Skip to main content

Forget terrorists.  Mike Huckabee has identified a threat right here at home that would result in the downfall of our whole civilization.

GQ: Is the strategy shifting because social conservatives are losing on those core issues? Ten years ago, it would have been unimaginable to have gay marriage even in liberal Massachusetts. Now it's there.

Huckabee: I don't think the issue's about being against gay marriage. It's about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that's important. You have to have a basic family structure. There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it's one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that's their business. But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that's an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square.

Huckabee isn't the first to make these kind of statements.  The idea that marriage is so sacrosanct that disturbing one dot in the word "license" would be enough to end us, has become part of the right's standard patter.

So, I'm wondering, who were these civilizations that re-wrote the meaning of marriage or family, and met some horrible doom.  Was it the many civilizations were marriage was arranged and decided long before children were of marriageable age?  Was it the Jewish civilizations of Jesus' day where brothers were required to marry their brother's widows?  Was it civilizations that allowed siblings to marry?  How about first cousins? Could be it civilizations who adopted the silly idea that you should marry for love.  Perhaps it was the Mormons who decided to practice polygamy.  Perhaps it was those who decided to stop.  Or maybe it was the polyandrous cultures in many mountainous or arctic regions.

The truth is that every society rewrites the rules of marriage and family.  That's what happens to all our social values as they respond to changes in how we live, what we know, and our available resources.  Yes, friction occurs when the boundaries of a social convention no longer match those of a society in which it's embedded, but the societies that survive are exactly those which demonstrate the flexibility to change and adapt.

We stand at the end of a long line of rule-changers, of civilizations that have made institutions like marriage work for them, instead of against them.  The dust under our feet is composed of all the civilizations that just the kind of rigidity that Huckabee wants for us now.  The civilizations who fail are not those who acknowledge changing conditions and reshape their rules, but those who don't.  

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:40 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Damn those gays!! (17+ / 0-)

    Who knew? I thought Iraq and global warming were far more threatening. Thank God we have the Huckster to set us straight!!

    He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing - Mua'dib

    by Shane Hensinger on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:42:38 AM PST

    •  Bingo! (15+ / 0-)

      Roman Empire spreading its defenses too thinly over too large a territory ring any bells AT ALL with these people??

      I like to go to school, but because of the explosions I can't focus. -Muhammed, 12-year-old Iraqi schoolboy

      by mystery2me on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:44:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It does, but (4+ / 0-)

        the typical claim is that Rome fell because of debauchery - including the G-thing, y'know. Truth is, Rome at the time of the barbarian invasions was more conservative than in prior generations. Being too thinly spread was part of the reason, but it also has to do with the government becoming overly (!) corrupt,  with Caesars murdering each other (when the Praetorian Guard wasn't doing so), exhaustion from fighting traditional enemies (the Sassanids in particular), and so on.

        The plural of paradox is paradise.

        by DanK Is Back on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:20:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow. That just took me back... (0+ / 0-)

          to a conversation I had with my father many, many years ago when I was still too young to understand the point that Dad was trying to make. I got the very same argument that Greece and Rome fell because the civilizations got too soft due to their focus on personal gratification and debauchery. They became ripe for other leaner, stronger, more focused civilizations to conquer them.
          It wasn't until I was much older that I learned there was more than one side to that story, but unfortunately, it had done it's damage to a young, impressionable boy who'd (only a couple of years later) find out that HE was one of those "G-types" who were responsible for the destruction of (at least) two entire once-great civilizations, himself.
          Lemme tell ya, it sure didn't help me to grow towards understanding and accepting myself to know that my own father felt that way about them types.

        •  Yeah but that's wrong (0+ / 0-)

          The debauchery was in the 1st century, (Caligula, vomitoriums, Nero etc).  Empire was still strong and actually strengthened after that.

          It almost fell apart in the 3rd century but was put back together again.  Amazingly resiliant the Empire was.  By this time one no longer reads about the sort sorts of debauchery common in the 1st century.  I'm sure it still happened, but historians don't emphasize it.

          It IS true than the Empire adopted Christianity in the 4th century and rapidly collapsed after that.

        •  Rome survived Tiberius, Caligula and Nero (0+ / 0-)

          by 400 years with all their sexual craziness, including Nero's same-sex marriage to Sporus.  Even the start of the persecutions of the Christians.

          What it couldn't survive was political corruption and Christianity.  Less than 90 years after Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the politically corrupt empire, the western empire was history.

          Political corruption and Christianity?  Sounds just like us.

          Don't look for Sodom in the actions of others. Check your own heart. As we all must.

          by grada3784 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:04:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Blame Christianity for the fall of Rome (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tennessee Dave

        Apparently there was a like-minded pagan who used that kind of rhetoric to scare the majority-pagan sheeple into submission.

        Declare independence from Great Britain. Use SI instead. U.S. Metric Association

        by movingforward on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:00:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  See Also: Louis XIV Shacked Up In Versailles. (10+ / 0-)

        ...Operation Rota is Closed... New Blog Coming Soon With Pictures!...

        by nowheredesign on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:47:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  So If I Get This Right (14+ / 0-)

        Rape is ok, but gay marriage will end the world.  What a very strange way of thinking.  I don't think I want to live in his civilization.

        I do not like thee, Doctor Fell, The reason why I cannot tell; But this I know, and know full well, I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.

        by opinionated on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:58:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I dunno (6+ / 0-)

        The political entity called "the Confederate States of America" is gone, but the values for which it stood seem to be on the ascendancy in the Republican party.  I offer Mike Huckabee as Exhibit A to support this assertion.

      •  On. The. Money. Great diary, too...nt (0+ / 0-)

        Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

        by oldpro on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:30:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Civil Unions Should Be Universal (9+ / 0-)

        You've got it right, but it doesn't go far enough. One of the first things to cross the seperation barrier between church and state that affected everyone was when married couples started getting special treatment from the IRS for being married. In my opinion the recognition of a religious sacrement like marriage has no business being recognized by government as a special category with priveleges in the tax code. I believe all things currently recognized with priveledges by the government for being married (taxes, inheritance laws, insurance benefits, etc.) should all be covered universally by civil unions. Marriage should be removed from the government vocabulary as the province of the religious. And all marriages, liscenses, legal privileges of those currently married should be converted to a secular definition of those benefits. They would still be married but that would just be something recognized within that faith.

        Marriage should be and remain a sacrament recognized by the church you belong to and every church should have the ability to decide how they determine the definition of marriage for their congregation and ONLY their congregation. If you don't believe their way then don't belong to that church. If a church decides to recognize same-sex marriage or not - that is only an issue for that church and those paritioners.

        On the other hand the use of civil unions that would replace marriage in all statutes should include same-sex unions, traditional unions, polyamorous unions, and any other configurations that do not violate federal or local laws. This would seem to satisfy both sides of the equation. It would provide for equal and fair treatment under the law and would also preserve the sanctity of the religious beliefs of those who hold those beliefs. It would also allow more flexibility in religious beliefs due to each denomination being able to decide for themselves what constitutes a sacrement to them. So far this is the best solution I've been able to come up with.

        Patriotic Dissent Graphix


        by Patriotic Dissent Graphix on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:34:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The problem is... (4+ / 0-)

          The religious denominations don't want to decide for themselves only, they want to decide for you as well.

          The post above btw is very similar to the situation in a number of European countries, where religious people get married twice, once "for the law" and once "for the church".

          •  Civil Unions would be fine by me but only if... (0+ / 0-)

            there were indeed such a paradigm shift (sorry, overused catch-phrase) within our society as described above, where a Civil Union was completely separate from religious marriage, i.e. you didn't get the benefits of a Civil Union by just getting married in the church but actually had to go through the separate process to have the Civil Union recognized by the gov't.
            Otherwise, the problem comes back to the whole "separate but equal" thing that our society has already proven doesn't work.

        •  Should civil unions be limited to two adults? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alice Venturi

          How about three or more?  What should the tax implications be?  I don't have a favorite answer to those questions myself; I'm inviting brainstorming.

          The IRS rules on joint tax returns bite off a big chunk of this controversy.  The rules on being a 'head of household' and on claiming someone as a dependent, on the other hand, don't seem to generate any controversy.  

          We're all pretty crazy some way or other; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is just a setting on the dryer.

          by david78209 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 05:03:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I did mention Polyamorous Unions (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Alice Venturi, david78209

            and I think the tax laws used for corporate income pooling could be used pretty effictively for those types of unions if they were modified a little. Just pairings are already completely covered no matter the combination. I know the IRS codes could be modified to make all of this work. And if a consumption tax was installed instead of the current system or if a flat tax on income were used the issue would pretty much resolve itself.

            When I was working for a major telecom company friends were trying to get the labor union to fight for same sex insurance benefits. Their excuse at the time was the issue of changing partners with no legal obligations making it impossible to keep up with who should be covered and insurance fraud (ie the movie Chuck and Larry). This obviously fell into the stereotype of promiscuous unfeeling indiscriminate changing of partners. But the bedrock issue was that with no legally binding way to define a partner then the insurance company was unable to defend themselves and still give proper service to those needing it. This was in 1999 and many companies have now found a way to deal with this issue positively, but change is slow. Maybe pushing for a "paradigm shift" to all unions legally recognized being civil unions would be a better direction for change than in trying to convice people they need to open their sacrament against their will to people they disaprove of. It may meet less resistance and at the same time would help rebuild the wall of Seperation of Church and State.

            Patriotic Dissent Graphix


            by Patriotic Dissent Graphix on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 07:42:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm reminded of the situation in Mexico (0+ / 0-)

              In Mexico people getting married, at least for the first time, usually have two weddings.  One is a civil marriage, similar to getting married in the court house by a judge in this country, that makes you legally married.  The other is a church wedding (almost always Catholic), with the big ceremony conducted by a priest, that makes you married in the eyes of God, or at least the eyes of the church.  Mexico has civil divorce and remarriage, though they're nowhere near civil unions for same-sex couples.
              Mexico is so adamant about that aspect of separation of church and state that they won't let a priest or minister do the little bit of civil paperwork to make the marriage legal.  (I think that's a leftover from the revolution of 1910-1921, in which the Catholic church sided with a faction that lost.)

              Anyway, there's something to be said for having such a strict separation of the civil and religious sides of marriage.  The Catholic church doesn't usually like divorce (though sometimes it gets the church OK, dressed up as annulment) but Mexico adopted civil divorce anyway.  If Mexico ever wanted same sex civil unions, they'd already have a strong precedent for church and state using different rules for marriage.

              We're all pretty crazy some way or other; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is just a setting on the dryer.

              by david78209 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:25:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  And this family business (7+ / 0-)

        I don't understand why I am less capable of having a family simply by the virtue of the fact that I happen to be gay.  There was a society once upon a time that believed that people of different races couldn't make a family, or people of different religions, or people of different economic backgrounds, and so on, and so forth.  The only true tradition of marriage and family is that over the ages, those have expanded to include more diversity, not less.  Marriage equality for LGBT Americans is only the logical next step.

        "The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD

        by deaniac83 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:42:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I was just going to write that. (7+ / 0-)

      This information cannot leave this room. Ok? It would devastate my reputation as a dude. Relentless!

      by ablington on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:48:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What's the bigger threat to the US? (15+ / 0-)

      Spending 14 Billion dollars a month and ruining countless lives by the war in Iraq...or
      Consenting adults wanting to commit to monogomous, long-term relationships with one another?

      It's a no-brainer if you ask me.

    •  He's right---- (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fiddler crabby

      If you define civilization as an hierachical scheme in which some people are in charge and some people are subservient.  That's the "order" that traditional marriage both mimics and re-enforces in their world view.
      A consenual union between two individuals of the same gender violates TWO tenets of the conservative philosphy.  The first is that humans are fundamentally antagonistic towards one another and it isn't possible to organize a society on the basis of consent.  The second is that inequality is a law of nature and must be maintained.

      When you come right down to it, an egalitarian personal relationship represents a threat to hierarchy and, if hierarchy is the hallmark of civilization, then it follows that gay marriage would bring it to an end.

      It really is a shame that the study of Latin has been largely abandoned.  People who study Latin and learn the root meaning of many of our words, have no trouble understanding that civilization is the product of people living together with each other in cities, where it's important that people respect each other's privacy and learn not to be bothered by individual ideosyncracies.

      The problem with some of our rural folk would seem to be that they neither respect individual privacy nor know how to live in close quarters.  Their ideal is the suburb, the breeding ground of social misfits.

      •  You're right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wonderful world

        Many of the conservative churches (of the stripe that Huckabee apparently comes from) still teach that the 'husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church.'

        They have stepped back from the TRADITIONAL idea that women are merely chattel, and that when they marry all of their possession belong to their husbands.  

        Or the TREADITIONAL view (prevalent in the American Colonies) that it was OK for a man to beat his wife as long as the stick was no thicker than his forefinger.

        Or the TRADITIONAL view (also prevalent in colonial America) that it was a crime for a wife to nag her husband, punishable by public humiliation on the ducking stool (being tied to a stool and dunked in a pond),

        The current TRADITIONAL view of marriage is a product of 19th century romanticism and 1950's and 60's television.  Before that, marriage was essentially an economic alliance between families.

        As European countries have de-established the Church (Catholic or Protestant as it applies to that country), they have instituted Civil Unions as the norm.  Those who choose to can also have a Marriage performed in a church, synagogue or mosque.  

        The idea presented above of unlinking marriage from the state is great, and I think the next TRADITION that is needed in the development of the union of two persons.

        (- 4.63, - 5.18) If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?

        by mkfarkus on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:00:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What interests me as a nearly (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Canadian Reader, bramish, mkfarkus

          old person is that as people live longer, it makes sense for them to enter into mutually supportive unions that may or may not have any sexual component.  
          Why a person should be precluded from entering into a partnership for domestic purposes while all other partnership for commercial purposes are permitted escapes me.
          Is it because domestic labor is supposed to retain a vestige of slavery?
          I know that some African Americans resent having their civil rights agenda hijacked by other groups.  Perhaps we should make an issue of praising their contribution to our better understanding of basic human freedom.

    •  Mainly, I would argue (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      because they neglected to transmit their culture and values to the next generation--as we are doing even now by failing to provide adequate education, exercise and health care to our children.

    •  The deepest level of bait and switch scapegoating (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Canadian Reader

      Consider this: not only has no civilization ever survived indefinitely, but people like Huckabee and his party are actively doing everything they can to insure that ours won't either.  Destroying our democracy makes it less likely we will maintain the same civilization from tyrant to tyrant, just like destroying our planet makes it less likely we will maintain any kind of civilization at all when we're fighting each other to survive.

      Since we can't blame our imminent collapse on the actual causes, nor can we plausibly blame the whole thing on immigrants, we have to come up with some way to spread the scapegoating.  Hence, gay marriage will end the world!

    •  Well let me be the first (0+ / 0-)

      to step up and offer to be that something else.

      If I want your pity I'll take it from you by force.

      by Alfred E Qaeda on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:19:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Huckabee, Obama (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deaniac83, Hatu, MadEye, mystery2me, kevinspa

    It's not just Huckabee - why Obama can court an anti-gey bigot and not be accountable for it by many on this site - that's way more worrisome to me.

    Aren't progressive serious about ALL civil rights?

    •  Obama doesnt think gay marriage (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mcfly, mjd in florida, potownman, LynneK

      is the end of civilization, it IS 'just Huckabee' in this case.

      This information cannot leave this room. Ok? It would devastate my reputation as a dude. Relentless!

      by ablington on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:49:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Simple Human Freedom (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Obama demonstrated his willingness to sell out the gay community.  The right to get married is pretty hollow when gays live in a hostile world deliberately built by the likes of Donnie McClurkin, and tacitly supported by the likes of a leading Dem candidate.

        Should gays have to choose between being married or being free?

        •  That's another diary. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zeke L, Fabian, mjd in florida, LynneK

          In this post, Huckabee discusses how he thinks gay marriage will ruin civilization. You say it's 'not just Huckabee' and implicate Obama. I am pointing out that Obama doesn't think gay marriage will ruin civilization. Like, at all.

          This information cannot leave this room. Ok? It would devastate my reputation as a dude. Relentless!

          by ablington on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:01:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, It's This Diary (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Heart of the Rockies

            And I'm saying that this neat division of human rights into separate diaries is not how people live.  They either live with full freedom - to marry and to not be publicly denigrated - or they don't.

            For some on this site, this is not academic.  It's their lives.

            •  I appreciate your point, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Heart of the Rockies

              and Obama's willingness to politically shack up with a guy who supports continued oppression is a knock against him.

              However, the man himself has not endorsed this position explicitly, while Huckabee has.

              In any case, I think it's ridiculous to suggest that any candidate will really try to push forward full marriage equality. I think you'll be surprised how many policy promises will evaporate, come January 2009.

              Oh, my friend, how have we come / to trade the fiddle for the drum?

              by Shaviv on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:22:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Athena, jarhead5536

          Obama lost my vote in the primary over that flap. I don't think he's an antigay bigot, but it did highlight a serious weakness in his campaign strategy and gave credence to allegations that he sacrificed style over substance.

          •  gosh (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pine, da in texas

            let's see who gets your vote... Hillary, who did what? the night her husband signed in the most anti-gay legislation ever passed in a congress?  How about Edwards, who is or isn't uncomfortable with gays, or ... I guess we are only going to vote for Dennis, but I have a funny feeling if pushed came to shove, he would shove us gays for whatever reason as he shoved his supporters to suppport the pro-war Edwards in Iowa against Dean in 04 -- the candidate who also was taking a beating for supporting gays... this gay litmus test is silly when it comes to presidential candidates.  they have all come a long way for Democrats and the Republicans only are anti gay because their base calls for it.  To pick out one or the other on the gay issue is just being plain silly and as a gay person who has fought for more than 35 years for civil rights for everyone, I find it very unhistorical to choose one mistake or another when it comes to glbt civil rights.  Hey, glbt people are so new at this, that we don't even know where the lines should be drawn. We don't need a bunch of candidate biased experts on who or who isn't perfect on the gay ship.

            I do know that the Republicans have used this issue to make lots of money and scaring lots of people that gays were going to ruin civilizaiton, while they get their slim majorities which allow them to make millions for their war-profiteering buddies in places like Iraq.  They really could give a damn about stopping gay people as long as they get those slim majorities which give them power of the purse.

            Time to end not allowing this gay thing to have any traction among Democratic candidates.  There is no perfect Democratic candidate on gay issues.  

            don't link to MSM; support your alternative grassroots media by linking to them

            by john from vermont on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:49:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  with all due respect (0+ / 0-)

              With all due respect, John, I don't fault the Kossacks who do still support him. There's a lot to like about him as a candidate. However, I simply can't bring myself to vote for him in the primary after that incident (if he's the nominee, I will most certainly vote for him in the general).

              You're absolutely right that none of the candidates (beyond Kucinich and Gravel) are perfect on GLBT issues. But in spite of their many faults, Clinton and Edwards at least had enough good sense to not allow an  "ex-gay" to speak at one of their campaign events. I simply cannot forgive the campaign for the manner in which they responded to the incident.

              I now lean towards Edwards. I'm aware of the rumors that he's personally uncomfortable around gay people, but in terms of formulating campaign strategy and policy, he isn't stupid.

    •  obama was "courting" that guy? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      courtin' and a'sparkin'?

      woooooooo doggies!

      we'll stand him up against a wall and pop goes the weasel /rufus t. firefly

      by 2nd balcony on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:17:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Huckabee is full of sh*t (30+ / 0-)

    Throughout history many civilizations have rewritten what marriage means.

    The Bible describes the past history of polygamy.

    Interracial marriages used to be illegal.

    Not long ago, divorce was virtually illegal.

    Many states have defined and re-defined requirements of marriage in regard to the minimum age of the woman.

    Used to be that a marriage wasn't valid until a child was produced.

    The list goes on and on . . .

  •  Where's his concern for hetero divorces? (27+ / 0-)

    It seems to me that the #1 thing that ends straight people's marriages is their own decision to end them.

    I'd love to see him slam into McCain and Giuliani on this one...

  •  We don't know (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndyScott, boofdah, Hey BB, LynneK, WSComn

    So, I'm wondering, who were these civilizations that re-wrote the meaning of marriage or family, and met some horrible doom.

    We don't know who they were because they met some horrible doom.  

    My god, Huckster is right!!!

    OK.... that was snark, of course.

    Your ad could be here.

    by TheC on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:44:29 AM PST

  •  The Evil Gay Lifestyle (33+ / 0-)

    We gays and lesbians are single-handedly destroying this country through our insidious activities such as shovelling snow, cooking meals and walking our dogs.

    And when we get together and do it as couples, it's a wonder that earthquakes and volcanoes don't spontaneously turn this country into rubble.

    It's really amazing how we're managing to calmly plow along in the face of this grave danger. Thanks for reminding us of the stakes involved here, Mr. Huckabee.

    The surge is working so well that we can bring home 5,000 troops to fight the war on Christmas.

    by bramish on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:44:33 AM PST

  •  Let's get this straight... (28+ / 0-)

    Basically, Huckabee thinks that a guy who rapes and murders women should have more of a right to get married than a guy who doesn't.

    That's basically what he's saying here.

  •  That's "Gay American Marriage" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I.E. American Citizen.

    Endith of story for moralists and their moralisms.


    ...Operation Rota is Closed... New Blog Coming Soon With Pictures!...

    by nowheredesign on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:44:58 AM PST

  •  He's on to our evil plans (9+ / 0-)

    Now I'll never be able to cause the downfall of western civilization. Damn you, Huckabee!!

    We would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those meddling Baptists!

  •  We have to stand up for the traditional family (5+ / 0-)

    where the tradition is that families of your political opponents can be raped with impunity.

  •  Is was the shakers (12+ / 0-)

    All they left behind was cool furniture.

    •  The Shakers made (4+ / 0-)

      a conscious effort to fade out.  They used to adopt children into the community and let adults join as well.  At 16 the kids, having learned a trade, were allowed to decide to stay or go.  In the 20th century, the smart Shakers realized that some folks wanted to join in order to get their hands on the stuff and property -- so they closed membership.  I think that last real ones died recently in Maine.

