Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gary Johnson On Polygamy: States Can ‘Have At It’ [VIDEO]
The Daily Caller ^ | June 7, 2016 | Steve Guest, media reporter

Posted on 06/12/2016 1:15:48 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

When Libertarian candidate for president Gary Johnson was asked about his stance on polygamy, he said, “It is personal choice” and up to the states to decide their stance on the issue.

Appearing on Fox News’s “Special Report” on Monday, Daily Caller Editor-In-Chief Tucker Carlson said to Johnson, “I’ve got to give you the libertarian test. Now you’ve said as a libertarian, you believe that people ought to be able to make personal decisions without interference from the state which is why you support gay marriage. And yet, there are many, many millions of people in this country whose religion either allows or commands them to take more than one spouse under polygamy, that’s a felony. If you marry the mothers of your various children, you get charged with a felony.”

“Are you for legalizing polygamy?” Carlson asked.

“You know, I think that really is a states issue,” Johnson replied.


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Religion
KEYWORDS: 2016issues; homosexualagenda; islam; libertarians; lping; mormons; pansexuals; polygamy

1 posted on 06/12/2016 1:15:48 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I agree. Good heavens, if two guys can get “married” then we’ve already leapt over any other moral Rubicon we can think of, including polygamy. In fact, given the current state of the case law, I can’t imagine how any court could possibly find it illegal.


2 posted on 06/12/2016 1:17:36 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’ll bet Romney votes for that!!!


3 posted on 06/12/2016 1:19:53 PM PDT by WENDLE ( We take it back now or never!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

What does the Constitution say about it?


4 posted on 06/12/2016 1:20:53 PM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If there’s money in it, we can be sure that the American people will accede.


5 posted on 06/12/2016 1:21:14 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Trump-Santorum and Paul Nehlen 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Aren’t Libertarians so special? Libertines!


6 posted on 06/12/2016 1:26:10 PM PDT by RitaOK (Viva Christo Rey. Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming-- infinitum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

keep getting gary johnson confused with richard simmons and jeh johnson...


7 posted on 06/12/2016 1:29:24 PM PDT by zzwhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
What does the Constitution say about it?
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, legally speaking, I think that he's right.
Marriage being outside the purview of the federal government is obvious, as there is no mention of it within the Constitution — though it could be argued that it's not a matter of either States or the People either, but instituted by God… in all these cases it's not within the federal government's authority.

Not that the self-styled god-kings on the judiciary would ever use such simple and encompassing reasoning.

8 posted on 06/12/2016 1:33:32 PM PDT by Edward.Fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

well there you have it


9 posted on 06/12/2016 1:42:12 PM PDT by Nifster (I see puppy dogs in the clouds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I can’t afford one wife, no way I am going to try to get another one.


10 posted on 06/12/2016 2:04:59 PM PDT by kempster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Inevitable result of gay marriage. Although, a somewhat hypocritical perspective stating “States rights”...why is that vs gay marriage?

So we have no standards for marriage, it means anything you want. They just wanted to destroy the Judeo-Christian version of it, make it mean nothing.


11 posted on 06/12/2016 2:26:05 PM PDT by fuzzylogic (welfare state = sharing consequences of poor moral choices among everybody)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

No, Gary is an idiot and expecting us to believe his whopper of a lie. And he knows it is not going to work this way.

He knows SCROTUS will do the same thing they did with sodomite/lesbian “marriage”.


12 posted on 06/12/2016 2:45:14 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Way to go Gary, especially after you dumped your wife Dee when she couldn’t keep up with your athletic lifestyle (and she was the brains of the outfit) and took up with some hardbody Santa Fe cougar.


13 posted on 06/12/2016 2:47:20 PM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim

I can afford 2 wives. Just send them off to work and let me manage the money


14 posted on 06/12/2016 3:04:44 PM PDT by DIRTYSECRET (urope. Why do they put up with this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim

I don’t believe you. He just looks queer.


15 posted on 06/12/2016 3:05:35 PM PDT by DIRTYSECRET (urope. Why do they put up with this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Gary won’t even carry the liberal stronghold of NM. Mrs. Bill will set to that@


16 posted on 06/12/2016 3:05:50 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Trump-Santorum and Paul Nehlen 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

Nope, my wife knew him in her triathlon days in the 80’s and worked with his dad Earl in the school system. Earl pretty much told me he was clueless at the Furrow’s lumberyard in 1998.


17 posted on 06/12/2016 3:12:32 PM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Edward.Fish
Not that the self-styled god-kings on the judiciary would ever use such simple and encompassing reasoning

Nor the citizenry. Becomes when it comes right down to it, we really don't care what the Constitution says if it conflicts with how we think things should be run.

18 posted on 06/13/2016 3:29:50 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Becomes when it comes right down to it, we really don't care what the Constitution says if it conflicts with how we think things should be run.

Who is we?
I certainly do care about the Constitution being followed, even when it makes things 'troublesome' or inconvenient… heck, especially when it makes things inconvenient, because its entire goal is to preserve Liberty by delineating what the federal government may [legitimately] do. The very few restrictions that it puts on the States are either to curtail obvious injustice (eg flat prohibition on Ex Post Facto law), or to prevent the States from violating the exclusively-delegated powers (eg prohibition on the States making treaties w/ foreign powers).

19 posted on 06/13/2016 8:06:07 AM PDT by Edward.Fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson