Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

You Suck Huck: Why Mike Huckabee Needs to Be on the Gay Rights Radar

huckabee-on-bassIt’s the end of the show and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is letting loose. A house band appears on the stage of Huckabee, his weekend Fox News talk show, and Huck picks up his bass guitar and starts jamming away to Blondie’s “Call Me.” The audience, mostly white, thoroughly conservative, eats it up, oblivious to the vast cultural divide between the song’s writer and its current performer. His guests on the show were actress Rosie Perez and three Miss America’s, and the show feels like a cross between a NASCAR rally and Jerry Springer, complete with Huck giving a long monologue on his thoughts of the day.

Lately, Huckabee has been sharing his thoughts to anyone who will listen. He’s had a profile in Esquire and he’s appeared on The Daily Show and The View, all in promotion of his new book, Do The Right Thing, which weaves his own personal story in with his political ideology in a way that’s stylistically, if not politically, reminiscent of Mein Kampf. But Huck’s not just selling a book—he’s on a campaign to gain influence and control of the levers of the Republican Party. Or, barring that, create his own Christian social conservative wing of it. And he’s winning. The Washington Post lists him as one of the “10 Republicans to Watch” (he’s number seven, Sarah Palin is number one), and his show, by some measures, is the number one cable show in its time slot.

It’s easy in this season of liberal dominance to dismiss the Republican Party as one of nutjobs and followers of a failed ideology, but for gays and lesbians, Huckabee should be considered a unique threat. He’s the leader of a new and virulent brand of homophobia that serves up bigotry with a genial smile. What differentiates Huckabee from the usual cadre of social conservative homophobes is that he’s charismatic, and the MSM has gobbled up his aw-shucks accessibility, lending him and his beliefs a dangerous air of legitimacy.

On the surface of it, the Republican party is in the midst of becoming more moderate. The new Republican Chairman, Michael Steele, holds the party line about being against same-sex marriage, but the Log Cabin Republicans claim that his ascension to the head of the party signals a more inclusive, broad-based strategy. LCR’s Patrick Sammon glows:

”It’s a great day for our Party. Steele is an inclusive leader who will bring a new energy and a new vision to the GOP at a critical time. … While we do not agree with Chairman Steele on every issue, we look forward to working with him to help rebuild the GOP. Republicans got wiped out in November with non-white voters, young voters and self-described moderates. Michael Steele understands the base doesn’t equal a majority.”

He may be kidding himself, but Steele does signal that the Republican party faithful want to move beyond social conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage that conservatives like former Bush speechwriter David Frum believe are keeping them from achieving mainstream success.

GYI0000628879.jpgBut under the surface, there are cracks in the party and Huckabee is looking to exploit that to his advantage. Social conservatives, especially Christian evangelicals, feel burned after eight years of supporting George W. Bush, who promised them social conservative policies, but were handed an unpopular war and fiscal irresponsibility. Conservative columnist Michelle Goldberg writes:

“The irony is that the more marginalized the GOP becomes, the more powerful the religious right becomes within it because it’s one of the last constituencies standing. The 2006 and 2008 elections each left the party more socially conservative than before, as moderates were defeated. The remaining voters seem to like it this way: According to a recent Rasmussen poll, a plurality of Republicans think their party has been too moderate during the Bush years, and fully 55% of them want their party to model itself more on Sarah Palin. The conservative intelligentsia has spent the past generation hymning the virtues of simple heartland believers indifferent to the opinions of coastal eggheads and cultured cosmopolitans. Now, they’re going to have to realize that that includes them.”

Sites like The National Review and The Free Republic now regularly deride “the Republican elite” and demand that the party represent true social conservatives and Huckabee, sensing an opportunity, is remaking himself into that guy.

During the presidential primary, Huckabee played down his social conservative roots, but is now using his stance on gay and lesbian issues to highlight them, going where few mainstream Republicans dare to tread.

In a recent Esquire profile, he compares homosexuality to bestiality, telling reporter A.J Jacobs:

“The problem with changing the definition of marriage is that once you cross that line, then there’s no stopping,” he explains. He tells me that when he spoke recently in Japan, there was an American student there who objected to his views on gay marriage. “This was right in the middle of what was going on in west Texas, and I thought, Okay, how can we say that what those polygamists in west Texas are doing is wrong if we allow same-sex marriage? Who are you to tell them that that man can’t have fifteen wives? [The student said] ‘Well, it’s not the same!’ And I said, ‘Okay, well, here’s another one: bestiality. Now I know you’re going to have a problem,’ and he just went berserk on that. But there was recently an actual news story where a man wanted to marry his animal….I think it was a sheep.”

He goes on to compare homosexuality to alcoholism, saying, “Some people have a predisposition to alcoholism. Does that mean they’re not responsible for getting drunk? No.”

On The Daily Show, Huckabee went tête-à-tête with John Stewart on the issue of gay marriage:

“Stewart: “It strikes me as very convenient, to go back to the Bible and say, “Hey, man… we gotta look at the way they define marriage…” Why don’t we look at the way they did slavery, in the Bible?

Huckabee: But if we change the definition, then we really do have to change it to accommodate all lifestyles. We have to say to the guy in West Texas, who had 27 wives, that’s okay. And I’m not sure that I hear alot of people arguing that that’s a great idea.

Stewart: I don’t know why polygamy has an issue here. It seems like a fundamental human right. You write in your book that all people are created equal, and yet, for gay people, you believe it is corrosive to society to allow them to have the privileges that all humans enjoy.

Huckabee: Well, there is a difference between the equality of each individual and the equality of what we do and the sameness of what we do. I mean, the fact is, marriage is under our law a privilege; it’s not an absolute defined right…Words do matter. Definitions matter. And I think that we have to be very thoughtful and careful before we say that we are going to undo an entire social structure. I mean, let’s face it, the basic purpose of a marriage is not just to create the next generation but to train our replacements. And it is in the context of 23 male and 23 female chromosomes coming together at the point of conception to create the next human life.”

He even finds himself trying to out social-conservative Anne Coulter, saying “there’s many things I may be, but pro-sodomy is not one of them”:

Homophobia is wrong in any guise, but Huckabee’s stance – that being gay is a choice (or at least, as he puts it “engaging in homosexual acts is a choice”) and that it’s “an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle” – puts him in the same category as extremists like Fred Phelps, Focus on the Family and the American Family Association. Gays and lesbians can take comfort that through education and activism, many of these extremists have lost their political influence and have been marginalized.

If only we could say the same about Mike Huckabee, whose gay-hating, bigoted star continues to rise.

