Actually, he was in Rhode Island or someplace when he came out with these whoppers. Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas. Who's a primary contender for Idiot of the Week. From 365gay.com:
Republican Mike Huckabee said Friday that marriage shouldn't be treated as an experiment in response to questions about whether Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter should have the right to wed.
The former Arkansas governor, who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, said heterosexual marriages face enough challenges without adding new configurations to the mix.
OK -- this is one of those cognitive dissonance things. Who's trying to treat marriage as an experiment? Mary Cheney and Heather Poe love each other enough to have been together for fifteen years (without any official support from society at large) and now they want to start a family. What's experimental about this? What's the new configuration here? Two parents and child. Seems pretty standard to me. Is this somehow worse than single mother and child?
Frankly, if Huckabee can't step back and look at the larger picture, he's certainly not fit to be president.
Huckabee declined to comment on Mary Cheney's decision.
"I wouldn't get near specific cases," he said.
But when pressed, he said the historic definition of marriage has worked for so long for a reason.
"People have a right to decide how they live their lives. But they have to respect not changing the definition of marriage," said Huckabee, who served as a pastor in Baptist churches before becoming governor in 1996.
Notice he is avoiding specifics. Maybe because if you have to deal with real people and the damage you're doing them, you don't feel so virtuous? Just sayin'.
Another version of the right defining the discourse. No one wants to change the definition of marriage, except to those who "define" marriage very tightly to fit their own worldview. Two people who love each other and want to be a family, with or without children. How hard is that?
I guess it's only hard when you have to confront real people with your smallness.
Here's one that just doesn't compute at all:
In 2006, when the Arkansas Supreme Court rejected a ban on gay foster parents that had been put in by a state board, Huckabee said through a spokeswoman: "I'm very disappointed that the court seems more interested in what's good for gay couples than what's good for children needing foster care."
Another WTF? comment from the rabid right.
3 comments:
Sheesh. Haven't we had enough gay bashing? Does Huckabee really have to take a swing too?
But then, these right wing "family values" types are bogus from the get go. It's not about "family." It's about bigotry. If Huckabee feels threatened by same sex parent couples, well, that would be HIS problem.
One effect of quotations like this is that I read them and they seem as though they should make sense, even though they don't, and then I feel stupid because I can't find the point where any of it makes sense to the person saying it. Isn't this where Mollie Ivins of blessed memory would say "you can't make this stuff up, beloveds"?
And every time I hear or read another of these statements against marriage equality, I think of the heterosexuals' own very excellent record of fidelity and marital success, with a constant divorce rate among hetero couples of about 52%. People who live in glass houses . . .
Piet, don't worry about not seeing the sense in these comments from the right -- there isn't any. It's a position built on fantasy.
Actually, the comment that amazed me the most is the one about adoption and fostering. That is truly a head-scratcher. The court in Arkansas, fortunately, ruled on evidence, not demagoguery. Huckabee, though, was walking around with knotted panties for a while -- apparently still is.
Gotta keep the base drooling, I guess. Although it seems to me that if you have a lock on 30% of the voters you have -- a permanent minority.
Fine by me.
Post a Comment