Good for Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson gave the finger to the Republican my-family-values-must-be-your-family-values set

Presidential candidate and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson charged today in a formal statement through his campaign that the Family Leader “pledge” Republican candidates for President are being asked to sign is “offensive to the principles of liberty and freedom on which this country was founded”.  Governor Johnson also plans to further state his position against the Family Leader pledge this afternoon in Las Vegas, NV at a speech he will deliver at the Conservative Leadership Conference.

Johnson went on to state that “the so-called ‘Marriage Vow” pledge that FAMILY LEADER is asking Republican candidates for President to sign attacks minority segments of our population and attempts to prevent and eliminate personal freedom.   This type of rhetoric is what gives Republicans a bad name.

“Government should not be involved in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I have always been a strong advocate of liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention into our lives. The freedoms that our forefathers fought for in this country are sacred and must be preserved. The Republican Party cannot be sidetracked into discussing these morally judgmental issues — such a discussion is simply wrongheaded. We need to maintain our position as the party of efficient government management and the watchdogs of the “public’s pocket book”.

“This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’.

Johnson is easily my favorite Presidential candidate in recent memory.


  1. Evil Red Scandi:

    I'm liking Gary Johnson quite a bit, but he lacks the fundraising, name recognition, and cult following (for better or worse) that's allowed Ron Paul to swim as far as he has against the tide. So (for better or worse) my support's going to Ron Paul in this cycle.

  2. Evil Red Scandi:

    But, yes, his response to the pledge was absolutely epic.

  3. James Howe:

    I've been very impressed with what Gary Johnson has had to say on a variety of topics. He doesn't try to skirt around an issue that might be difficult. I saw him on Stossel when he was confronted about his religious beliefs by a social conservative and he didn't try and finesse his response. It's probably unfortunate that the people who vote in the Republican primaries likely won't choose him because I think has the potential to draw a large number of independent voters.

  4. Mark:

    The truth of the matter is marriage has nothing to do with a person's bedroom. Marriage is a license from the state that gives you benefits and creates obligations. Nothing more and nothing less. I personally do not care about how it is defined by the state and it really does not matter to me at all.

    But other people have rights too. THey have the right of association. They have the right to recognize "marriage" as they see fit. That you do not agree with them is your choice and right. The difference in opinion is settled, simply or otherwise, in government policy.

  5. Mike:

    I fear that Johnson doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning the nomination though I intend to vote for him in the NC primary. I have no doubt that he would make the best president of anyone running especially including Obama. Unfortunately there are many social conservatives (including many of my friends) that would not vote for him because of his views on the drug war, abortion, and religion.

  6. Dan:

    Meanwhile, Michelle Bachmann is pledging that she plans to take on gay marriage and "porn" if she's elected. Glad she's focused on the real issues facing our country. :)

  7. DrTorch:

    So Gary Johnson makes a statement that is completely inaccurate historically, and demonstrates he doesn't understand the issue in the least...and this is a good thing?

  8. Henry Bowman:

    Gary Johnson is great, but he has no chance of the Republican nomination, especially after CNN refused to let him participate in the so-called TV debate. He desperately needed the air time, but scumbags at CNN refused such. CNN's attitude is typical of media attitudes towards those regarded as libertarians: Ron Paul was only included because (a) he did reasonably well last time around and (b) he is a sitting Congress Critter.

  9. Brian Dunbar:

    makes a statement that is completely inaccurate historically,

    Which parts would that be, Sir?

  10. astonerii:

    Good thing he is willing to open his mouth. Check off another candidate that has 0 chance of winning the primary.

    I would love to know which laws are being advocated or exist that probe into the bedroom, or for that matter, any room of your house on a SOCIAL level. Anyone got a single one? Of course not. Why? Because libertarians are pretty much idiots, and they just spout out a bunch of garbage hoping no one has knowledge of history or government. The only laws being promoted or existing are those that pertain to what people do in public. People do have the absolute 100% god given right to institute government that does have levels of control over the public sphere in which they all agree to live in, and it is going to be majority rule, and sorry about your pathetic little whine baby minority ACTIVITY loser selfs, but live with it.

