Like I said, if Baldwin was on the ballot here, I’d have a tough decision. As it is, Barr’s my only real choice, other than not voting at all, which could be an option if Barr issues any more crazy press releases praising the likes of Jesse Helms and Al Gore. But as long as he avoids acting like a complete moron, he’ll probably get my vote.

For example, if Baldwin were on the ballot in Georgia, I would have a tough decision between him and Barr, but I would probably lean toward Barr, just because I find the LP platform so much more attractive than the CP platform. And I say this as a Christian who strongly believes in separation of church and state.

The platform, for the most part, was written in 1992 amongst the most religious Pat Buchanan-types in the party,as well as the founders. In 1996, it was strengthened by the same Pat Buchanan types, plus some major religious-right types. It has not been touched since then because of the seriousness with which the “Old Gaurd” wants to protect it. This platform was forged by many hours of argueing between the various factions of the Old Gaurd (which I can go into more, if needed)–and they don’t want to open that book up again. In 2000, there was a HUGE fight over the Preamble. The religious-right, Moral Majority types wanted “Jesus” specifically inserted. The Originalists (as I call them) wanted to call it “The Creator”. The Moral Majority types won this battle, narrowly. It was a VERY bitter fight. You could compare it to the “Portland Massacre” for the LP.
In 2008, though, a small contingent of us brought forth a very controversial platform proposal that basically consisted of scrapping the existing document and replacing it with The Constitution. Any planks which were added (and we expected many would be) would need to cite specific Constitutional authority (this, we called the “Constitutional bridge”). This did not neccesarily have to come from the text of the Constitution itself,but could come from Founding Father’s quotes–to interpret original intent.

The first proposal, of replacing the platform entirely, was shot down immediately. We did not have the strength to pull it off.
But we mananaged to place the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Indepence as the the basis for our platform BEFORE the preamble, as can be seen here.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

We also managed to insert the “Constitutional bridges”. We made it mandatory for one of these to exist. This will make it easy the next time to eliminate unconstitutional planks in the platform,because it will be obvious that the constitutional justification sucks.

The Ron Paul Revolution has done alot to help the Originalists. It converted some of the Moral Majority types, and MANY of the Buchananesque types into Ron Paul Constitutionalists.

Baldwin is one of the Moral Majority types turned Ron Paul Constitutionalists.

So answer your question though: Yes, the platform was written by a minority. As recently as 2004, though, it was protected by a majority. The Ron Paul Revolution, however, has ensured that the Platform would be reworked in 2008 (and indeed it was), and made MUCH better in 2012.

As for why the nominated Baldwin–Baldwin tended to play up his areas of agreement with the CP and his supporters did the same. Besides…the only other choice was Keyes, and Baldwin is WAY closer.

Trent – Just out of curiosity, was the platform written by a small minority in the party, or do most of the members support it? If so, why would they nominate Baldwin, who seems to disagree with much of it? Or is he just downplaying his agreement with it, in order to avoid alienating libertarians and Paul voters?

Haha, I kid I kid.

No seriously,wheres my hobo?

Now many people who marry don’t get married through a priest. Some do it through a Judge, Mayor, etc. Would a representative of the firm then perform that task?

What? You think the government does it for FREE?

Now what would this firm’s interest be in keeping the records?

My opinion is that marriage should be a contract between two (or more) individuals who can call it whatever they want. I think government recognition of something called “marriage” is divisive.