Thursday, January 17, 2008
Huckabee Overtly Equates Homosexuality And Bestiality (12:31 pm)
TPM catches another Huckabee fringe-Christian-Right nutjob moment:
Huck, in elaborating on his views that the Constitution should be subjected to Biblical standards, had just wrapped up a discussion of the fact that marriage has meant “a man and a woman in a relationship for life.” With this context firmly established, this exchange followed:
QUESTIONER: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.
HUCKABEE: 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.
That’s pretty clear cut. Changing the definition of marriage so it can mean “two men” or “two women” is equivalent to changing it to mean “a man and an animal.” No ambiguity here whatsoever.
All fascist movements begin with those in power defining the members of a minority group as aberrant or somehow less than human. Homosexuality’s usually a good target to get things rolling. So, my question: when will the mainstream media start reporting on the fact that this guy is a fringe extremist who believes some people are inherently less equal than others?
posted by Jarrett
Reader Comments
Why should the state sanction marriage anyway? If it does, why not allow multiple wives/husbands a la group marriage? If we abandon the current standards, who will decide the new standards?
posted by Pam on 1-21-08 at 10:11 AM
"Why should the state sanction marriage anyway?”
Because it’s in their best interests to do so. You see legal marriage is really the state contracting out for future citizens. Since a monogamous heterosexual relationship is optimal at raising future citizens the state naturally want’s to encourage more of it as it leads to a healthy society.
“If we abandon the current standards, who will decide the new standards?”
We’ll the only logical reason to do so would be if a better social institution for raising children came along. As for who would decide, that is really irrelevant. The salient question would be what is decided and for what reasons not who is deciding.
posted by Johanan on 1-23-08 at 5:04 PM
Discussion Closed
Commenting is closed on articles six months or older. This helps us prevent spam and maintain continuous discussions. We also close discussions from time to time that we are unable to moderate. Thanks for your understanding.
Elsewhere in an interview with Tim Russert he said that he was not saying he thought homosexuality was equal to bestiality. I think what he was really trying to get at in this quote was that we can’t have radical movements in politics going around and changing definitions willy-nilly otherwise we will have a free for all where any definition (ie. man and 3, women man and animal etc.) will be acceptable.
So no his criticism was about something rather different. Relax everyone this was just a false alarm.
posted by Johanan Raatz on 1-20-08 at 1:39 PM