By:           Japhy Grant
On:           Feb 13, 2009
Tagged: , , , , , , ,
  • 60 Comments
    • dvlaries
      dvlaries

      Why doesn’t this grasping self-seeker straighten out his own house first? Both sons are morbidly obese, mere years from certain cardio-vascular troubles and/or diabetes that could halve a man’s typical expected life span. Before he dropped out of the campaign last years, it came out one or both sons were addicted to Internet porn, stories of animal torture, and one son, I think David, trying to get through airport security with a gun. No pun intended, by their fruits ye shall know them.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 8:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      @ Japhy – well written article.

      That said I can’t even bring myself to write all the things wrong with Mike Huckabee (and those like him) here without my head exploding this early in the morning.

      What I will say is, the more control the religious right exerts over the republican party, the more marginalized the party becomes. The republicans are actually more of a threat to us the more they come to the center.

      I say nothing could be better than a Palin-Huckabee ticket in 2012. The religious right and “real America” will be thrilled and the remaining majority of the country will be frightened. It will only help instill in those of us in their 20s and 30s that the republican party has nothing to offer them. Even older generations are growing tired of the cultural wars which have prevented in progress in all the other areas that so desperately need attention.

      Even though I said I wasn’t going to address Huckabee’s words directly, I can’t resist.

      “I mean, the fact is, marriage is under our law a privilege; it’s not an absolute defined right”

      Love is a “privilege”?

      Err – I need a cigarette and another cup of coffee.

      Again thanks for a well written article Japhy, the research alone is enough to give one an ulcer.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 9:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Darren
      Darren

      You apparently don’t know the difference between a phobia and disagreeing on a lifestyle. Phobias are irrational fears of certain things, which neither Mike Huckabee nor most social conservatives share.

      It’s easy to throw the word bigot out there, but you are wrong in all accounts.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 9:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Landon Bryce
      Landon Bryce

      I was very grateful to Stewart for taking on Huckabee as forcefully as he did. I think he and Colbert may, rightly, feel a little guilty for exploiting Mike’s charm and obscuring his grotesque social views.

      Huckabee vs. Coulter vs. Godzilla vs. Mothra!

      Feb 13, 2009 at 9:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob R
      Bob R

      Huckabee is a liar, a thief and a fraud. His tenure as governor of Arkansas should be closely examined and his actions and true personality exposed to public scrutiny. Huckabee is a very treacherous and vindictive man, don’t let the “aw shucks” demeanor fool you. Why did his smash all the hard drives in the computers of the governors office before he left office? He went to great lengths to cover his actions during his time in the governors chair. Talk to people who have done business with Huckabee when he was Arkansas’s chief exec. Oh, as mentioned, his family is a real piece of work. Really stable folks, good “christian” values. The problem is the MSM markets this bigoted dolt as a “nice guy” much the same way they marketed GW Bush. Once Huckabee is exposed to the light of day, he’s just another christo-fascist demagogue. Diderot said “Man will only be free when the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” Perhaps Huckabee will eventually be strangled by his own entrails? One can only hope.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 9:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      Please, GOP. Do ALL of us a favor and put forward the following three people. Put them at the very top of your short list so ew can see precisely how utterly despicable and morally bankrupt all GOP supporters are – especially Log Cabin Republicans.

      Here’s the list:

      1. Sarah Palin – who single handedly proves the GOP is totally malignant and without a single molecule of brain matter.

      2. Bobby Jindal – who has forcefully proven that an anti-science agenda is at the very heart – the very CORE – of the GOP. The stupider the constituency, the better the GOP is at winning races.

      3. Mike Huckabee – who is the epitome of the ‘I love Jesus more than my life and especially YOUR life’ motto and pledge-unto-death to Christianity first, Constitution last.

      We need you up front and center so we can aim our crosshairs at you.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 9:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      Personally, I’m always suspicious of those overly “nice” people. Maybe it’s because I grew up in Connecticut and Sweden. Maybe it’s not a good thing? But, those religious freaks always tend to come off as nice and sweet and “aw-shucks” to those that don’t know any better. KEEP IT

      Feb 13, 2009 at 9:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Olive Yurdich
      Olive Yurdich

      DVLARIES writes: “Why doesn’t this grasping self-seeker straighten out his own house first?”

      The real question is why doesn’t that crazy bastard straighten out that freaky wall eye of his? Fuckabee is disturbing to watch.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 9:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      ewwww – Bobby Jindal. I often here commentators on CNN/MSNBC saying how smart he is and an up and comming “star” in the republican party. Every time I yell at the teevee

      HE DOESN”T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE.

      The republican party tends to look at everything like a business case study. Oh, they want a minority, hey, Bobby Jindal, yeah, let’s get behind him. Same theory they had with Sarah Palin, hey she’s got a vagina. It’s kind of a joke, if it wasn’t so serious.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 9:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChristopherM
      ChristopherM

      @Darren:

      You apparently don’t know the difference between a lifestyle and a life. I have a life. You should consider getting one and staying out of mine.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 10:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Ozed
      John Ozed

      I always knew he was a scum bag. I even stopped playing REM after Michael Stipe sang his praises about what a nice guy Hasabeen is. And he sucks on bass.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 10:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Darren
      Darren

      @ChristopherM: None of the policies conservatives are voting on affect your “life.” The amount of rhetoric thrown at people because they don’t agree with you is simply appalling, and you won’t be able to ever reach an agreement when you call the other side homophobes or bigots, because those terms are not at all the case.

      It’s amazing that your attempts to bring reason into the conversation are rarely reasonable.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 10:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChristopherM
      ChristopherM

      @Darren:

      Seriously? DOMA does not affect my life? DADT does not affect my life? The taxes I’m paying for the 1100+ federal benefits that strayt people can get but I never can don’t affect my life? I think you have it backwards. Those policies don’t affect their lives at all, but they very profoundly affect mine. Voting to take away rights of someone based simply on animus against that class of people seems like the very definition of bigotry. It is also cowardice for conservatives to vote this way and then claim to not be bigots. Why not just have the balls to say, “I don’t think gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else?” No, you want to be a bigot but still have people think you’re nice.

      Your problem is that you see this as something upon which reasonable people can disagree. But it is not reasonable to think that I don’t deserve the same rights as any other American. It is bigotry. Plain and simple.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 10:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Olive Yurdich
      Olive Yurdich

      I hate baptists. They use so much hair spray that it builds up on floors and walls of their rental unit. However, I can’t put a “no Baptists” sign on my rental. Damn them and their special rights.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 10:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Darren
      Darren

      First of all, government shouldn’t be defining, or even delving into, marriage. Separation of church and state works both ways, and marriage is absolutely a religious institution. Now if we want to talk about civil unions, most conservatives are FINE with it as long as we’re talking about government related structures. I see no reason why two men, two women, a brother and a sister, three nuns, or all the cast of I Love New York couldn’t file for a civil union if they’re in a long term agreement with one another. But again, we’re not talking about marriage here, we’re talking about taxes, health services, funeral arrangements, etc.

