• Gay BlogAds

  • Gay News Watch

  • Chris Tweets

  • « McCain's "double-talk" express (II) | Main | GNW 5: Lesbian rumors abound »

    March 01, 2008

    History according to Huckabee

    Posted by: Chris

    Huckabee04_2 This is how former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee explains his support for constitutional amendments banning states from marrying gay couples or protecting a woman's right to choose:

    "It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said, referring to the idea of slavery on Fox News Sunday on Nov. 18 of last year. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."

    So this is a Southern governor's take-away lesson from the "War of Northern Aggression"? The Emancipation Proclamation was the imposition of Northern morality on a resistant South.

    It was not, of course, the federal government insisting on basic equality and individual rights, even in a resistant South that had sought to discriminate on the basis of the regional majority's moral and religious beliefs.



    TrackBack URL for this entry:


    1. paulie on Mar 1, 2008 5:04:35 PM:

      At heart the religious right views states rights as being negotiable.

    1. Kary on Mar 2, 2008 11:10:36 AM:

      In the South, I do believe we call this Pig-Fuck Logic. It's why I no longer live there. And also, Chris, why I'm not a gay conservative...the logic makes no sense to me. But, then...I'm just a silly old queen.

    1. Shawn on Mar 2, 2008 2:43:56 PM:

      Growing up in a Southern Baptist church, my observation has been that many Evangelicals need to define right and wrong with a codified set of rules that do not apply to them. If you are hetero, then condemning homosexuality is a convenient cornerstone of the foundation of your faith. No danger of slippage. It's very much like giving up brocolli for Lent.

    1. Double T on Mar 2, 2008 5:03:07 PM:

      You go girl. I understand why someone could be fiscal conversative, I get it. However, being a gay republican sounds like being married to someone you love with all your heart and that person wants to murder you.

      The equation does not add up.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 3, 2008 12:25:05 AM:

      No; the lesson was that the South's advocacy of "states' rights" as an argument for whether or not each state could allow slavery would have led to multiple interpretations what was clearly a right vs. wrong question.

      Or, put differently, it would have been requiring the Federal government to recognize each state's interpretation of slavery, no matter how they differed, as valid.

      What Huckabee is saying is that there needs to be a uniform definition of marriage and abortion at the Federal level versus allowing each individual state to make up their own minds -- just as a uniform definition abolishing slavery at the Federal level eliminated any confusion of whether or not it was legal at the state level.

    1. Double T on Mar 3, 2008 12:58:19 PM:

      Huckabee, is taking two very different things and placing them in the same basket.

      Abortion is a single event as of a certain date. Finished/Done.

      Marriage is a going concern, possible occurring over the remaining life of a person. You don't "pick up" your abortion and move to another state. Your marriage, however, is something you do take with you.

      The Federal Gov't should only involve itself if one State's action affect another state. Abortion clearly would not.
      Marriage possible could and could not.

    1. Dane on Sep 10, 2008 10:48:50 PM:

      You're missing his point. What he was saying is that something can't be moral one moment and immoral the next, based on popular opinion at the time. If it is right or wrong, and not just a political question, then it is right or wrong for all time.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad