Gay Marriage | Mike Huckabee | News | Republican Party

BigGayDeal.com

Huckabee to GQ: Gay Marriage Will End Civilization

Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee talks to GQ about a number of things in this recent interview, and says he doesn't want gays to have marriage or civil unions.

HuckabeeGQ: 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. And if you look at states that have had it on the ballot—I know in our state it was a 70-percent-against issue. Most states are similar to that.

GQ: But if the younger generation keeps going the way it’s going, it could be 50 percent in ten years.

HUCKABEE: It could.

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.

GQ: So why can’t you call it a civil union?

HUCKABEE: Because it really is a precursor toward marriage. Once the government says this relationship is in essence similar to or equal to a marriage—we’re not going to call it that, but that’s what it is—and you grant it the same basic rights as marriage, then you’ve effectively done it.

He will, however, gladly take the support of gays if they'd like to give it to him.

Is This Guy for Real [gq]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I wonder when someone is going to point blank argue with the likes of Huckabee that he belongs to a church association that 50 years ago said the same sorts of thing about interracial marriage, integrating schools, etc. And 50 years later, they wouldn't touch that same argument with a 10 foot pole.

    Posted by: Tate | Dec 5, 2007 1:56:45 PM


  2. It came out today that when Huckabee was governor of Arkasas he pardoned a convicted rapest who after getting out of prison then raped and murdered two more women. And he did it because the victim he was in jail for raping is a distant cousin of Bill Clinton.

    He would make some President, kind of like what we have now!

    Posted by: over it | Dec 5, 2007 1:57:55 PM


  3. Gay marriage in the U.S. is not likely to happen, with 48 states having constitutional or similar bans against it. Unfortunately, "gestures" like Mayor Gavin Newsom's ill-timed, ill-thought gimmick -- besides not being a municipal, but a state discretion -- coupled with the MA judicial decision -- created an avalanche of knee-jerk reaction.

    Hopefully we have learned that "end-runs" around the public's will -- such as NGLTF, HRC, LambdaLegal -- by judicial activism is NOT the wisest approach to political and social integration. Now, that SSM is effectively prohibited, we have only two choices: (i) ignore the effort by continuing to create our own relationships in our own terms rather than the state's, OR (ii) except permanent second-class domestic partnerships, with all the legal demands of SSM, but few of its perks.

    Prudence and wisdom make (i) the obvious choice, so our "leaders" will pursue (ii).

    Posted by: The Gay Species | Dec 5, 2007 2:00:41 PM


  4. Couldn't have said it better Jonathon! Here,Here! BRAVO! Their same arguments were USED for slavery,USED to prevent Women from Voting,USED to Prevent Inter-Racial marriage/all cloaked under "religious reasoning"...you know, the ol' Downfall of American society BS! Fuckabee is an Asshole!

    Posted by: Disgusted American | Dec 5, 2007 2:31:45 PM


  5. Yep, this guy is a super scary fundie freak but you just know that all the Log Cabin Towleroaders are going to vote for him or any of the other Republican asshats that get nominated. Because as this post makes clear there are no differences between Republican and Democrat positions regarding our rights, and also TEH TERRORISTS!!!

    Posted by: AdamN | Dec 5, 2007 2:48:24 PM


  6. And, yet, he's soooo pissed when someone asks him how his religion will affect his presidency. Well, it's because he's an extreme, right-wing, facist conservative Baptist Minister. The whole outlandish exhortation of outrage is sooooo last administration. Get with it, Huksterbee.

    Posted by: woodroad34 | Dec 5, 2007 2:59:20 PM


  7. Just as scary as the android Mitt with these odd and false tenants of so called "faith" that they live by daily.

    If, more regular non-church going people would actually head to the polls and vote in droves like the so called Christians, this sort of churl would not have a platform to run with.

    Posted by: Sebastian | Dec 5, 2007 3:16:35 PM


  8. he's totally out of touch with reality, things are changing, the rethugs are falling apart courtesy of the sex scandals and the criminality of the bush administration continues to be exposed. so be brave my darlings, we shall overcome.

    Posted by: the queen | Dec 5, 2007 3:31:59 PM


  9. Men are still allowed to have multiple lives in many non-Western countries.

    Huckabee is more than willing to take cash and support from gays as long as they are willing to accept second class status. There are, of course, tons of scumbag gays who would be willing to take Huckabee up on his offer for a position of power or to make a buck, etc. The Republicans always have room for Clarence Thomas-like figure who'll do anything for personal aggrandizement.