      Secondly, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell affects people of military service, which you most certainly are not. Even if you WERE in the military, the policy is there because military service is a JOB and sexual preference is not an acceptable conversation to have at work. That goes for both gay or straight individuals.

      You mistakenly presume because people do not adopt you into their personal beliefs that makes them bigots, which is not the case. They simply disagree with your beliefs, but they do not hate you. There’s a huge difference. They may hate you for other things, but you are judging their ideals as much as they are judging yours.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 10:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Landon Bryce
      Landon Bryce

      Darren:

      What you do not understand is that you believe I am not equal to you because I am gay. If you did not believe that, you would not write so slightingly of our relationships or so casually about our lack of equal rights. I have no trouble equating that belief that you are somehow more of a person than I am, somehow naturally entitled to better treatment because you are heterosexual, with hatred. We do, politically– it’s an accepted use of the term– it’s that belief that others are inferior to you that makes something “hate speech” or a “hate crime.” So, yes, Darren– you do hate me, because you openly express your belief that I am your inferior.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 11:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChristopherM
      ChristopherM

      @Darren:

      Your marriage argument only works if you abolish all government-sponsored marriage and do civil unions for everyone, which I am more than fine with. The reality is, that is not going to happen. I don’t want religious marriage. I want civil marriage, and it has nothing to do with church and state.

      Don’t Ask Don’t Tell affects anyone who might wish to pursue a military career and is qualified. I am a third-year law student. The military’s legal arm interviews students at my school every year, but I cannot be considered for their position simply because I won’t lie about who I am. If you think that is good for our country, then you are delusional. Military readiness and effectiveness touches us all.

      People such as yourself aren’t disagreeing with some personal belief I hold, but rather with who I am. They disagree that I deserve equal rights as any other American, and they are behaving in a manner that is far from the religious ideals they claim to hold. And for that, you are damn right I am judging them.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 11:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Darren
      Darren

      @Landon Bryce: WHAT? Where do you even get the idea that I think you’re not equal?

      The funny thing is, now I DO think you’re not my equal, but only because your reasoning skills are abysmal. It has nothing to do with your sexual preference.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 11:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Flex
      Flex

      When are we going to build our own movement against religious assholes? Fuck our rights, we’ll never earn them with these cunts around. We need to put religious groups up for a vote at every election. We need to rub their faces in their own shit!

      Feb 13, 2009 at 11:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      Who is this Darren person? STFU and get out. What makes him think we want to come to agreement with conservatives (policy or social), they are both wrong. What I want is for them to be a permanent minority party. They can still sit at home with pictures on their walls of Reagan and the Bushes and ponder about how all three of them were failed presidents though.

      Clinton got a blow job and those three ruined the lives of millions. Which was worse? Policy conservatives are almost worse than social conservatives. Social conservatives are usually indoctrinated into their beliefs. Policy conservatives are just greedy. They are generally more educated and should know better.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 11:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Huckabee wants to be Shicklegruber when he grows up. For real.

      The real question of Huckies future expectations is ultimately the question of how quickly the two major parties and US society as a whole splinter and divide. The war and the depression are fueling a great polarization.

      It’s happened before. In 1776 a great revolutionary upheaval rocked North America. Unrelenting and unyielding, the ground-breaking struggle for sovereignty shook the entrenched tyranny of the Brits, shattering their dreams of empire. Then in 1860 another great social shaker devastated the arrogance and treason of the criminal Southern slave-owners. Both of these events welled up from the hunger of people for real democracy and fundamentally altered the nation.

      A new social temblor has been powering up for decades. A new polarization is gathering steam.

      In the last thirty years growing numbers of working people have taken a beating, forced to work longer and harder to make ends meet. From the end of the Second World War until the 1970’s the economic successes of working people, based on the victories won by unions during angry struggles, smoothed over the jagged edges of American society. At the same time the rich got richer, much, much richer. Now we’re swiftly sliding into a depression. Fissuring and fracturing are occurring all across the social landscape. The daydream of social harmony has been shattered.

      Unions, our first line of defense against the arrogant greed of the looter rich, operate at a great disadvantage. Subject to a government of, for and by the rich, they’re boxed in on all sides by anti-union laws and regulations.

      Like the disquieting jerks and shudders that occasionally rumbled through the ’body politic’ before the detonations of 1775 and 1860, new shocks and tremors signal the approach of another great upheaval. Razor sharp divisions are once again shredding the national consensus. The ‘middle ground’, once so beloved by slippery politicians, is now just a place where they’re politically targeted by all sides.

      Huckabee and other ultra rightist opportunists are poised to build a mass right wing movement mirroring the development of the SA and SS in Germany. Our job is to build an independent GLBT left and make alliances with unions and others to stop that in it tracks.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 12:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blake
    • Darren
      Darren

      @blake: Hyperbole police, weee-uuu wee-uuu weee-uuu. We need you to pull over. Your rhetoric is nonsensical and almost Godwin-esque.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 12:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChristopherM
      ChristopherM

      @Darren:

      It is only hyperbole if you aren’t living it.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 12:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul Raposo
      Paul Raposo

      You apparently don’t know the difference between a phobia and disagreeing on a lifestyle. Phobias are irrational fears of certain things, which neither Mike Huckabee nor most social conservatives share.

      And you don’t seem to know the difference between a life and a lifestyle. LGBTQ people live the exact same lives as straight people. There is no gay “lifestyle”. That is a buzz word created by anti-gay people to further their culture war on gay Americans.

      LGBTQ’s have the same hopes, dreams, jobs, families as straight people. We have a different sexuality, yet carry our personal lives the same as straight people–we date, have relationships have sex and pursue marriage and families. Our similarities are what frighten you, Darren and those like you. Which is where homophobia comes into play. You and Huckabee have an irrational fear of us being just like you. You have worked for decades to try and paint us as different, because you fear our similarities.

      It’s easy to throw the word bigot out there, but you are wrong in all accounts.

      A bigot is:

      One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

      Clearly, you and Huck fit that definition to a tee, Darren.

      None of the policies conservatives are voting on affect your “life.”

      Adoption; marriage; pension and estate rights; schooling; housing; immigration; to name a few.

      The amount of rhetoric thrown at people because they don’t agree with you is simply appalling, and you won’t be able to ever reach an agreement when you call the other side homophobes or bigots, because those terms are not at all the case.

      And the amount of rhetoric–BTW, that’s a big word for a moron, Darren, where did you pick it up?–thrown at LGBTQ’s is appalling. According to you and your ilk, we are pedophiles; rapists; mentally ill; promiscuousicts. What’s odd, is that even within Hucks own family, these things are present; and yet he does not see them in his own house, yet claims to see them in others.