      I love a group who knows when the jig is up.

      My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:59:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Huckabee believes in evolution! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, snoopydawg

    He must believe that homosexuals will evolve into good straight folk TO SAVE THE REPUBLIC!

    •  No, There Are Pastors to Excorcise Them Straight (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1, LynneK

      or otherwise heal them.

      Another of the things government doesn't do so well.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:48:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  no, it's "special creation" (0+ / 0-)

      you see, obviously it's biologically impossible for homosexuals to reproduce themselves, which proves that they cannot have evolved from primates that way.

      so the only way they could have come into being is for god to have made them that way...

      uh... which means that...


      </wingnut logic>

      l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

      by zeke L on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:36:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Almost right. You forgot (0+ / 0-)

        they believe gays "recruit" impressionable straights to swell their ranks (because they can't reproduce). I think I even heard my own father repeat that old chestnut.
        Anyway, they do honestly believe that since it's not "normal" to be gay, those who are gay were enticed into it somehow and only stay in it because it's become what they're used to (or because they revel in being out on the fringes and having something to throw in the faces of the "normal" folk, and of course, help to bring down society as we know it at the same time--I think the evil of the devil plays into that scenario somehow, too).
        But no, they would not accept that God would have made a gay person that way, because being gay is an aberration, a mistake, and God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes. Period.
        Honestly. They truly do believe that.

  •  I'm waiting for Huck to lash out at the childless (16+ / 0-)

    Many people on the far right believe that America has too few white people and too many immigrants because educated white couples have either gone childless or stopped at one or two.

    With the exception of Pat Buchanan and Mark Steyn, most prominent wingers have soft-pedaled this argument. However, Huck is such a loose cannon that he might let rip between now and his departure from the race.

    "I'll rant as well as thou."--Hamlet, Act V, Scene 1.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:45:50 AM PST

    •  What about couples who _can't_ have kids? (5+ / 0-)

      Which would include myself and my husband. Granted, we waited till we were in our mid-30s, when we had our careers solidified and our financial shit together, before bringing other human beings into the world to support.

      Our putting off kids till we're damn good and able to raise them is not a rarity; many families are putting off kids till their 30s or even 40s. My sister is getting ready to give birth to her first child at age 34, and she's one of the lucky ones. Infertility clinics across America are big business, but not always successful (as in our case).

      I'm sure there are Republicans who deal with infertility as well. Can't wait to hear how the "pro-family" advocates confront the issue of infertility and childlessness, whether or not by choice! This should be entertaining...

      •  Well, the Right offers them options (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bramish, boofdah

        One is to spend their last dollar on experimental fertility treatments. Their own money, of course, because the Right considers health care a privilege. The other is to adopt. Wingers are big fans of "crisis pregnancy centers," which browbeat frightened women out of having abortions.

        "I'll rant as well as thou."--Hamlet, Act V, Scene 1.

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:58:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep, and there are always "snowflake" zygotes... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bramish, da in texas

          ...that come from the IVF centers, which the Right doesn't want to use for stem-cell research. IIRC, only a relative handful of people (a few hundred or so) have gone that route, in the entire U.S.

          The husband and I are adopting out of the foster-care system, to which I notice more evangelical Christians are turning for expanding their families. I applaud the evangelical community for putting their money where their mouths are re: adopting older children who are generally passed over for infants, and stepping up to the plate to adopt kids when they preach on and on about "adoption, not abortion."

          However, it's sites like these that make me question the motives of fundies who adopt via the foster-care system, especially when I read prosthelytizing stuff like this:


          Every child that becomes eligible for foster care or adoption is placed in a Christian home.

          As an atheist who is married to an atheist, I take slight offense at this statement. Does His Children, Inc. mean that we are automatically unfit to adopt because we're not Christian? What if we were Jewish? Would we still be "fit" then, because our God weren't the same as their God? Oy vey.

    •  Odd that Buchanan (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dump Terry McAuliffe, bramish

      is peddling this line, since he himself has no children.

      And by the way, neither did the Father of Our Country, ol' George. (He adopted Martha's.) Maybe we need to rename Washington now that we've discovered that.

      The plural of paradox is paradise.

      by DanK Is Back on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:26:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Buchanan is he has no sex if he (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dump Terry McAuliffe, aitchdee

        is a real Catholic which he says he claims he is.
        The Catholic Church has no trouble with child free couples or people who never marry. The church teaches it is ok to be child free---HOWEVER, once it is known that no babies  can/will be produced, no matter what the reason, the couple can not have sex----ever, ever again.

        IF they do, they are SINNING!

        Unfortunately, I don't know what the Huck, a Baptist would say about it. (The GOP really needs sex therapy)

        A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who....never learned how to walk forward.-FDR

        by vassmer on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:50:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The West Generally Needs Sex therapy (3+ / 0-)

          Ever since St. Augustine decided that, although he had gotten it good - a "hissing cauldron of lust" he called himself in his Confessions - no one else could get it good, the West has been suffering through Augie's sex hangover.

          You'd think after 1,500 years, enough would be enough, already!

          The plural of paradox is paradise.

          by DanK Is Back on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:37:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  What about the Greeks? (10+ / 0-)

    they had some interesting practices as they invented European civilization.

    Then there's the Roman Emperor Hadrian, probably the best Emperor,  he was in love with a handsome greek lad.

    King James (y'know-the King James Bible) was an alcoholic bi-sexual who loved his wife and the Duke of Buckingham (i.e., the Palace guy).

    Woo-Woo Mike!  You sure are in for a hard time dealing with civilization as YOU know it.  It's a lot bigger than rural Arkansas.

  •  As a lesbian married in a Jewish Synagogue (29+ / 0-)

    with the blessings of the Reformed Synagogues of America...

    and with my other lesbian friends who were married in the SGI tradition of Buddhism with the blessings of their religion...

    I now realize...

    It is my sacred duty to wreck not only the marriages of healthy heterosexuals everywhere but civilization itself.



    Are you shaking yet?  No?  Then I'll have to bring out the big guns...



    You can be as free as you want, so long as Republicans control birth, death, sex and marriage. And whose vote counts.

    by ultrageek on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:46:34 AM PST

  •  I just talked to my father (17+ / 0-)

    seems Mass. is still there and hasn't imploded yet...can anyone see canada from where they sit?  How about spain?

    "For me, walking into a nice Jewish deli IS a religious experience." -my mom

    by ETinKC on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:46:46 AM PST

    •  I'm sitting in Canada... (11+ / 0-)

      It's covered in snow, but I see no signs of impending showers of burning hail and brimstone in the clear sky.  Hey, at least burning hail would be better than the frikken freezing rain!

      I like to go to school, but because of the explosions I can't focus. -Muhammed, 12-year-old Iraqi schoolboy

      by mystery2me on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:50:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  up here (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, LynneK

      no implosions yet.

      "The only person sure of himself is the man who wishes to leave things as they are, and he dreams of an impossibility" -George M. Wrong.

      by statsone on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:53:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Netherlands were also still ok (4+ / 0-)

      when I was there a few weeks ago.

      You think that place would have seen fire and brimstone years ago if Huckface was right.

      Maybe it's their own 10% of fundies that keep the country afloat.

    •  You have to understand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Canadian Reader

      that the Reverend Huckabee is probably referring to the present white, Southern Baptist-dominated, society of the southeastern United States as "civilization".

      I'm not sure much of anyone else agrees with this definition.  But we can probably safely say that the clock is running down on Southern white society as a social and political entity, gay marriage or no gay marriage.

      Latino inmigration from the region's southern corners, Northern white and Northern black inmigration to Southern cities, Californians moving eastward thinning out Southern influence west of the Pecos, and rural depopulation west of the Mississippi...the demographic confinement and dilution of political power is inevitable.

      But the real death knell is in the outmarriage and the incremental abandonment of 'traditional values' by their own young, which make it only a matter of time.

      Renewal, not mere Reform.

      by killjoy on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:42:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm in Massachusetts and we'e still here but (0+ / 0-)

      we sink a little deeper every time Mitt (Freedom requires Religion) Romney comes home.

      Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

      by willyr on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:21:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, let's see (11+ / 0-)

    there was polygamy to monogamy.
    there was even having the state interested in marriage (I believe the 18th century) and having licences and census records.
    there are the laws against child marriage.
    etc, etc.

    But, maybe we should wait to bash Huck until after he gets the nomination.

  •  It Is Sacred (33+ / 0-)

    SO sacred that Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani have embraced it nine times between them.

    What threatens America today isn't gay marriage. It's Republican marriage.

    They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. -- Brian Fantana

    by IndyScott on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:46:59 AM PST

  •  Spain did it (7+ / 0-)

    and now American's can't even find Spain on a map!

  •  Funny that Huckabee and his ilk... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Devilstower, boofdah, LynneK

    ... are far more freewheeling about changing the definition of "person".

    •  I like this comment. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, blue jersey mom, LynneK

      I really do.  Succinct and entirely correct.  It says it all.

      "...we all of us, grave or light, get our thoughts entangled in metaphors, and act fatally on the strength of them."

      by beagledad on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:00:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  show an ancient civilization that has survived (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and then you will disprove Huckabee.

      Ad look at Rome: they had a nice pagan marriage with easy divorce, exchanged it for Christian marriage with no divorces and, lo and behold -- end of the Empire!

      Or Italy.  After they introduced divorce, civilization started to break at seams.  Do you know that now they are packing wine in Tetra boxes, like orange juice?  Plus it costs cheaper than mineral water, so a miracle of turning water into cheap wine could result in a monetary loss.

      I remember talking with a Greek guy 27 years ago, when they served wine in plastic wine cups at an American party.  He remarked that in Mediterranean it would be blasphemy.  And now, Tetra boxes.

      I did not see beer in Tetra boxes yet, but introduce gay marriage and watch out!

      < /rant>

  •  If marriage was so sacrosanct, (17+ / 0-)

    why are so many rightwingers divorced and remarried (lather rinse repeat)?

  •  we were all doomed anyway when pirates (13+ / 0-)

    stopped patrolling the shores with their Arrrrrs and shoulder perching parrots.
    Any true follower of the spaghetti monster faith (Pastafarian) can tell you that that's directly responsible for global warming.

    Gay marriage is what'll finish the job.

    Also there's some evidence that your average civilization starts to decline the minute merchants are allowed to call things "chocolate" that aren't actually made from chocolate but from some sort of flavoring.. Oh, wait. That last one is TRUE.  

  •  Great post btw - very well written (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PBCliberal, LynneK, jarhead5536

    for all of you, Like me,  who are sick of the candisate poo flinging fest going on over in the diaries, it is great that we have so many amazing Fpers to tun to these days.

    "For me, walking into a nice Jewish deli IS a religious experience." -my mom

    by ETinKC on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:49:48 AM PST

  •  Another lack o' facts smear (10+ / 0-)

    Here are some facts for the lying ass Romney: Mass. which has legalized gay marriage is a state in which there are fewer divorces, and longer lasting hetero marriages than any of the red states with gay marriage bans.

