« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
12/05/2007
Like Darren Stevens or Willis Jefferson, Mike wants to inherit Dubya's script
Andy Towle has come across an interview that GOP hopeful Mike Huckabee has given to GQ magazine. Here's the money portion, in terms of what gays could expect under a [::shudder::] President Huckabee:
Is the strategy shifting because social conservatives are losing on those core issues? Ten years ago, it would have been unimaginable to have gay marriage even in liberal Massachusetts. Now it’s there.
I don’t think the issue’s about being against gay marriage. It’s about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that’s important. You have to have a basic family structure. There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it’s one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that’s their business. But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that’s an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square. And if you look at states that have had it on the ballot—I know in our state it was a 70-percent-against issue. Most states are similar to that.
But if the younger generation keeps going the way it’s going, it could be 50 percent in ten years.
It could.
I just wonder what you’d say to the gay couple who says, “Well, we want to live this way, and my partner can’t come visit me in a nursing home.”
He can with a power of attorney. That’s the fallacy, that this requires some new definition of marriage. It’s simply not the case.
So why can’t you call it a civil union?
Because it really is a precursor toward marriage. Once the government says this relationship is in essence similar to or equal to a marriage—we’re not going to call it that, but that’s what it is—and you grant it the same basic rights as marriage, then you’ve effectively done it.
Alright, first off -- "most states are similar to [Arkansas]" in terms of gay marriage?! That is simply not true. There is not a credible national poll around that puts gay marriage opposition in the 70% range.
But as-to-be-expected misrepresentations aside: Who out there is seriously still buying this "gay marriage will destroy society" script!? Honestly. It's like listening to children talk about Santa Claus, except where the grown adult's play-acting is actually harming actual human lives! And then Huckabee has the gall to present the idea that gay couples don't need marriage protection because they can jump through a few extra legal hoops and achieve similar protections? F*** you! YOU retain yourself an attorney so that you can visit your sick wife, Mr. Huckabee!
You know, the GQ headline says it all:
Is This Guy For Real? [GQ]
For while Mike's human existence may be tangible, his ideas on this issue are in a reality of the far right's own fear-mongery making!
Your thoughts
Well that trims up my candidate list to pick from. Not that Mike Huckabee or really any of the GOP candidates were on my short list. Besides the fact that I could vote for anyone who treats gay rights as an us vs. them issue or that thinks we should have to jump through hoops to get the smallest of protections; having a candidate who knows a little about history is a must:
“There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived.”
Please senator Huckabee, which of these civilizations with “traditional” marriage have remained completely unchanged and intact today? Maybe is just me, perhaps I’m just a bit rusty on me gay marriage apocalyptic history. But then I would have to wait for the time when the state collapses in on itself in violent revolt all because Adam and Steve shared a house, a family, and a life together to know for sure.
Posted by: Patrick B | Dec 5, 2007 1:40:49 PM
And of coruse, let's not forget that those "extra legal documents" Mr. Huckabee mentions don't always hold any power outside the state they're drafted in. Certainly not to the degree that a marriage license traditionally has.
Posted by: Jarred | Dec 5, 2007 2:13:26 PM
Out of one side of his mouth, he tells GLBT people we can attain certain vital rights by way of private contract; out of the other, he insists that if we DO end up with "these same basic rights", the family structure will be redefined (and society destroyed)? There's a number of conclusions that can be drawn from that sort of inconsistency, but the three big ones are
1) Masked hostility / hidden agenda -- "Sure, I'll tell them quahrs they can sign a contract. After all, once I get elected, I can appoint judges who'll use antiquated, nearly-abandoned doctrines from common-law contract to invalidate such agreements on the ground that they're 'immoral'."
2) Marginalization -- as in, "We on the Right will grudgingly ignore what you do in private, so long as our legal system and public institutions continue to make it clear that you're second-class citizens".
Or 3) "Spin" and political expediency -- "In an attempt to soften the public perception of my homophobia and avoid alienating any moderates that might be left in the GOP, while nevertheless making my support for 'traditional marriage' clear to the all-important evangelical faction of the party, I'll spew out a string of well-tested, focus-grouped doublespeak that comes just short of *explicitly* contradicting itself".
Which is most likely? The jury's out... you decide! ;-)
Posted by: Reilly | Dec 5, 2007 3:45:00 PM
comments powered by Disqus
