Johnson Outraged By UnRepublican 'Marriage Vow' Pledge

Gary Johnson Outraged By 'Marriage Vow' Pledge

That "Family Leader" pledge may have won the enthusiastic endorsement of Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, but former New Mexico Governor and long-shot presidential hopeful Gary Johnson is having an equally enthusiastic reaction in the opposite direction. On the Johnson campaign's "Truth For Change" blog, Johnson calls the pledge "offensive and unrepublican," an "[attempt] to prevent and eliminate personal freedom," and finally, the "type of rhetoric" that "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 goes even further, making a web video with a piano, gently weeping about how "un-American" the pledge is. It's stuff like this that sometimes makes me wonder if anyone will ever make clear the distinction between "Tea Partiers" and "libertarians."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/1 ... 94929.html

---

Naturally, Newt Gingrich Wants To Edit The 'Marriage Vow'

If you were wondering how Newt Gingrich was going to handle The Family Leader's "Marriage Vow" pledge -- with its fun references to "quickie divorces" and "personal fidelity to my spouse -- wonder no more! He is going to try to make the best of an awkward situation by suggesting that the folks behind the pledge make some edits. He'll be happy to help! He has some personal expertise on these matters.

The former speaker of the House was in Iowa on Monday at an event hosted by the Family Leader, the influential social conservative group that designed the pledge. There, he told the organization's leader, Bob Vander Plaats, that he wants to change language in the pledge, which each GOP presidential candidate was asked to sign, before agreeing to it, according to Gingrich campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond.

"We're happy to work with you to sharpen it so people understand where we're going with it," Gingrich told Vander Plaats, according to Hammond. "It's not there yet."

Anything in particular that Gingrich wants changed? A Gingrich spokesperson declined to be specific, though it was suggested that the pledge "needed to be shortened." (It is five pages including footnotes, so maybe Gingrich's camp just wants to be sure Herman Cain will read it.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/1 ... 95111.html

One would think it would be stuff like the usual right-wing racism about "slave babies" in 1860... But, nah... It's more about Newt trying to find a way around the embarrassing language about the fact that he's on Wife-#3, after screwing (oh, sorry...) the first two...

You can't make this stuff up... The wingnut so-called christian conservatives just defy all belief...

I love Johnson and his Libertarian leanings. I wish he was allowed to be in more national debates, CNN wouldn't put him on the stage.

Libertarians Vs. Tea Party people? Too many people assume Tea Party people are all social conservatives when a lot are only concerned with debt and taxes.

I think that one of the saddest parts of the Republican Party today is the fact that they (not including myself here) have to pander to the religious sector. Realistically, we are in a world of changing moralities, and what was considered wrong many years ago is accepted widely on a social level today. The idea that something like this would even be proposed is crazy to me, and the idea that somehow being socially closed-minded is the only way to get votes is also crazy.

I really hope to see a dual-ticket party in 2012. I would run myself if I thought I had the experience and knowledge to do so, and I would run simply on a platform of compromise. I would profess fiscal responsibility as the only proper way to run a government, but with socially accepted values, a nod to the idea of a social contract as it relates to support, as long as there's the agreement to compromise within reason, an end to foreign expenditures (wars, aid, etc,.) that are deemed unsustainable, and reinvestment into groups like NASA that employ and return that money to our GDP and private contractors in the US. Some view NASA as a waste of money, I believe economically that this could not be further from the truth.

I had a friend tell me that we don't actually have a two-party system, but a one-party system with two heads; and that one system is after more power, and consuming and controlling more parts of our lives. I would love to see that change in a dual-party effort that is based in sanity, responsibility, and compassion.

Not all Republicans are the bigots that you make them out to be... but I will admit that more often than not, they pander to the bigots because it's the only way they think they'll get elected. It's sad, it's dismal, and I hope someday that the idea of what makes a Republican a Republican can move past the texts of any religion, and focus more on the idealisms that really could make the US great again.