    In fact, the Blue states beat all the red state goober homophobes statistically on length of het marriage and less divorce carnage, fewer pregnant teens, and any other of your basic quantifible moral value hookups.

    Although I'm sure Utah and the fringe Mormons beat the rest of the country with the married-to-the-most-partners-at-the-same-time statistic.

    Only wish the last was a joke.

  •  Guess the immigration issue and hating (8+ / 0-)

    the brown people wasn't working, so it's back to hating teh gays.  Worked last time din't it?

  •  Who said heterosexual marriage was ever (11+ / 0-)

    sacrosanct in earlier civilizations?

    I think codified heterosexual marriages were one of the CHANGES that occurred in various civilization over time to protect property interest via inheritance and dowries. It didn't spring from some sort of religious or ethical concerns but was based in good old wealth.

    I bet that there were civilizations were homosexual unions were recognized and accepted.

    I think, therefore, I snark. Anon.

    by byteb on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:50:51 AM PST

    •  I don't have cites, but one of my gay friends who (8+ / 0-)

      ...converted to Catholicism (!!!!) and I had a discussion about this very aspect one evening over coffee, and he was telling me that he had studied the history of Catholicism extensively. He puts me to shame, because not only is he an observant and churchgoing Catholic (I'm a recovering Catholic "reborn" as an atheist), but he also knows damn much more about the religion than I ever learned, and that's with 9 years of parochial school and 3 years of Latin. :p

      He read somewhere that even Catholic priests in the Dark and Middle Ages were allowed to get married and have kids, and even have gay partners; but then the peeps in the Vatican saw that they were losing money on the spousal/partner/children support and put a stop to that noise. It was all about the money, never about the "sanctity," according to my converted Catholic friend in Seattle.

      •  Back in the day, marriage was business. Period. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bramish, boofdah
        Women were a commodity traded for a goat or some chickens or a piece of land or to cement an alliance. In return, the man received a (hopefully) good breeder who could provide offspring to help gather wood, hunt, farm, protect the group from predators..survival was hard then. Also female babies were not completely useless because they could be bartered in a marriage pact.

        Religions dressed up the business part of marriage...and the past century or so, marriage has been portrayed as hearts and flowers and the hope of society. But society has changed and we don't need hunters or wood gatherers and female children to barter for land.

        If gay marriage is recognized, it's because the survival mechanism of marriage has changed. Children are not required nowadays. The sky will not fall if gay people live and love and marry each other.

        I think, therefore, I snark. Anon.

        by byteb on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:31:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't feel bad (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bramish, boofdah

        Converts always know more than those of us who were baptized into it with little or no choice.

        My parents had me baptized at eight days old, I was confirmed at 13, and wized up and left the faith when I was 16.

        They didn't TELL us about those historical things when I was growing up. They didn't even encourage us to read (or own) the Bible. Everything was interpreted through our priests.

        But your friend is correct for the most part. It wasn't just the "support" of survivors -- it was their right to inherit church lands. When the church realized how much property they were losing through rights of inheritance, they put a stop to the practice of married clergy.

        •  Inheritance is a factor (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          but it applies more to the monks, since monasteries own their property (a monk from a wealthy family would often bring a donation of land with him when he joined, plus monasteries were the frequent recipients of bequests). Priests used Church property which was owned by the Church as a whole, and so much harder to pass on to a descendant. So monks always had to be celibate.

          As I mentioned in my other comment, it was when the monks started to take over (Pope Urban II was an abbot) that you really begin to see priestly celibacy.

          The plural of paradox is paradise.

          by DanK Is Back on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:40:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's not so much that they were "allowed" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zeke L, bramish, boofdah

        as the authorities decided not to notice. John Boswell has an excellent book (Same-Sex Marriage in Pre-Modern Europe) which describes, among other things, Church rituals for the ceremony. (It is not clear whether these unions were expected to be physically consummated.)

        The issue of clerical celibacy (straight version) is complex, and not really enforced until monks, who do have to be celibate, started gaining more influence in the Catholic Church (in the XI century, more or less). To this day, priests in the Orthodox confession can be married when they join the priesthood, but IIRC they cannot advance higher in the hierarchy, and they cannot marry after they become priests.

        I recall reading a plaintive sermon by a Spanish priest in the XVI century, pleading with the mistresses of the clergy not to dress so provocatively when they came to church. That, it seems, was the most he could hope to get.

        The plural of paradox is paradise.

        by DanK Is Back on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:36:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good info. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I was not familiar with that information, but coming from a Gay American Catholic Scholar, I feel comfortable that it must be true.

        Similarly, I have discussed the Rethugs claims that being a Gay American is a choice and have been informed by Gay American Scientists and otherwise that it is definitely not a choice. Of course the Rethugs hate science, so they refuse to listen to such evidence.

    •  And Keeping A Mistress On the Side, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brooke In Seattle, drbloodaxe, LynneK

      or more than one, was also SOP.  

  •  Hmm, I believe that (4+ / 0-)

    marriage is a pre-divorce ceremony, that I would make a terrible mother, and children are not allowed in my apartment because they disturb my cat (and me).  Does that make me a bad person?

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:52:48 AM PST

    •  Not necessarily "bad", (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Canadian Reader

      but you would never be comfortable at my house...My house is "Kiddo Mecca" afterschool and on weekends.

      I must say, however, since you believe you would not make a good mother, I have to give you props for not deciding to have a child, anyway.

      "Truth never damages a cause that is just."~~~Mohandas K. Gandhi

      by LynneK on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:06:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let's Not Even Go There (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zeke L

      Lets admit: People who don't choose to have children are selfish, yup.  Also, people who do choose to have children are selfish.  

      After all, people don't decide to have kids, or not have kids, against their own inclination, purely for the benefit of the public!  

  •  Any Republican President threatens civilization (6+ / 0-)

    If any of the Republican candidates for President occupy the White House on January 21, 2008, civilization as we know it is in serious jeopardy.  So, Huckabee does not worry me more than the rest.

    With threats of war against Iran, a lack of attention to global warming and the attempt to eradicate the American middle class with a continuation of the Bush tax policy, the idea of two men or two women who love each other getting married pales in comparison.

    If two gay people want to wed, bless them.  They should.

  •  My take (10+ / 0-)

    If allowing gays to marry means that my husband wants to leave me and marry a man, I'd tell him to get the fuck out and move on.


  •  Huckabee and Ahmenadenijad sittin' in a tree... (5+ / 0-)


  •  Fine (12+ / 0-)

    Let's protect marriage -- the most sacred institution in the history of civilization -- by making infidelity and divorce illegal.

    And let's make these laws retroactive. And issue arrest warrants for Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Bob Dole, Zombie Reagan, Neil Bush, George Will, Dan Burton, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Bob Livingston. . .

    Protecting civilization itself demands no less.

    They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. -- Brian Fantana

    by IndyScott on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:55:07 AM PST

  •  Actually even more basic is that no civilization (5+ / 0-)

    has ever survived in the long run. Full stop. Duh!

    In the western tradition, of course, the Greeks lasted a few hundred years--homosexuality and all (see, especially, the Spartans--in Spartan society, women were baby machines; the primary relationships were between males--and presumably between females), and, of course, Roman civilization lasted even longer than the Greeks, and they were big on homosexuality.

    So, besides lying and trying to inflame prejudice against some group that the macho republicans (like Larry Craig) think they can pick on and win votes from their homophobic base, what's the point?

    -7.88, -6.72. "Wherever law ends, tyranny begins."--John Locke IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!!!

    by caseynm on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:56:49 AM PST

  •  Speaking of civilization (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SadTexan, boofdah

    Huckabee should talk to his spawn. Civilization starts at home.

  •  Yet another shot at Mormon Mitt??? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PBCliberal, boofdah

    The Book of Revelation is not a foreign policy manual.

    by Dont Just Stand There on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:57:30 AM PST

    •  Yeah, but he should be careful of the richochet.. (5+ / 0-)

      He needs to discuss with Mitt how the Mormon Church can rewrite marriage laws twice since its founding, yet that church is the fourth largest in the United States.

      So is the Mormon Church contributing to our imminent downfall, or is Huckabee just plain wrong?

      And how about when the courts struck down the anti-miscegenation laws? Does that qualify?

      Huckabee keeps claiming that he's conservative but not mad about it. Answering these questions might prove him wrong, or at least mad.

      No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. -- Edward R. Murrow

      by PBCliberal on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:05:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And remember - "freedom requires religion" (5+ / 0-)

    Because otherwise we would be marrying our dogs. Or our toasters. And then where would we be?

    No, my problem with religion having anything to do with politics and lawmaking is that religion is slanted in most cases, such that one can always be a little more pious. And piety is a powerful intoxicant.

    So you get things like the Taliban, eventually, who forbid music, shaving, the flying of kites. And they revere bin Laden, because he's the most pious of all - wearing a scratchy robe and living in a cave.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:57:57 AM PST

  •  This is excellent. Period. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irishwitch, LynneK, jarhead5536
  •  which means, of course (5+ / 0-)

    that single parents should be coerced by the state into marrying each other, because the idea of single parenting and no-fault divorce is changing the definition of family.

    oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

    The Nexus has you.

    by Dante Atkins on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:58:40 AM PST

  •  I Don't Understand These Arguments (8+ / 0-)

    They seem to be based on the idea that men and women would rather be partnered to people of the same sex than the opposite -- and only the law is preventing this from happening.

    I don't think that this is the case.

    I think Sen. Clinton would make a very good president.

    by bink on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:58:42 AM PST

  •  Boston marriage? Adelphopoiesis? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bramish, Black Knight, LynneK

    Well, I guess we can now expect western civilization to fall, seeing as how Belgium, Canada, The Netherlands, South Africa and Spain recognize same-same marriage, with civil unions or registered partnerships in much of the rest of the Western world.

  •  When I was seven years old, I believed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L, bramish, LynneK

    that everyone in the world lived in a four-bedroom neocolonial-style suburban home with exactly two parents (matched M-F) and at least two kids.  Apparently Mitt still believes this.

    "...we all of us, grave or light, get our thoughts entangled in metaphors, and act fatally on the strength of them."

    by beagledad on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:59:03 AM PST

  •  Or maybe it's the folks (5+ / 0-)

    who talk piously about "family values" while dumping Wife #1 for Trophy Wife #2...or who go auditioning Wife #3 while married to Wife #2...

    You're only as popular as the last diary/comment you posted. -- Zachpunk

    by Cali Scribe on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:59:10 AM PST

  •  Most English-speakers spell it "licence" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SadTexan, LynneK

    Man, are they screwed.

    An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. -- T. Paine (-6.25, -7.18)

    by DH from MD on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:00:31 PM PST

  •  No-fault divorce has been the biggest change (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L, bramish, LynneK

    in family in the last several decades.

    Did it result in the downfall of civilization?  Does Huckabee want to see it rolled back?

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:01:41 PM PST

    •  I imagine he does - after all... (0+ / 0-)

      His "let's register at Target to make it easier for the lobbyists to buy us stuff" in what...2005?...was to celebrate his and his wife's new "covenant" marriage. IIRC, it's all but impossible to get out of one of those unless there is proven abuse, and one or two others that I can't remember now.