      It’s amazing that your attempts to bring reason into the conversation are rarely reasonable.

      And it’s amazing that you have yet to present a coherent, intelligent rebuttal, Darren.

      First of all, government shouldn’t be defining, or even delving into, marriage.

      And neither should the church be defining, nor delving into secular marriage, or state laws surrounding secular marriage.

      Separation of church and state works both ways, and marriage is absolutely a religious institution.

      Within the church. However, outside the church, religious institutions have no right to dictate marriage law to anyone.

      Now if we want to talk about civil unions, most conservatives are FINE with it as long as we’re talking about government related structures.

      But that’s not enough for you, Darren. You want religious marriages recognized everywhere, yet you want a separate type of marriage that will only be recognized within tight boundaries set out by religious institutions for LGBTQ’s.

      I see no reason why two men, two women, a brother and a sister, three nuns, or all the cast of I Love New York couldn’t file for a civil union if they’re in a long term agreement with one another.

      And therein lies the rub–YOU feel you should dictate what the boundaries are in marriage. Really, Darren, who the fuck are you?

      But again, we’re not talking about marriage here, we’re talking about taxes, health services, funeral arrangements, etc.

      If it is, as you stated, “government related structures”, who is the church to dictate what structures the government will honour? You want the government– to stay out of church business, like deciding what marriage is, yet you feel the church-an entity which is a corporation, yet pays no corporate taxes–should have a free hand in crafting marriage laws. The church does not own the copyright on the word marriage. The state does and has since it started issuing marriage licenses.

      Secondly, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell affects people of military service, which you most certainly are not.

      Are you in the military, Darren? If not, then where does your opinion matter? Why do the majority of anti-gay right wingers who support DADTDP, who are not in the military, and their opinions matter?

      Even if you WERE in the military, the policy is there because military service is a JOB and sexual preference is not an acceptable conversation to have at work.

      It matters, because the law states that the government cannot ask a person about their sexuality, but they routinely do. It matters, because even though they are not permitted to “pursue”, they do. It matters because even if a person is merely perceived as gay, their career0–and it is a career, not a job as you so foolishly claimed–is destroyed, Darren.

      That goes for both gay or straight individuals.

      No. It only goer for gay people because th law only prohibits gay people from serving. It has no effect on straight people, save those who are targeted as gay when they are not.

      You mistakenly presume because people do not adopt you into their personal beliefs that makes them bigots, which is not the case.

      And you mistakenly assume that America is a theocracy where Biblical law is the law of the land, which is not the case.

      They simply disagree with your beliefs, but they do not hate you.

      Of course they do, Darren. You don’t legislate against the people you love. You don’t stalk and assault the people you love. You don’t refuse to allow the people you love to be foster parents; you don’t ban people you love from having their names put on their child’s birth certificate. Those aren’t loving actions, Darren, that is hate.

      There’s a huge difference. They may hate you for other things, but you are judging their ideals as much as they are judging yours.

      Anti-gay people judge us everyday. Did you bother to read the article above? Huckabee is nothing but judgmental. Your own posts are seething with judgment towards people you don’t even know, Darren.

      WHAT? Where do you even get the idea that I think you’re not equal?

      Now if we want to talk about civil unions, most conservatives are FINE with it as long as we’re talking about government related structures.

      Your words, Darren.

      The funny thing is, now I DO think you’re not my equal, but only because your reasoning skills are abysmal. It has nothing to do with your sexual preference.

      Did you bother to read your own posts, Darren? As far as “sexual preference”, do you prefer being straight? Have you experienced homosexuality to make an informed decision on your sexual preference?

      Feb 13, 2009 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kevin
      kevin

      @blake:

      Don’t feed the trolls….

      Some homophobe obviously has gay-on-the-brain.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 12:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      Does anyone know? Do gays go on whatever websites Darren (and those like him) frequents and comment? Like religousfreaks.com or iaminsecureinmyownmarriage.com. I’m curious.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 12:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Darren
      Darren

      “Have you experienced homosexuality to make an informed decision on your sexual preference?” I have never put my hand in a chipper shredder, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have fingers afterward. I don’t need to smoke or drink to know whether or not I want to do those things. I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking here, so I’m just going to presume you are.

      As for the “equal” thing, I believe in equal rights. I do not, however, believe in equal privileges that are outside government scope. Marriage is a religious institution which was indoctrinated into government for practical purposes. The majority of religions worldwide agree that homosexuality is a sin, and for a government to tell those religions to accept a sin into a religious institution is wrong (and against our own Constitution).

      I do agree that DOMA shouldn’t be created, but only because it’s not the government’s business to dictate religious practices as long as they’re not infringing on the rights of others, which marriage does not. If you want to get married because you love your gay partner, then we’re no longer talking about your government marriage for tax purposes, and we are now talking about the symbol of marriage, which is absolutely religious.

      The reason the word “bigot” doesn’t apply to people who disagree with gay marriage is because we’re not intolerant of homosexuality. Instead, homosexuals who demand religion bend to their needs are the true bigots, because they are intolerant of our religious traditions. The acidity of the comments on this article are proof of that.

      “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” Ask yourself, does that sound familiar? Because it should.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 1:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Ozed
      John Ozed

      Who the hell is asking religion to ‘bend’ to their needs? This is a civil issue, and should have nothing to do with churches or religion, yet these churches have no problem pouring money into anti-gay measures. I have to say it’s sad and funny that catholic schools are closing due to inadequate funds, yet the knights of columbus and other silly hat wearing groups have no problem funding millions to fight same sex marriage like when same sex marriage was being introduced in Canada.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 1:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ggreen
      ggreen

      There are always going to be people like Mike Hickabee. Giving them the same intellectual gravitas as say someone who tells the truth is a bad idea. We have a current presidential administration (sorry Pres. Obama) that thinks giving all crackpots on the right a place at the table is good policy. That couldn’t be more wrong or dangerous. While Mr. Huckabee has the right to his opinions and fallacies he does not have the right to force or legislate them on others. Name people like Huckabee by what they are lunatics and religious charlatans.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 1:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Landon Bryce
      Landon Bryce

      Darren does not understand that equating gay relationships with sticking one’s hand in a woodchipper indicates hatred.

      Darren, you are making the case that homophobes like you are not able to carry on an intelligent discussion because your bigotry is so deeply rooted you cannot even see it. You accused me of poor reasoning, but were unable to point out a single flaw in my completely obvious and logical case against your idiocy. You do not even understand that sexual orientation is not a “preference” and only people who are bigoted against gays use the term “sexual preference.”

