Huckabee defends his call to re-write the Constitution.
By on Jan 16th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Huckabee defends his call to re-write the Constitution.
Last night on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes, Mike Huckabee was forced to defend his quest to “amend the Constitution” to “God’s standards.” Huckabee said his comments were in reference to his support for a “human life amendment” and a “traditional marriage amendment.” He added, “I’m not suggesting that we re-write the Constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance. I want to make that very clear.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Ignorant crap head wouldn’t know God’s Standards if he was struck by lightning. Pray and fantasize all you want Huck, but keep your bull$hit out of the Constitution.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:23 pmGee, I think there are many people who would put a “human life amendment” or a “traditional marriage amendment” in the same category as a “tithing amendment” or a “sunday school amendment”–i.e., one that is clearly religiously motivated.
I didn’t think it was possible, but this man appears to be stupider than george w. bush.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:23 pmHuck is the most eligible “R” running. I trust him with the nuclear option more than any of the others.
I’m not piling on. If they are going to outvote us next time, I want Huck.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:24 pmIn case there was any remaining doubt, that astounding statement eviscerated Huckabee’s pretense of upholding the separation of church and state. In December, Governor Huckabee offered this charade on Meet the Press, words which obviously are no longer operative:
“The key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone. And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else’s faith or to restrict.”
For more details, see:
January 16th, 2008 at 10:26 pm“Huckabee Calls for Faith-Based Constitution.”
He thinks the earth is 6000 years old……
January 16th, 2008 at 10:27 pmHuckabee said his comments were in reference to his support for a “human life amendment†and a “traditional marriage amendment.â€
Yeah, that’s exactly what you want as your legacy — support for the first change to our Constitution that actually restricts rights rather than expanding them.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:27 pmgood god, man. you feel unreal.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:28 pmI can’t believe this guy is actually getting votes. I thought people like him lived in the backwoods where there are no schools, or books and married their cousins. Oh yeah the candidate that married his cousin was mayor of NYC, greatest city in the world. What the hell is going on with our country?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:31 pmWith a “human life amendment” every miscarriage becomes, at the very least, involuntary manslaughter.
With a “traditional marriage amendment” discrimination based on gender becomes a Constitutional mandate.
Then again, whose “traditional marriage” are we talking about? The Jewish “traditional marriage” wherein men were allowed to have many concubines? The God of the Jews is the same as the God of Christ, and the same as the God of Mohammed, so, which “tradition” do we follow?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:32 pmHuck needs mandatory attendance to the Sunday School of keep your religion off my body. Marriage is a church issue for individual churches to determine. Any marriages performed by people with authority should have standing in the eyes of the government. If Huck doesn’t believe in Gay marriage then he shouldn’t marry a man.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:40 pmI am continuously noting that people opposed to legal recognition of gay marriages cannot give a secular reason for such opposition. Huckabee’s comment is finallypublic confirmation that the ONLY justification for oppression of gay rights is a religious belief and, therefore, unconstitutional. To define marriage as one man-one woman through the Constitution would be incompatible with the bill of rights in terms of religious freedom, freedom of assembly, and equal protection. Thus, we cannot simply add an anti-gay marriage amendment without fundamentally altering the meaning of these rights.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:43 pm“The God of the Jews is the same as the God of Christ, and the same as the God of Mohammed, so, which “tradition†do we follow?”
Well actually the Christian God is a sort of a three in one supreme being, not the same as God/Allah.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:48 pmIt’s just safer to assume that every republican wants you to worship its version of god.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:55 pmWell actually the Christian God is a sort of a three in one supreme being, not the same as God/Allah.
Comment by j swift — January 16, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
It seems to me if a force is indeed supreme it could not by definition be exceeded. So what is up with the overkill?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:55 pmHuck, and those he represents, are incredibly dangerous. They yak about “Freedom” while attempting to make us all slaves of their narrow world view. To them, “Freedom” means they are free to impose their values on everyone around them.
And I do NOT trust him within miles of the “nuclear button”, or, sharp scissors, or, schools, or, just about anything. He’s the shortest route to “The Christian American Republic”.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:57 pmHe just stopped at Fox to clear things up with Hannity…
He trying to comvince us that he just didn’t mean it the way Americans took it.
