I know… another Huckabee post. It’s just that this guy is so full of great material.
Here’s part of a recent interview where he addressed his previous remarks about the Constitution:
Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.
Yeah, since animals can sign legal documents.
31 Comments
Well, at least he’s okay on marriage between a woman and an animal and a child and an animal. Who says he’s not open-minded?
my dog can make her mark. i say fair game!
The point is, there’s a line, and, once you start moving it, where are you going to stop?
Now, I’m the sort of guy who doesn’t WANT you drawing arbitrary lines across my life, so I TOTALLY oppose Huckabee, but I also believe in rational debate, so I definitely see where gay marriage arguably leads at least to polygamy or other uncommon arrangements among adults. I logically have to support those, since drawing the line at two adults in a marriage is kind of arbitrary.
Involving children or incest or alternative species is, of course, right out. THAT’s a pretty clear and common line (the concept of “consent”), and is no part of the discussion of legal marriage. Shame on anyone who can’t see THAT line!
This guy embarrasses me. If he’s so worried about the institution of marriage, why doesn’t work on the divorce rate — among HETEROSEXUALS. They’re damaging this ‘fine’ institution more than any other group.
The thing that irritates me so much about this is that he ignores the fact that pedophilia, bestiality, and polygamy are all against the law. Homosexuality is not.
Ok, damn you! You’ve convinced me that he’s a nutjob! LOL. I still feel that if I was walking down the street and I met him, I would prefer him over Hillary Clinton. But you’re right, he’s also INSANE.
Don’t these nutcases EVER get tired of dragging out that tired old man-on-dog argument? We’ve been hearing the same thing for the last thirty years. They really do need to come up with some new material. Oh wait…they CAN’T. It’s all they have!
Brian - I believe you may have to research your final statement a little better.
Mario - Why are you drawing lines at children, family members, and animals? If two parties truly love each other why shouldn’t they be able to marry? After all, isn’t that the main thrust of the current push for gay marriage? What age defines the point where a child has the ability to make a decision about a lifetime commitment?
I tried to talk people out of watching “Pulp Fiction” because after being forced to watch it, I was deeply offended. Every person I tried to convince was actually compelled to watch based on my explanation. Whenever someone writes an article about how foolish Huckabee is, they seem to present information that encourages me to vote for him. Thanks for the encouraging post.
“I believe you may have to research your final statement a little better.”
I hope your do research your final statement better, Brian. I really would like to know if animals can indeed sign legal documents.
@ Caroline: Finally! Just kidding.
@ voenixrising: I don’t think they’re the most creative bunch.
@ びっくり: My final statement was meant to be sarcastic, and I pity you if this post made you want to vote for Huckleberry.
@ MBMQ: *goes off to do research on cognitive abilities of the animal kingdom*
Sorry, I didn’t realize that the author of the post and the commenter named Brian were the same person. I was commenting on your final sentence in your comment. There are some laws against some aspects of homosexuality.
I did get your sarcastic comment: it was worth a chuckle.
Interesting that you pity me for wanting to vote for someone, but express it with the pitiable trait of trying to make fun of their name. At least if your going to poke fun at his name, try to make it poignant like: Tricky Dick; Slick Willy; or George the Second. Or perhaps there was something subtly humorous there that just went right over my thick head.
@ びっくり: As far as I’m aware of, there is nowhere in the US where it is illegal to be a homosexual, and the Supreme Court ruled that sodomy (anything besides vaginal/penile intercourse) is not a punishable crime. Any laws still on the books are considered outdated and are not actively enforced. If they were, the jails would be overflowing with straight couples who engage in oral and anal sex.
As far as the nickname, “Huckleberry” is commonly used online when referring to Huckabee. I’m not sure why, but I like it.
Brian and ????,
Your conversation made me curious and so I googled “sodomy laws”; defined as “any of the many laws which criminalize non-reproductive, non-commercial, consensual sex between adults in private.”
Seems they were all done away with in the U.S. based on a Supreme Court ruling in 2003:
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm
The map shows the status of such laws PRIOR to the Court’s ruling.
Hello, everyone. It’s clearly a diversionary technique by lazy and vote hungry politicians.
Why bother to try to fix any of the truly pressing issues facing us if you can distract half the nation with an alledged threat to heterosexual marriage? With a divorce rate of about 50%, I’d say that marriage is already in trouble without same-sex marriage being universally legalized in this nation of ours.
Basic script for most politicians: I’m going to cut your taxes, marriage should be between a man and woman, I’m the agent of change (despite accepting tons of cash from big money donors and special interests)
びっくり - Looks like you fall into that “shamed” category. Ok, let me try another tack. Gays are widely criticized for loose lifestyles — bath houses, bars, wild parties, what have you. Yet they are PROHIBITED from forming sanctioned long term relationships by the same hypocrites who criticize them. Shame! Shame, shame, shame!
