote which your post is based on.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

No...

it conveys his fundamental ignorance of the Constitution.

I don't play, I commission the league.

How? Remember, we are talking

How? Remember, we are talking about this quote.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Fine But...

...he also wants to bring the troops home, end the Federal Reserve, balance the budget, and end the drug war (amongst many other things). Gary Johnson is NOT Ron Paul but NOBODY is as good as Ron Paul. These shots against him are absurd. Some here say they can't vote for GJ due to the pro-choice issue. But do these people realize how many adults AND children are going to be killed if Obamney gets elected?!?!

If people want to write in Ron Paul, I totally understand. I'm even still considering it myself. However, I live in NY so I don't think write-ins are counted. Even if they were, however, I still would probably vote for GJ since I want him to have support for 2016 (in case RP doesn't run then).

Get the government out of marriage!

They shouldn't even be involved in who marries whom and what happens here or there. Marriage is a contract, government shouldn't dictate who joins a contract. That said, I can't believe you say GJ is a statist, he may or may not be bending the Constitution, I'd have to dig deeper into what his position is; but even if he is, at least it is to limit government. Either way he is far from a statist.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

No, you're just a bigot You

No, you're just a bigot

You believe the government can dictate who can or cannot get married based on sexual orientation? In a perfect world, there would be NO government involvement in marriage... primarily churches and other independent outlets for those who are non-religious. One obvious issue with this is if its primarily a church issue, whose to say that the church won't disallow same sex marriages? The Christian lobby is one of biggest against this legislation....

If you believe in freedom, it should be easy, it doesn't matter who you want to marry as long as you love them and want to make that commitment, you should be able to.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

You're missing the point entirely.

This isn't about marriage, it's about states' rights.

The civil right he's referring to is...

the individual's right to contract since marriage is a contractual arrangement.

Nope. He specifically referred to

the civil rights of the sixties. Most of the legislative accomplishments of the Civil Right Movement ended up abrogating contract rights and property rights. Gary Johnson does not take the position that Ron Paul takes that state governments should enforce contract rights (although RP does not claim the feds have the authority to force the states to do this), Johnson believes what happened in Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Washington D.C., and Iowa should happen nation-wide by judicial fiat.

So since you hold your own

So since you hold your own opinion as gospel and you feel as though the opinions of people on this board are crap...

Tell me Pray tell... Who do I need to vote for?

Re the title of this thread...

...a "statist" is a person who supports the existence of the State: any State, however small. Ron Paul is calling for a State limited to its Constitutionally defined powers; he's not calling for the elimination of the State altogether. Hence, he's a statist. Most people in the liberty movement are statists. I'll venture a guess that the OP is a statist. So, perhaps you should learn the meaning of words before you use them as ad hominems against others.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Mises.org wiki disagrees with you...

statism - Statism is a political ideology where the central state, rather than the people, are the ultimate source of authority and power.[1] Statism tends towards increased central planning in the economic sphere and a curtailing of civil liberties, which may be deemed necessary by those in power to achieve social or militaristic goals

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Statism

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Definition: statist

n. The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

NoN, do you often make up definitions to suit your purpose?

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Wow, the gj lackeys really don't like it when his faults are

hung on the line for all to see.
It's becoming a badge of honor to be voted down by them.
Great post and thanks for highlighting these facts.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

You are a one-issue

You are a one-issue voter.

People are dying. People are being enslaved. People are being wrongfully imprisoned.

But you are concerned with what people do in their private bedroom????

And you call him a statist but turn around and vote for the ultimate, unabashed statist Romney?

How the fuck do you justify this?

Thank You

I understand what the OP is saying about government interference in things it shouldn't be involved in is "the camel's nose under the tent". However, I couldn't agree more w/ you because there is so much wrong w/ our country and GJ is a very very good candidate (at least from his rhetoric and from what I've read of his actions as Governor of New Mexico).

I will almost certainly be voting GJ this election and absolutely won't be voting for Obamney.

Wrong

this issue permeates others. If your reading comprehension is so poor that you don't see that she is saying that gj advocates government interference in the bedroom, then there's nothing more to say.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Let Me Get This Straight

Ending the wars, balancing the budget, ending the drug war, and ending the Fed aren't good enough for you because you sense statist tendencies in GJ? I mean, I understand your point but do you realize how much trouble our country is in right now?!

1 issue

Makes a huge difference when the vote virtually do not count

Right now the election is no in our control, it could've been when RP was running, but not now...

Now a vote is a protest vote, and 1 issue and the fact that he's sole real other choice is Ron Paul, makes us want to vote for the one who's better

"Truth is Treason in an Empire that lies" - Ron Paul

Educate the masses, and win in the end.

Why the insults to reading

Why the insults to reading comprehension so often? I read posts, I assure you, and I comprehend them just fine. Maybe it is you who is missing my point.

For the record, I believe there should be no state in the bedroom whatsoever, marriage shouldn't be the government's right to grant.

But you cannot simply change everything at once. Right now the state DOES grant marriage. Sadly that's how it is.

And while I, personally, feel the best route is to remove that fact, and make marriage a personal decision with no relation to taxes, I can see how GJ would pursue a route that is most definitely faster and more politically feasible to at least end the discrimination.

I certainly don't think he's perfect or as experienced as an ideal leader would be, but he sure beats the crap out of Obamney!!!

And absolutely no question, if you are being intellectually honest, it is obvious that this is not even remotely close to enough evidence to call GJ a statist. That is an unfair claim and this is not nearly enough to back it. I do see how it leans toward that, but it's obvious that he has other motives for it than statism.

How does the government granting marriage licenses

to homos in any way affect what goes on in their bedroom? The cliche "get the government out of my bedroom" has been abused so often it it rarely if every has anything to do with wanting to get the government out of people's bedrooms.

I still

think it's ridiculous when people like you get so worked up over these small social issues that GJ supports. I'll take a pro choice, pro gay, freedom loving libertarian over a NDAA, Patriot Act, Stimulus/Bailout warmongering fascist known as Mitt Romney.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Anonymous
http://youtu.be/cjkvC9qr0cc

Huh?

"Right now the state DOES grant marriage."
That is absolutely correct as it is the right of the State to decide everything outside the enumerated powers entitled to the federal government.
gj is talking as if he would still be a governor. As governor, he can get something like that passed. But as President - it's outside his Constitutional enumerated power. And if he really meant to follow the Constitution, he would, as President, end all federal interference regarding marriage. But he doesn't want to give up the power he had as governor, and instead retain the current powers those like Clinton/Bush/Obama ammassed and continue to lift the presidency to that of absolute monarch. He's no better than Robamney in this regard.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I disagree that the states

I disagree that the states should be granting marriage. I do not consent to any authority for the government in my bedroom. I thought we were on the same page with that, but I guess not.

I believe in states' rights, but they must not violate the Constitution or my basic human rights.

My preferred way to handle this is to bring the government entirely out of the bedroom.

The faster way to handle this, which Gary Johnson has chosen, is to add one more evil law on a heap of millions of them, in order to bring about some real-world good.

The WRONG way to handle this, which is the method Obamney follow, is to allow states to continue to discriminate against people for things that have nothing to do with government.

GJ is better than Obamney in this regard.