He was simply misunderstood…he is all for freedom of thinking…he just like to pass few amendements to the Constitution, here and there.
And he wants us to believe him.
I don’t.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:57 pmWould a human life amendment outlaw the death penalty and war? Would a traditional marriage amendment criminalize divorce?
Not likely. One thing you can always count on from Republicans: double standards.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:02 pmFreakelberry is waiting for the 4th Blowing of the Great Nose
http://www.noble-gas.com/4thblow.mp3
January 16th, 2008 at 11:02 pm“amend the Constitution” to “God’s standards”
January 16th, 2008 at 11:10 pmvery very scary to see this nut case loose and untied…. to amend the Constitution around a religion would be horribly UNconstitutional. But then our murderous genocide mania to an innocent third world country is also unconstitutional and illegal…. so go figure.
So our Constitution, the one Huck swore to UPHOLD, isn’t good enough?
January 16th, 2008 at 11:13 pmIf the “human life amendment” includes a clause against launching wars of aggression against countries that pose no threat, and another one on universal health care, the idea could have some merit.
Although I doubt that’s what good ole’ Huckabee has in mind; he belongs to the crowd who’d force the woman to give birth and then abandon her to her own devices (or “personal responsibility” as they call it).
As for the “traditional marriage amendment”, I’d love to see Republicans argue in favor of polygamous Bible-style marriage. Not to mention the concubines….
January 16th, 2008 at 11:14 pmI guess I better start going to church to get in on the concubines. Amen.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:21 pmAnd as for tithing….its way past time for the money grubbing churches that play politics to pay their share of taxes.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:26 pmDear God,
If you exist, please come and pick up all the trash you left behind. The sooner the better. The stench coming from it is overwhelming.
Thanks in advance,
January 16th, 2008 at 11:28 pmThe Loyal Opposition
God’s standards? Didn’t God give the human race the intellect to reason when it is , and when it is not time to bring another human into this world? From the beginning of time women instinctively knew to continue or not continue with a pregnancy in order to preserve the family.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:31 pmAnd as for tithing….its way past time for the money grubbing churches that play politics to pay their share of taxes.
Comment by jb — January 16, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
Amen.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:32 pmThere is no such thing as god. Even if there was, he would hold no special status in the governance of the USA. It’s in our Constitution.
Basing our government on an imaginary personality – especially one as ill imagined as Huckabee’s seems to be – cannot be viewed as a good thing (If for no other reason, because it’s completely freekin’ insane). Our founders warned us about this crap, and we’d better start listening to their wise words.
If he had set his agenda and not mentioned a deity, it would be a different story.
Thomas Paine wrote:
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.
It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?
Thomas Paine: American patriot. Atheist.
Huckabee: Not so much.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:32 pmThank you Thomas Paine and Marcus for clearing the air. I think I can breathe a little again.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:38 pmGod’s standards… whose God and in which religion?
January 16th, 2008 at 11:40 pmIt would have to be someone like Huck to bring this nonsense into the 21st century.
I am also hearing methods of birth control could also be affected… Does the Huck want all to stop having sex?
After all the sh!t we have seen in the past 7 years and now we have to deal with this????
If there was a candidate loudly professing their belief in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or Ratoncito Perez they would be ridiculed out of the race in a heartbeat – particularly if they were receiving instructions from any of those invisible and likely nonexistent entities about changes to The Constitution. Why should this case be any different?
January 16th, 2008 at 11:43 pmI guess most of you woke up on the wrong side of the bed. :) I see though that no one else decided to say which other republican they will take over him.
I hope tomorrow is better. I am in Vegas, my caucus vote, or pledge is Edwards bound.
We need to be smarter than ever.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:52 pmTHESE MENTAL DEFECTIVES CAN’T HELP THEMSELVES.
NOW HIS KIDS AREN’T THE ONLY ONES TORTURING ANIMALS…..HE’S STICKING SQUIRRELS INTO POPCORN POPPERS!!!!
WHAT KIND OF FREAKIN’ JESUS JIHADI CAMP DO YOU HAVE TO LIVE IN TO THINK HUCKABEE IS NORMAL?
January 16th, 2008 at 11:54 pmJames Madison rises from the dead to defend the Constitution.