  •  Let's Look at Huck's Words Again (6+ / 0-)

    Yes, the question was clearly about same-sex marriage, but the way Huckabee answered it seems to me to be a very deliberate "coded" reference to Romney's Mormonism, with the implication that we all need to be careful that they're not still polygamists at heart.

    In this sense, then, Huckabee's killing two birds with one stone as he makes a direct appeal to the right-wing evangelical Christianists -- you can't trust social reformers who believe in equality for everyone, and you can't trust those weird Mormons, either.

    •  Hell, as long as they're self-supporting (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Maven, LynneK

      and not relying on welfare or other public assistance, I couldn't care less about polygamy as long as it's involving consenting adults. Ditto polyandry or group marriage -- heck, in the coming economic crash it's definitely going to be a case of "safety in numbers"...

      You're only as popular as the last diary/comment you posted. -- Zachpunk

      by Cali Scribe on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:07:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hey, I'm Certainly Not Condemning It (0+ / 0-)

        and frankly, I've always thought that government should get entirely out of the marriage business, anyway, letting religious institutions (or other groups) set up whatever rules they want, and leaving the state document as an essentially unrelated legal contract only, imposing certain rights, duties and obligations.  I suppose the biggest problem I'd foresee with multiple marriage would be when there are differences of opinion on issues for which a spouse gets to make the decision.

        But all this is wandering off the initial point of discussion, so we'll leave those sorts of issues for another day, perhaps.

        •  I don't think you are completely off-topic here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Maven

          Not the first part at least. I have felt for some time that the best way to settle the "gay marriage" debate is by separating religeous "Marriage" from "Civil commitment and extension of spousal benefits/rights". For everyone.

          Therefore, if you wish to be married by a church you may, but it would have NO bearing on legal/economic/spousal benefit issues unless followed up with a civil commitment.

          Just my 2 cents

  •  He's right, you know... (35+ / 0-)

    Here's what you have to keep in mind:  Marriage is a finite, non-renewable resource.  There are only so many marriages to go around.  If we let gays and lesbians get married, then there will be fewer marriages available for conservative Republicans like Gingrich, McCain and Giuliani.  

    We are dangerously close to Peak Marriage as it is...

    "The Romans brought on their own demise, but it took them centuries. Bush has finished America in a mere 7 years." -- Paul Craig Roberts

    by Roddy McCorley on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:02:45 PM PST

  •  I want one of these. (7+ / 0-)

    I have kind of a short attention span, the year thing sounds good:

    Lughnasadhmarked the beginning of the harvest season, the ripening of first fruits, and was traditionally a time of community gatherings, market festivals, horse races and reunions with distant family and friends. Among the Irish it was a favored time for handfastings - trial marriages that would generally last a year and a day, with the option of ending the contract before the new year, or later formalizing it as a more permanent marriage.

    But I suppose we all know what happened to the

  •  disgusting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    gods loves all his children, no matter what that book written by men tells us

  •  I don't get it... (5+ / 0-)

    But when you want to redefine what family means or what
    marriage means, then that's an issue that should require some serious
    and significant debate in the public square.

    Who is trying to redefine this?  Huckabee is just another cherry-picking Christian who doesn't really get the whole idea of the religion he claims to be a part of.  Here are some legitimate forces that could end civilization:
    World War
    Asteroid hitting the planet
    Natural Disasters (earthquake, flood, famine, etc.)
    Mutant beasts running amok (Godzilla, Mothra, etc.)

    I guess old Huckster is afraid that once gay marriage is made legal, he will have no choice but to leave his wife, fall in love with a man, and destroy civilization.

    "The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    by djbender on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:07:28 PM PST

  •  You know what? (4+ / 0-)

    I'm so freakin' sick of these right wing religious nutcases trying to decide what the heck the rest of us should think about anything.

    "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." ~ Albert Einstein

    by BlueInARedState on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:11:30 PM PST

  •  He's Obviously Referring to.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...Sodom and Gomorrah.  Everyone knows that Middle Eastern civilization came to a dead stop when those two cities felt Jahweh's displeasure.

    Impeachment off the table? So are my checkbook and my vote.

    by chautauqua on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:12:09 PM PST

  •  Some marriages should end in divorce (4+ / 0-)

    I listened to him on Bill Maher one night saying that his priority was to save marriage because there were too many divorces in this country. Hello, why do some rightous people assume that most people get divorced because they are bored.

    First of all, when a marriage breaks down and can not be saved, why should a person have to be punished the rest of their life for making a bad decision and trying to fix the situation. I would rather see a divorce than watch a friend constantly making up reasons for the black and blue marks. I would rather see a divorce than two people living in the same house but hating each other and passing all that anger on to the children. I would rather see a divorce than two people each living with other partners but will not give up the marriage because they have too much property involved. And the list could go on.

    Of all the Republican candidates, he seems the most normal and yet he isn't. He has this whole religious agenda going and if with all the problems of this country that need to be corrected, if saving marriages is your priority, then making sure you are not the next President is mine.  

    "No, we're not questioning the Generals. Mr. President, we are questioning you."

    by BarnBabe on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:14:01 PM PST

  •  massachusettes has lowest divorce rate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AUBoy2007, Shaviv, Independant Man

    in fact, the liberal northeast has the lowest of any US region.  The highest divorce rate?  The southern bible belt... fckin hypocrites!!!!!

    Edwards/Obama '08! *Camille Abate in '08 for NJ-5 Congressional District!!!

    by MikeyMike on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:14:39 PM PST

  •  but thermonuclear war would make me Prez (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irishwitch, MantisOahu

    for LIFE!!!!   Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

    "You may be on the right track, but if you sit still, you'll get run over" Will Rogers

    by gaspare on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:14:51 PM PST

  •  Dear Mike Huckabee (4+ / 0-)

    Please deliver $100,000 in small, unmarked bills to the location I will provide in my next note or so help me, I will get ordained and marry two men together.


  •  And the Huckster (0+ / 0-)

    had that same goofy I'm a guy you'd drink a beer with vibe going (and Chuck Norris!) and sure enough, turns out to be another Bush wannabe.  I'm crushed.  I'll have to go back to rooting for McCain to get the repub nod, cause every other candidate they have is even more psycho than the last.

    McCain might be twisted by the Dark Side of the force, but I can see him as a possible Darth Vader, able to redeem himself in the end.  Well, as long as his son is a Dem in Congress, maybe.

    Dad, don't let the emperor kill me!

    Whine a bit more, why don't you, Luke.
    And don't even get me started on that whiny baby Frodo.

    Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

    by drbloodaxe on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:17:36 PM PST

  •  I hope Huckabee makes it out of the primary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sportin Life, Calouste, Steaming Pile

    He'd be the easiest to beat.  The guy's a lightweight.  Beltway and wallstreet republicans know this, which is why they have ignored him.  He can say things that sound nice to the Christian GOP grassroots.  That's it.  This guy is FAR LESS INTELLIGENT THAN BUSH.  He has no pedigree.  You think the NYC business heavyweights would turn over the keys to the economy to this guy?  LOL.  Huckabee is nobody to fear from any of our frontrunners.

    His rapid rise shows one thing and one thing alone.  The GOP field is weak as hell, full of ridiculously flawed candidates.  If I'm a GOP strategist, looking at Rasmussen and seeing:

    Huckabee 21%
    Giuliani 18%
    Thompson 12%
    Romney   11%
    McCain   11%
    Paul      8%

    I'd be thinking, wake me the fuck up when it's time to start thinking about the 2010 midterms.

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:18:06 PM PST

  •  Swing and... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AUBoy2007, irishwitch

    The civilizations who fail are not those who acknowledge changing conditions and reshape their rules, but those who don't.


    Ya hit that one right out of the park.

    Nicely said.

    Got a revolution behind my eyes - Battleflag

    by TigerMom on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:18:22 PM PST

  •  The only thing holding some people back (4+ / 0-)

    ...from abandoning their wives and children and shacking up with a gay lover, is the generally restrictive state of civil union laws.  At least according to some people.

    Vote John Edwards and break the corporate media stranglehold on American politics.

    by Subversive on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:18:54 PM PST

  •  I can't believe those people want equal rights (4+ / 0-)

    next they may want to be able to hold hands in public without getting beat up too, the nerve(snark)...Anyways, I love this argument, are they trying to say that everyone would choose to be gay if it was socially acceptable so people would stop reproducing, are they that diluted?

  •  FWIW, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Was it the Jewish civilizations of Jesus' day where brothers were required to marry their brother's widows?

    It wasn't technically required, since there was a public ceremony of rejection in which the brother-in-law could formally state his intention not to marry his late brother's widow, and she'd pronounce a prescripted reply and then untie his shoe and spit on (or in?) it.

    A bit of the arcana of reeeally old-fashioned "traditional" marriage.

    Oh, my friend, how have we come / to trade the fiddle for the drum?

    by Shaviv on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:19:11 PM PST

  •   the Govt, should get out of marriage business (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jlukes, irishwitch

    Let the states license only domestic partnerships, if you want marriage go to your church, let your church decide if gay marriage is sacred.

  •  The Huckleberry doesn't believe in evolution. (4+ / 0-)

    That makes him a MORON, irrespective of his views on marriage.

  •  We can out-religion Huckleberry Thin... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Let's recruit a Voo Doo Priest to run for the GOP slot and out-religion all of these holy lightweights. During a debate he could have dolls of the GOP candidates on his podium and stick pins in their eyeballs while the debaters are in mid spin.

  •  This issue is a defining one for me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    as to who I'll vote for. Those who hate on Hillary will still vote, and probably even campaign for her, if a fundamentalist like Huckabee is the republican nominee.

  •  I laugh at "aw Shucksabee" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bramish, irishwitch

    Does he think every marriage is performed in a church or only those performed in a church are better than those performed in a marriage court? LMFAO I hate to tell him but EVERY marriage entered into in this country is first and foremost a CIVIL Ceremony union, sanctified by the state, not his god. Everyone should be allowed to marry regardless of sexual orientation.

    Cripes, even my republican husband believes that!

    A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves.

    by Its any one guess on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:29:14 PM PST

  •  Trent, Council of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L, irishwitch, TIKI AL

    Remember how the Catholic world ceased to exist after tinkering with the sacrament of marriage in 1563?

    "Those who shall attempt to contract marriage otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest, or of some other priest by permission of the said parish priest, or of the Ordinary, and in the presence of two or three witnesses; the holy Synod renders such wholly incapable of thus contracting and declares such contracts invalid and null, as by the present decree It invalidates and annuls them."

    Clandestine marriages were officially OK; after this, they weren't.  ZOMG redefining marriage!  LOLHuck, I can has apoclipz now?

    (Source:  online transcription of The Council of Trent, The Twenty-Fourth Session, The canons and decrees of the sacred and oecumenical Council of Trent, Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848), 192-232.)

  •  Polygamy is the oldest marriage tradition (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L, bramish, irishwitch, TIKI AL

    Of course, you can't tell Huckabee that. You can't say that to anyone who believes, beyond all evidence, that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve who walked the earth 4004 years ago.

