Huckabee: Broken Record on Same Sex Marriage11.26.09
Leave it to potential GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to repeat old rhetoric in his battle against same-sex marriage.
Huckabee panders to the Christian Right and alienates everyone else with his flawed slippery-slope argument that if same-sex marriage were legalized, that just about any form of union would end up being permitted. Namely, that polygamy should then be allowed.
He argues that:
“You know, I hear people say, ‘Well, what would be wrong?’ What would be wrong, then, with a man having two or three or six or seven wives? Or a woman having six or seven husbands all at the same time? Other than the financial challenge of doing that.”
What a flawed argument, but one that can be very convincing to people who don’t take the time to actually think about it. The issue here isn’t polygamy. It’s about homosexuality. And this is just Huckabee’s way to divert the attention away from the real reason that he’s against it: his fundamentalist Christian views. He thinks that he’s masking his religious reasons for desiring a secular ban on one type of marriage simply based on the demographic of people being married, which is a prime example of institutional discrimination, by using the tired and patently false historical argument – that marriage has always meant one man and one woman – and equating homosexuals with polygamists. Classic fear-mongering rhetoric that holds no water whatsoever.
“Marriage doesn’t mean any and everything we want it to mean. In all the recorded years of human history it has only meant one thing. It has meant a man and a woman relationship, that not only created the next generation, but that trained the next generation to be their replacements. It’s not just the matter of the biological reproduction, however. It’s the context in which children are able to grow up understanding the role models that both the male and the female provide.”
There are so many things wrong with his argument. First off:
1) Marriage hasn’t only meant one thing in all the recorded years of human history. Perhaps it’s meant the same thing in all the recorded years of The Huckabee Family History but you need not look further than his own admission of polygamy to realize that there are other forms of marriage that are perfectly valid for those groups of people (I assume they’re humans, thus in the realm of human history). See also, arranged marriages, polyandry, and a whole slew of different unions in many societies. Even if fringe or practiced amongst a small group of people, it disproves Huckabee’s statement that marriage has always meant one singular thing.
2) Being married doesn’t mean you have to be parents. There are all kinds of circumstances where married couples don’t end up training “the next generation to be their replacements,” such as, infertile couples or those who just don’t want to have children. I’ve never been married, but I’ve been to a number of weddings, and none of the requirements that I heard during the ceremonies involved procreation and the training of said offspring.
Huckabee uses that falsity to lead to yet another one.
3) Children can learn the ins and outs of being a human being without having both a man and woman guiding them. I’m getting tired of reading my own print right now because it feels like Huckabee is making me sound like a broken record. Again, all it takes is actually stopping and spending a brief moment thinking about this to realize that Huckabee is full of total crap and that nothing in his argument holds true. With his rationale, he should be fighting to outlaw childless married couples, single-parent families, and foster parents (to take a page out of his own slippery slope book).
It doesn’t take a historian to know that marriage – like many cultural customs – has changed and varied over time across cultures as they evolve and change. Huckabee bases his argument on his own personal beliefs that fall under those of Christianity, which is fine, were he arguing to make changes to his church’s rules, not secular American laws. But he’s not.
This is a man who fashions himself a presidential candidate in 2012 yet bases his arguments for and against secular laws on his own religious beliefs over the rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. The Republican Party really is no longer a political entity anymore so much as it has become a church. And that has no place whatsoever in American politics.