Sorry, but marriage in the common vernacular certainly does not need to be religious, since atheists get married and no Republican types flip out about it.
What's the reasoning behind this? A middle ground between his principals and electability?
I'm positive Johnson has explained his position somewhere. Well do a Google search there's linkys to videos and such. Here's an excerpt from a WSJ interview:
Quote:
Q: Isn’t the true libertarian position to support gay marriage?
A: I’ve taken the position that I support gay unions.
Q: Why not marriage? What’s the difference?
A: Right or wrong, that’s what I’m advocating.
Q: So it might be wrong?
A: Look, it’s the notion that government probably shouldn’t be involved in marriage in the first place.
Just for clarification on the Marijuana issue. He is in favor of straight legalization correct? Not just for medicinal or just decriminalizing it?
From "Our America Initiative":
Quote:
Marijuana should be regulated and taxed by the federal government (just like tobacco is currently), which would lead to a lower price for the product and eliminate the criminal element from its distribution, much like the repeal of the prohibition of alcohol many decades back.
The Our America Initiative believes that current drug policies need to be changed. The answer to solving this problem lies in sentencing reform, in supplying treatment on demand, and in honest drug education for our children. We advocate heroin maintenance and other harm reduction measures and believe we should move from a criminal to a medical model of dealing with drug usage. The Initiative thinks that locking up more and more people who are nonviolent drug offenders, people whose real problem is that they are addicted to drugs, is simply a waste of money and human resources and fails to deal with the real problems of abuse. Our goal is to lower the abuse rate in America and we believe a new direction is needed for that to happen.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