COLUMBIA, SC (AP)
In a surprising turn of events, the skeleton of founding father, and principle author of the Constitution of the United States, James Madison, clawed his way through six feet of earth and relentlessly hunted down Republican candidate Mike Huckabee.
The skeleton of James Madison caught up with Huckabee at a campaign rally in South Carolina, where Huckabee was trashing the Constitution to the delight of dumbass redneck Republicans.
Once on stage, the skeleton of former President James Madison proceeded to the podium where he violently attacked Huckabee, ripping out his tongue and tossing it to the horrified crowd of biblethumping fundies.
The skeleton of James Madison then returned to its grave, and is now reported to be sleeping peacefully.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:56 pmHuckabee is pandering to his base just like the last guy that got elected did so I doubt, even if Huck gets elected, he would change anything.
Besides, people are more concerned about the economy, which Huckabee is quite weak in.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:02 amAw, crap, I was hoping Sunday school was going to become mandatory, after all, I need Buddhist meditation training on Sunday morning more than football.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:12 amComment by Jeffko — January 16, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
Just for the sake of argument. If Blackwater successfully installs a Republican military dictator (The only way I see a Republican administration for a very long time.) I would take any of them over Huck.
From his website:
My faith is my life – it defines me. My faith doesn’t influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don’t separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.
That statement, alone, proves to me he is unfit for government service at any level. In fact, if one really wanted a religious amendment, I would make ordained clergy exempt from, and disqualified for, public office. EVER!
Unfortunately, he has some support, though, he seems to be doing a good job of discrediting himself. It seems like every time he opens his mouth he proves himself less worthy. In spite of that, I’m worried about the support he could get from sincere Christians who don’t see the risk of theocracy.
I’m afraid that, if nominated, he would be formidable. Especially if he manages to make himself the “victim of religious persecution”. But, even then his well known “flatlander” beliefs should make him beatable.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:19 amThoughtful reflection upon the dynamics of legal interpretation in a changing reality = activist judges. Screwing with the constitution = conservative common sense? What’s up with these freaks?
January 17th, 2008 at 12:23 amWhay’s the difference? He still wants to impose HIS RELIGIOUS beliefs on the rest of us.
It’s sad we have to even discuss this BS – torture is a christian value, now; invading citizens’ privacy is justified; and regulating everyone’s private life should be a Constitutional issue (this last, diametrically opposed by Amendment X, if I remember my civics class).
My stars; why did this country give some cavedweller so much power over this country? Now, theocracy actually appeals to (previously) freedom-loving Americans.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:24 amWhy would we elect a radical fundamentalist here, when we are fighting them over there?
The last thing we need is a President who thinks he is channeling God’s wishes.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:42 amThe last thing we need is a President who thinks he is channeling God’s wishes.
Comment by Fools on the Hill — January 17, 2008 @ 12:42 am
Yeah, we already have one of those.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:50 amHow about having some of these sanctimonous Republicans start off this reformist parade by obeying some of the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not steal (elections: 1996, 2000, 2002, 2004, for example, stolen electronically…), Thou shalt not kill: attention Bush, Cheney, Rummie, Cunning Rice, et al ad nauseum: the illegal criminal wars on the Afghanis and the Iraqis). Thou shalt not bear false witness: hmm, Bush bears false witness practically every time he opens his mouth…, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s possessions (Iraqi oil, hmm)…
January 17th, 2008 at 12:59 am#23 jb: If churches were all of a sudden taxed (as they should be) then you’d see a massive decline of these money grubbing, nutjob, whacko religions that seem to be more and more prevalent today and also injecting themselves into our politics. I never thought people in this country would be capable of dumbing themselves down as much as they have to this day. Seeing Mike Huckabee speak during this campaign, before actual crowds of people, simply astounds me. Just remember this, whenever someone wishes to profess the power of ‘God’, that power usually comes in the form of a super-whack-nut wielding a shotgun or a bomb.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:04 amHuckabee said that he was chosen by God. So if I don’t support Huckabee, I’m going to fry in hell forever?
January 17th, 2008 at 1:15 amWhy is it that God only “talks” to people who are republicans running for president or sickos in desperate need for an excuse to kill?