    Polygamy is recorded, in the bible, as being the norm for marriage in biblical times.

    Polygamy was practiced in ancient Greece, among the Scythians, among the Hittites, the Persians, the Arabs, the Chinese, etc etc etc.

    It's interesting that this is the next subject I'm commenting upon, since I just got done demolishing Mormonism. Mormons had to give up polygamy to have the state that they dominated admitted into the union, and that was a little over a hundred years ago.

    They changed the basic building block of their society: the family structure. a few generations ago. So much for Huckabee's argument.

    I hope Huckabee continues to be a rising star well into the primary season, because when people find out that he's a fundamentalist kool-aid drinker, it's going to create chaos for the Republican Party. Any Democrat will mop up the floor with Huckabee. ANY of them.

  •  Get a load of what else he just said: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irishwitch, jessical, rf7777, TIKI AL

    Huckabee: Force Behind My Rise in Polls Is 'Not Human'

    STUDENT: Recent polls show you surging... What do you attribute this surge to?

    HUCKABEE: There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people. (Applause) That's the only way that our campaign can be doing what it's doing. And I'm not being facetious nor am I trying to be trite. There literally are thousands of people across this country who are praying that a little will become much, and it has. And it defies all explanation, it has confounded the pundits. And I'm enjoying every minute of them trying to figure it out, and until they look at it, from a, just experience beyond human, they'll never figure it out. And it's probably just as well. That's honestly why it's happening.


    OH MY GOD ...! No need to vote, people, God has spoken!

  •  Alvin Toffler say the nuclear family has only.... (3+ / 0-)

    ...been around as we know it, mom, dad, 2.3 kids living by themselves under 1 roof, for about 150 years or so. Before that it was extended families, clans, tribes, etc. The nuclear family is being replaced not because of any decline in morality but simply because it is a model that no longer works in an information age society.

    The info age is all about having far more choices than the average inhabitants of previous times could ever imagine.

    If you don't like alternate family units you can begin the trend against it by killing your computer, cell phone, and TV. Oh, and find a nice cave to live in too.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair

    by Noodles on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:32:34 PM PST

  •  No, it's true. We're out to break civilization. (4+ / 0-)

    We're just not sure why yet.  But it will happen, my friend.  Us gays will destroy the traditional family.

    And then...  Well, we'll figure that out when we get there.  Maybe take over the financial sector and spring for non-stop block parties.  Or raves.  or something.

    But I guarantee you this: there will be disco and glow sticks.  Oh yes...there will be disco and glow sticks.


    "Judge me on the content of my character, not the underwear on my head."

    by Bill in Portland Maine on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:33:27 PM PST

  •  If he becomes the nominee (4+ / 0-)

    maybe he can pick Marilyn Musgrave to run on the ticket with him, since they're both so convinced that this is the biggest threat ever.

    I remember back in '96 or '97 when Ellen DeGeneres came out, and some idiot said that having an out lesbian on TV was going to be the end of western civilization.  Apparently it's a very slow ending.

    Of course, that's probably because the gays can't get their act together.  I haven't received an updated copy of the Secret Homosexual Agenda in years.  Nor any training, on which I blame my zero percent success rate at ending my straight friends' marriages.

  •  I guess Huckabee wasn't aware (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bramish, irishwitch

    that in this country we've "rewritten" marriage just a few decades ago when laws banning interracial marriages were ruled unconstitutional.  And our neighbor to the north, Canada, has legalized gay marriage and civilization there doesn't seem to be in danger of collapsing.

    Huckabee has some positive attributes, such as his recognition of global warming being caused by human activity and the plight of working people, both issues which are unmentionable among most Republicans.  

    But he is the Christianist successor to George Bush and this is his fatal flaw in my opinion.  He's slightly better than most of the other Republican candidates, but that's not saying much since they're all batshit crazy.  Huckabee is only less batshit crazy.

  •  Damn, Your A Good Writer eom. (0+ / 0-)

    "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." Dwight D. Eisnehower

    by sarasson007 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:37:58 PM PST

  •  Huckabee is an official crazyperson. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irishwitch, Independant Man

    Someone issue this guy his membership card in the National League of Batshit Crazies and look forward to him smearing his own feces in his hair in the parking lot of your local 7-11, 'cuz he is a WHACKJOB!

    Check out this video.  I'm YouTube impaired, but I've had it described to me, and it's apparently Huckabee claiming that his rise in the polls is the working of his god's divine power, that all those people praying for him has somehow forced this god into using the same power that multiplied the loaves and fishes for Jesus.

    Either he's feeling divinely entitled, or he's schizophrenic.

    Also - and I wonder if this being-the-conduit-of-God thing is behind this as well - Huckabee pardoned more criminals than the six surrounding states combined.  Including murderers, rapists, etc.  I dunno if he just gave 'em all a get-out-of-jail-free card the second they told him they'd found Jesus or what, but there's something reallyreally strange going on there.   And I don't know how that's going to play to the Walker, Texas Ranger crowd that Chuckabee Norris lined up for him.

    Before I thought Huckabee was a nice enough guy, just not somebody I'd want for president (sorry, but I don't trust the judgement of anyone who doesn't believe in evolution).  Now I'm starting to think that he's a nucking fut!

    "I am a comedian and poet, so anything that doesn't get a laugh ... is a poem." - Bill Hicks

    by shadetree mortician on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:39:56 PM PST

  •  I hope all who see Huckabee's attitude for (4+ / 0-)

    what it is will remember that all of our Democratic candidates are against gay marriage except for one.  At least that is the last information I heard about the issue.

    Of course the defenders of these candidates will quickly remind me that their reasons are not the same as Huckabee's, but I remind them of what I have been saying for many months now.  John Edwards' reasons are virtually the same as Huckabee's.  John Edwards has explicitly said, in public, on television and on the internet, that he can't support gay marriage because of his "Southern Baptist" upbringing.  Is Huckabee a Southern Baptist?

    Some of the defenders of our Democratic candidates also remind me that their candidates are for civil unions and that makes their stands against gay marriage okay.  But I remind them that millions of people share Huckabee's attitude and they sure as hell are not gonna go along with civil unions.  I can hear the Southern Baptist leaders shouting that they won't stand for making it legal to sin.

    But I am an old man who can remember that the Constitution was the supreme Scripture in this land.  But not any more.  When our Democratic candidates take positions that discriminate against their fellow citizens on the basis of some ancient biblical prohibition, and when the Constitution has no such prohibition I wonder what will happen next.

    Unlike Huckabee, I worry that if we don't make gay marriage legal then our civilization will be destroyed.

    If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

    by hestal on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:40:38 PM PST

    •  Sadly you are correct. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      However, all of our candidates will only nominate judges who will enforce people power and the Constitution and give LGBT Americans their fundamental marriage rights.

      Similarly, many of our Congressional candidates state that they do not "support" gay marriage, but will not force their views on the people, meaning they will vote for LGBT marital rights because to do otherwise will be to force a viewpoint and would be divisive.

      Like you, I have had concerns. But I have listened carefully both to our candidates and to our leader, Mr. Kos, and am comfortable that this is still the priority of people power and us as kossacks and that no judge will be nominated or confirmed to the courts unless they understand people power.

      •  Civil unions will not be determined by judges (0+ / 0-)

        appointed by the next president.  They will be determined by votes in various state legislatures.  So when any candidate says that civil unions will solve the problem then he is simply lying.

        And with all due respect to Mr. Kos, your leader, I am perfectly capable of reading the Constitution myself.  I don't need him, or you or anybody else to read it to me.

        But you did not respond to the situation of Mr. Edwards and the fact that his position and Mr. Huckabee's seem to be identical.

        If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

        by hestal on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:56:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Edwards judges will give us marriage. (0+ / 0-)

          Perhaps i wasn't clear. I share your disappointment in candidates and elected officials who declare their personal opposition to LGBT marital rights, but state that they will not force their personal views legislatively, meaning they will vote for LGBT marriage if necessary. I prefer candidates and officials who do support LGBT marital rights and do vote their consciences and personal beliefs. It is those that vote against LGBT marital rights that are forcing their views on the people and being very divisive.

          However, all of our candidates will only nominate judges who know that people power demands that the Cosntitution mandates LGBT marital rights (NOT "civil unions"). We are on the same page here in terms of what we demand in terms of people power and being our priority. We want and demand constitutional LGBT fundamental marital rights. While I share your disappointment with our candidates stated personal views, I am fully confident that any Supreme Court nominee of our candidates will find a people power right to LGBT marriage in the Constitution.

          •  What a load of crap. You theory depends (0+ / 0-)

            on too many moving pieces.  The moon and the stars must align just so.

            If you are so sure of what will happen then tell me how it will happen.  Give me a few milestones.  When will this Supreme Court vacancy occur?  When will a case follow?  How many years will it be before a bill reaches the floor of Congress?  How many of the present congressmen are honoring this "wink" and a "nod" process.

            Will this take place in the next 8 years or the next 80?  How long will it take before gays are entitled to full marriage rights in the same jurisdictions where straights can marry now?

            If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

            by hestal on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:58:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  We may have the 5th vote now (Kennedy). (0+ / 0-)

              He has been well educated on the Constitutional issue in his summer tours. Listen, I am as frustrated and angry as you are. But I am not going to give up and I'm not going to settle for civil unions. Does it infuriate me that Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi do not propose a full people powered LGBT marital "bill" now? Absolutely! But I am fully confident, as confident that I can be, that when there is a SCOTUS vacancy that our candidate will only nominate one who understands the Constitutional mandate of LGBT marital rights. I am also confident that all appeals court judges nominated by our candidates will understand that basic people powered right.  Any decision by any court otherwise would be the 21st century equivalent of Dread Scott.

              I do not understand why our elected officials do not put this matter as a priority as it is for us as kossacks. In that, I share your frustration. But as a bugeyed feisty battler for fundamental LGBT marital rights, I am going to monitory the situation daily and will never ever give up.

    •  half-full glass (0+ / 0-)

      8 years ago the issue of gay marriage was absent from "serious political campaigns".  4 years ago, support of civil unions became a badge of mainstream Democrats, but initially Dean could bask in the glory.  A little explanation -- Dean was an otherwise rather conservative governor, and he was progressive on the account of ca. three issues, war, civil unions and environment (practically, two issues), and other candidates could not help but notice that it is a safe and desirable position.

      Only then "normal marriage" became a "serious political postulate", but emphatically, not on the national level.  In the meantime, Idaho of all places has an almost overt gay senator, and convervative voters in the "hearland" may ponder -- wouldn't be better to have a happily married senator rather than an unhappily married one who has to look for sex in bathrooms?  

      So every four years the public opinion shifts, but you cannot rush it too much.

      •  This is ghastly. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Many of the gays alive today will die before civil unions are in place in all the jurisdictions where straights can now marry.

        When people tell me to be patient and just take an old cold tater and wait, they never show a plan that anybody has for winning the rights gays already are entitled to.  And no one ever has the courage to make even an estimate as to how long it will take for this miracle to transpire.  Will it be four years, or forty, or even in this century?

