Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
April 28, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Truthdig Bazaar



Unremembered Country

Unremembered Country

Susan Griffin

more items

Ear to the Ground
Email this item Print this item

Huckabee on the Slippery Slope of Gay Marriage

Posted on Jan 17, 2008
AP photo / Alex Brandon

Here’s further evidence that Mike Huckabee isn’t exactly worried about currying favor with Log Cabin Republicans: In an interview with, the conservative presidential candidate made the woefully familiar argument that condoning gay marriage is akin to condoning bestiality. (via Talking Points Memo):

Beliefnet: Just to follow up on that question, according to that standard, if the Constitution and its amendments are subject to biblical interpretations, doesn’t that mean it would be subject to biblical argument over what the proper interpretation is? And where does that leave, say, nonbelievers or members of other faiths in a proudly pluralistic like our own when amendments to the Constitution are subject to a biblical interpretation?

Huckabee: I think that whether someone is a Christian or not, the idea that a human life has dignity and intrinsic worth should be clear enough. I don’t think a person has to be a person of faith to say that once you redefine a human life and say there is a life not worth living, and that we have a right to terminate a human life because of its inconvenience to others in the society. That’s the real issue. That’s the heart of it. It’s not just about being against abortion. It’s really about, Is there is a point at which a human life, because it’s become a burden or inconvenience to others, is an expendable life. And once we’ve made a decision that there is such a time - whether it’s the termination of an unborn child in the womb or whether it’s the termination of an 80-year-old comatose patient—we’ve already crossed that line. And then the question is, How far and how quickly do we move past that line?

And the same thing would be true of marriage. Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?

Beliefnet: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

Huckabee: Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

Read more

Lockerdome Below Article
Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Katrhyn, January 25, 2008 at 12:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The most compelling reasons for truth of the homosexaul agenda is the denial of childhood. Children are children, because they need mature adults that are of truthful information and facts to be taught to children, truth a man and woman, produces children, in their natural human relationship that affords them to become father and mother, husband and wife, this is the truth that produces, the family. Children need adults that will truthfully and respectfully teach them truth. Children belong to the father and the mother, they are family. No child should be handed the depravity that many sexaul minded, depraved ones, that spent a lifetime to come up with depraved practices. No child should lose their innocense because of depraved adults and what they find sexaully enlightening. Adults, that are of moral character have a responsiblity to protect and defend children from such unclean things. Honoring children is the responsibility of fathers and mothers. Honoring each other, man and woman, as husband and wife is what family is inteneded for, marriage. If one is intent on playing games with childen’s souls, they are not moral. Morals, values and principals are extremely important to insure sane and healthy people.  Children need adults to respect them and adults should not have the right to discuss sexaul matters to children, as it puts them at risk of sexaul abuse, by devaint and depraved adults. Check out Also google Boston Children’s Hospital sex change clinic. We truley are a very sick soceity.

Report this

By sothsegger, January 18, 2008 at 1:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

how folksy

Report this

By BruSays, January 17, 2008 at 8:26 pm Link to this comment


If you’re waiting for a serious, logical answer as to why any heterosexual would give a rat’s a$$ if a gay couple chooses to marry…’ll be waiting a long, long time.

You’ll get opinions; you’ll get biblical quotes and passages; you’ll get passionate responses. But you won’t get a serious, logical answer because a serious, logical reason doesn’t exist.

Huckabee’s reasons may be serious, but they miserably fail the “logic” test. To claim that the granting of marriage to gays could somehow lead to the granting of marriage between humans and animals is laughable. By similar extension, why hasn’t our granting women the right to vote almost 90 years ago led people to now demand the right of their pet parakeets to vote? Since most states have long allowed 16-year-olds the right to apply for driver’s licences, why aren’t we now demanding the same for 9-year olds?

And his “historical” references don’t work, either. For most of human existence, we’ve entered into all sorts of ‘marriage’ arrangements; polygamy co-existed with monogamy for eons and still thrives in many cultures. Communes, cooperatives, extended families - all existed and continue to exist. The “one man, one woman” arrangement has NOT been the norm throughout history.

And for Huckabee to state: “marriage has…meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life” is also laughable, given our 50% divorce rate.

So Cyrenna, don’t wait up for serious, logical answers. They’ll never come.

(cricket sounds)

Report this

By troublesum, January 17, 2008 at 6:49 pm Link to this comment

I think they are not shy about answering your question.  They believe that homosexuality is a choice and that if it becomes a socially acceptable choice then more people will choose to be gay.  I think they believe that any society which accepts homosexuality will go sex crazy; the cat will be out of the bag and people will act on all of their sexual impulses.  This is what Huckabee means when he equates gay sex with beastiality.  If homosexuality is accepted then anything goes.  They are very much afraid of sexuality in general.

Report this

By troublesum, January 17, 2008 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment

The latest polls from SC show that Huckabee’s support is pretty much limited to evangelical christians.  His support amoung non-evangelical republicans is a about 10%.  So his opinions about gay marriage don’t mean much.  He’s a man behind his time; he should have been born in the middle ages… he thinks that the earth is a mere 6000 years old, and so forth.

Report this

By Blaine Stum, January 17, 2008 at 5:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think I’ve heard this argument a million times. It’s the most ridiculous, childish argument I can think of otuside of “It was Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve.” Seriously, how is two men or women who love eachother and BOTH (i.e. consensual) want to get married the same as polygomy or beastiality? How does gay people getting married HURT anyone? Of course, the typical repsonse to that is, “It undermines marriage.” No, DIVORCE undermines marriage… you want to change things, remove that little box you can check that says “Irreconcilable differences.”

I’m constantly perplexed by some people stances on gay marriage. You don’t like gay marriage, then don’t marry a member of the same sex. Of course, at the same time it doesn’t surprise me that Huckabee and his ilk care so much about it considering all the lovely scandals involving pastors and far right Senators having relations with male prostitutes. They hate themselves so much they take it out on everyone else. So sad.

Report this

By Rosemary Molloy, January 17, 2008 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m waiting anxiously for an answer to Cyrena’s question, too.  Good question!

Report this

By cyrena, January 17, 2008 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment

I have this one question, and I’ve posed it many times before, without ever getting an answer, specifically from those who oppose gay unions/marriage.

Here it is: Why would ANY heterosexual person, (male or female) CARE whether or not gay people marry each other? Does this somehow limit the ‘pool’ of people available for straight folks to marry? Are any of these gay people, (male or female) taking potential spouses away from the straight crowd?

I’m very curious to understand this. Again, why would any HETEROsexual individual, (that means straight people for those of you who don’t know) give a rat’s ass if GAY people choose to marry each other? How will that affect the straight person’s life?

Serious answers only please. I really am trying to understand this, and for the record, I am a straight heterosexual person myself…for those of you who care.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook