Badnarik on Gay Marriage

[tpahl]

When looking at the vote for the Defense of Marriage act, A majority of both democrats and republicans voted in favor of the anti gay legislation. thankfully we have another option in Badnarik

www.badnarik.com

The following is his answer to a question on the subject of gay marriage from a recent debate in Atlanta Georgia.

Moderator: One of the hottest political issues in the country this year is the issue of whether persons of the same sex should be allowed to marry and assume the same legal rights and responsibilities now afforded to men and women who marry. Would you state your position on this issue and talk about how that fits into your general philosophy as a Libertarian?

Badnarik: The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal. And in 1776 that is exactly what they meant. Women could not vote, women could not own property and blacks were considered property. After 200 years of enlightenment, we have realized that gender and race are inappropriate distinctions for determining who has individual rights. Anytime the government gives you permission, they let you know that you have permission by giving you a permit or license. If you have a marriage license, what do you have permission to do now that you did not have permission to do before who gave you that permission, and where did they get the authority to give you that permission in the first place. [Inaudible] You have the right to live with anyone you want. It is not the government’s priority to set those standards

The full debate can be heard on CSPAN http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.....x=0&image1.y=0

And I have typed out badnariks answers at http://www.tblog.com/templates/inde...l&static=193871

 

[insein]

 

[007]

At the risk of being a copy cat......

 

[proud_savagette]

agreed

 

[Avatar4321]

dang, i may as well use this thread to spell out my agenda. I have about as much a chance of winning the president as this banawasit guy. And im not even old enough to run yet.

 

[proud_savagette]

to tell the truth, i've never heard of him. Which means he's no threat. Which is why i don't care.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by proud_savagette
to tell the truth, i've never heard of him

Me neither. I find his views somewhat interesting, though.

 

[proud_savagette]

I find his views somewhat interesting, though.

Interesting in what way? I read it and laughed hysterically, waking my german shepherd puppy up in the process. And then i had to read it again and laugh some more. I wonder what that guy's i.q. level is...probably no higher than my puppy's. No, my dog is probably smarter. We bought him a bill clinton chew toy, and as soon as we gave it to him, he started throwing it around, and had decapitated it within five minutes. good boy, sampson! hehehe:

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Me neither. I find his views somewhat interesting, though.

Ya, I have to say that I haven't heard of him either. But it was an interesting read, I'll agree with that.

 

[MtnBiker]

Hmmm interesting, politically minded people on a political messageboard and no one had heard of this guy.

 

[proud_savagette]

hehehe i wonder what that means? :

 

[brneyedgrl80]

It's like that guy that New Guy posted about somewhere. What was his name? Perotuk or something? I never heard of that guy either, so with the same logic, I guess he's nothing to worry about.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Well, I know Peroutka is the candidate with the Constitution party. They have some interesting ideas, but like the Libertarians lose me on certain things. Badnarik sounds familiar. Socialist? It's some off the wall party like that anyway.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Well hell. Curiosity made me look. He's Libertarian.

 

[tpahl]

Well now I guess you have heard of him. He is the Libertarian party candidate. Many experts predict he will play a a signifigant role in this election. More so than Nader did in 2000.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/politics/main619019.shtml

 

[no1tovote4]

Originally posted by tpahl
Well now I guess you have heard of him. He is the Libertarian party candidate. Many experts predict he will play a a signifigant role in this election. More so than Nader did in 2000.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/politics/main619019.shtml

I thought I was going to have to tell everybody he won the Libertarian nod.

I will vote for him this year, but heck I would have voted Russo too.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by tpahl
Well now I guess you have heard of him. He is the Libertarian party candidate. Many experts predict he will play a a signifigant role in this election. More so than Nader did in 2000.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/politics/main619019.shtml

Why not name these so called experts?

Are these the same experts who thought The Soviet Union would never be defeated?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Hmmm interesting, politically minded people on a political messageboard and no one had heard of this guy.

I think that says something aboout the acceptance of third parties in our system and the mainstream media.

I mean, as far as many democrats are concerned if you vote for Nader you are a spoiler.
That sucks, and you might be, but if this is the case we might as well abolish third parties. I think I may have mentioned this before...

Vote with your heart.
And don't hate the playa, hate the game.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Why not name these so called experts?

Are these the same experts who thought The Soviet Union would never be defeated?

Amongst others... Lawrence Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project at the University of Minnesota. You would know this of course if you had bothered to look at the cbs article I gave you a link to. As for his opinions on the demise of the Soviet Union... I have no clue. But just because an expert was wrong does not mean that they are always wrong.

You may be right. badnarik may have no impact whatsoever in this years election. I doubt it, but it could happen. All I am saying is that there have been people quite publically predicting that he will have an effect.

Travis

 

[Avatar4321]

There is a reason we have a strong two party system. The Special interests have more power when there are more than two parties because smaller parties cant difuse the influence of the interests group on them. the Two party system can. Which is one of the reasons McCain Fiengold is stupid. it empowed the special interests it wanted to curb.