Elmer Gantry
it cant be BOTH??
It’s both. Marriage is both a religious issue and a legal issue. He is addressing only the former.
Well, there is actually a third thing: It is a “word definition” issue. I suppose we could have always had marriages between men and goats, women and donkeys, but nobody would have respected them as legitimate or sane.
Hmmmm, kinda like how I see same sex marriage.
And “Gay Marriage” is not about gay “rights”,
it’s about rejecting and criminalizing those Biblical values.
It's a political,cultural,moral *and* Biblical issue...moron!
Elmer Gantry
Why is Huckabee suddenly coming out with all kinds of political statements, now that the primaries are just around the corner?
How bad is Arkansas that this man and Bill Clinton were both governors there?
I still cannot believe that no one explains this simple reality:
Marriage is an establishment of religion.
The implications of this are crystal clear:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means that the judiciary cannot change the definition of marriage.
People will say that the government has successfully intertwined itself to the process of marriage. That is completely irrelevant to the CIVIL RIGHTS issue violated in the more than dozen federal court decisions changing the definition of marriage.
Notice there is never one word said that the state is intruding on the church here in the grand lie of “separation of church and state.” It is always ok for the state to set the church right on any issue.
But if the church dare raise its voice against the state, then we get the IRS and all kinds of political grandstanding about silencing the Church.
The state has breached the separation. If it hates marriage this much— then withdraw from this establishment of religion. It can take whatever positions it want to take in legal agreements or tax law through iterations of civil relationships.
Civil unions are an obvious government alternative. Saying this is second class status is absurd. In Europe, civil unions are preferred and privileged over marriage. If there really is a secular renaissance here in America, then write your own language and laws to reflect those assumptions. Stop deliberating building anti religious laws that you know are intended to legalize discrimination against those religiously orthodox.
This has always been about anchoring the privileges of sexual fundamentalists [gay rights community] and secular fundamentalists [those who believe there should be no public expressions of religious adherence]. These acts by the courts are clear civil rights violations of the first freedom spelled out in the first amendment.
Being a Biblical issue is what makes it a political issue, seeing as the spirit behind the democrats is that of anti-Christ.
The killing of children can’t be a non-political issue, Hucks. If it is legal for “doctors” to offer this procedure, then it had to be decided in the courts. Thus, legal/political.
The only thing that would make it non-political would be if all doctors were so moral they would never dream of offering the procedure, and all women were so moral they would never dream of wanting it, and wouldn’t need it to begin with.
Mike needs to read a Bible dictionary.
Can Hickabee be NO issue?
It’s political for as long as the State thinks thank it should be able to redefine something.
If you start with the premise that it is a Biblical issue, not a political issue, then you cede the discussion to anyone who does not accept the authority of the Bible. It’s the same bs Mario Cuomo and Nancy Pelosi use about abortion - that they’re “personally opposed” but they would never force their religious beliefs on others.
It’s a human-nature issue. It is completely at odds with Human nature. The Bible is based on a recognition of human nature.
It’s political because politicians are giving special favors to people who belong to certain groups.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, as a former pastor he could be trying to say that it being a Biblical issue ends the debate, since the Biblical is infinitely superior to the political. Therefore, since the Bible prescribes marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman, that should end the political discussion. If ours was still a Christian nation, of course.
Huck is trying to suck up to the liberals who want to believe the government should have no say so in the matters of marriage.
Its a church thing.
Despite the fact that marriage is a legal contract.
And so now he is going all libertarian on us as he tries to dodge and ignore the queer marriage elephant in the room.
Sad.
As a Socon, I want to like Mike. But if he’s too chicken to address queer marriages from a legal and governmental POV, then forget him.