RCCL wrote: I would profess fiscal responsibility as the only proper way to run a government, but with socially accepted values, a nod to the idea of a social contract as it relates to support, as long as there's the agreement to compromise within reason, an end to foreign expenditures (wars, aid, etc,.) that are deemed unsustainable, and reinvestment into groups like NASA that employ and return that money to our GDP and private contractors in the US. Some view NASA as a waste of money, I believe economically that this could not be further from the truth.

I'd vote for that platform.

The only "pledge" politicians should take is the pledge to never take a pledge. Stuff changes and I prefer a politician to do whats best (try thinking) not adhere to an inflexible doctrine.

RCCL wrote: I think that one of the saddest parts of the Republican Party today is the fact that they (not including myself here) have to pander to the religious sector. Realistically, we are in a world of changing moralities, and what was considered wrong many years ago is accepted widely on a social level today. The idea that something like this would even be proposed is crazy to me, and the idea that somehow being socially closed-minded is the only way to get votes is also crazy.

I really hope to see a dual-ticket party in 2012. I would run myself if I thought I had the experience and knowledge to do so, and I would run simply on a platform of compromise. I would profess fiscal responsibility as the only proper way to run a government, but with socially accepted values, a nod to the idea of a social contract as it relates to support, as long as there's the agreement to compromise within reason, an end to foreign expenditures (wars, aid, etc,.) that are deemed unsustainable, and reinvestment into groups like NASA that employ and return that money to our GDP and private contractors in the US. Some view NASA as a waste of money, I believe economically that this could not be further from the truth.

I had a friend tell me that we don't actually have a two-party system, but a one-party system with two heads; and that one system is after more power, and consuming and controlling more parts of our lives. I would love to see that change in a dual-party effort that is based in sanity, responsibility, and compassion.

Not all Republicans are the bigots that you make them out to be... but I will admit that more often than not, they pander to the bigots because it's the only way they think they'll get elected. It's sad, it's dismal, and I hope someday that the idea of what makes a Republican a Republican can move past the texts of any religion, and focus more on the idealisms that really could make the US great again.

:thumbsup:

The pledge has already been modified to remove the slavery reference. Good thing the pledge didn't include a pledge to never modify the pledge. lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/the-family-leader-drops_n_893958.html

Here is the latest version of the pledge...

http://www.thefamilyleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/themarriagevow.final_.7.9.11-1.pdf

Yeah, unfortunately, it still contains the references that have Newt upset... All that stuff about "one wife"... Whatever will he do about Wives #1 & #2 ?

LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah, unfortunately, it still contains the references that have Newt upset... All that stuff about "one wife"... Whatever will he do about Wives #1 & #2 ?

I don't see anything about "one wife" in it. Otherwise, Michele Bachmann will be in trouble. But it does appear to have a "Newt is OK" clause. Per footnote 8, it doesn't matter what you did before you signed the pledge (gotta read the fine print) so Anthony Weiner is welcome to sign as well...

8. As applicable if married now, wed in the future, or whenever interacting with another‟s spouse, a person of the opposite sex or of personal attraction. No signer herein claims to be without past wrongdoing, including that of adultery. Yet going forward, each hereby vows fidelity to his or her marital vows, to his or her spouse, to all strictures and commandments against adultery, and to resist the lure of pornography destructive to marital intimacy.

It also contains this run-on sentence. Huhh??

Social protections, especially for women and children, have been evaporating as we have collectively “debased the currency” of marriage. This debasement continues as a function of adultery; “quickie divorce;” physical and verbal spousal abuse; non-committal co-habitation; pervasive infidelity and “unwed cheating” among celebrities, sports figures and politicians; anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health.

RCCL wrote: Not all Republicans are the bigots that you make them out to be... but I will admit that more often than not, they pander to the bigots because it's the only way they think they'll get elected.

I understand why many Republicans want to distance themselves from the bigoted aspects of their party because they are not themselves bigots. But why not signal that disapproval through more than just wishing it away? If you really don't want to be associated with bigots or with people who feel they "must" pander to bigots, don't vote for them and don't belong to their party. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.