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.
The mainstream media will be pushing hard for Huckabee to be the “conservative” choice. Anything to get Palin out of the way. That is who they are truly scared of. The media will talk about Huckabee like he is almost one of them. DON’T BUY IT!
Wow, what kind of tinfoil are you using? Child, please.
I wouldn’t mind seeing Sarah Palin getting elected, but she is not electable. People will look at her and say “Yeah, Obama’s not doing well, but it could be worse” and think of Palin. I’m not a DNC hack. I’m pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, anti-lib cookiness, but I’m looking at the conservatives’ chance of winning. I want Obama to lose, but Sarah Palin is not the answer. Maybe she would be useful in the strategy rooms, but as a candidate? Not gonna happen.
So, you consider fiscally conservative and socially liberal to be an oxymoron, too? You can’t have it both ways.
If you can’t be socially conservative and fiscally liberal and still be a true conservative, then you can’t be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and be a true conservative.
IMHO, you must be conservtive on both to be a true conservative.
IOW, libertarians (for example) are not true conservatives.
Good points all around.
If I'm an Obamabot, then so is Jim Robinson, who has made it VERY CLEAR that this site will NEVER support a RINO. And that includes your tax loving, illegal alien loving, criminal loving, dog killing Christian socialist. He's a social liberal who bastardizes his faith as justification for taking liberal positions.
Just shut up and go away, and take your jackass Huckabee with you.
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).
WTF?
From plea to an insult in a heartbeat...
Me thinks thou dost protest too much...
Call me a lib....LMAO...
I’ll see your lib and raise you a huckatroll...
As I said...your HOPES will only arise if the rest of us participate in your little fantasy that it wont matter...
TOAST.
“Locking Up”
What an ironic phrase to use!
He called YOU a liberal...
BUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
The rude truth...it’s Palin or Obama for 4 more years...that’s it...
Some are just completely deaf, dumb and blind.
“If you can’t be socially conservative and fiscally liberal and still be a true conservative, then you can’t be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and be a true conservative.”
I would say that is an axiom beyond reproach. That gets me back to my point that most social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives, and that, apart from Huckabee’s Willy Horton moment, is what will prevent Huckabee from getting the next Republican nomination. But, that’s something that can wait. Personally, I don’t think he will run.
Hell, it doesn’t have to be polygamous. If you support homosexual “marriage”, why not inter-species “marriage” ?
Why not parent-child “marriage” ? Ad nauseum.
Gotta wear a thick skin to be an active FReeper. We need reasonable voices, so please don’t give up! There’s power in numbers, so let’s keep talking common sense.
Keep on eating those magic mushrooms, child.LOL
I hope you don't pick stocks for a living. You've entirely missed the forest for the trees on Palin. Good luck to you anyway.
Ahh.....you're one of those who refused to actually listen to the Governor's reasoning when she stepped down, and who didn't bother to read any of the excellent analysis by seasoned political watchers who saw the logic in what she did.
If you had done either of those two things, you would already know that Sarah Palin's exit from office was a brilliant strategic move, and that she upheld the spirit of her oath of office by removing herself from the Governorship.
It’s people like you that give the rest of us conservative-leaning and libertarian-leaning people a bad name. I’d rather take Sarah over Obama, but I don’t think she’ll win. I’ll vote for her, but she’s not gonna win.
And yes, I manage my own stock account. Picked up a nice 40% gain this year. Go to back to your “carbon dating proves that the earth is millions of years old, but I’m sticking my fingers in my ears and saying ‘la-la-la I can’t hear you’ because the God gave us dinosaurs to doubt Jesus” cave, creep.
Ah... the ad hominems come out to play. You got there sooner than I thought you would.
I don't care what you say. You still talk just like a DemoMarxist plant. The discouraging things you've said about Sarah Palin are pitch-perfect for a leftist undercover operative.
You'll never support, or vote for Sarah Palin. Don't try to convince me that you will.
Ah, you’re one of those who rely on political pundits to do their thinking for them. How original.
I am so sorry! I replied to the wrong freeper. Not meant for you at all. Please accept my apologies.
I think you’ve smoked out a plant. Good job.
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.