      You are filled with hate, Darren. That you do not even see it is horribly sad.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RichardR
      RichardR

      One wonders if there’s ever any point in trying to dialogue with a Darren or a Huckabee? Their narrow view, proscribed by isolated scriptural texts, renders them, well, narrow and isolated. While we must allow them the right to believe what they do, we must always object to their making public policy based on those beliefs.

      Darren, let me refer to your earlier assertion, “Separation of church and state works both ways, and marriage is absolutely a religious institution.” You’re mistaken,of course,since many couples are married without a religious ceremony. What would you think about setting up a two-ceremony system of marriage, such as is done in Europe and elsewhere: if you want to get married in a church, fine. But to gain the civil rights and obligations pertaining to marriage, you must get married in city hall. Now that would mean “bending” religion in that it would in essence remove religion’s ability to convey those civil rights and obligations.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 2:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul Raposo
      Paul Raposo

      I have never put my hand in a chipper shredder, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have fingers afterward.

      Because that would be painful.

      I don’t need to smoke or drink to know whether or not I want to do those things.

      Because that would be addictive.

      I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking here, so I’m just going to presume you are.

      No joke, sunshine. That you would compare homosexuality to mutilating one’s hand; or alcoholism, or drug addiction speaks volumes about how you view gays.

      Now, that you don’t have to experience homosexuality to know you would not want to be gay, I do not need to experience heterosexuality to know I’m not straight. Therein lies the absurdity in your belief that sexuality is a preference. I prefer Spartan apples over Macintosh apples; I prefer winter to summer. Those are preferences. But I have had both Macintosh apples and lived through the summer months. Sexuality is an inborn trait that doesn’t need experiences outside what is inborn to make a decision about what one is.

      As for the “equal” thing, I believe in equal rights.

      No you don’t. If you did, you’d believe gays can pursue marriage just as straights do. That you would rather see something not only different in law, but name as well for gays shows implicitly that you support a form of segregation.

      I do not, however, believe in equal privileges that are outside government scope.

      Now you’re changing your argument to encompass government sanctioned privilege, over your previous argument of church sanctioned tenets. Clearly you are not as wedded–so to speak–to your argument as you would have us believe.

      That said, you wish to have religious tenets and laws proposed as the rule of the land. However, in a secular state, which America is, that does not wash.

      Marriage is a religious institution which was indoctrinated into government for practical purposes.

      Marriage was a religious ceremony that was brought under one law by the government to be recognized across the country uniformly. The government gave you the privilege of marriage equality, by making all religious marriages equal under the eye of the each state. Now, you would see that same option taken away from gays.

      The majority of religions worldwide agree that homosexuality is a sin,

      And the majority of religions agree that other religions are a sin–Christianity believes “non-believers” will go to hell; Catholics believe those who haven’t been baptized at birth will reside in purgatory upon death; Muslims believe Mohamed existed, but Christ did not.

      Now, what religions believe and what the followers of religion think are two different things. As much as you would love a hegemony in anti-gay attitudes among religious peoples, you will only see that within church teachings. That many religious people disagree with their church teachings and support equal marriage says much about where the churches stand in social progress–firmly against it.

      and for a government to tell those religions to accept a sin into a religious institution is wrong (and against our own Constitution).

      And for a religious institution to tell the secular state to abide by religious indoctrination is absurd and contrary to your Constitution. As you’ve already written, the separation of church and state goes both ways, Darren. You can’t tell th state to mind it’s own business when it comes to yours, but then stick your nose in the states business.

      I do agree that DOMA shouldn’t be created, but only because it’s not the government’s business to dictate religious practices as long as they’re not infringing on the rights of others, which marriage does not.

      Your entire argument rests on your belief that religion owns marriage. There is no proof of this. The government owns marriage, whether you like it or not. And if the government decides that gays can be permitted to marry, then religion has no say in the matter. Within your walls, you can do whatever you like. But outside of your church, you cannot dictate–as a religious institution–what the state may, or may not do.

      If you want to get married because you love your gay partner, then we’re no longer talking about your government marriage for tax purposes, and we are now talking about the symbol of marriage, which is absolutely religious.

      So now you’re saying that the church owns love itself?

      Darren, if you want to have your wife take over all your worldly possessions upon your death, you are no longer talking about religious marriage, but a state sanctioned transferal of property rights, which you did not participate in when you married in your church. That the government gave you the right to transfer upon your death automatically all your worldly goods to your wife, and you accept this right conferred by the government shows that the state does have the authority to step in and dictate the laws surrounding marriage. You can’t have it both ways, Darren, you can’t enjoy the state rights given you by the government issuing you a marriage license and then demand that the same government not issue the same rights to gays.

      The reason the word “bigot” doesn’t apply to people who disagree with gay marriage is because we’re not intolerant of homosexuality.

      Yes you are. You are intolerant of gay love:

      If you want to get married because you love your gay partner, then we’re no longer talking about your government marriage for tax purposes, and we are now talking about the symbol of marriage, which is absolutely religious.

      Instead, homosexuals who demand religion bend to their needs are the true bigots, because they are intolerant of our religious traditions.

      No one is forcing churches to marry us. You however are forcing the government to not marry us.

      The acidity of the comments on this article are proof of that.

      One only needs to read your comments, Darren, to see how you view your fellow Americans.

      “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” Ask yourself, does that sound familiar? Because it should.

      It sounds familiar because it is the bile spewed by Huckabee and his apologists, such as yourself, Darren.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 2:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nick
      Nick

      When will Jesus freaks realize that we DON’T FUCKING CARE! what they or their skydaddy has to say about ANYTHING? We don’t give a shit if a church wants to marry us or not. We don’t care if we’re “abominations.” We’re not asking to get married in churches. We’re asking the state to recognize our relationships in the eyes of the law. That’s it.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 2:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SFboi976
      SFboi976

      This is a man who defended the Confederate Flag. How… in 2012 can the majority-white nation that elected a black President take a candidate like that seriously??? Think about it.

      His show is only watched by people who share his ideology. Nothing this man says can persuade America further in his direction.

      By 2012, America will be split down the middle on opinions regarding same-sex marriage. By the time Obama leaves office, politicians in ALL blue states and many purple-states won’t be able to campaign on being against same-sex marriage as it will cost them more votes.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ConservativeRepublican
      ConservativeRepublican

      As a republican, I honestly do not think Huckabee stands a chance in hell of getting anywhere next time around. His time to prove himself was during the 2008 primaries, and though he got close, he failed (thank God!). His nickname in conservatives circles has long been ‘Huckster’. Most of us republicans don’t want what Mr. Huckabee is selling.