January 17th, 2008 at 1:23 amHow can anybody be so stupid as to send their llife savings to Televangelists like Mike the Huckster Huckabee, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell?
January 17th, 2008 at 1:34 amAs if Bush getting orders from God wasn’t bad enough.
Of course Bush isn’t really hearing God. But I doubt Huck does either.
No, it’s all about power folks. Earthly that is.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:43 amIf Bush is acting at God’s direction, God doesn’t have a clue how to run a country.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:49 amSome thoughts for the election prayer:
My candidate who seeks to be President,
January 17th, 2008 at 1:50 amhallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come and make America heaven
For He shall surely annihilate those terrorists that sin against us, so vote for Him and lead us not toward secular democrats temptations.
Jesus was big on annihilation?
January 17th, 2008 at 2:10 amJesus was big on annihilation?
Comment by jb —
Must have been why else would our Born again Evangelical Christian President wage Global War wiping out terrorists.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:24 amI figure if you want to know what Jesus would do just watch what our leaders do – it’s the opposite
Not yet. But put him in office and let him start tinkering with the constitution and where will he stop.
Would his “traditional marriage amendment” involve subservience of women. He believes that is necessary.
Put him and his squirrel frying popcorn popper back in the box and send it back to Arkansas.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:41 amWhich God? Who chooses, who commands which God one subscribes to? I’ve had enough of this crap. We’ve been knee deep in the evangelistic septic tank ever since the “class” of ‘94 cast their shadow on the hallowed halls of congress. Since that day the halls are not so hallowed anymore. But this God thing is just a way of getting votes and gaining power through the manipulation of the evangelicals and like dumb sheep they go willy-nilly right over the cliff for Rev. Huck. Maybe it has crossed the minds of some “thinking” evangelicals that the Rev is jerking them around and passing the plate. If that is the case let’s hope that the smart ones vote smartly. I’m just sayin’ is all.
January 17th, 2008 at 5:42 amHere we go again with the fear mongering of all the gays “threatening traditional marriages”. After 24 years of marriage, I can’t recall a single time that my wife and I have been threatened by gays. Accordingly, the constitution works just as well during elections as it does the rest of the time. No “God’s standards” tweaking needed.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:14 amIt’s rather obvious that Huckabee is targeting mindless idiots for votes. Anyone with half a brain would see that 1) getting constitutional amendments passed which would ban abortion and gay marriage would be impossible, and 2) even if this could be accomplished, eroding the line between church and state would spell disaster for both.
Yet Huckabee has found a niche audience that will lap up what he has to say without thinking about the implausibility of it, and he’s happy to shovel as much of this pap as this audience wants.
Maybe if some of these sheeple manage to remember Matthew 22:21 (“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’sâ€) and John 18:36 (“My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.â€), they will remember that Jesus advocated a separation between the heavenly church and the earthly state.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:49 amHe added, “I’m not suggesting that we re-write the Constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance. I want to make that very clear.â€
——————————————
Um…why not? Why cherry-pick and advocate changing the constitution for some of “God’s standards” and not all of them? Is it because evangelists have no problem keeping gays from kissing each other but would balk if they had to give 10% of their income to the church or get up early on Sunday mornings?
These hypocrites are giving Christianity a bad name.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:54 am“Human life amendment”?
Does that mean that Fmr-Gov. Huckabee is against the death penalty, in accordance with the Commandment “thou shalt not kill”?
Or is this another instance in which he picks & chooses which verses of the Bible which agree with his prejudice?
January 17th, 2008 at 8:02 am“Oh yeah the candidate that married his cousin was mayor of NYC, greatest city in the world. What the hell is going on with our country?”
And he made the city livable and fun to visit.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:10 amAnd he made the city livable and fun to visit.
Comment by WF Bucks — January 17, 2008 @ 8:10 am
unless you were brown.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:36 amWF Bucks wishes us to believe that JulieAnnie PERSONALLY TRANSFORMED the metropolis of NYC from a crime-ridden cesspool to a modern Utopia. I’ll grant that he gets some of the credit for the improvement of the City, but NYC has never been completely isolated from the region, the nation, or the world, and there were other actor at work.