    The multiculticult has been an absolute failure everywhere it has been allowed to grow. Every place you have multicultural society you find multicultimultiplier as much violent crime as you had before the expanded multiculticult. Europe is finally seeing the light on this, but not the libertarians. Nope, they think you can not only go multiculticulti but suprememulticulticult and not have any problems. The whole problem with multiculticults is that there is too much government coercion in their lives, but you take away that coercion, and suddenly people with diametrically opposed values are suddenly going to be singing their kumbaya songs together, dancing hand in hand, but all to a different tune.

  11. astonerii:


    Exactly right, once you toss the sarcasm. Fiscal responsibility is a moral issue. When you let the people be immoral in every other way, what makes you think they will be moral in fiscal matters? But hey, libertarian! Che Guevara! Castro! and every other cult has to have something to strive towards.

  12. ErisGuy:

    I agree. I can't stand it when people talk about getting the government to legislate their morality. It's good to hear Johnson wants the government out of bedrooms, hotel rooms, photo studios, churches, and adoption agencies, so that anyone who doesn't want to rent a hotel room to homosexual "married" couples won't be coerced and compelled to; anyone who refuses to photograph a homosexual "marriage" won't have to; anyone who refuses to allow a homosexual "married" couple to adopt children from them won't have to. It's terrible when the government legislates morality--we should support conscientious objectors against government-imposed moralities.

  13. me:


    Astonerii - you want the truth? Son, you can't handle the truth!

    Compare the US and, say, Germany, which is about as multiculti as it gets. And has lower crime rates than the US. And amazing GDP/capita compared to the US.

    Those things have nothing to do with each other, and why anyone would want to confound them is beyond me. Or, maybe, to allude (humoristically!) to another flamewar I am involved in, given that highway accident rates per vehicle mile travelled are much lower, multiculti is good for something? ;)

  14. Mark:

    These people spout off anything:

    WHich country is more multicultural:

    Country A: German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, other 6.1% (made up largely of Greek, Italian, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish)

    Country B: white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate)
    note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because considers Hispanic to mean persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin including those of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican Republic, Spanish, and Central or South American origin living who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total population is Hispanic

    Country A looks rather homogeneous, in fact.

    Next, which country has the higher GDP/capital:

    Country A: $35,700 (2010 est.)
    Country B: $47,200 (2010 est.)

  15. John Moore:

    I just read the Marriage Vow and would have no trouble taking it.

    Which provision gets into someone's bedroom?

    The vow is about a number of things, most notable and controversial being:

    -Having candidates pledge to be moral themselves (i.e. live up to decent family values, which in this sense means being decent to spouse and kids) - i.e. shut up, Newt!

    -Keeping the government recognition of marriage to that of its traditional and biologically and socially sensible meaning: heterosexual union for the purpose of raising children.

    -protecting the unborn (which is consistent with the best of Libertarian principles, depending on your definition of when an unborn child develops rights).

    For those who claim that this is government legislating morality, what the hell do they think state sanction of homosexual marriage is? It is a legislating of a moral view with corresponding coercive policies (ask Catholic Charities of Boston).

    It is NOT about banning homosexual sex. It is NOT about preventing homosexuals from forming civil unions or having spousal medical rights. It is NOT about having the government telling you what to believe. It is NOT about the government telling charities who they must hire and who they must adopt children to (unlike the gay marriage movement). It is NOT about the government forcing people to undergo sensitivity training about how to deal with gays.

    In other words, it's against big brother government - aren't libertarians supposed to like this sort of thing? Or are they reflexively against traditional morality, regardless of the consequences of the altrenatives.

    Read the damned thing!

  16. Mark:

    John M.

    The problem with these people is that they simply do not believe other people have the right to have an opinion. I personally support gay marriage. But, I also recognize the right of my fellow citizen of this country to have their own moral viewpoints. I may disagree, but that is just a personal disagreement. Yet, these libertarians feel that other people should not have the right to seek the values that they care about. The main reason for this is that they see things only from the point of view of THEIR RIGHTS. They have almost no understanding of how their supposed rights tread on the rights of others, and that is the entire fallacy of the libertarian argument. There is very little activity that does not impact more than one person.

  17. John Moore:

    Mark, that's a valid point. Libertarianism in its caffeinated form depends on an unrealistic view of human nature, so no wonder they worship Ayn Rand, who had hardly a clue in that regard.

