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.
While Huckabee has attempted to muddy the waters, the facts are plain enough for anyone who cares to see. He has not received anything close to the scrutiny he will receive, if he is foolish enough to run in 2012.
47 years 5 months 19 days. That was the exact length Clemmons’ sentence needed to be reduced to in order for him to be eligible for immediate release, and that is the exact length the “social conservative” governor of Arkansas commuted it to.
He is toast, and rightfully so. He is far weaker than Dukakis was on crime.
"Damage control" over four dead police officers. Lovely.
Not in his dreams.
Huck isn't even a big gov't conservative. He's a big gov't liberal who happens to be a pro-life Christian.
Huckabee framed the issue in a way that exposes liberals on THEIR bigotry AND hypocrisy. Huckabee framed it in a way that forces them to support consenting adult polygamous marriage, too, or be branded as hypocritical bigots.
If libs support both same sex marriage and polygamy, then they can be said to be radical extremists.
It is an unwinnable situation for liberals.
rudy mitthucksterbee
>>>He’s a big govt conservative.<<<
That is an oxymoron, but your point is correct. He is for big government, and therefore, no conservative.
My logic? Don’t make this personal.
Rush struggled with the same thing in 2008 and I struggled with it then, too, as did alot of others in the GOP: Do we go with McSame or stay home and Obama wins?
This situation may come up again in 2012. I hope it doesn’t. Hopefully Palin or Jindal get the nomination. Hopefully they are both on the same ticket.
People that think the way that you do will get us stuck with Obama again in 2012.
If Jindal were white no one would be talking about him as a Presidential candidate. I’m sorry but I’m not someone who just goes gaga for somebody because they are a well-spoken minority. That’s why I am a Republican. Because we’re not supposed to believe in affirmative action.
And as for Sarah Palin. If Sarah Palin could not take the heat of the Juneau Press and had to run off with her tail between her legs what do you think will happen when she gets to Washington? Juneau is not even a tough state capital to be in. I’m sorry but quitting just because you’re under pressure and can’t take it anymore doesn’t inspire me to take confidence in your executive ability.
She had a duty to the people of Alaska. She cast them aside because of her own personal issues. She does not have what it takes to be President.
We need a competent executive with a long track record and someone who was not just picked because they have big celebrity power. I believe that man is Bob Riley but I also believe that Haley Barbour fits the bill if he decides to make a go for it.
Toast! huckabe=GOP-Dukakis
Huckabee is a vicarious copkiller.
He will never live that down.
Tell me about it. I am about as conservative as they come. I far to the right on fiscal policies (I support Laissez-Faire Capitalism), I support social conservatism and foreign policy conservatism. Palin, then Jindal, then Huck.
Yet I am trying to be pragmatic and what do I get for this?
Attacked.
Huckabee is so yesterday. But I’ll play. Huckabee may flirt with social conservatives, but he isn’t a social conservative. Social conservatives are not big government Republicans or compassionate conservatives. We social conservatives like being in charge of our own charitable giving, and we don’t like the government plundering taxpayers to do our charity for us. Most of us think of that as plundering, theft, a violation of “Thou shalt not steal.” We aren’t into the whole social envy thing. We believe in small government, limited government, and government that doesn’t engineer culture. Huckabee may agree with us when it comes to thinking killing human beings is murder, and he may support our believe in the right to self-defense and defending family and property. He may even support our efforts to prevent the destruction of our culture through the political agenda of sexual perversion, but that is where Huckabee leaves off as a social conservative and morphs into a compassionate Republican. I don’t pretend to speak for all social conservatives, but I know enough about social conservatives to recognize a smear when so called “fiscal conservatives” (which we are) try to marginalize us.
You apparently didn’t comprehend my post. Fact is even GW Bush was a nose holding vote. Better than Gore or Kerry? maybe maybe not look what the hell he did in the last year or so. Look at all the fine young ment who were court marshalled because ‘insurgents’ claimed abuse. Yeah maybe we are slightly better off -—— certainly the mess we are in now would not suggest so.
Again you make it personal, and direct it to me personally just like you did with your first post on this thread.
Ad hominem.
Just like a liberal. Why are you behaving like a liberal and making things personal?
Bolster Huckabee? I was one of those who took Huck to task for what appeared to be him colluding with McCain in the 2008 primaries to keep delegates away from Romney. It sure looked like he was trying to hurt Romney. Did I want Romney to win the nom.? No. I wanted Thompson to win the nomination, just like I would like to see Palin beat Obama in 2012.
I would also be happy with Jindal beating Obama in 2012.
Nothing personal. You just have no idea what you are talking about.
LLS
I don’t know about that. A Palin/Jindal or Jindal/Palin ticket would be formidable.
To tell you the truth, we will most likely see a coalition ticket in 2012: another Reagan(conservative)/Bush Sr(liberal)-like ticket to try and bring all in the party together to beat Obama. I would like to see a good house cleaning by 2012 to get rid of most of the RINO’s but there doesn’t appear to be enough time between now and 2012 to accomplish that.
We will most likely have a hard-core true conservative (here’s hoping!) as the Presidential nom, with Huck or Romney as VP.
From the beginning of this thread I have given my observations. Just telling people the way that it is. How it is and how it should be are miles apart. In a perfect world, McCain wouldn’t have gotten the nom and Obama wouldn’t have won.
I’m not spinning it. Was it wrong for Huck to give the clemency. Yes. Yes, I will go so far to say that it was wrong all the way up to sinning on Huck’s part. Yes, sinning.
I sure haven’t seen anyone else here call it what it was on Huck’s part. Sin.
I will, and I have.
With that said, is it my observation that the issue will be muddied by 2012? Yes.
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.