There is a myth that all New Yorkers love him, but it is not a prevalent myth in the NYC area. Many here can’t wait for the opportunity to share with the nation what JulieAnnie was really like as major.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:42 am“WF Bucks wishes us to believe that JulieAnnie PERSONALLY TRANSFORMED the metropolis of NYC from a crime-ridden cesspool to a modern Utopia.”
Comment by Peter C — January 17, 2008 @ 8:42 am
Don’t forget that a lot of that “transformation” came from extra police that BILL CLINTON gave him.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/12/clinton.police/
In our city, we had a mayor at that time who also enjoyed a lower crime rate from our added police paid for by federal dollars. And naturally, our mayor also tried to claim credit for it. Just like Giuliani.
But isn’t this thread about Huckabee? Oh wait…no, it’s really about hypocrisy and pandering. Giuliani fits.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:54 amSo would Huck be fine if a Muslim president pushed to make it illegal for women to go uncovered?
And what kind of crappy Christian is he that he doesn’t care about any but 2 of “God’s Standards?”
January 17th, 2008 at 9:02 amwould his human life amendment call for immediate pullout from the deadly quagmire that is Iraq?
January 17th, 2008 at 9:26 amJesus stated that divorce is only warranted when one spouse has committed adultery. Clearly we should amend the Constitution to ban “no fault” divorce (a historical newcomer) and adultery (which used to be illegal in most jurisdictions).
January 17th, 2008 at 9:37 amOf course not, those are TERRORISTS, not humans…
January 17th, 2008 at 9:41 am[strong]James Madison rises from the dead to defend the Constitution.[/strong]
COLUMBIA, SC (AP)
In a surprising turn of events, the skeleton of founding father, and principle author of the Constitution of the United States, James Madison, clawed its way through six feet of earth and relentlessly hunted down Republican candidate Mike Huckabee.
The skeleton of James Madison caught up with Huckabee at a campaign rally in South Carolina, where Huckabee was trashing the Constitution to the delight of dumbass redneck Republicans.
Once on stage, the skeleton of former President James Madison proceeded to the podium where he violently attacked Huckabee, ripping out his tongue and tossing it to the horrified crowd of biblethumping fundies.
The skeleton of James Madison then returned to its grave, and is now reported to be sleeping peacefully.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:45 amSurprise surprise. The Incredible Huckster has officially brought out the abortion AND gay marriage issues in one fell swoop. FOR THE LOVE OF SOCIETY CAN THE REPUBLICANS NOT SEE ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THESE! Does he really believe that those two issues are the only ones that will determine who gets the nomination?
UUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHH
January 17th, 2008 at 9:50 amI’d say the Huckster’s got about a 50-50 chance to take the nomination. He’d be the ideal replacement for the Chimperor: he’s stupid, intellectually lazy, incurious, and utterly certain of his own infallibility.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:51 amPut in a Veep with a brain–say Jeb Bush?–and a sufficiently Machiavellian ’staff’, and you’d have a sure winner out there in Mid-Dull Murka…
#63 – “Jesus stated that divorce is only warranted when one spouse has committed adultery. Clearly we should amend the Constitution to ban “no fault†divorce (a historical newcomer) and adultery (which used to be illegal in most jurisdictions).” Comment by gulfwargrunt — January 17, 2008 @ 9:37 am
Good point! This would, of course, mean that anyone who has been divorced and re-married would be in violation of the bible, according to Jesus. This does not count remarrying after the death of a spouse.
Frm. Mayor Giuliani would be in violation! Off with his head! ;-)
January 17th, 2008 at 9:53 amCross dressing and promiscuity were some of NYC’s best features way before Ghouliani got there…
January 17th, 2008 at 9:54 am#66 – “Does he really believe that those two issues are the only ones that will determine who gets the nomination?” Comment by Nature Rules — January 17, 2008 @ 9:50 am
Actually, I sincerely hope he continues to push this extremist agenda. It would ensure that he would NOT get elected, even if he (somehow) received the nomination.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:55 am#69 – “Cross dressing and promiscuity were some of NYC’s best features way before Ghouliani got there…” Comment by tokin librul — January 17, 2008 @ 9:54 am
What do you mean “were”?
