I’m the only candidate that wants to end the drug war. I’m the only candidate that wants to repeal the Patriot Act. I’m the only candidate that’s talking about marriage equality as being a constitutionally guaranteed right. I’m the only candidate that wants to balance the federal budget now, and that means reforming the entitlements: Medicaid, Medicare.I would like to know what he means by the Constitution guaranteeing "marriage equality".
Quoted in Think Progress, he appears to be supporting "gay marriage" but may really be going beyond that.
As a believer in individual freedom and keeping government out of personal lives, I simply cannot find a legitimate justification for federal laws, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, which ‘define’ marriage. That definition should be left to religions and individuals – not government. Government’s role when it comes to marriage is one of granting benefits and rights to couples who choose to enter into a marriage ‘contract’. As I have examined this issue, consulted with folks on all sides, and viewed it through the lens of individual freedom and equal rights, it has become clear to me that denying those rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple. [...]Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson seems to not be excluding plural marriages, say the way Maggie's Marshall did.
Today, I believe we have arrived at a point in history where more and more Americans are viewing it as a question of liberty and freedom. That evolution is important, and the time has come for us to align our marriage laws with the notion that every individual should be treated equally.
Are there principles involved, or just special interests? I am on the record, from when I ran for office, as saying everyone should get civil unions from the state and "marriages" should be done in arrangement with your local minister. Right now that everyone is straight and homosexual couples. Why is that the natural limit? I would like to draw the line there, but isn't that just me trying to impose my religious or cultural ideas on everyone else?
Regards — Cliff
4 comments:
"Couples who enter into a marriage 'contract'" seems very clear language to me. Unless my Websters has changed since yesterday, "couple" means two, and not any other number. (And, not for nothing, but Johnson uses the word repeatedly in the quote).
I am discouraged that people have such a hard time with belief in "individual freedom and keeping government out of personal lives". Why does this terrify so? It's really very straightforward, simple, and to the exact intent of our founding documents.
But, then again, I suppose one possible conclusion is that those who prefer membership in the two present major political parties would have little interest in protecting anyone's interests but their own, as they've joined a de facto cult whose supreme demonstrated purpose is opposing the interests of the other above all else.
Only trouble with that particular approach is that we all lose in the process.
Johnson, at the very least, is right on this one.
I get the point that he used the term "couples", but with a quarter of the world's population believing in a religion that accepts plural marriage, why is our current understanding the one we should apply? What is the fundamental Constitutional principle here?
I am all for individual freedom and keeping the government out of people's lives.
That said, I don't see political parties as cults, with an exception for certain Communist and Fascist Parties—North Korea, for example.
Regards — Cliff
In terms of slavish devotion to the direction of the leader(s), I absolutely insist the "cult" monicker applies fairly to both Democrats and Republicans. Taking just one of seemingly endless examples: Four years ago, Republicans were celebrating executive privilege to write the rules of government--yet now they decry such same as treasonous. The Democrats, no better, were baying for Dubya's head over his Executive Orders, yet now they stand completely mute about the exercise of same by their man. It's not reasonable behavior, and it's not sane behavior. Such is simply and absolutely cult behavior. Both sides believe theirs and only theirs can be right, despite the substance of both parties being disturbingly the same. (Deficit spending, compromise to citizen liberty in the name of "security" even to the point of torture, extraordinary extradition and assassination of citizens). The same senior financial executives (who are top funders of both party election campaigns) occupying the seats of regulatory power consistently through administrations would be another.
Let's consider a flat tax, making the constellation of the family irrelevant for the federal government. States can use a system to encourange participation from both maternal and paternal lines of kinship for a child, they just can not have a term for it.
You know where I stand why legal marriage even exist, relevance be damned.
If we can redefine marriage, what stops the law or anyone to redefine 'a couple'. Couple can mean also a few. "A couple of pieces of candy."
Post a Comment