I do not heart huckabee
Mood: annoyed
Posted on 2008-01-18 10:19:00
Tags: rant politics
Words: 237

Dear Mike Huckabee,

Hi! How's it going? Is it OK if I call you Mike? Great. Anyway, Mike, I read you had something to say about marriage. Something like this:

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.

Oh, Mike, Mike, Mike. Have you been hanging out with Rick Santorum? He didn't get reelected, you know. Also, changing the definition of marriage to mean a man and animal would be radical - I'll agree with you there! (also, nice possible swipe at Romney with the "a man and three women" bit; very clever!) But I don't think anyone is seriously arguing for that. I also had a feeling that, were I a major candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination and I said something grouping in Christianity with Judaism, Islam, Scientology, and David Koresh-ism, I would be flame-roasted by the media even if I wasn't directly comparing them.

Since apparently there's some confusion on this point, let me give it to you straight, Mike ("straight" - get it?) - I am gay and I don't want the right to get married to/have sex with animals. Can we please stop equating the two?



Comment from kernelm:

Huckabee is such an ass, and I hate how he's seen as this populist "cool guy" by a lot of people. I think more and more people are becoming aware of his fundieism though, thankfully.

Comment from djedi:

That's what he wants. The republican party is now actually more controlled by the fundies than the fiscal (real) conservatives. I'm not sure where neo-cons fit anymore. People (republicans) have been bemoaning the lack of a "real" republican candidate meaning mostly that there hasn't been a religious-right candidate until Huckabee. I bet he either wins the primary or comes really close.

People LOVE talk about values even if it's always nothing but hot air unenforceable with laws. It's sad that people actually prefer meaningless babble and pandering to real discussions of issues. *sigh*

Comment from djedi:

Heh. Common political trick. Equate or group one thing you want to demonize with other (despicable) things.

And we really don't want religious marriage to be redefined. We just want the government's recognition of relationships to be more equitable.

Comment from liz_gregory:

I'm with you on that one. you don't have to redefine "marraige" in the religious sense to give homosexual couple the same legal rights (medical, survivorship, etc...). The largest mistake that I see is fundies and, because of their spin, the general public being afraid that their religion is being infringed upon by "undesirables." This is NOT what most people actually want! *rant*

Comment from taesmar:

I love that "slippery slope" argument, because it's really no argument at all. It's not a slippery slope. I'm sure the same crap happened when interracial marriages were happening.

Here's the argument, in total legal terms (but really highly simplified since I don't remember the cases that well), why the slope is not so slippery.

In Loving v. Virginia, a black woman(?) and a white man(?) wanted to get married. Or maybe I mixed up the races. The argument for the law prohibiting interracial marriages was that the law was race neutral - the law simply said that you could only marry someone of the "same race". Because white and black people were held to the same standard, it wasn't racist. White people were just as constrained by the law as black people.

The court didn't buy this. The court said that the law was discriminatory against Ms. Black Woman because she was prohibited from marrying the man of her choice ONLY because she is black. If she had been a different race, she would have been able to marry him. That is discrimination on the basis of race.

So you see where I'm going with this, right? Next up, I forget the case, but the same argument was used for gay marriage using gender discrimination instead of race discrimination. The law applies equally to everyone, but IF I had been born a different gender, I'd be able to marry the person of my choosing. I think the analogy between the cases was flawless - however the court actually rejected this argument that I think is awesome. Oh well. I forget the court's reasoning but I'm sure it sucked.

Now, how would animals fit in here? How would polygamy fit in here? How would pedophiles fit in here? They wouldn't! This is a gender discrimination issue, same as prohibiting interracial marriage was a race discrimination issue. There is really no way to "extend" the umbrella of gender discrimination to argue that these other forms of "marriage" should be allowed. Gay marriage is a totally different thing than these other constructs.

Comment from fartingmonkey:

Why can this argument not continue on to "Well if Ms. Bessie the cow over here was born a different species, then we'd be allowed to marry" Thats discrimination on the basis of species! Then logically the next argument is my oak tree and I are in love, you can't discriminate on the basis of Kingdom. Slippery slope completed (Not technically true if someone wants to extend this to bacteria or eukaryotes).

And to add something on why Huckabee is indeed the best man for the job.

"But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family." --Mikey Hucky

Comment from gregstoll:

Dammit, I love your oak tree!

Comment from djedi:

Actually, speciesism is a big deal to some people, especially many vegetarians. They feel that those of us who think it's not ok to eat people but ok to eat cows are suffering from speciesism.

Of course, since they are ok eating plants, I think they suffer from kingdom-ism.

Comment from taesmar:

Because our established law says we can be speciesist but not racist or sexist. Duh! There are lots of things we can legally discriminate.. er... on - like weight.

Comment from djedi:

Ooo, I saw this Boston Legal episode where William Shatner fired a lawyer for being too fat. He was just trying to raise a ruckus, but it was an interesting case. He quoted, in his defense, the recent study that shows that having overweight friends raises your risk of obesity by a fair bit.

Comment from onefishclappin:

I hate politics. This morning, I was hearing someone talk on NPR about how much they liked Huckabee. Their reasoning was "He doesn't waffle". Since when has the inability to reconsider your opinion or course of action based on new facts and data a bad thing? I think one of George Bush's "strong points" during election times was his stick-to-it'ness and non-waffling. And I think one of his worst aspects while being president is his inability to change course when presented with new data. How he stands behind people because "He's a good guy." when all evidence shows them to be incompetent or corrupt is embarrassing as best, and dangerous at worst. We'll not even talk about the bull-headedness which has cost so many lives and so much money in our so-called "war on terror". I think a president (or anyone in charge of anything) needs to be able to step back and change the course when it's going wrong. The inability to make that hard decision is the mark of a poor leader and only makes the situation worse.

Comment from djedi:

I heard that too. It's TRUE! A lot of people look for a leader who is a "strong father", never wrong, etc. I understand it's good to have one that will stick up for his principles and stick at an important task even if it's difficult, but that's so NOT the same.

Comment from omega697:

Greg, even as a straight guy, I love you sometimes.

Comment from cifarelli:

I don't see how legalizing gay marriage is going to result in animals being given legal rights (did you see the article today where a Texas appeals court has stated that chimps and monkeys can't sue?), which they would have to have before they could marry. They'd need to be able to legally consent and all. :P

Legalizing the marriage of a man and three women (or any group of people) could follow, and I personally wouldn't have a problem if it did (see polyamory). But extending this to marrying animals and children, I just don't see it. Though by historical precedent (which these people like to call into play a lot) I don't see why a man couldn't marry a child. :P

Comment from medryn:

I don't think that employers should be required to extend their spousal health insurance benefits to somebody's more-than-one spouse. This would seem to be a consequence of legalized polyamory.

Comment from liz_gregory:

AMEN! (to you, not him)

some people like to make a sensation, and don't ever quite get that they're making completely inadequate arguements.

This backup was done by LJBackup.