Fmr Mayor Giuliani was promiscuous and liked to cross dress while he was still mayor! He made it the “in thang”! ;-)
January 17th, 2008 at 9:57 amIf we are going to start amending the Constitition to match God’s mandates, how about if we start with the Respect thy mother and father one? That way when the boys refuse to clean their rooms, I can not worry about the damn CPS sticking their noses in my whipping business?
Then we can move to the one about not working on the Sabath and I can stone the bastard next door when he insistst on painting his house when there’s football on. I catch more grief about that…
And speaking of shutting down grief, can we pass an amendment that makes me man of the house and the Chromosomaly Challenged One can STFU and cook?
Please Lord, in your name we do ask these little things.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:14 amI am continuously noting that people opposed to legal recognition of gay marriages cannot give a secular reason for such opposition.
.
.
.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian — January 16, 2008 @ 10:43 pm
Seems to me that this is a wonder opportunity for you to, “Make the sale!â€
What are the reasons that would convince us traditionalists that same-same gender marriage is something that would benefit our culture?
January 17th, 2008 at 10:14 amI am continuously noting that people opposed to legal recognition of gay marriages cannot give a secular reason for such opposition.
.
.
.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian — January 16, 2008 @ 10:43 pm
Seems to me that this is a wonder opportunity for you to, “Make the sale!â€
What are the reasons that would convince us traditionalists that same-same gender marriage is something that would benefit our culture?
Comment by bitblt — January 17, 2008 @ 10:14 am
January 17th, 2008 at 10:24 amHuckabee is already on record saying that portions of the Bible are clearly allegorical. How can he differentiate between what is literal (assuming that ANY of it is, which is an historically suspect claim), and what is metaphorical? He can’t, which is why, as is typical with the so-called “social conservative” candidates, this is all smoke-and-mirrors bullshit to dupe the evangelical right.
Hey neocons–ask yourselves this: why, when Bush had a blow-the-roof-off-the-dump public approval rating and a majority in both houses of Congress, did the administration or its legislative allies not introduce any meaningful legislation to criminalize abortion? Why did the “defense of traditional marriage” amendment die in a whimper? Why has there been no national attempt to prohibit sodomy?
Because you’ve been HAD, you fools–you’re just too blinded by flags and crosses to realize it!
January 17th, 2008 at 10:26 amSorry about that. Posting malfunction.
I am continuously noting that people opposed to legal recognition of gay marriages cannot give a secular reason for such opposition.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian — January 16, 2008 @ 10:43 pm
——-
Seems to me that this is a wonder opportunity for you to, “Make the sale!â€
What are the reasons that would convince us traditionalists that same-same gender marriage is something that would benefit our culture?
Comment by bitblt — January 17, 2008 @ 10:14 am
What’s a matter, bitbit? Can’t come up with anything to meet PLC’s challenge? You have to try to turn the question around?
Seems to me this is a wonderful opportunity for you to provide some of the answers PLC is looking for!
January 17th, 2008 at 10:27 amI would think the burden of proof would rest with the group claiming that discrimination is harmful bitblt. If in your interpretation of some mythological book, Moses had said that all left handed people should be put to death, isn’t the burden of proof in a modern society on the persons trying to kill the lefties?
Sexual orientation is like hair color or skin color. Sorry, that’s a bad analogy. The freaks who are opposed to homosexuals are for the most part opposed to skin that’s not white.
PLC is right, the only basis for your discrimination is religious interpretation. Get over it.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:29 amComment by ralph the wonder llama — January 17, 2008 @ 10:27 am
There’s no challenge until he takes the time to reword the question.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:29 amWhat are the reasons that would convince us traditionalists that same-same gender marriage is something that would benefit our culture?
Comment by bitblt — @ 10:14 am
You seem to be misunderstanding how America works. You don’t need to prove a benefit in order to allow something. Those who oppose it need to provide evidence of substantial harm in order to prohibit it. Opponents of same-sex marriage have thus far failed miserably in their efforts to do so.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:34 amThose who oppose it need to provide evidence of substantial harm in order to prohibit it. Opponents of same-sex marriage have thus far failed miserably in their efforts to do so.