    Posted by: noah | Dec 5, 2007 3:45:18 PM


  10. THE GAY SPECIES, congratulations, you just wrote the biggest load of crap I've seen on the Towleroad discussion boards in many months, maybe all year.

    You base your silly and fatalistic conclusions and predictions on bogus right-wing, fundamentalist talking points.

    You believe we should "continue to create our own relationships in our own terms rather than the state's"? Just how do you propose we do this?

    I seriously doubt that you are in a long-term, committed relationship and if you do I SERIOUSLY doubt that your relationship includes dependent children or you would NEVER say such a stupid thing knowing that NOTHING that we could "create" protects our families legally or provides the legal rights and benefits that OUR gay tax dollars provide for straight married couples and their families. Even a right-wing neo-con should be able to understand that.

    Go back to Gay Patriot bubba. Your crap will be greatly appreciated there.

    Posted by: Zeke | Dec 5, 2007 4:41:24 PM


  11. Upon further consideration I think THE GAY SPECIES’ writing style and message sounds awfully familiar. More of the “silly faggot give up the push for marriage because it’s NEVER gonna happen. Just settle for something else and leave marriage for the good straight people” argument.

    What are the chances that our dear friend STEPHEN is back with a new screen name and IP address?

    Posted by: Zeke | Dec 5, 2007 4:49:17 PM


  12. Based on Huckabees comment that in order to have same-sex marriage the definition of marriage would have to change. His definition of marriage obviously involves around a man and a women, but what he doesn't understand is that those are just words used to describe social characteristics that one takes on. What makes someone a man? What makes someone a female? Isn't it true that a female could become a man and vice versa? What is Huckabees definition of a women? A man? If a women is one who stays home and takes care of the children, is the emotional one, well can't a man be that as well? And if a man is the breadwinner, the politician, can't a female be that? It is well passed the sex organ differences, which now thanks to surgical advances, anyone can recieve. It's about centering our society around these social characteristics that we attribute to people based on their looks and attitudes. If two women wanted to get married or two men then we should applaud them for wanting what we all eventually want: a marriage; a union. To me, marriage is of love and honesty and it's the relationship that defines love. It's spiteful to take away their right to marriage, and you have to understand the underlying issue underneath this message. Why is he truly advocating against same sex marriages? There has to be something to fuel his fire.

    When I first read this article I took it as that his comment that society would end with same sex marriages as one that meant if we allowed same sex marriages EVERYONE would do it. It is true that more and more people would get married to someone of the same sex if it was legal, maybe because they don't have the pressures they once did. But I don't understand how the fall of our society would be to allow more and more people to have similar rights. Is it okay to realize that our country of freedom and liberty is one of the most conservative?

    Comments like these make my blood boil and make me so angry that our country is viewed as these single minded people. I, for one, do not want anyone to view us as this conservative or this demanding of one time of people.

    I also feel that having civil unions is a slap in the face. He is right by saying that civil union is a STEP towards marriage, by allowing some of the same things, but lets be honest, it's not marriage . How many of heterosexual people would want to give up marriage for a civil union? And I'm not just talking about the money and the material issues and interests of marriage. Why can we tell some couples to pretend to be married but not let them? How is this okay with anyone?

    Posted by: Malon | Dec 5, 2007 4:54:20 PM


  13. i think all of you are missing the point -

    the traditional family structure of a husband, wife, and children, is productive. Idealy, the family forms ties, the children have children, who have more children. They family has generational ties.

    In the typical homosexual lifestyle, these ties eventually disappear. Sure it's fun to adopt some kids and play house. But they are not following the human design. They are trying to fill a gap in their lifestyle with their own ideas of how a family should be. It may work for one generation, maybe even two, but eventually each will fade away with time.

    the traditional family unit will last. i'm not naive about divorce. It happens, and frequently, but homosexuality cuts the branches of the family tree.

