This Page

has been moved to new address

Mike Huckabee is embarrassing.

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Wide White: Mike Huckabee is embarrassing.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Mike Huckabee is embarrassing.

I'm still embarrassed that I let my dad, who was in town visiting the night of the 2008 Minnesota caucus, talk me into voting for Huckabee rather than McCain. I wasn't excited about any of my options to be honest, so I suppose I could argue that voting for any of them was an embarrassment.

But this latest statement from Huckabee is nothing short of ridiculous.
Mike Huckabee, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, says the effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry is comparable to legalizing incest, polygamy and drug use.
Read that again and let it sink in. Legalizing gay marriage is the equivalent of legalizing incest, polygamy, and drug use. Is he absolutely crazy?!? At least incest and polygamy have something to do with relationships between people, regardless of how crazy the correlation is. But drug use?!?

Wow.
Huckabee also told college journalists last week that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt. "Children are not puppies," he said.
...
Huckabee told the interviewer that not every group's interests deserve to be accommodated, if their lifestyle is outside of what he called "the ideal."

"That would be like saying, well there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?" he said, according to a transcript of the interview.

The 2008 presidential hopeful and former Arkansas governor also said that deciding which lifestyles should be accommodated and which ones should not creates a slippery slope.
Ah, yes, the euphemistic "slippery slope." Sometimes I think slippery slopes are for people who realize that life isn't just black and white. There are gray areas. Those gray areas are immediately deemed "slippery slopes" because those people can't decide if the gray should be black or white, but they're absolutely positive that the gray leads to black. (In this case, the gray is gay marriage and the black is incest, polygamy, and drug use.)
"Why do you get to choose that two men are OK but one man and three women aren't OK?" he asked.

Huckabee added that his goal isn't to tell others how to live, but that the burden of proving that a gay marriage can be successful rests with the activists in favor of changing the law.

"I don't have to prove that marriage is a man and a woman in a relationship for life," he said. "They have to prove that two men can have an equally definable relationship called marriage, and somehow that that can mean the same thing."
I wish for once a politician who's against gay marriage would just be straightforward about their feelings on the subject. Just say, "I'm against homosexuality. I'm a Christian and I believe homosexuality is a sin that our government should legislate. Therefore, I'm against gay marriage. Oh, and I'm against homosexuals adopting too."

That sure would make things a lot clearer than Huckabee's sad run-around.

15 Comments:

Blogger watchman declared,

Yeah, that's awful. Everything he said is a mess, but let me go the bullet point route here.

- homos and Heroine: Libertarians have wanted to legalize drugs for some time, now. Also, true libertarians want to allow gays to do whatever they want. As far as I know THEY are the only ones making that philosophical connection, not do-gooder liberals.


- Incest: Incest is rape if a minor is involved. Rape is illegal because someone is victimized. If there is no minor involved and two adults are consenting, there is still a victim - the potential procreation, which will likely have genetic birth disorders. If two adults consent in some strange, incestuous act and prophylactics are involved, then the crime seems victimless. However, I would argue that it is a result of some serious psychological issues. I wouldn't want to put them in jail, I would want to hospitalize them. Nonetheless, such cases are extraordinarily rare. Almost all cases of incest are a dominant relative victimizing a younger submissive relative. Therefore, because of the victimization, and the effects on future generations of society, the people have the right to ban its practice. Neither of those criteria apply to homosexual acts.

- POLYGAMY: Polygamy and Bigamy is stupid. Anyone who would put themselves in that situation, has a screw loose. It is NOT, however, unbiblical. In fact there is more in the Bible FOR polygamy than there is AGAINST homosexuality. With that said, I don't think it is really any of governments business who marries whom.

NOTE: The government chooses to recognize certain familial contracts. The recognition of this contract by the government is called "marriage." That's ridiculous. The gov should have no role in regulating such things. They should provide the notary service and that is it. It should be left up to people and churches. the Supreme Court decision that effectively banned polygamy (Reynolds v. US) used a terrible slippery slope argument. It really provided no basis for it, either.

4/21/2010 10:29 AM  
Blogger watchman declared,

Wow. I really got off track there. Here is what I was trying to say:

Good laws always are based on good morals.

However, good morals do NOT always make good laws.

Gov. Huckabee may have moral qualms with homosexual marriage, but this does not necessitate legal action.

Opposing incest is good morality and good legislation. Opposing polygamy is good morality, but probably not good legislation.

