Posted on 12/16/2009 9:52:42 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
For the sake of brevity - straight to the point (pun intended).
I have thought long about Huckabee's recent interview with Katie Couric. One of the topics that came up was Huckabee's view on same-sex marriage, and it was no accident that it came up. Huckabee's position on the issue of abortion is concrete - he is ardently pro-life. What remained was for him to effectively frame the same-sex marriage debate, and that he did. Quite effectively in fact.
In short, he told Couric that he was pro-traditional marriage, not anti-same sex marriage. He said that it's not that he is against gay marriage, it is that he is for traditional marriage, and that marriage should be between one man and one woman, not one man and one man, one man and two women, etc.
Secondly, he said that once you open the door by redefining marriage (by allowing legal, consenting adult same sex marriage), that there is "no limit" on marriage being redefined again, and that you open the door for allowing marriage to be redefined once again to allow legal, consenting adult polygamous marriage.
Third, he said that it wasn't bigotry and intolerance to not support consenting adult polygamous marriage.
Huckabee has framed this issue in a way that is unwinnable for liberals - and they cannot counter him on this - at least not effectively.
If liberals say that Huckabee is an intolerant bigot, he can say that if he is an intolerant bigot, then they are just as bigoted and just as intolerant as he because they don't support marriage being redefined to allow consenting adult polygamous marriage. He can say that they are also hypocrites to boot (the label that NO ONE wants) because they support marriage being redefined to allow consenting adult same sex marriage, but they don't support marriage being redefined to allow consenting adult polygamous marriage for the tens of thousands of polygamists in America who do want to get married. He can say that at least he is consistent on the issue of marriage: no to polygamy and no to same sex marriage.
If some bring up the question of polygamous marriage presently being illegal, Huckabee can say that same-sex marriage is presently illegal in the overwhelming majority of places in the U.S. and that at one time it was illegal everywhere in the U.S.
If some bring up polygamous marriage being declared illegal by SCOTUS, then Huckabee can say that if same-sex marriage were declared illegal by SCOTUS that gay activists would never cease in trying to get a future SCOTUS to overturn its ruling in the future.
If liberals say that they are against discrimination and for marriage equality for gays, and that Huckabee is not, then Huckabee can counter by asking why they don't support marriage equality for polygamists and why do they support discrimination against them?
And on and on it would go...
This is an unwinnable situation for liberals, who really went after Huckabee on social issues in the 2008 elections. NO ONE wants to be seen as pro-polygamy. NO ONE. Just ask one of Obama's nominees.
Scalia was correct. We were told that overturning the sodomy laws would never, ever lead to gay activits trying to get same-sex marriage legalized. Look at what has happened. We have also been told that if marriage is redefined to allow consenting adult same sex marriage, that it would never ever be redefined again to allow consenting adult polygamous marriage. Sure.
The same arguments that have been used in the push for same sex marriage can be used in the push for polygamous marriage: Bigotry, intolerance, "marriage equality," discrimination, "marriage is about love" and so on.
The one thing that liberals might say to Huckabee is that the Bible condones polygamy, so why doesn't he? They would be hard pressed, though, to find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus condoned polygamous marriage.
For those who may wonder: Will I support Huckabee in 2012? Here is my list of whom I support in 2012, and in this order: Palin, Jindal, Huckabee.
Liberals have been hit with that argument a million times before and continually reject the connection or any other connection to other forms of marraige redefinition.
If Huckabee is not able to simply say that homosexuality is wrong and that he is against it then he will come off as weak on the issue and that is not leading on this issue at all.
For Huckabee to say that he is not anti-gay marraige but just pro-traditional marraige is the same typical wishy-washy non-principled stance that has been destroying the republican party.
What a genuinely brilliant response! I can't believe how brilliantly obvious that should have been and how brilliantly delivered his message was.
Can someone please close my sarcasm tag for me? Thanks.
True conservatives are fiscally conservative, socially conservative and are conservative on foreign policy.
True conservatives are pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, low tax, small gov’t, strong military, for the gold standard, support parental notification, do not support the US getting involved in foreign entanglements (President George Washington’s advice), and on and on.
Is Huckabee all of those? Not by a long shot. Is he still electable? Not right now, but by 2012? Yes.
In the end, I want someone who is all of the above. A mix of Reagan, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson and the leaders of old. But If I have to choose between someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal and one who is socially conservative and fiscally liberal I will take the latter.
If a nations morals go, then it really doesn’t matter on fiscal issues. Sodom and Gomorrah may have been strong on fiscal issues, but did that save them?
Did you get into Al Gore’s stash again? The Huckster has not locked up anything, including violent criminals.
sorry, you are incorrect. i know PLENTY of social conservatives, and we all think huckaphony is a smarmy snakeoil salesman. he’s got NOTHING locked up, not even convicted felons.
“Is Huckabee all of those? Not by a long shot. Is he still electable? Not right now, but by 2012?” ...No.