    Abortion is a good litmus test. Most libertarians automatically recoil at any thought of government regulation of abortion. But, I cannot imagine a function of government more essential than the protection of the helpless innocent against one who would take its life for the sake of convenience or lifestyle! If one cannot support that function, how can one justify any government whatsoever?

    Caveat: the time at which the unborn gains rights is obviously a matter of valid dispute. However, the idea that the unborn has zero rights until, magically, they are conferred upon the moment of birth (not partial birth, either), is completely unsupportable. And yet, it appears to be the typical libertarian position.

  18. Mark:

    I completely agree on abortion. Obviously, there is a point were a "fetus" achieves viability and the state has the obligation to protect that life.

    I believe that having political discussion on what determines viability is very important. And, that is a decision the PEOPLE should make in their state legislatures. In a federal system it is the state legislature that has the police powers to arbitrate these issues. I may not agree with my state's laws with respect to abortion, but I should have options as to my recourse given this oppostion. I can vote, I can vote with my feet, and I can protest. I have sympathy for the pro-life crowd because their ability to shape policy has been taken away from them, and that is outrageous.

  19. astonerii:

    "The actual number is thus probably even higher than what the authorities are reporting now, as it doesn't include second generation immigrants. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who has investigated violent crimes in Svea high court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents."

    “A Muslim man can have sexual pleasure with a little girl as young as a baby. But he should not penetrate her vaginally, however he can sodomize her”. (Tehriro vasyleh, fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990)

    “It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,”

    Forcible Rape in USA 2008 per 100,000 is 29.7
    Forcible Rape in Sweden in 2008 per 100,000 is 46

    Multi culti and rape goes hand in hand.

    Yeah, that cultural difference sure makes living amongst each other a kumbaya event for someone. I do not think it works so well for those forced by the government (as a libertarian government would also do) to accept and welcome different cultural norms. Just because this is Muslims does not mean that the everyone chooses their own ways of life (culture) would not have large numbers of individuals going along with things like this. Sure, they may get caught, go to jail, and get punished, but the conflict and damage is done due to the cultural difference. The bigger you allow that cultural difference become, the greater the violent actions that will occur. And only through coercion can you get the desired result of what you say you promote, just leave me alone. ONLY THROUGH COERCION.

    "In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man."

    Here the cultural difference is pretty minor. Most of the people involved likely were born and raised in the same city. Anyone want to try and argue that culture is not the main factor for this huge difference? If not culture, then what, race?

    "When whites do violence -- rape, murder, assault -- how often do they choose black victims? Shouldn't a nation of bigots target blacks most of the time? At least half of the time? Of course, it does not. When whites commit violence, they to it to blacks 2.4 percent of the time. Blacks, on the other hand, choose white victims more than half the time. [317]"

    "In those cases in which the race of the killer is known, blacks kill twice as many whites as whites kill blacks. Black-on-white robberies and gang assaults are twenty-one times more common than white on black. In the case of gang robbery, blacks victimize whites fifty-two times more often than whites do blacks. [318] "

    Show me with empirical evidence how libertarian ways will make these things better.

  20. Pat:

    I have to say, I think that one of the things that turns people off who would normally agree with conservatives on most other issues is the "social conservatism." The only dog I have in any of the social issue fights is that I believe government has no place being involved in any of them. Conservatives can't call for limited government, then want government involved in a bunch of social issues. On the other hand, I understand that the reaction when the liberal view on social issues is legislated (or granted by the courts) is to fight back politically. Overall, though, I wish the conservative position sounded more like, "Let's stop social legislation, particularly at the federal level, and let people work it out in the states, or cities, or with their neighbors." Instead it sounds like people trying to force conservative views down other people's throats--which, by the way, is exactly what the liberals do with their views as well, but they're better at getting their view to be seen as the politically correct view. I thing the vast middle of America would understand a principled stand of "social issues should not be decided in the Federal Government." (Which is the best argument for overturning Roe V Wade and bringing it back to being something hashed out in the states). As for gay marriage, I don't think the government has any business in the marriage business one way or another. When it's OK for government to promote one social outcome, why is it not OK for it to promote another? It's a slippery slope, because power changes hands and at some point, if you keep government involved in social issues, the people who disagree with you are going to take power and then you're screwed. NOT addressing social issues at the federal level is actually a very conservative position. Find in the Constitution where the federal government should define marriage or provide special benefits (or penalties) to people who are married.