4/21/2010 10:35 AM  
Blogger Joey declared,

Nice added detail. I'm not sure what to make of polygamy. I don't think I agree with adding that as some kind of civil union, though I don't see any reason that multiple adults who want to live together in that kind of relationship should be legally prevented from doing so. But other than that, I agree with your points.

I think it's interesting that posts on gay marriage haven't really garnered any comments from people who are against it. I don't know if it's because they don't want to get into a debate about it (which I would understand) or if they don't have any counter-argument for it. I'd really be interested to hear what some of my friends and family who are against it have to say about it.

4/22/2010 1:18 AM  
Blogger Reegz declared,

It's sin and an abomination to the Lord. It's clearly stated in scripture. There's nothing to debate about it. I'll speak for all your believing friends and family. ;O)
-The end

4/23/2010 3:52 PM  
Blogger Joey declared,

Regan, your statement has nothing to do with the legality of the practice or with Huckabee's comparison of gay marriage to incest. I wasn't talking about what God thinks of homosexuality and neither was Huckabee.

4/23/2010 4:44 PM  
Anonymous The Jr declared,

I'm not really sure what kind of comment you expect, or if you are looking for a reaction, but I frankly find your post is embarassing. We can view all of these acts as separate acts that aren't directly correlated, as watchman proved, and say that comparing them is ridiculous. This I could agree with. However, I think you and I both know that Huckabee was saying what you said you wished he would say at the end of the post. He believes that all of those acts are sin, therefore, they should all be illegal as such. It is really quite simple. Now whether I completely agree with polygamy being comparable to gay marriage is beside the point. His point is, who are we to decide what sinful group to legislate in favor of? Either we oppose anything we see as sin or we don't. One could very easily argue that church and state are no longer separate with that argument, and I would agree. But I must add that believers in God with biblical backgrounds played a crucial role in the development of our country. Trying to completely separate the two is not only difficult, I believe it is impossible, and will ultimately lead to a Godless nation. I disagree with you completely when you respond to Regan with "I wasn't talking about what God thinks of homosexuality and neither was Huckabee." I think he absolutely was, and in that respect, I agree with him.

4/24/2010 9:39 AM  
Blogger Joey declared,

Keith (I'm assuming that's who "The Jr" is), I wasn't looking for a reaction of shock, disappointment, etc. I was just looking for a response since I assumed that some like you disagree with me and I wanted to hear why.

If I read what you said correctly, you believe we should legislate sin. I believe that's wrong and is absolutely not what the founders intended.

You said, "Either we oppose anything we see as sin or we don't." And you weren't speaking of personal opposition. You were speaking of legislation.

If that's the case, unwed couples shouldn't legally be allowed to live with one another. Even further, there are many who would then believe that we should require women to wear dresses, ban tattoos, and many other things they believe are sin. Some of these things are widely practiced in our culture, others aren't. Regardless, you can't apply your belief of sin to the law. If we do that, we become no different than religious states like Iran that are legislated by one group's interpretation of what is and isn't sin.

YOu also said, "...believers in God with biblical backgrounds played a crucial role in the development of our country." Right, and they continue to play a crucial role in developing our country. I don't see what that has to do with why we should legislate sin. Also, some of the founders weren't nearly as godly as many Christians wish they were. There's pretty conclusive evidence that neither Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson - the author of our declaration of independence - were Christians. Jefferson was a Deist and Universalist and Franklin was a Deist who rejected the doctrine of salvation, Jesus Christ being God, etc.

To your point about separating religion and state "will ultimately lead to a Godless nation," I would argue that our laws have nothing to do with how godly we are. That's part of my problem with the so-called "Christian right." They seem to believe that if our laws reflect the Bible, we are somehow more Christian. I don't believe that to be true.

In any event, thanks for responding. I'm glad you and Regan threw your thoughts out there and if either of you have more to say, I'd like to hear it.

4/24/2010 11:12 AM  
OpenID nooneofconcequence declared,

Last year Huckabee spoke at my church. then he played bass in the band along with Bob Taylor. too bad it wasn't my weekend to play.

4/28/2010 12:08 PM  
Blogger Keithslady declared,

My 2 cents worth:

Watchman raises the question at hand--should laws be guided by morality?

Reegz--thanks for speaking for me (as family), I agree with you.

However, there is still the question about whether that Biblical standard should lead to legislation.

The Jr.--I agree with what you said. Maybe you don't agree with the parallels Huckabee draws but I think The Jr. gets the point of what he's saying. Joey, he said, "will ultimately lead to a Godless nation", not "a non-Christian nation". There's a difference.

Christianity is a state of the heart. It cannot be legislated. Godliness (defined here as morality) can be. As imperfect as our attempts are to raise the standards and hold to what we believe are good, Biblical princliples we still have to make the attempt.

I stand in disagreement with you, Joey.

4/28/2010 10:23 PM  
Blogger Joey declared,

Ok, then you're right, we disagree. I don't believe in a theocracy and I believe that's the path this thought process leads us down. We become no different than Iran and many other Muslim countries in their integration of religious beliefs into their legal system. We can see how devastating that has been for those nations and I don't think it's right to apply that same way of thinking here.

4/30/2010 3:02 PM  
Blogger Joey declared,

I should probably also clarify in case there was any confusion: I said I was embarrassed that I let Dad persuade me to vote for Huckabee, not that he tried. In other words, I wasn't embarrassed by him, but by my failing to uphold my own belief about Huckabee (which was mostly due to his moderate-to-liberal economic policies).

Just want to make sure that's clear. I hope I'd never declare my embarrassment with a family member on a public blog. It doesn't belong there.

4/30/2010 3:05 PM  
Anonymous Daniel declared,

nothing like being late to the party :-)

I just today read your post on huckabee and had a few thoughts.

first, it seemed your incredulity was a bit overblown. "is like" is very rhetorically different than "is equivalent to." it would seem insulting to your intelligence to even give an example. and even the most egregious ("drug use?!?") is perfectly legitimate. like homosexuality, a severely limited view of drug use makes it appear to be strictly private. what I smoke in the privacy of my bedroom is my business and doesn't affect anybody else. but broaden the perspective and you have more questions - what do I do when I want to purchase more, drive to the theater to watch a film, or rip out the heart of my friend because I'm convinced satan has possessed him? a broader perspective reveals that taking a laissez faire approach to something as simple as "what do we legally allow people to smoke in the privacy of their homes" can indeed have serious negative societal ramifications that government does indeed have an interest in legislating. I can see why some would deem a law against the root vice as necessary in restraining all of the subsequent effects.

homosexuality can also be viewed like this. while the simple sin of sodomy takes place in the privacy of a bedroom (usually), it's absurd to think that it *only effects the private sphere. documented higher rates of disease, depression, mental illness, drug use, etc among the homosexual population have widespread public ramifications. legal recognition of "gay marriage" impacts employee benefits, insurance policies, hiring practices (ENDA?), government school education programs, etc. let me narrow in on just the increased level of health problems within the homosexual population, combined with the existing government policies of subsidizing everything including a lot of health care costs. am I concerned when my tax money is being used to pay for drugs for a person to take to help their venereal disease that they contracted because of their immoral lifestyle? yep. does the legality of "gay marriage" matter even in just this one aspect? I think so.

6/05/2010 4:17 PM  
Anonymous Daniel declared,

"but what about the sin of gluttony and the increased burden on society, or smoking, or drinking, or teen-sex, or fornication, etc.? "

to put a twist on your post, I tend to think legislating morality is a slippery slope, and would prefer less government involvement in these areas. I tend to think we should end the failed "drug war." I also tend to think homosexuals should be "free" to practice their sin without government interference (I'm still thinking about this), but I also think employers should be free not hire them if they don't want to, insurers should be free to charge them a higher premium due to higher risk factors or decline insuring them at all, and any person or business or institution in society should be free to not recognize their "marriage" as legitimate. yet government legislates against all of these other freedoms.

I'm for government getting out of the marriage "business" altogether. take their licenses and fees and go home. but that's my libertarian streak.

It's interesting to me when people get up in arms about government "legislating morality" but yawn when government legislates child rearing, education, business, and even societal structures via "social engineers", in ways that interfere with personal freedom.

so those are my thoughts. do I agree with huckabee's proposed legislation? not so much. is he embarrassing and crazy? not at all. in the end, I didn't support him that presidential cycle mostly due to his moderate-to-liberal economic policies. is he opposed to "gay marriage and adoption" because the bible declares it to be sin? of course. is there additional secular, medical, economic and sociological reasons that can be given in favor of his position that are like those given in incest, polygamy and drug use? seems like it to me.

6/05/2010 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Daniel declared,

A couple more thoughts upon further reflection, and then I’ll be done.