        How long is too long?  How long will religious bigots get away with striking electoral fear into the hearts of Democrat candidates?

        If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

        by hestal on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:53:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I give it 4-8 years (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I mean, New England, New York and California and then a stready trickle.

          But look.  Not so long time ago, in Colorado they tried to make it legal to discriminate against gays.  I suspect that a gay partnership can now live openly in most of the country.  I  think that partnership may become a sufficient standard that every state with a Democratic legislature and a non-troglodite governor will have one, but you really must give places like PA, OH or MO several more years.

          •  Let's see, I asked how long it would take for (0+ / 0-)

            gays to be able to have the same marriage rights in all the jurisdictions where straights can now marry, and you put up the headline of 4-8 years, but then it slows to a trickle.  How long will this trickle take until gays have the same rights as straights in all jurisdictions of the U.S.?

            You "suspect that a gay partnership can now live openly in most of the country."  Well, bfd.  Do you think that is the same as married straights in "most of the country?"

            Plus you did not respond to my point about John Edwards having the same stand as Huckabee.  What do you make of that?  Is Edwards a religious bigot as many are calling Huckabee on this site?

            If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

            by hestal on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:03:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Change Through Attrition (0+ / 0-)

          It will take until you can prove the LGBT community is a large enough voting block to swing elections effectively the same way the religious right has proven. It's the same for any group that is not in the majority.

          When was the last time you saw anything on the news about someone winning a suit because the rights of a Hindu in America were infringed because the judge listening to his case had the 10 commandments as the only rule in the court? As a matter of fact when was the last time you saw anything about any other special interest group that's in the right on the news except for the big hot button issues?

          Many groups are discriminated against in this country because they aren't in the majority and are considered "fringe". The issue for your community is at least making the news and being given consideration - the problem is that the numbers aren't there for an effective framing of the discussion to lead in the direction you would choose. The Christian right made things this repressive by making one small step - letting that step become normal then making another small step - repeat. Sweeping change to make everything right and fair will never be applied - the masses are afraid of big changes. Small organized steps are whats needed for all discriminated groups to become legitimized and mainstreamed. But just like for racial issue the only solution is time and to keep the issue on the table so the younger generations become more tolerant and sympathetic to your cause and the older biggots die off. Large change is mainly a process of attrition. The neaderthals will go eventually. The current thing for us to wrap our heads around is we may never be able to enjoy the benefits of what we start.

          Patriotic Dissent Graphix


          by Patriotic Dissent Graphix on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:07:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What the hell are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

            You said, "The issue for your community is at least making the news and being given consideration." What community, who is "your?"

            It is so easy for people to just write off other people's lives.  

            You are living proof of the old adage, "It ain't what people don't know that makes them look silly, it is what they know that ain't so that does the trick."

            If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

            by hestal on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:23:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The "Your" (0+ / 0-)

              Sorry if I mistook your comment but after reading it I made the assumption (yes I know what it means) that you were part of the LGBT community. I'm doing this at work in a call center and posting between calls so please forgive if I misread the intent of your post. Now I'm on break and after carefully re-reading the post I can see that you may not be part of the LGBT community but just sympathetic and ranting over the situation for them and what it implies about our political situation as a country/liberal progressives. My apologies again if I misinterpreted the reason you were upset about this issue by reading into your post. Several posts in the thread jumbled together in my head. No offense/slight/judgement about you was intended.

              Patriotic Dissent Graphix


              by Patriotic Dissent Graphix on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 04:02:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Good to know what the Morons think, I guess (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bramish, irishwitch

    Cheeses K. Rist, is there no end to the sanctimony of this lying huckster.

    God save us from lying Baptist ministers.

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by bobdevo on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:41:44 PM PST

  •  Tied up in his quasi-logic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irishwitch, suburi

    Let's look at those words again...

    There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived.

    So yeah ...if, as Huckabee would claim, this is a Christian nation ...and we don't have marriage as it's shown in the Bible...

    That means Huckabee wants this to be a Christian nation WITH one man to one woman in marriage because's different, so that means... it ensures the destruction of America.

    Why does he hate America. Why do you hate America, Mike Huckabee? Y'dinosaur.

    The nation can be made to produce a far higher standard of living for the masses of the people if only government is intelligent and energetic... (FDR, '37)

    by ShawnGBR on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:42:16 PM PST

  •  Message to Fuckabee: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irishwitch, kevinspa

    We the People have ALREADY redefined what Marriage and Family are; A long time since your "Leave it to Beaver" notions of them.

    All that needs to happen now is for the Law to recognize the changes, you know...14th amendment and all that.

    If class war is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning... - Warren Buffett

    by dj angst on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:45:38 PM PST

  •  how great would it be (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bramish, irishwitch, Independant Man

    if we could have a Democratic nominee who would take a firm position on this issue, such as the one all of us seem to agree is the no-brainer position (i.e., equality)?

    I seriously can't get my head around the difficulty that prominent Democrats have on this issue.  Democrats should not be hedging on fundamental equality issues, and yet all the frontrunners, as far as I know, stop short of advocating full legal equality for people of all sexual orientations.  I cringe at the thought of a debate between the Democratic nominee and someone like Huckabee, where the two end up in agreement on how the law should treat gays and lesbians.

    It's not only unacceptable, but it's inexplicable.  We've come far enough that Democrats should not feel the need to pander to right-wing fundamentalists on basic issues of equality.

  •  Somewhere that are two brides or two grooms on a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L, irishwitch

    lightning lit tower, cackling madly and dooming our civilization with an exchange of "with this I thee wed."

    Behold the awesome power of the joining of two people of the same sex!!  Quake and cower, lowly Americans!  Our union will destroy you!

    ...or something.

    What is this?  Vapid GOP talking point day?  How does a bureaucratic expansion endanger a civilization?  That's about as sensible as saying that freedom requires religion.  It's almost like the GOP candidates are just pulling nonsense out of their ass.

    "[We] cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."-Edward R. Murrow

    by electricgrendel on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:49:35 PM PST

  •  The State has already taken over (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    1. The State has already usurped the church's authority over marriage. A marriage isn't recognized by the government unless you have a license.
    1. I would be all for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between two homo sapiens, thus negating the fear that gay marriage would be a slippery slope to inter-species marriage
  •  If Huckabee represents civilization (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L, bramish, irishwitch, jessical

    I say let 'em go.

    The best way to predict the future is to invent it. Alan Kay

    by Robinswing on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:52:51 PM PST

  •  I'd have a little (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    respect, maybe, for these people's beliefs if it wasn't that they really just inherited them.  Romney is a true believer as a legacy of his father.  Huckabee goes back in the Baptists to age ten.  Why is it, with all the options in belief that neither changed from childhild in this respect?

  •  If Huckabee gets elected..... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bramish, irishwitch

    ....we may get a new national anthem

    It's the end of the world as we know it
    It's the end of the world as we know it
    It's the end of the world as we know it
    Because you're gay!

    But yeah, I'd like to know what civilizations ended because some gay people got married. Just another ignorant comment from a republican homophobe.

    And, since he is a republican homophobe, how much do you want to bet he's a closet homosexual? With Haggard and Craig, republican homophobia, closet homsexuality and hypocrisy seem to go together

  •  He'll never be elected. They might (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    support this jackass on gay issues, but they'll never let him get away with being the voice of god in the wilderness and surging in the polls 'cause god wants him to be President.

    Goodbye Mike, I never liked thee.

    Dana Curtis Kincaid Ad Astra per Aspera! The enemy is not man, the enemy is stupidity.

    by angrytoyrobot on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:55:16 PM PST

  •  .... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Huckabee: I don't think the issue's about being against gay marriage.

    Sure it is, to the fundies et al, why would you bring it up if it isn't?

    It's about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that's important.

    Seems divorce is the problem with traditional marriage, NOT same sex marriage.  And shouldn't the couples in the marriage articulate why it's important?  

    You have to have a basic family structure....

    A loving family with parents and kids is enviable.  PARENTS, not necessarily a man and a woman, LOVING parents Mike, loving being the key word.

    I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

    by Lilyvt on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:56:04 PM PST

  •  He lies..... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bramish, irishwitch

    GQ: I just wonder what you’d say to the gay couple who says, “Well, we want to live this way, and my partner can’t come visit me in a nursing home.”

    Huckabee: He can with a power of attorney. That’s the fallacy, that this requires some new definition of marriage. It’s simply not the case.

    Um, not in the state of Virginia Asshole.

    A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited.

    you scratch a redneck and you will find a liberal underneath.....

    by Schtu on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:56:51 PM PST

  •  Well, not really... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Was it the Jewish civilizations of Jesus' day where brothers were required to marry their brother's widows?

    Nothing in the law requires is have sex with, so that the brother's blood line would continue, which it would not if the sister-in-law married the surviving brother.
    But your basic tenet is right. It is interesting but the Roman Catholic Church was saying the same thing about the future of the world if divorce was allowed and if contraceptives were sold only 50 years ago in Boston.

    ...Candidate in Democratic Primary for TX-32 Congressional seat.

    by Steve Love on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:57:59 PM PST

  •  Exactly why he CANNOT BE PRESIDENT. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We don't need some religious nut guiding this country.

    He probably thinks that civilization as we know it is on decline when we "changed marriage" to allow blacks & whites to marry.

    I still don't see how 2 women getting legal benefits is going to harm his marriage and society.

    I think that it will advance society, because we'll learn that discrimination isn't the answer and to accept people for who they are.

  •  Who Many Theocracies Made It? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm just wondering, how many governments based upon religion have been all the successful?

  •  Meet the new fundie hero (Huckabee) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    -same as the old fundie hero (Bush).

  •  I am more concerned about high birth rates (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    among married Republicans, not only being bad for the environment, but for society in general. Just think of all the smarmy young Republicans (like Tucker Carlson), that will some day become voters.  An inordinate amount of conservative influence in society will surely precipitate its downfall.  You think the L.A. riots were bad, just wait...

  •  Civil Unions For All! (4+ / 0-)

    ...marriage for those who want to get religious about it.

    Yes I believe government "marriage" licenses should be abolished in favor of a universal "civil union" license and leave the marriage thing for religions.

    There's something attractive about invincible ignorance... for the first 5 seconds.

    by MNPundit on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:07:07 PM PST

  •  Gay marriage is like an integrated lunch counter (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irishwitch, katier

    ...the BLT don't taste as good if, you know, THEY can eat it too.

  •  Oh, but Devilstower, you don't understand (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Civilization didn't really start until protestants right thinking people man people came to America on boats and created it in god’s image, right here, in America, for protestants all to enjoy.

    That's when civilization really started


    "Tap your heels together three times and repeat after me: There's no place like home!" Glenda, GWotN, Resistance Fighter, Patriot

    by WSComn on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:15:21 PM PST

  •  Another candiate with zero grasp of logic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived.

    Even if that preposterous statement were true, it does not follow or imply that the act of 'rewriting what marriage and family means' has any causal affect on survival of a civilization.

    Looking forward to the day when the POTUSA has a clear grasp of reason, logic, causality.  I think that's an important trait for someone who gets to hold the nuclear footbal.