Comment by BillJ-MN
That’s because they are too embarrassed to actually say what they are worried about. They are afraid it will harm their marriages. Obviously, the temptation to leave their spouses for a partner of the same sex would become overpowering for them if same sex marriage were to become legal.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:48 am#78 – “You seem to be misunderstanding how America works. You don’t need to prove a benefit in order to allow something. Those who oppose it need to provide evidence of substantial harm in order to prohibit it. Opponents of same-sex marriage have thus far failed miserably in their efforts to do so.” Comment by BillJ-MN — January 17, 2008 @ 10:34 am
Great point! Not one single argument by the anti-same-sex marriage crowd holds any water.
Benefits:
1 – Encourage lasting and committed relationships. When a relationship is recognized by the state, it makes it more of a lasting committment than a “short term fling,” AND you’ve just taken a step towards discouraging sexual liasons for the sake of sex. Isn’t that a major compalint by straight people about same-sex relationships? Always jumping from one person to the next! Don’t you want to encourage lasting relationships?
2 – Legal recognition. I had to get a will written up that provided for power of attorney and power of medical decisions. This would not be mandatory in the case of legalized marriages.
3 – Less legal ambiguity. My partner and I have been together for almost 8 years. Longer than many straight marriages last! When we apply for an apartment, it’s two separate applications rather than the one application that married couples wouold have to submit.
4 – Reduced inheritance ambiguity. Married couples have the expectation of inheriting when their partner dies. Same sex marriage would provide less ambiguity in the case of a partners demise.
These are all rational advantages of same-sex marriage. Can anyone successfully refute any of these assertions? Can anyone supply rational arguments against same-sex marriage?
January 17th, 2008 at 10:52 amDemocrat Soldier, two reasons:
One, God didn’t make Adam and Steve did he?
And two, I suspect the real reason is because when you are trying to maintain a power structure that’s shaped like a pyramid with all money and power flowing to the top, you have to keep spreading the base, like Amway. Same sex marriages don’t produce offspring, so the pyramid stops growing.
Same reason the freaks fight birth control.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:01 amSame sex marriages don’t produce offspring, so the pyramid stops growing.
Comment by nanlichi
Marriages by elderly couples don’t produce offspring either. Old people should not be allowed to marry.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:06 amRaping choir boys doesn’t produce offspring either, and worse yet, it drains money from the coffers in lawsuits and hush money. Maybe the freaks could devote some energy to stop that practice and less on sticking their noses in other people’s business.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:12 amFormer Governor Huckabee, like many others, fails to comprehend the nature of the Constitution. It is the sovereign act of the whole people to establish a government to act in their best interests.
Constitutional amendments should not and cannot be used to deny, limit or disparage the rights of the people. They are, instead, the devices used by the people the limit the power of government.
The Supreme Court has declared, in Loving v. Virginia, that marriage is a “fundamental right.” The people have commanded that every person in America is entitled to “equal protection of the law.” Therefore, government has no power to forbid same-sex marriage.
Remember, if government did have the power to say whom you cannot marry, it must therefore have the power to say whom you must marry.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:26 amMike, make sure you rewrite it to suit your chosen few.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:39 amTherefore, government has no power to forbid same-sex marriage.
.
.
.
Comment by Don in Texas — January 17, 2008 @ 11:26 am
I take it that forbidding same-same gender marriage and making it happen are different actions. That is, this additional conclusion applies: Therefore, government has no power to bring about same-sex marriage.
A relationship between a man and a woman that is recognized as a marriage, is a marriage. Just as government doesn’t give a man and a woman permission to marry – the government keeps records and encourages health practices – the government can’t give two same-same gender people permission to marry. Only those relationships that are recognized as marriage will be marriages.
This relationship called marriage is older than government, and it’s older than religion. The Bible records that God created marriage in the book of Genesis. This would be before either religious or government recognition of marriage.
Christ quotes from this account in Matthew 19 where he explains the Creator’s intent: a man and a woman will be one flesh. Two same-same gender people cannot be one flesh. Therefore, they cannot be married.
It is this “one flesh†relationship that is recognized as marriage.
There’s not a government on earth powerful enough to make people accept that two same-same gender people are married.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:51 amI take it that forbidding same-same gender marriage and making it happen are different actions. That is, this additional conclusion applies: Therefore, government has no power to bring about same-sex marriage.
Comment by bitblt
Talk about the ultimate strawman! Who ever said government should “make same sex marriages happen”? No one is going to force people of the same sex to get married you fool. Also, no one is going to force any church to perform same sex marriages.