From what you quoted from huckabee, it’s not like he’s for making homosexuality illegal. Homosexuals already can and do practice their lifestyle without any problems from the legal authorities. The issue is whether the government should take an active role in recognizing and legitimizing these relationships by permitting licensed gay “marriages” and afford them all of the advantages and privileges that they do real marriages. how is there even a question about this? It’s not a question of “how far should the government go in making certain sins illegal?” it’s a question of “do I want my government to actively legitimize and recognize sin as a normal and valid lifestyle?” it seems like a no-brainer to me.

Put another way, the problem is that the government also legislates other things related to marriage – health insurance, tax benefits, and the right to raise other peoples children. Validating gay “marriage” affects more than just whether or not a gay couple gets their very own government approved marriage license.

Two – the government already legislates sin. We have laws against murder, lying, and stealing. how can you say “it’s wrong to legislate sin”?? oh, those are natural laws of basic morality that everyone can agree to in a pluralistic society. But if we’re going to depart from biblical morality as a basis for laws and go by social contract, what’s to stop us from basing laws on the prevalent evolutionary philosophy instead? Why not enact laws based on “survival of the fittest” in which the strong and smart get into power and make laws that benefit themselves and their friends and victimize those who are too helpless to defend themselves, regardless of whether it breaks laws of “basic morality”?
Oh wait, that’s the kind of government we’ve got. Yeah, legislating sin is looking more attractive.

Third – the reason why muslim theocracies are so devastating is because they are based on the teachings of a murdering, thieving, pedophile and his “angelic visions.” Do you honestly think a “theocracy” based on the teachings of the Son of God and a theocracy based on the teachings of muhammed would be even remotely comparable? Give me a break! Given a choice between a muslim theocracy, a secular humanistic socialist government (which we currently have) and a Christian (I left “Judeo” off intentionally) “theocracy,” I’d take the latter anyday. Personally, I can’t wait for The King to come back.

It might seem counterintuitive, but at the end of the day, Joey, I’m think I’m kind of with you in principle. I’m having a harder and harder time thinking America was ever a “Christian nation.” The verse that always comes to mind on these issues is “My Kingdom is NOT of this world. IF my kingdom WERE of this world, THEN would my servants fight.” I think the notion that “if we only reversed Roe v Wade, banned homosexual marriage and got prayer back in public schools, we would be a Christian nation again” is misguided and missing the point. The answer is the gospel, not government takeover by the religious right. But I think I understand why they fight for what they do, and on certain days, I find myself wanting to join them. Murdering innocent babies is a hard one to overlook. Though I often disagree with guys like Huckabee, I have a hard time seeing them caricatured and misrepresented the way it seems they have been here.

Now I’m done.

6/06/2010 8:47 PM  
Blogger Joey declared,

For the sake of anyone following this, I responded to Daniel via email and forgot to post anything here. Here's the bulk of the email I sent him. Some of it was in response to questions he asked me privately via email while others were in response to questions posted in his comments here. I probably didn't respond to every point he made because, well, he wrote a lot! :)


Why the post...good question. My blog was originally political and occasionally I drift back. I posted it because it's what I thought about the scenario and that's typically what I post about - what I think about a given political scenario that I come across.

No, it's not fun stirring the pot [he asked if I just thought it was fun to stir the pot]. I often try to stay out of political discussions because I prefer to keep the peace.

I'm certainly frustrated with many Christians' approach to politics. I'm primarily frustrated with the hypocrisy. We want the government off our backs economically and religiously but we want to turn around and impose government regulation on others. It makes no sense. I think that's the spirit out of which my post came. I felt that Huckabee was only furthering that mentality. I also thought he made a pretty poor argument for his opinion. And while I'm not sure if I agree with your thoughts on the societal ramifications of homosexuality warranting political opposition to granting homosexuals certain legal rights, I think your argument was the most reasonable I've seen and I really, really appreciated the time and effort you put into responding.

What's the most pressing political issue for a Christian? I don't know. I still can't find it in me to support anyone who's pro-abortion. That seems like a big one. But having said that, we supposedly had a pro-life majority in the House, Senate, and presidency and very little was accomplished, so I do start to wonder how much effort we should put into changing our laws on that issue. Still, I haven't and don't think I could support a candidate I disagreed with on that issue.

In a lot of ways I wish I hadn't posted it at all. I've thought of taking the blog down and forgetting about it. Most of my readers are Republican. I tend to be Libertarian. As such, I often clash in my political views with the moral conservatism that Republicans espouse and I think some people tie political views to personal, religious views.

6/13/2010 10:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home