    Posted by: bob | Dec 5, 2007 5:14:24 PM


  14. Wow Bob, you've got a lot of courage to come and tout your bigoted underdeveloped ideas about gay families on a gay blog.
    Why wouldn't children of gay families have children? Because kids raised by gay parents are all going to be gay? Are you really that stupid?
    Gay couples who have children aren't "playing house" anymore then straight couples who choose to have children.
    And underlying your entirely flawed argument is that marriage is really only about reproduction. There are plenty people who get married, gay or straight, for the rights and privileges that the institution affords committed couples like tax issues and hospital visitation.
    Please, just go back to your cave.

    Posted by: AdamN | Dec 5, 2007 6:13:44 PM


  15. What a CROCK of BS BOB..."Typical homosexual LIFESTYLE"? Well the typical Hetero Lifestyle IS D_I_V_O_R_C_E then?
    Meaning the typical hetero family stucture is a one parent home ....
    And sorry how homophobic are you when you say that "they are trying to fill a gap in a lifestyle..." or are you just IGNORANT?
    and if a gay couple decides to have a family that offspring will not cut the branch of the family tree but continue it?
    And how much of a horses butt hole are you...if the couple decides to use their own sperm or carry the baby...it is in fact a blood line.
    Just plain sad BOB.

    Posted by: MCnNYC | Dec 5, 2007 6:18:10 PM


  16. "There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived." Hmmm... of course with the noted exceptions of Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain and some US States. In fact, has there _ever_ been an instance of a civilization that changed the definition of marriage and collapsed as a result?

    Posted by: Rob | Dec 5, 2007 7:14:23 PM


  17. Kucinich! Kucinich! Kucinich!!

    I'm Gonna Say it Again

    Kucinich! Kucinich! Ku-cinnnnn-iiiiich!!

    http://www.dennis4president.com/

    Posted by: tjwdraws | Dec 5, 2007 10:27:41 PM


  18. Bob, may I suggest that you actually LEARN something about the subjects about which you prognosticate your views? And what I mean by "learn something" is learn something besides the ignorant, uninformed and irrational bigoted lies they tell you about homosexuals in your ignorant, hate-mongering, backwards church. Oh, and the same applies to Mike "I'm a stupid ignoramus" Huckabee. The only thing which truly jeopardizes the survival of our civilization is ignorance; something which Republican conservatives seem to have plenty of to go around...

    Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Dec 5, 2007 10:28:03 PM


  19. BOB, I would like to invite you to come to Tampa and spend a week with my husband, me and our son.

    I would be very surprised if, at the end of your visit, you would hold the same opinions of gay people "playing house" or be as quick to belittle our families as breaking the family tree.

    If you do come away from the experience with the same opinion, then so be it, at least you will have based your opinion on real life experience and not on theory or what you've heard from other people who know nothing more about REAL gay families than you do.

    The invitation is open. If you decide to take me up on the offer you wouldn't be the first, however if you were to come away from the experience unchanged you WOULD be the first.

    Posted by: Zeke | Dec 5, 2007 11:23:26 PM


  20. Huckabee: I will have Sherri Shepherd as my running mate. Children will learn all the conflicting theories over the shape of the earth.

    Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Dec 6, 2007 12:26:12 AM


  21. Huckabee is a moron who would make a terrible nominee for president. I don't know there isn't a civilization that hasn't ended at some point.

    I know someone assumes Huckabee knows a power of attorney isn't sufficient but he might not because it's a common failing. Given his leanings on this issue do you really think he's going to be well informed or just know enough to "support" his view?

    I don't see how living in a double-wide during renovations makes him an idiot. Talk about elitists!

    I understand the "traditional family" thing. It's the Judeo-Christian way. It's how you built communities in the ancient world and kept them thriving because it meant more children do put to work. We're beyond those needs just like we're beyond the need for child labor, except in entertainment which eats them up and leaves broken adults, but I've digressed.

    Anyway that religious-based motive is not what our government is about and it sure isn't why gov't is handing out marriage licenses. They're handed out for legal protections of property, of kids, of one another and so forth. That's exactly what living your own life is about and why Huckabee misses the forest for the trees when he rejects and says gays should just create a mountain of legal paperwork which we all know doesn't have the strength of a legal marriage contract.