By making same sex marriage illegal, the government is inturding not only upon individual rights, but religious freedom as well.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:59 amCal Thomas today
The cost of Roe at 35
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas011708.php3
January 17th, 2008 at 12:07 pmAnd thus bitblt concedes the argument to PLC. The basis for opposing same sex marriage is only in some story book.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pmbitblt — @ 11:51 am
You are failing Logic 101. Under the American principles the assumption is that activities are allowed unless deemed substantially harmful. Evidence of harm must be presented. Same-sex marriage opponents continue to fail to provide any such evidence.
You provide only religion-based reasons for opposition. Those reasons should be summarily dismissed as theocratic in nature. The USA is not a theocracy. Only secular reasons should be considered. Anything else is un-American.
Society is rapidly coming to accept the concept of same-sex marriage. Regardless, such emotional acceptance should be irrelevant to its legal standing in absence of demonstrable harm.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pmbitblt is showing his/her intellectual bankruptcy.
If one is to use Levitican rules to govern the country, one must go all the way. You know, kill people for wearing clothes of two different fabrics, eating shellfish, working on the Sabbath, etc.
And if marriage is exclusively for procreation purposes, then be willing to enforce that rule. Send the army in and force people to have babies, and force couples without kids to divorce. And I’m talking about YOU, Bob and Liddy Dole.
Marriage historically has always been a merger of interests between two families. It has evolved, thanks to rational humanism, into two adults agreeing to take care of each other through thick and thin. And in such a rational context, there is NO reason to deny same-sex couples the rights, responsibilities and privileges of marriage.
If marriage were truly left up to the states, interracial marriage would STILL be illegal in much of the US. After all, in 1967 (the year of Lovings vs. Virginia), 70% of US citizens were AGAINST legalizing interracial marriage. Being from the South, I know for a fact that many states in that region would still outlaw it. Just one of the many reasons I won’t ever go back.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:41 pm#86 – “There’s not a government on earth powerful enough to make people accept that two same-same gender people are married.” Comment by bitblt — January 17, 2008 @ 11:51 am
Wow! Scandinavia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Netherlands and Belgium must be super-powerful! ;-)
By the way, still waiting for your reasons on how same-sex marriage negatively impacts heterosexuial marriage.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:18 pm#81 – “One, God didn’t make Adam and Steve did he?”
Nope, He made Adam and Eve. Who was it their children married? I thought marriage to your own brothers & sisters was considered wrong. . . . ;-)
“And two, I suspect the real reason is because when you are trying to maintain a power structure that’s shaped like a pyramid with all money and power flowing to the top, you have to keep spreading the base, like Amway. Same sex marriages don’t produce offspring, so the pyramid stops growing.” Comment by nanlichi — January 17, 2008 @ 11:01 am
So, there shold be a law against infertal couples from being married? Or couples who don’t plan on having children should be disallowed?
I know you’re only bringing up the arguments of the Religious Wrong, but I felt I had to respond to the inherent lack of logic in those statements.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:23 pmSame sex marriages don’t produce offspring, so the pyramid stops growing.â€
Yes, I’ve heard this aruement from right-wing, Republican, closeted, homophobes before. My question is, “Do unmarried same sex couples produce more offspring than do married same sex couples?”
January 17th, 2008 at 1:37 pmDemocrat Soldier and shoeless,
You guys didn’t think I was serious did you? It is a measure of just how frigging far out there the right wing religious freaks are that I can’t outdo them even in satire.
I have said many times I think a person’s sexual orientation is about as important as their hair color. We don’t prohibit redheads from marrying blondes do we? Makes as much sense as prohibiting same sex marriage as far as I am concerned.
I like to poke fun at the sanctimonious pious pricks like bitethebullet who post here.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pmGood God why doesn’t he just STFU??!!
January 18th, 2008 at 1:42 am.
Preserve Marriage
~ Outlaw divorce!
Why does the right to life end at birth?
… Huck-a-Chuckabee, the former Baptist Preacher turned Governor, argues over who sent more to their death.
.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:14 amDemocrat Soldier and shoeless,
You guys didn’t think I was serious did you?
Comment by nanlichi
No.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:29 pm