      Oh, and as a Christian, just let me say in the nicest possible way to Mr. Huckabee… Suck it nice and good, you poser. Instead of the message of hope and charity that Jesus brought to this Earth, you preach hate in an attempt to gain political power. Nothing could be more unchristian than that.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 3:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      Pat Condell, the noted British commentator whose very refreshing YouTube Videos can be viewed at http://patcondell.net/ opens his website with the following comment.

      “Hi. I’m Pat Condell. I don’t respect your beliefs and I don’t care if you’re offended. Cheers”

      When I read Darren’s first post (No. 3), I was tempted to respond to it with a rational argument in the hope that he was capable of being educated and enlightend.

      Then I read on a little further and noted that Darren simply swept away all of the rational, intelligent and well thought out replies with a grandiose wave of the hand that dismissed everything everyone else had to say as irrelevant which is, as we have all come painfully to know, the hallmark of a bigot who is a member of an army of brain-washed gnomes who no longer have the ability to use their god-given grey matter to reason with any longer. All they are capable of doing, is pontificating the same rhetoric and bullshit they have had drilled into their pea-sized brains for a life time by their Shamans, Priests, Imams, Pastors, Reverends, schmucks, whatever these self-appointed poisoners of human minds like to call themselves.

      These bigots argue for tolerance, acceptance, understanding and the right to disagreement that they themselves are totally incapable of granting to anyone who disagrees with them. Their stance is, “I will discuss this matter with you, only if admit that I am right and you are wrong and no matter what you say, I have it on a higher authority that you are wrong, so therefore I am right.” A inane, closed-loop argument that will leave you flipping your index finger against your lips like we did when we were kids and could not win an argument.

      And like Darren, they argue that there is a difference between a phobia and disagreement. It’s so comforting to know that the homophobes, oops sorry, the people only disagreed with the gay lifestyle when they voted one of our many legal rights away in California on election day, did so as an exercise of disagreement but not homophobia. The end result, no matter how smilingly (and lovingly) these smarmy, sorry excuses for humanity fuck us over, the end result is always the same. We win. You lose.

      When they march out the next proposition to take away yet another legal right we have worked hard to obtain, and you know they will, we can all rest comfortably with the knowledge that it is not going to be taken away as a result of homophobia, but as a result of disagreement. And, that subtle distinction, according to asshats like Darren, makes it alright…and so much the easier to live with. N’est-ce pas?

      Stated in a jocular term we’ve all heard before, “Don’t confuse me with the facts. I’ve already made up my mind.” is what closed-minded people like this are saying. It’s a lose-lose argument and trying to get people like this to see another point of is as effective as pissing on a bonfire. What’s to be gained from it, besides having your own head explode from the frustration and senselessness of arguing with asinine, uneducated, unenlightened ingnoramuses like these who will go to their graves believing that what they believe is the God’s honest truth. And it says so in the Bible!

      It’s not just close to being a Godwin’s law manner of thinking, as an earlier poster stated.

      It IS a Godwin’s law manner of thinking.

      So, in closing I have only one thing left to say to people like Darren.

      I don’t respect your beliefs and I don’t care if you are offended.

      Cheers!

      Feb 13, 2009 at 4:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul Raposo
      Paul Raposo

      What I love about Huckabee, is that he and Palin will split the vote in 2012 and Obama will win a second majority. As long as Huckster–thank you, Conservative Republican–continues to court the religious right and Palin continues to court the center right, all will be right for the Dems.

      Now what I want to know is, why do people like Rosie Perez go on this man’s show and give him legitimacy? It’s the same with Glenn Beck. People who disagree with their views sharing a stage with these people gives them a respectability they don’t deserve

      Feb 13, 2009 at 4:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      Is Palin only considered center-right? Cool, no problem then.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 4:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul Raposo
      Paul Raposo

      Is Palin only considered center-right? Cool, no problem then.

      That’s how she’s trying to present herself now. Apparently she snubbed CPAC which pissed off some Repubs. CPAC is suppose to be the go to event if you want far-right street cred.

      http://tinyurl.com/dko3k4

      Feb 13, 2009 at 4:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • petted
      petted

      2 things – Huckabee thinks having children is so we can ‘train our replacements’, fascist much, it sounds like a lead in to a pro eugenics argument. Secondly does anyone know if Mrs. South Carolina was on his show yet?

      Feb 13, 2009 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      @Paul – Well that crowd is gonna vote for her anyway were she to get the nom. BTW – The title of the link you provided is “Sarah Palin Pulls Out” – LOL. LOVE IT!!

      Feb 13, 2009 at 6:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Buck
      Buck

      You all complain about hate-mongering towards gays? What the heck do you think you are doing here towards Huckabee. Hate speech works both ways, you know.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 7:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rick
      rick

      the ratings for huckabee must be abysmal. they are never touted on drudge. methinks lockup gets a higher rating for msnbc along with whatever crap movie of the week sci fi is showing. he won’t have his show much longer, the only thing it is good for is having on thesame people that have already said the same things on all the other faux news shows along with a little eye candy.

      he got his show simply to get republican talking points out there before the election. idiots in his audiance would ask a prepped question and then it would be off and running the next day on the talk shows on fox and at palin and mccain rallies.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 8:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rick
      rick

      buck, pointing out what the idiot asshole huckabee says is not hate speech.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 8:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kid A
      Kid A

      @Buck: Difference is, we’re not calling him a different class of human, let alone trying to eliminate his natural rights.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 10:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      Darren and Buck sound like co-workers.

      Short on informed opinions and long on criticism of the opinions of others.

      Disingenuous visitors who come to gay sites like Queerty to get on the case of those of us who are protecting ourselves from anti-gay people like Huck, are usually LCR, homophobes who love to kiss the ass of people like Fucka…err., Huckabee, that is.

      They are not “fer”. They are “agin” us.

      Otherwise, they would be drinking their Budweisers and watching sitcoms on cable TV and not giving a good shit, one way or the other.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 11:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      Wow, the ‘phobes are popping up all over the place lately, aren’t they? Let me take a sip of my raspberry soda, light up a smoke, and settle in here for a little bit o’ truth talkin’. You dig?

      I don’t want to step on the fiercely intelligent toes of Paul Raposo, as he’s done a fine job at dissecting Darren’s drivel. But I think there are some valuable lessons that we can learn from our interloper. It is definitely time for V to lay a little vivisection on you about the bigots, the ‘phobes, and other assorted humanoid creatures.

      See, our little (closeted?) friend Darren makes for a perfect case study. Hell, let’s go ahead and throw Bucky in there for good measure, since Darren obviously got the local rodeo enthusiast to chime in and back his ass up. Did I just say “back his ass up?” That was unintentionally amusing, to me at least.