    "Conservatism... is basically a public relations campaign aimed at persuading [people] to lay down their capacity for rational thought." -= Phil Agre

    by suburi on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:15:37 PM PST

    •  Good point. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There are a number of activities that are universally fatal -- sooner or later.

      Breathing, for instance. Look at all those ancient Babylonians... and the Egyptians, and the Etruscans... every last one of them had the habit of breathing. Where are they now, I ask you? Dead, I tell you, all dead!

      Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

      by Canadian Reader on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 05:25:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gay marriages are so good (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bramish, irishwitch, kimoconnor

    Gay marriages promote monogomy--thus reduce the spread of HIV.  Gay marriages usually don't result in births but do supply placement for adoption. Gay marriage acceptance  would probably reduce the number of gays that try conventional marriages that fail.

    As an aside--Leviticus makes one negative mention of being gay, 20 against pork.  Shouldn't the evangelicals go with the numbers and fight pigs and not lifestyles?

  •  he is a genius! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Civilizations can be divided roughly into those that

    a.  are already gone, and

    b.  are not gone yet, so it is "too early to tell that they survived".

    So, how you can disprove him?

    Now, in Utah they abolished polygamy, but it is too early to tell if Utah will survive.  In most of Catholic counties they started to allow divorce, ditto.  Canada is doomed anyway.  On the other hand, Australian aborigenes abandoned group marriage and see where it lead them!

  •  Ur Goin' to Hell - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tom P

    And all yer librul friends, too.

    ;-)   ;-)

  •  What about women going to work? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Canadian Reader

    Two income families significantly changed the structure of families, and has a lot more effect on society than gay marriage would...

    Off the top of my head I can come up with:

     * Increased divorce rate, since women have other economic options besides sticking with the husband. This also leads to an increase in single parent families.

     * Kids are left unsupervised more often, or the supervision is outsourced to a day care facility.

    And, with the declining real wages among the middle class, many people no longer even have the option of having one parent be the stay at home caregiver.

    But, gays getting married? I cannot think of a single real consequence.

    (-7.38,-2.51) 76% of dKos readers think I'm a secret wing-nut operative!

    by Gustavo on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:19:52 PM PST

  •  As a cultural anthropologist, I'm appalled. (4+ / 0-)

    I'm absolutely aghast, frankly.  Talk about xenophobia.  Note to Huckabee:  The nuclear family structure is only ONE of a range of options available to mankind. . . . . you fucking moron.  

    Surge NOLA, not Iraq!

    by AmyVVV on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:22:47 PM PST

  •  Redefinition of Marriage = Collapse? (0+ / 0-)

    Next thing he's going to tell us Rome fell due to marital infidelity or that French democracy was overthrown by Napoleon because he was really, really good in bed.


  •  Think about the language these guys use (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bramish, kimoconnor

    Why is it always so apocalyptic.  The end of civilization as we know it?   A few terrorists are going to destroy the US?  Immigrants are ruining the country?  Hillary is, well you know.  Everything they don't like leads to destruction and death if not fixed.

    It is a very strange world view and one that I don't think we who come to DailyKos really comprehend.  I sure don't, but it does seem to lead its followers to a dark place.

    Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter - Martin Luther King

    by Do Something on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:32:28 PM PST

  •  Devilstower, you have rebutted that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bramish, irishwitch

    ridiculous claim beautifully.

    The truth is that every society rewrites the rules of marriage and family.

    So true.  Thanks for saying it so clearly.

  •  How about a nice song? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Canadian Reader, bramish, irishwitch

    These homos want to marry
    The same as me and you
    It makes a man all wary
    Amd sad and down and blue
    For way back home in Georgia
    I learned that this is true:
    The BLT don't taste as good
    If colored can eat it too
    No the BLT don't taste as good
    If colored eat it too.

  •  More to the point (4+ / 0-)

    No civilization has ever survived, except for the ones that haven't collapsed yet.

  •  Gay couples adopting unwanted children (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bramish, irishwitch

    would do more to cure society's ills than prohibiting gay marriage.  But no, people like Huckabee and his ilk would rather see those poor, misbegotten orphans bounce around the foster care system where they are vulnerable to all sorts of abuse.

  •  Yuck, yuck Huck. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    So there is a sense in which, you know, it's one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that's their business. But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that's an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square.

    That's kind of like saying it would be better if the state didn't recognize legal divorce, thus preserving the American Christian ideal of marriage. It's their business if people leave their spouses and live with whomever, but we're not allowed to address the situation with legal protections for the spouse and children who were left, because that would redefine what marriage means.


    Fox News--We distort; you watch, self-satisfied. We misreport; you witness liberticide. We sport with truth; liberals apply vermicide.

    by Cowalker on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 02:08:46 PM PST

  •  I wish everyone (0+ / 0-)

    could be gay for a couple of days if they chose to be. I think all soldiers should be gay in our military because they are kinder gentler people and when they went to war and it was over they could help the people of the country we invaded to get back to normal as fast as possible also you could have your boyfriend or girlfriend along with you at all times for help and comfort. I just had a thought also when it came time to come home and visit your family you would not have to fly to see your loved ones they would already be there and it would help the environment and global warming.

  •  Of course, no civilization survives forever ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Canadian Reader, irishwitch

    Since no civilization survives forever -- not Sumarian, not Greek, not Roman, not Mayan, -- that means that no society that has NOT redefined marriage has survived.

    That would indicate that we should legalize gay marriage right now in order to keep us from suffering the fate of all these other civilizations!

  •  Obviously, (0+ / 0-)

    if same sex folks did the live together thing throughout the world for the next 60 years or so it would indeed erase the human problem. Not a bad idea, however, I think Bush & Co. already have it on the fast track, nothing that a dose of radio-activity can't cure.

  •  and blacks and whites being allowed to marry (4+ / 0-)

    that was a re-writing of the rules of marriage that occurred not too long ago in this country.  Worth mentioning.

  •  As it turns out.. (0+ / 0-)

    If we never did anything that no other civilizations did and survived we wouldn't have democracy.

  •  When the divorce rate in this country (0+ / 0-)

    reaches about, I dunno, something tiny like 25% instead of almost 60, I'll give more than disdain to some schmuck claiming a value that doesn't exist.

    Then again, no I won't.

    I don't care what the definition of "is" is. I care what the definition of "torture" is.

    by MetalCelt on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:03:53 PM PST

  •  Huckleberry has vast experiece in threats to (0+ / 0-)

    marriage.  He was the Governor of a state that generally comes in second only to Nevada every year in divorces per 1000 population (it was 6.04 in 2004).  I wonder how many of those Arkansas divorces were a direct result the flaming gay culture down there in the Ozarks that caused thousands of heterosexually married people to abandon their marriages to pursue the gay lifestyle?  Perhaps Huckleberry needs to get his own threats to marriage in order before he starts name-calling.

    And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

    by MrJersey on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:08:19 PM PST

  •  Eww. Obama's too Icky. (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:

    Obama and many of his hardcore supporters are way to icky or perhaps, creepy is a better word.

  •  I just lost all respect for mike huckabee (0+ / 0-)

    I used to think he was just some Christian but wasn't crazy. The thing is we can debunk this statement just by pointing out that gay marriage is legal in Germany and I believe they are still functioning.

    The republicans may have money but we're gonna laugh when their "Christian" asses are burning in hell

    by Cwbatson on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:34:23 PM PST

    •  What was your former respect based on? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Hucabee has never deserved respect for his whole package of political-religious world view. Sure, anyone, even Hitler, can be viewed one item at a time and be respected for one item, but to do so is a great mistake of all political analysis.  Afterall, Hitler backed the Volkswagen which was a fantastic plan for the development of German economic progress. But of course we don't respect Hitler for one or two good items in his program since taken as a whole his program was so horrible. Same with Huckabee, the media tries to present one or two good things about Huckabee so that he can be taken seriously, when his whole Christian right wing philosohpy is goofy and devoid of a rational foundation.

  •  Man, I wish people would not hijack threads (0+ / 0-)

    with personal arguments.

    That said, I am glad this is on the front page as it seems many on our side seem to think this guy is harmless.

    He is not harmless, he may appear nice, but he is a bigot and would be worse for civil rights than Bush in my opinion.

    01-20-09: THE END OF AN ERROR

    by kimoconnor on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:45:19 PM PST

  •  That's an understatement (0+ / 0-)

    The truth is that every society rewrites the rules of marriage and family.

    Known history includes societies in which it was common to marry your sister (ancient Egypt), various kinds of polygamy and group marriage, varying degrees of toleration of keeping a mistress, concubinage (what exactly is a concubine -- a live-in mistress who doesn't have the status of a wife?), and some matriarchies.  

    We're all pretty crazy some way or other; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is just a setting on the dryer.

    by david78209 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 05:11:07 PM PST

  •  with great power comes great responsibility (0+ / 0-)

    Gosh, it's great to know that I personally am going to cause the end of civilization. I guess I should go to talk to the other three horsemen of the apocalypse and finalize our plans. /snark>

    I've never understood how my preference to do the horizontal mambo with another muchacho can be construed as threat to heterosexual relationships. It's not like I'm advocating that straight marriages be banned.

  •  I wonder if this has come up...? (0+ / 0-)

    Up until the 5th Century, the Church considered marriage to be a purely social contract. They did not concern themselves with it. The idea that any kind of marriage as we know it today grew from religious rites is faulty.

    As to whether or not gay marriage would bring about the end of civilization as we know it... OW! Oh I doctor told me not to roll my eyes so often or I might go blind.

    It is important that people know what you stand for. It's equally important that they know what you won't stand for. ~~ Mary Waldrop

    by Purple Priestess on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 06:17:39 PM PST

  •  non traditional "basic family structures" (0+ / 0-)

    have been in place for a Looonngg time in America. But you don't hear about these successful non traditional families very much because they tend to explode the right wing anti gay rhetoric.

    And then, "gay marriage will destroy civilization" is such a short and sweet sound bite for the evening news. As well as a coded message to evangelicals: vote for me with confidence because I'm your man.

    Although I am afraid of heights, I still dream of soaring free.

    by Pan Zareta on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 06:25:14 PM PST

  •  Mike Malloy (0+ / 0-)
    just gave you kudos DT .. :)

    "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
    If you want to go far, go together.
    We have to go far, quickly."

    by shpilk on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 06:27:46 PM PST

  •  Irrational even by Fundamentalist standards (0+ / 0-)

    I can not understand how they think that Gay Marriage undermines the institution of marriage. A once-married couple with two children is becoming less attractive to many people in the Industrialized Countries, as divorce rates and never-married statistics amply demonstrate. Fighting Gay marriage will not reverse this trend.

  •  Civilization ended 2000 years ago (0+ / 0-)

    "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" -Oscar Wilde

    by Goodbye Kitty on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:40:29 PM PST

  •  The world won't end if gays marry... (0+ / 0-)

    narrow-minded, bigoted, fundamentalist evangelical Christians' who have weak grips on reality, these folks' worlds will crumble along with their mental structures that they precariously hold together.

  •  So what else is new? (0+ / 0-)

    These people believe that God shapes the world by constant interference in everyday events.  This isn't a new belief and it isn't unusual.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site