  21. Mark:

    "Conservatives can’t call for limited government"

    Not sure what that even means and I think that you are completely missing the point. TO see this, lets understand that for a "limited" government, one of its most important powers is the protection of human life. Now, lets assume that you believe that life begins at conception. Even if you do not agree with this premise, only the most cold hearted abortion zealots must agree that this position is very compelling. It view has a moral ethic and a solid scientific base (the "fetus" is a completely separate entity from its mother, with a different genetic makeup). And, if you believe that life begins at conception, how can you have any other position?

    Even Roe v Wade recognizes that the State has a compelling interest in the protection of an unborn child, and uses this court ruling to balance the rights of privacy of the potential mother versus the State's interest in protecting life. The Roe Court decided that the "tipping" point in this interest is at viability. Conservatives believe at a minimum that the proper way of adjuticating moral issues is not with the courts, but with the People themselves. And, in our federal system the states have the police power. I believe that the police powers should be used only in the most obvious of cases, but anyone who claims that there should be no "moral policing" is an absolute fool.

    "he people who disagree with you are going to take power and then you’re screwed"

    No, that is the way the democratic process works. So what. YOu win some and you lose some. If you lose, you plan how in the next election you will win and your view prevail. What upsets the entire "apple cart" on these issues is when the courts become involved and remove from the People the ability to determine their own outcome.

  22. Bram:

    I really like Gary Johnson but I had to find an actual copy of the document before having an opinion:

    I agree with some of the "vows" such as opposition to Sharia Law, human trafficking, slavery, etc..., the commitment to downsize the government, and protecting military personnel from run-away PC police.

    Some of it I don't care for and don't think are issues for the federal government - same sex marriage, fidelity, etc..

    So it's a mixed bag for me. I see that Michelle Bachman has signed while also expressing her support for the Tenth Amendment - I guess recognizing that a lot of this is outside the proper role of a federal government.

  23. colson:

    "People do have the absolute 100% god given right to institute government that does have levels of control over the public sphere in which they all agree to live in, and it is going to be majority rule, and sorry about your pathetic little whine baby minority ACTIVITY loser selfs, but live with it." -astonerri
    So you pretty much admit your agenda is no different than that of the Modern Liberal/Progressive agenda: Authoritarianism via tyranny of the majority. Got it.

  24. astonerii:


    And yours would be tyranny by the minority. How pray tell do you plan to make sure every citizens god given rights to be as blatantly obnoxious and deviant as they care to be are protected? Oh, the government would have the authority to use coercive measures against anyone who tries to prevent some obnoxious low life human being from dancing partially or fully naked in street enacting sexual activity through dance? Wow, that is so awesomely completely different than my proposal where the government is allowed to use coercive activity to prevent the obnoxious low life for the good of the many.

    If you have come to realize that it is either Anarchy which is he who has the power makes the rules, a republic which is rule by the Majority with limited but solid protections for the minority, or libertarianism which is rule by the minority with no protections for the majority, you have finally come to realize what your true options are.

    So, Colson, Which for of government?


    I really want to know, do you seriously think that a government instituted to do nothing other than to protect the minority and attack the majority is the best we can do in our world? Is it? Because if government is not there to coerce the majority into accepting the minorities infractions upon it, it is becomes anarchy.

  25. John David Galt:

    Beware campaigns against so-called "human trafficking". The organizers want to so define all prostitution, lumping in the voluntary kind with the coerced kind so that they can provide unwanted "help" to those who choose to do it. Nobody is better off for that kind of "help".

  26. John David Galt:

    It's not viability that matters -- it's intelligence (which determines moral personhood). The present 3-month cutoff is a good approximation.

  27. John David Galt:

    They can have their own viewpoints. They can even have churches in which gays are not welcome. But the moment they start making laws we all have to obey, they're committing a crime of violence.

    The bottom-line principle is that using government force to enforce *any* rule on others is morally identical to grabbing a gun and enforcing it on them yourself. If you can't rightfully do it that way, you can't rightfully do it through politics.