      Anyway, the common denominator amongst all the arguments posed by these semi-sentient life forms appears to be “We don’t hate you, we promise…we just don’t believe you’re as good as we are.” The lives of these beastly boors are so hate-centric, they can’t even recognize it when it’s right in front of them, or especially when it’s right within them.

      Offense intended, but don’t you see how ass-backward your thinking is? We could spend hours alone on your failure to grasp the fundamental concepts of democracy, much less what makes a nation a secular state. But I’m going to stick to the arguments presented for the moment, because, in all honesty, I tend to lose focus once I start off on a rant, and that will give me a framework.

      See, Darren wants to start off by saying Hucka…no, I’m going to call him Twatty, rather than insist on actually typing something ridiculous like his “public” name. Darren says Twatty’s not a bigot. No reason, of course, but he agrees with Twatty so he’s obliged to defend his honour against such a scandalous claim. Here, kids, is your first lesson about the people who hate us: they stick together. That’s a lesson some of us could stand to learn, but I’ll choose to stay on point right now.

      Now, he follows that up by saying that anti-GLBT initiatives (such as Prop. 8, DADT, or DOMA) do not affect the lives of GLBT people. Interesting stance to take, considering that the only reason these initiatives exist in the first place is to hinder or prevent our struggle for equality under the only law that matters in this particular case, the secular one. Here’s lesson number two: These people don’t tend to be incredibly bright. You’ll see how that works against us in a bit.

      Then, Darren tries to reposition himself as being in favour of civil unions. That’s a reasonably moderate view, on the surface, and there are lots of bigots who would say the same thing to try to deflect our righteous anger. But does that statement hold water? Well, it can be tested, easily, by asking a simple question: are you willing to replace marriage with civil unions for yourself and your own kind? I’ll bet you a nickel that the answer coming from the troglodytes’ camp would be an overwhelming “No way!” Gee, Mommy, that sounds an awful lot like “separate but equal,” and wasn’t that already shown to be unworkable (and unconstitutional) way back in the early days of the modern civil rights movement? Lesson three: it’s not about equality, it’s about keeping uppity homos in their place.

      Skipping the whole military issue here, because I don’t think any self-respecting queer should get involved in that mess to begin with, at least not until we’re considered equal citizens everywhere else first.

      Darren then tries to frame the issue as a “disagreement.” “Oh, it’s no big deal…we just disagree on whether you deserve equality and dignity as human beings. It’s just a disagreement.” Lesson numero quatro: they like to word their bigotry in pseudo-friendly terms because it makes them feel less evil.

      So what’s next? I’ll show you the quote. “Hyperbole police, weee-uuu wee-uuu weee-uuu. We need you to pull over. Your rhetoric is nonsensical and almost Godwin-esque.” Good ol’ Darren, a shining example of the theocratic apes at their best. He cannot compose a sensible, rational, intelligent argument in response to the points raised, so he casts his critics as hysterical and laughable. Lesson the fifth: if you can’t outwit the gays, just make fun of them.

      So, then he equates homosexuality with patently dangerous activities like smoking (ahhh…nicotine), drinking, and self-mutilation. Sixth lesson: extremism is as extremism says.

      Here’s one: “I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking here, so I’m just going to presume you are.” First, people who use the word “honestly” in this sense are generally not being honest.

      Honestly.

      Second, by “presuming” that its opponent is joking, the bigot avoids having to offer a reasonable answer to the question. Lesson seven: when in doubt, just laugh.

      Then he continues by twisting reality a little to better suit his own agenda. He tries to convince us that if same-sex marriage were a legally-recognized right, it would force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for people they don’t believe should be allowed to be married. A common red herring, thrown into the mix to trip people up and get them to vote against their conscience. If there has ever been a movement to force churches to marry same-sex partners against their wishes, it’s news to me, but whatever. There’s the eighth lesson: when you’re trying to victimize a group of people, pretend that the outcome you do not desire victimizes you, whether it does or not. Great way to incite at least a temporary stalemate, if not a total victory.

      Then Buck rides in on his painted pony and accuses us of being the real hatemongers, because we dare to express outrage against someone who persecutes us. Lesson (potion?) #9: if all else fails, call the kettle black.

      Now, I’m sure that Darren rereads his words and believes that he is being perfectly logical and reasonable. Funny thing…so did Hitler, and they both make the same kind of sense in actuality.

      “Freedom is free of the need to be free.” George Clinton said that in the immortal Funkadelic track “Free Your Mind and Your Ass Will Follow.” I’ll break it down in simpler terms for any subhumans who happen to be trolling the site at the moment.

      As long as there is even a single right that select groups of people cannot say they enjoy, then no one is free. Period. By not only disallowing access to equal rights, but in the case of California taking them away, you are making millions and millions of people less free under the secular laws of this secular land. If you actively engage in oppressing people, or really, even just endorse it, then you are against freedom, plain and simple. It’s un-American. Creatures like Darren, Bucky, and Twatty are anti-freedom, and thus anti-America.

      There is not a single good reason that this should even be an issue, but the bigots have made sure that it is anyway. Why? Because they can’t stand the fact that we’re getting closer and closer to being able to live open, FREE lives without them being able to stick their noses in our business. It’s not about love, and it’s really not so much about hate…it’s about control. They have it, and we want it. Believe me or not, like my terminology or not, but this, my friends, is a war. And as far as I’m concerned, the good guys (us, in case you were wondering) have had too many casualties at this point. It’s time to up the body count a little. Read that one as a metaphor if you wish. It’s a free country, isn’t it?

      I’m inclined to believe that engaging in a dialogue with the enemy on this issue indirectly implies that we think it should be open to discussion. Believe me when I say that is not something I’m even remotely implying when I dismantle the arguments these alleged “people” present. I firmly believe that the best way to invalidate the enemy is to point out how ridiculous they are. Let’s not forget that “ridiculous” and “ridicule” are linguistic siblings.

      So, Darren, Bucky, Twatty, and everyone else who thinks that GLBT people deserve to be oppressed and victimized because of who they were born to love…

      All y’all muthafuckas can slurp my schlong, bitches.

      Thank you, and goodnight.

      V

      Feb 14, 2009 at 12:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dgz
      dgz

      @Charles J. Mueller:

      i have this theory that there’s some psycho youth group that rotates “missions” to Queerty. there’s an odd regularity to these visits.

