NONE OF THE STATE'S FUCKING BUSINESS

Private relationships are none. of. the. state's. business.

PERIOD.

Son Of A Bitch.... (Gay Marriage And Gary Johnson)

  I'll be damned -- from Tom Rhodes of the Citrus County Libertarian Party of Florida:

Gary Johnsons announced support of gay marriage, again shows the vast majority of Americans that the LP is not suitable to lead the USA. The LP can't even get its leadership to support its candidate. Wayne Allen Root, LNC member, endorsed Romney. When put to a vote Gay Marriage loses by huge margins, over 60% here in Florida.
Look at Chick-Fil-A, record sales and egg all over the face of militant gays. Gary Johnson loudly proclaiming he doesn’t go to church and that gays shold be allowed to marry, pretty much killed his election chances. Why do we Libertarians continue to choose totally unelectable people to run for office. As a Libertarian, I’ve committed to voting for Johnson, mostly because there is no other real choice, and I couldn't live with myself if I voted for Obama or Romney. But Johnson's words have effectively killed any chance he has of winning the election.

Exactly.  And it's not just on this issue either.

This issue -- gay marriage -- is simple: The Constitution does not contain anything about marriage in the Federal sphere -- at all.

So where does Gary Johnson -- or anyone else -- get a "right to marry" that requires Federal protection?  Why is the Federal Government involved in this at all.
Smaller government does not occur by making government bigger!  Yet that's exactly what's happening and being advocated here -- extending the jackboot of government to gay couples just like straight ones!
Bah!
I said this in March of this year:

More-recently another focus has become the press for "marriage equality", a buzzphrase for gay marriage.  This particular "issue" is one that I find particularly troubling as it is entirely anti-Libertarian for the government to be involved in marriage at all.  Indeed, the history strongly supports my view that marriage laws in America were first instituted as a means of enforcing racism and abrogation of religious freedom.  The essential purpose of these laws was to prevent miscegenation -- that is, the intermarriage of white and black people -- along with targeting the religious practices of Mormonism.  Prior to their original introduction one posted their Banns of Marriage on the door of the church, and everything governing marriage was an issue to be raised within the Church of your choice.
The only defensible Libertarian position on marriage is quite simple: If you want to get married, go see a Priest of your choice.
There should be no preference for or against marriage in the law, nor any act in furtherance (or avoidance) thereupon in the Federal Government.
Period.
Many argue that due to tax preferences federal involvement in marriage is "unavoidable."  This is an odd position given that Libertarians also oppose the Income Tax on general principle and look toward a consumption tax, imposts, tariffs or some combination thereof to fund the essential functions of government.
My party, the Libertarian Party, must face reality.  Running a campaign on the primary premise of "smaller government" sounds great, right up until you make a cornerstone of your political philosophy drug legalization and gay marriage.  The instant you do that you are consigned to receive 0.5% of the vote, or fewer than one million votes for President.

I also wrote on the issue here in May and said:

Why is the government involved in any way, shape or form regarding your personal, private and adult living relationships?
Where can you find in the Constitution the authority of the Federal Government to "make legal" (or illegal) any such arrangement?  The 10th Amendment says if it's not explicitly in The Constitution it's none of the government's damn business.
More to the point, how can you possibly square any such position for or against any particular combination of family in the context of a word that is inherently religious in origin and meaning with The Establishment Clause?
You can't.  But you sure can pander, and boy oh boy do we do a lot of that in politics.  Obama now joins Gary Johnson who has also been trumpeting this as "an issue", and both are doing so in a means that simply applies more statism and more unconstitutional intrusion into your life and, in this case, bedroom than there is any justification for.

There is no justification for any such law -- for or against.  I remind everyone that the original intent of "marriage laws" was institutional racism -- bigotry.

That's right -- the original laws were passed, right around 1700 in America, to prevent miscegenation -- the intermarriage of white people with other races, in this case blacks and Indians (Native Americans if you prefer.)