If your moral framework leaves you completely unable to distinguish between consenting adults and children, then we have no common ground to talk on.
If your codified moral framework cannot let you see the rightness of two adults loving each other, save they be man and wife, then let me ask, when did you last eat pork or shrimp?
Mario - I think you meant to call me “shameful” rather than “shamed”. Funny that your argument for shaming me ignores the fact that many people have offered domestic partnerships as a way to provide the legal framework that homosexuals were looking for, but those have been generally rejected by the community. It leaves moderates feeling like they are being lied to and it isn’t legal rights that are being chased, but rather a desire to redefine an existing institution.
Your argument also makes it sound like you’re saying, “If I can’t get married, I’m going to be as wild and loose as possible.” Perhaps you worded something differently from how you intended, but that sounds like a childish excuse to do what you want.
Interesting that you are suggesting I can’t distinguish between consenting adults and children, but you didn’t answer the “simple” question I put to you (albeit, rhetorically) on that issue. Which of us is having difficulty here? Is it 21 years of age? 18? 16? 15? Puberty? Passing of some IQ or logic test? Proof of ability to hold a job? The question is not so easy and that’s why the law varies dramatically from state to state. Drinking ages varied similarly until Reagan used Interstate road taxes as the big stick to bring everyone into line.
I don’t know why you think I can’t “see the rightness” of two men loving each other. I love many men. It would be a shame if men weren’t allowed to love each other. My love for them doesn’t make me desire to have sex with them. (Nor marry them.) Sorry if that seems “codified” to you. I’m not sure where you’re going with the pork and shrimp, but I’m guessing you want to educate me about Jewish or Islamic tradition.
@ びっくり: In my opinion, being offered a civil union is akin to allowing blacks to sit only at the back of the public buses in the 60’s. They were still getting the benefits of riding the bus, but were in no way considered equal to the white people sitting comfortably in the front.
It’s also a bit moronic to offer someone something with similar rights as marriage, but forbid that the name “marriage” be used for it. Besides, civil unions don’t offer the hundreds of federal protections and benefits that automatically apply to straight marriage. In fact, they carry no weight at the federal level.
I’m sure you completely misunderstood the intent of Mario’s comment about the gay lifestyle without marriage, but I’ll look forward to letting him defend his own point.
As far as legal age is concerned… you are right. Each state sets that age now and those limits also apply to straight couples getting married. If you have a problem with those current age limits, then you should take that up in your respective state. It is completely irrelevant to the gay marriage debate.
Your statement about loving men but having no desire to have sex with them is also irrelevant. It just means that you aren’t gay.
Sorry to make so many “irrelevant” points. I thought I was just replying to what was brought up in the thread.
Being black is something genetic. Being homosexual is a lifestyle choice. Comparing the two on a civil rights basis won’t hold much water with most folks. I view civil rights on a racial basis to be an absolute necessity, but on a lifestyle choice basis, I view domestic partnerships as a concession.
As you say, it is silly to have something with the same rights as marriage, but not call it marriage. The reason this comes up is that marriage straddles a strange chasm because it is both a sanctified religious union and a civil action. If the term only applied to civil law, most people probably wouldn’t be resistant to change. Maybe lobbyists should be pushing for all marriage law to be reworded to replace marriage with civil union.
I don’t get the use of the word open-minded. In my experience that means you have a different opinion than me so you are closeminded. Being open minded means you agree with me. Which seems rediculous. In actuality, being open minded means you have not formed an opinion on the matter. Which doesn’t seem to be the case here.
I would like to add that I think the media does an excellent job in portraying the candidates in the role that the media wants them to be. With Huckabee, all you ever hear about is his religious opinions. While I think they are important to him, I don’t believe that his entire platform is about gay marriage. It’s just like how the media is so busy pitting Obama and Hillary against each other that you have no idea where they stand on any issues.
My best recommendation would be for people to check out the candidate’s websites and see where they ALL stand on each issue. To me, the economy and health care are amazingly important issues. I don’t think that people that are struggling as it is should be told they NOW have to pay for health insurance or pay a fine. So Edward’s and Hillary’s health care reform plans are bad. I also think that’s another step in losing our freedom. Those are important issues to me and it would be nice to see you feature Huckabee’s plan for health care reform and tax reform for discussion instead of the easy play of his religious stance. Maybe you actually have and I just haven’t found it as I am new to the site. I enjoy a good political debate but find it tiresome to just take the easy swings.