      Feb 14, 2009 at 12:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JamesR
      JamesR

      Mike Huckabee: – I tried to post the last link on the last Huckabee post, but it somehow was crippled. More are here, enough I think but not too much. –

      Mike Huckabee Is Not a Sane Man:
      http://www.alternet.org/story/68057/ from 2007

      The Best Moments in Mike Huckabee’s Extremism:
      http://www.alternet.org/story/70229/?page=entire from 2007

      Huckabee Directly Equates Homosexuality With Bestiality:
      http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/huckabee_equates_homosexuality_with_bestiality.php from 2008

      The kicker is this –

      Mike Huckabee’s weight loss scam:
      http://plutarch01.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/new-121007-300pm/ from 2007

      As one would note, researching the bastard, he WROTE A BOOK about loosing weight by bootstrap, not surgery. Investigation does not support this. Therefore a FRAUD. LIAR. Dangerous hypocrite. So he can play music and smile and seem to be your / my friend. So – Would you buy a car from him?

      Never mind his kids are severely warped – Google *huckabee son dog hung trooper* and any can refresh their memory. I did not save the relevant links, it was too disgusting. I was (-am, as one never stops-) a scout and what I read indicates severe damage and familial pathology.

      It stinks. Bad. Let’s keep the freakshows to entertainment will we? Less in the politics.

      Feb 14, 2009 at 12:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Darren:
      Gee, I am a bit late getting in on this one. Darren, I just wanted to correct one of your points.

      Marriage is not nor has it ever been an solely religious institution, and it certainly is not the exclusive property of the Judeo/Christian/Mohammedeans. What do you think the Celts, the Chinese, the Africans and the ancient Americans were doing long before they encountered your tribe? They were creating families according to their own marriage customs – some religious, some not.

      The Bible has some references and rules on the marriage relationship, but nowhere in there does God set down a ceremonial structure that is the divinely-inspired “Right Way”; nowhere does it say that people must be joined together any specific ceremony at all. And there was plenty of variation to the form through the course of the Bible, from polygamy to having children with slaves, scriptural customs which many modern Christians don’t follow literally.

      Most importantly, all marriage is subject to the law of the land. If you want to get technical it is at its core a completely secular institution. You can get married by a priest, but it is a legal contract that can be broken by a magistrate. As a matter of fact I don’t know the fineries of U.S. law but up here in Canada there is virtually no legal difference between common law and contracted marriage relationships.

      Also, you probably know that marriage up here is an agreement between two people, irrespective of gender. That’s the final word from our highest court. Even its strongest opponents realize the change is permanent, even if they don’t like it.

      I would suggest you prepare yourself too because sooner or later your old laws will also go the way of slavery and the refusal to recognize women as human beings (that only changed in the 1920s in Canada).

      Feb 14, 2009 at 2:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @dgz:

      You may well be right on the money, DGZ.

      I’ve noticed that too.

      Feb 14, 2009 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @vernonvanderbilt:

      Once again, I am in dumbstruck awe of your most recent, eloquent editorial.

      Have you ever considered applying for a job writing a daily column for the New York Times? I would surely be one of your faithful readers. :-)

      @strumpetwindsock:

      You’ve obviously done your homework, Charlie Brown and my commendations to you for doing so. I love a man who does his homework and researches his subject matter instead of an asshat who simply states his “beliefs” without a shred of evidence to back up his rhetoric and BS.

      I get so pissed off when I hear these ignert and unedumacated dumb f–ks standing up in front of a battery of cameras and mics, pontificating on how “Marriage if a five-thousand year old Christian Tradition”.

      Every time I hear that shit, all I can think of is Wayne Bessen’s comment in the Salt Lake City Times right after the passing of Prop 8….

      Liar, liar…pants on fire!

      Feb 14, 2009 at 5:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      Oops…typo. “Marriage if” should be “Marriage is”

      Feb 14, 2009 at 5:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @vernonvanderbilt:

      Lowell Thomas’ signature sign-in was “Good evening, everybody”

      what famous news commentator used the signature sign-on that you used “Thank you, and good night”?

      Feb 14, 2009 at 5:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      @Charles J. Mueller: :) I’ve actually wanted to write a newspaper column for the last ten years or so, ever since a controversial stint I had on my high school newspaper. However, it’s hard to get into the biz without a degree these days, and I just happen to lack one. Other than that, I really have no clue where one would start to get into that line of work. I guess I’ll make do with the internet for now.

      As far as the sign-off, I have no idea who used it. It just popped into my head as an appropriately snarky finish.

      Anyway, I do appreciate the kind words, Charles. Most folks just think I’m a little nutty. ;)

      Feb 14, 2009 at 6:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @vernonvanderbilt:

      I’m so sorry to hear that the lack of a degree would bar you from doing the very thing you enjoy and obviously do so well.

      I, in no way, wish to put-down or degrade the value of a degree by saying this, but I sometimes think how sad it is that there are so many asshats out there with degrees, like the crooks on Wall Street and the bloated fat-cat corporate CEOs and Board Directors, who treat themselves to remuneration in the millions, at the expense of people like us who are self-educated and have attended the “school of hard-knocks” and who probably have more common sense in our little fingers than they have in their entire pea-sized brains, as their recently exposed colossal failures and fuck-ups have so adequately illustrated.

      And, it is these so-called educated asshats who look upon and regard us as the dummmies. They are fucking us over in the marketplace and we are obliged to go to them, with hats in hand, begging for a menial job that pays an infinitesimal fraction of what the stuffed shirts pay themselves. Go figure.

      This particular paragraph that I copied and pasted from your exceedingly articulate and well constructed commentary, is a work of journalistic excellence.

      “As long as there is even a single right that select groups of people cannot say they enjoy, then no one is free. Period. By not only disallowing access to equal rights, but in the case of California taking them away, you are making millions and millions of people less free under the secular laws of this secular land. If you actively engage in oppressing people, or really, even just endorse it, then you are against freedom, plain and simple. It’s un-American. Creatures like Darren, Bucky, and Twatty are anti-freedom, and thus anti-America.”

      Bravisimo! Short. Sweet. And to the point!

      Now, what part of this bedrock of truth, do this trio of Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Huck, Buck and Fuck, not get?

      Esperanto, anyone?

      And speaking of Esperanto, here is another little gem of madness committed by people who are fearful of knowledge. It would serve us well, to take note of that common thread among those would would sell anyone’s liberties down the river.

      “Esperantists were executed during the Holocaust, with Zamenhof’s (the creator of Esperanto) family in particular singled out for execution.[9]”

      Further details can be found at…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

      Feb 14, 2009 at 8:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      @vernonvanderbilt – it is never to late to further your educations. I hope all your dreams and aspirations come true. Furthermore, you would probably have more luck in the mean time trying to get published on a well known blog. That’s the great thing about the internet, it is a meritocracy.

      Best of luck to you.

      Feb 15, 2009 at 9:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hairybutt
      hairybutt

      mike bukakkee?

      Feb 16, 2009 at 6:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Victor Vacendak
      Victor Vacendak

      Michelle Goldberg isn’t a conservative, she’s from Salon.com

      Mar 3, 2009 at 5:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.