“...socially conservative and fiscally liberal...” I consider this an oxymoron. Despite what you think you know about “social conservatives,” the vast majority of them would recoil at the thought of fiscal liberalness or big government. That is what separates many social conservatives from Huckabee. I agree with your thinking about the importance of morality and a strong culture. The problem is that big, unlimited government destroys culture, both intentionally and as a natural consequence. That’s why social conservatism can’t be separated from limited government. Neither can work politically without the other.
As long as Huckabee bangs his Bible, Roy Moore fans will support Huckabee.
I don’t care what you call them a candidate should not be selected solely on the basis of a specific special interest. I don’t care that he was a preacher, a governor or that is “good” on this issue or that. I want someone who will support and defend the Constitution and the Republic as they were written and implemented. If that is the approach then the other issues will fall into place and or be resolved because the Constitution as written is the basis for all of our freedoms and should be strictly applied to prevent government from becoming all powerful.
The Huckster, Mitt the Twit etc do not fall into that category.
I don't think you "hate to say it" at all. You sound just like a liberal plant who is trying to plant seeds of doubt on the right about the one person who has the best chance of winning in 2012, and the person most favored to do so by our side.
Sarah Palin is eminently electable. She would sweep the presidential election, if it were held today. She'll be even more unbeatable three years from now.
Our best hope for toppling Obama is a Huckabee or a Romney. Sad but true.
Proof positive that you're working on mission orders. Agents like you worked hard to get loser McCain nominated last year, and you're already starting your ops for the next election.
Trust me. It's not going to work this time.
BTTT - right on target.
End the welfare state and watch two thirds of illegal immigration evaporate, too.
There is something to what you say. However, a President can do a lot about the fiscal issues. When it comes to society's mores, there is very little he can do other than to set a good example.
And Roy Moore only got 33% in the Alabama primary in 2006. Bob Riley would beat Huckabee in Alabama in a landslide. America needs Riley.
Yes. Sarah Palin is eminently electable. She showed her eminent executive ability by taking her ball and running off when the fire got too hot in Juneau. And Juneau is not even a tough time. If she does get elected President how long will it be before she decides the pressure is too much and she runs back home to play with her barbie dolls.
Ronald Reagan used to get bashed by the media all the time. He managed to go over them by winning over the American people with his charm and wit, not by resigning his office when the going got too tough.
Any respect I had for Palin evaporated the day she resigned her office. I will not vote for her in the primary. It’s that simple.
Total horse crap.
LLS
No, not really.
Libs have been hit - to be sure - but not with everything listed here, and not in the way that Huckabee and others before him (like myself) have framed it.
Libs like to use the arguments that 1.) marriage should be about love, 2.) that discrimination is discrimintaion regardles of whom it is directed against, 3.) that consenting adults shouls be allowed to marry whom they want to and so on.
Liberals jettison ALL of that talk when it comes to polygamous marriage. Why?
A.) If libs fight for both, they lose both. Period. And they know this.
BUT...
B.) If conservatives consistently ram home the message as laid out in my OP, then libs lose. Either way, they lose. Libs probably know this, too, since they will be disarmed of their most powerful arguments and don’t want to be shown up as being bigoted hypocrites.
Question is, do conservatives know all of this (A & B)?
Sorry but your “observation” sounds alot more like hope, and it also requires that we all participate...
BTW...
You frame it that way to make Huckabee look bad. Try framing it the way that people like myself have framed it (as shown in the OP) and turn this on liberals.
Show them up for being the hypocrites that they are when it comes to their so-called desire for “marriage equality.” NO ONE wants that label( being shown to be a hypocrite). It is a backbreaker. Yet, liberals are hypocrites on this issue. Expose them for being the bigots that they call others, too.
My OP shows that liberals are NOT for marriage equality and that they truly don’t believe that marriage should be based upon love. They are hypocrites. It’s all lies on their part to further their goal of destroying the institutioon of marriage.
Keep dreaming.
Did I require you to participate on this thread? Duh, no I did not. No one forced you to post on this particular thread. Since no one (me included) forced to to participate on this thread, no one is forcing you or “we” to “participate.” It was and is not “required” on your part, genius.
You just came here to engage in personal attacks as shown by your post. This is clearly against the forum rules. That means that you actually contribute to the thread or you hit the road. Thank you. The mods are against personal attacks and if need be they will be informed.
Since your (not mine) powers of observation are flawed, your analysis that it is really hope on my part is shown to be bogus. It is not hope on my part. Anyway, that is a baseless, unsupported allegation coming from you. Typical of liberals like yourself.
Libs like to make things personal. You made things personal by bringing me into this (saying that MY observation sounds alot like hope).
Is it ok of dream of Sarah Palin or Jindal getting the nom?
Why then would it be wrong to dream of Huckabee (whom I place third on my list after them), getting the nom if that is what it takes to beat Huckabee?
Sad to see that people here would rather have Obama than Huck.
This place seems to be full of Obamambots. Are you one? Maybe you are like some of the others who posted here. Hmmm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.