@ びっくり: I would again disagree with your stance on the black/gay issue. Homosexuality is no more a choice than the color of one’s skin. While one trait can be hidden and the other can’t, both blacks and homosexuals have endured atrocious discrimination and violence at the hands of the majority. Thousands of homosexuals were herded up and murdered in Nazi Germany, and many were burned at the stake in Salem.
Martin Luther King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, even compared the two, stating, “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.” She also condemned bans on same-sex marriage, saying it was a civil-rights issue.
I agree with your final statement about replacing marriage with civil unions. Marriages could be a separate religious ceremony.
@ ScrewU: As a gay American, I feel that it is my duty to point out the times when politicians use homophobia to advance their careers. I will not apologize for that. If anyone wishes to view the economic platforms of any of the presidential candidates then they can do as you recommended, and visit the respective websites.
My interpretation of “open-minded” means that I keep my mind open enough to be willing to change it if evidence presents itself that my current line of thinking is incorrect. However, there are certain principles that I believe in and abide by that are not open for change - among those being a belief that all humans are created equal, whether gay or straight.
***After posting, I realized that a misunderstanding might take place over my name so I thought I might add this disclaimer. My screenname is from my blog which has nothing to do with any of this or this topic and so hopefully noone takes a personal offense to it. I’m not in any way trying to say screw you to anyone here. It’s just simply my name. That having been said, I can continue on with our debate.****
While I can entirely see why gay rights and activism are so important to you and are the main focus of your debate, I also find it ironic. I can’t imagine that you would enjoy being classified as just a gay if you ran for office. Yet, that is the way that Huckabee is portrayed as just a religious (fanatic some say) person. You feel passionately about your position the same as he does. Yet you feel he is not entitled to his beliefs but want yours to be upheld as sacred.
I completely and totally agree with you that it’s important that we each have principles that we hold fast and firmly to. But I’m sure if you asked Huckabee, he would tell you as he’s told every reporter who’s questioned him, his beliefs on marriage. Would it be better for him to hide his real feelings just to get elected? Is that better? At least he is stating what he truly feels.
Now, I’m not here to try to change anyone’s mind about marriage, gay marriage or what is morally correct. I don’t feel that’s my job and I don’t feel the need to share my opinio on the matter. Although I’m sure that I have already been typecast and readers would assume that they know. It goes to the bigger picture of what I’m saying. I don’t believe that you can change a person’s mind that is truly made up. But I do believe that we should grant each other the same understanding and tollerance that we are asking for in return. And maybe not pigeon holing people by a statement that they have made.
@ ScrewU: No hard feelings about the name. I figured it was unrelated to this conversation.
I am much more than a gay person, but I understand in today’s world that I would be seen as little more than that if I were to run for public office (which I don’t intend to do). While I’m glad that Huckabee is being honest about his views, I think there is a large difference between his views and mine. Huckabee’s views on marriage hurt people; mine do not.
His moral convictions may be completely genuine, but they are discriminatory against other tax-paying, hard-working Americans. Allowing loving gay couples to have federally-recognized unions will not destroy marriage in any capacity; it will strengthen it.
The fact that he would openly make statements about gay marriage around the same time that he talked about a desire to alter the Constitution to fit the Bible is more than enough reason for me to question his intent.
I do not consider my beliefs sacred at all. Neither are his. One man’s religious beliefs should not dictate policy in a secular country, but it’s obvious that those are his plans.
Also, your opinion may not match the overall tone of this website, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t consider it valuable. Keep on posting!!
@ びっくり -
No, I chose the word deliberately; I doubt YOU feel ashamed.
I, personally, am gay. I’ve known I was *different* since kindergarden, and before. One of the seminal experiences of my life was getting caught playing “doctor” with another boy, and his mother’s reaction. Her reproach hurt, and, in fact, still hurts. But it didn’t change what I am.
While there are many similarities between the race struggle and that of homosexuals, there are some key differences; primarily, you can tell someone’s race just by looking, so it’s impossible for them to hide. Gays, like myself, on the other hand, can hide their orientation until much later in life, when they’ve had kids and have a royally screwed up marriage. Fortunately, the emotional damage I wrought on my now ex-wife was non-permanent, she’s remarried and we are good friends who can cooperatively parent our wonderful children.
I think the comparison is much better made to creed. You can’t generally tell someone’s religion by looking at them (though some, like some gays, are much more demonstrative). Creed is, unlike homosexuality, a choice, but — even so — enjoys a protected status. Yet those who would deny homosexuals equality continuously claim that the “fact” that it’s a choice should remove any eligibility for privilege! Shameful hypocrisy!
As for your rhetorical question on age, there are clear biological reasons why a person’s judgment improves as they age, and so there must be some legal recognition of this. Or why is there a legal marrying age? That’s a totally separate question from whether “marriage” should be limited by gender.
As for my point on freewheeling lifestyles — society provides benefits for those who marry; this serves as an incentive to leave those days of youthful indiscretion behind. If the social expectation is that you will eventually marry and settle down as a stable family group, then people are much more likely to do so. When that’s not an option — is, in fact, discouraged, then, of course, people are more likely to live in their youth.
I would be happy if, legally, civil union and marriage were identical concepts, with the understanding that “religious” marriage was the sole province of churches, and carried no legal advantages or disadvantages. So, I personally don’t care what you call it, as long as its *exactly* the same thing.
BTW, tonight’s election results are sweet.
@ Mario: You said -
One of the seminal experiences of my life was getting caught playing “doctor” with another boy, and his mother’s reaction. Her reproach hurt, and, in fact, still hurts.
That brought back bad memories for me, as the exact same thing happened when I was a kid. We were barely in school when it occurred and hardly anything even took place, but the boy’s mother freaked out, called my mother to come get me, and took her son to the doctor to make sure there was “nothing wrong with him.” The funny part is I don’t remember my parents even getting that upset about it.
Anyway… great comment. You expressed yourself beautifully.
Brian, I am reading the many articles about marriage in the January 28th issue of Time Magazine and thinking of you! I still don’t know where I stand on this issue (the federal definition of marriage). My husband and I really like the HBO series Big Love. I honestly don’t see how changing the definition of marriage (I don’t mean Biblical definition; I just mean the implicit/traditional/mainstream definition) to include monogamous relationships between homosexuals would not open the door to including polygamous relationships.
@ fightingwindmills: It’s definitely possible, but I think it’s an entirely separate issue. Polygamy is illegal at this time in most places, so the laws pertaining to that would first have to be changed.
To me, polygamy has such a different premise than homosexuality. It seems to be an archaic institution that allows a male to benefit greatly, and I think that’s why it’s still so prevalent in male-dominated societies like the Middle East.
Think about it… how many polygamous marriages include one woman and several men? I think most women would agree that one man is plenty to have to put up with.
I personally think that marriage or civil unions should be limited to a merger between two people, irrelevant of gender. Three’s a crowd…
Pretty good debate here, relatively civilized.
My views:
1. I absoulutely believe that recognizing gay marriage would slip slope to polygamy (its all consenting adults — consent is really the defining issue). The slope ends there.
2. Huckabee (and others who make this argument) is essentially condemning SODOMY. “Gay Marriage” is not a comparable term to bestiality and pedophilia. It’s a small distinction but I think it is important. Basically he is saying “Bestiality and pedophila are illegal, and sodomy should be too”.
3. I think the government should get out of the marriage business, or alternatively call heterosexual marriage a “civil union”.
4. Part of me does have compassion for those who feel legalizing gay marriage would “devalue” or “threaten” hetero marriage. It is easy to dismiss this as rubbish but an argument can be made, especially when taking the polygamy argument into account. In the end, one needs to balance the benefits and downsides of proposed changes.
LOL @ MOONBEAM!!!
“Well, at least he’s okay on marriage between a woman and an animal and a child and an animal. Who says he’s not open-minded?”
I think i’m going to go watch that movie “I <3 Huckabee’s” and go feel warm and fuzzy inside..
This guys a douche.
Right-wing conservatives have a nice way of saying that my partner and I (we are a legally married gay couple in Massachusetts) who own a home, pay taxes, contibute to the economy, work in human services (education and medicine), belong to a church, work in a local mission, and support our friends and families don’t deserve the respect that we have worked for. However, the 13 year-old mothers that live off of welfare in our city (which we pay for) can get legally married in this country and get the support of people like Huck. Hard work means nothing to these candidates, just your ability to mirror their lives. God bless America.
Jos76
http://www.jos76.wordpress.com
I’m shocked and disappointed that Huckabee would take money from struggling, hard-working Americans in order to fund his campaign. He said in his drop-out speech that it was…”the sacrifices of a truck driver in Michigan, of a housewife who sold her wedding ring on eBay and gave the contribution to the campaign, a janitor in Alabama who has a wife in a wheelchair who gave $20, not out of his abundance, but out of his poverty, so that our campaign could stay on the track.” In a bad economy, why would someone running for President take their money to fund a campaign that was clearly going to be fruitless? What would become of the economy if selfish Huckabee were President?
Jos76
http://www.jos76.wordpress.com
@ jos76: While I agree with you, I think it’s pretty standard for any candidate to accept monetary donations from the public. And I’m sure many of those people really can’t afford to give in the first place.
One Trackback
[...] God’s Word -I’ll be blogging on that later- when I came across a post titled, “Huckabee: Gay Marriage Could Lead To Pedophilia, Bestiality, Polygamy“ from In [...]