    Posted by: queendru | Dec 6, 2007 8:27:11 AM


  22. There are dumb-ass dicks and then, there are dumb-ass dicks. And Huckabee is a the dumbest of dumb-ass dicks. No, wait. After Mitt Romney's speech in Texas about his "faith", I'd say it's a dead heat between the two. Regardless, for Huckabee to make such an unsupported, outrageously bigoted comment like that makes me want to stalk the asshole and kick his dumb, dick-Republicon ass to kingdom come. See, the only threats to civilization and the only thing that causes great civilizations to teeter and fall--proven time and time again in history--is religious zealotry, such zealotry's enablers and mediocre, pandering politicians who play upon the fears and ignorance of their followers, which pretty much describes the Republicon Party and its sheeple minions. Rome didn't "fall" because of man-on-man love. Rome fell because it's political system had become so corrupt. Byzantium didn't fall because of man-on-man love. It fell because its political system had become so corrupt. I am sick and tired of pandering politicans using gay men as their tired symbol of societal decadence. There is only ONE decadence and that is war. It is the ultimate social and political decadence. And, the Republicons surely have a love affair with war--even if most of them, if not all, never get off their pansy-asses and go fight the wars they start. Huckabee is a morally corrupt mass of mediocrity disguised as a legitimate presidential candidate. The guy ought to shut the fuck up and see if he can't sign on to promote Weight Watchers.

    Posted by: mike | Dec 6, 2007 12:16:55 PM


  23. There are dumb-ass dicks and then, there are dumb-ass dicks. And Huckabee is a the dumbest of dumb-ass dicks. No, wait. After Mitt Romney's speech in Texas about his "faith", I'd say it's a dead heat between the two. Regardless, for Huckabee to make such an unsupported, outrageously bigoted comment like that makes me want to stalk the asshole and kick his dumb, dick-Republicon ass to kingdom come. See, the only threats to civilization and the only thing that causes great civilizations to teeter and fall--proven time and time again in history--is religious zealotry, such zealotry's enablers and mediocre, pandering politicians who play upon the fears and ignorance of their followers, which pretty much describes the Republicon Party and its sheeple minions. Rome didn't "fall" because of man-on-man love. Rome fell because it's political system had become so corrupt. Byzantium didn't fall because of man-on-man love. It fell because its political system had become so corrupt. I am sick and tired of pandering politicans using gay men as their tired symbol of societal decadence. There is only ONE decadence and that is war. It is the ultimate social and political decadence. And, the Republicons surely have a love affair with war--even if most of them, if not all, never get off their pansy-asses and go fight the wars they start. Huckabee is a morally corrupt mass of mediocrity disguised as a legitimate presidential candidate. The guy ought to shut the fuck up and see if he can't sign on to promote Weight Watchers.

    Posted by: mike | Dec 6, 2007 12:18:04 PM


  24. Again the communities in Europe did not go down after granting civil unions, even marriage (in catholic Spain). Oceania, South Africa, Israel, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico offer civil unions.
    If Huckabee tells you otherwise he will just try to impose his believes on the American people and he is lying about the facts. Of course some churches don’t want equality because they live of the principle of good and evil sinner and the need of forgiveness and power.

    We Europeans are still not there yet. But my American life partner is entitled to stay with my as resident in Germany, if he wants to work he is entitled to, he has access to my healthcare, pension, family inheritance in Germany… we are treated my gay German family.

    In the USA I am entitled to stay up to 90 days then I do have to leave. We are nothing over here. I bring my healthcare, money for expenses, life…

    If at least civil unions don’t go thru in 2009 – we will move to Europe. I think a lot of Americans will follow us and move because they have just voted for the “Christian taliban”.

    Good luck and keep your ears and eyes open.

    Posted by: Martin | Dec 6, 2007 11:21:52 PM


  25. When will America wake up?
    Congressman Nadler has a bill in Congress H.R.2221
    Senator Leahy has a bill in the Senate S. 1328
    to end discrimination of permanent parters in immigration and grant them the same rights as spouses of citizens… - read more.
    There are 90 house reps cosponsoring it – Dennis!!! I truly love you!
    There are 9 Senators cosponsoring this – NOT BIDEN, NOT DOBB, NOT CLINTON, NOT OBAMA!!! WHY???
    We wrote to Hillary and Barak: please excuse, they are too busy to respond, but please send money. They are so busy caring about their own egos but no our/your issues, problems. Are they authentic? Not now, not with that kind of attitude!!!

    Posted by: Martin | Dec 6, 2007 11:46:05 PM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Anderson Cooper Takes Us "Noodlin" in the Deep South« «