Culture Ethics Institutions Politics

Mike Huckabee calls on states, governors to resist upcoming Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, shown here in August 2014, warned Iowa evangelicals in April that Christianity was being "criminalized." Photo by Religion News Service photo by Adelle M. Banks Photo taken: Aug. 22, 2014
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee speaks during a recent National Press Club news conference for the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. Religion News Service photo by Adelle M. Banks

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee speaks during a recent National Press Club news conference for the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. Religion News Service photo by Adelle M. Banks

NEW YORK (RNS) Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a likely contender for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination and a leading voice for Christian conservatives, said Thursday (Jan. 22) that governors and state legislatures should consider ways to resist a Supreme Court decision that recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.

Huckabee likened such a ruling to the notorious Dred Scott case before the Civil War in which the Supreme Court said African Americans couldn’t be citizens. Pushing back against such an opinion “is not without historical and judicial precedence,” he said in an interview promoting his new book, “God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy,” published Wednesday (Jan. 21) by St. Martin’s Press.

‘We have a constitutional amendment in our constitution,” he said on USA Today’s Capital Download. “Do we want to hold to that? Do we want to put it before a referendum of the people?’ I mean, there are a lot of different angles to pursue it. (Or) you could just surrender and say, ‘OK, we just agree that the court is right.’ ”

Whatever the legal basis for Huckabee’s stance — and constitutional scholars question whether there is one — as a political matter his fervent opposition all but guarantees that the issue of gay marriage will be prominent in the GOP presidential debate. While other leading contenders also oppose gay marriage, some of them, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, have said court decisions recognizing the right make it a settled question.

Huckabee disagrees.

“Rather than just immediately capitulate to nine people in robes, and what it will probably be is five people in robes against four people who disagree … then you have a very, very divided court,” he told the weekly newsmaker series. “Do we really surrender the entire American system of government to five people, unelected, appointed for life, with no consequences for the decisions they make? The founders never intended for there to be such incredible, almost unlimited power, put in the hands of so few people.”

But Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Law School, Irvine, said states would have no options if the Supreme Court decided that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the Constitution.

“There have been efforts by states to circumvent or ignore Supreme Court decisions, most notably the intense Southern resistance to Brown v. Board of Education and desegregation,” Chemerinsky said. “The Supreme Court made it clear that its ruling was the law of the land. This will be no different.”

The issue has been joined, he noted. “Already, marriage equality exists in 36 states, mostly because of court decisions, and there has not been the type of resistance Huckabee suggests.”

Still, it is a sign of Huckabee’s appeal to the evangelical Christians who are among the GOP’s most loyal voters that his new book immediately shot to No. 1 in sales among political books on Amazon and into the top 100 among books of all sorts. In his folksy, conversational style, he unfavorably contrasts New York, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. — places he dubs “Bubble-ville” — with those from the heartland, which he dubs “Bubba-ville.”

At one point in the book, he discussed how “goooood” it is to eat game. “I’m sorry if that sounds cruel to any vegan readers,” he added. “(And are there any? Raise your hands, if you have the strength.)”

In the interview, Huckabee also:

  • Acknowledged he was likely to make his second bid for the White House. He also ran in 2008. “If everything continues to work well and I sense that there is, say, the proper financial and political support, then I think it’s a given that that’s where the destination is.”
  • Predicted former president Bill Clinton would be an asset to his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, if she runs for the Democratic nomination. “I mean, he had a good presidency. I’m a Republican but I admire good governing.”
  • Dismissed as overblown a furor over comments in his new book criticizing Beyonce and Jay-Z for using sexually explicit lyrics, and the president and first lady for allowing their daughters to listen to them. “I do think they’re good parents,” he said of the Obamas, adding he has some of Beyonce’s songs on his iPhone.

(Susan Page writes for USA Today.)

YS END PAGE

About the author

Susan Page

56 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • We have a constitutional amendment in our constitution,”

    Its called the 14th Amendment. It mentions equal protection under the law. Something Mr. Huckabee clearly does not believe in.

    “Do we really surrender the entire American system of government to five people, unelected, appointed for life, with no consequences for the decisions they make? ”

    Worked for 200+ plus years. He certainly didn’t object to the Hobby Lobby or Greece v. Holloway decisions as being an attack on the American system of government.

    Mr. Huckabee needs a remedial civics class. He obviously does not understand the system he was only a small part of.

  • The constitution and over 200 years of jurisprudence define our system of government. Marbury v. Madison, anyone?

    Why does the Huckster hate America and our constitution? Oh, that’s right. Because theocracy and the rules of law are incompatible– unless he law enshrines theocracy.

  • He should promote God’s kingdom or heavenly government instead as the ONLY HOPE for mankind, which is what Jesus, his disciples, apostles and first-century Christians did (Matthew 4:17; Acts 1:3; 8:12; 2 Timothy 4:18; Revelation 1:6).

    He will evidently be very disappointed when God’s government soon puts an end to all human governments and rules in their place and stead with love, righteousness and justice over mankind on earth (Daniel 2:44; Isaiah 11:1-9).

    But I will definitely be a happy camper when that happens!!

  • Like all fierce ideologues, Shucksabee condemns Supreme Court rulings that don’t go his way as “bad law,” but supports those he personally approves of (e.g. the Hobby Lobby & Citizens United decisions) and will praise SCOTUS to high heaven for having issued them.

    This makes him a hypocrite. Which wouldn’t really be all that unusual, since most people are hypocrites. Unfortunately, though, he’s a Christian — and an ordained minister at that — and hypocrisy was explicitly forbidden to him by his own Jesus (http://www.earlychristianhistory.net/extras/hypocrisy.html).

    In this case he’s exhibiting more than a little immaturity by condemning a decision even before it’s been made. Waah waah waah, little Shucksabee. Waah waah.

  • With no consequences for the decisions they make…

    Huckabee is like a logarithmic clock. Every once in a great while, he actually tells the truth, though not usually HIS truth. There are no consequences for gay people getting married, except for us, our families, and our churches and temples.

    Well, I guess there is one or two for hucksters like The Huckster. They lose dominion over our lives, and once again put themselves on the side of prejudice and regression.

  • Larry,

    State sodomy laws were on the books at the time of the crafting of the 14th Amendment. And nowhere did they mention that this amendment applied to the States and their sodomy laws. Do we really just accept a novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment by the supreme court, without looking at the decades of tradition that has been the standard for over two centuries? Things are not supposed to be changed willy nilly in this country. The states, in looking at it from a psychological perspective, must consider a decision to allow gay marriage from the supreme court to be a rabid deviation from the norm. I guess we’ll have to see how Kennedy rules on this one.

  • Oh, good. so you also believe that the second amendment only applies to muskets and single shot pistols!

  • “Things are not supposed to be changed willy nilly in this country.”

    I know what you really want to say is that “things are not supposed to change at all in this country,” but nothing about this particular change has been “willy nilly.”

    “The states, in looking at it from a psychological perspective, must consider a decision to allow gay marriage from the supreme court to be a rabid deviation from the norm.”

    Here’s definitive proof you know nothing about this issue, and care even less about the truth. The idea, not so subtly implied here, that homosexuality is a perversion, “a rabid deviation from the norm,” has been rejected for quite a long time now, by professional psychological associations among others. Yet you bring up this tired slander as some kind of self-evident–and novel!–fact. ‘If the legislators and judges would just look at this from a *psychological* perspective, why they’d agree with me! Gosh, ain’t I smart!’ So you are either being dishonest or are willfully naive about the lives of gays and lesbians.

  • Huckabee’s right, Larry. Options may be limited now, but there’s NO reason to surrender to the gay marriage cult. In our state, in the 2014 elections, we at least got rid of the state-level Democrat candidates who had sold their rotten souls to the Gay Marriage Cult for 30 worm-eaten pieces of silver.

    Sure, sure, getting rid of them won’t stop the Supreme Court from doing their thing soon. It’s a losing battle for Christians. Because after all, America’s last chance to get it right was in the 2012 elections, and America’s Christians blew their own future straight to Hades by voting for Mr. Gay Marriage Obama.

    But by getting it right at the state level during the 2014 midterms,
    (1) it did send the Supremes a new message that Obama and his gay activists don’t speak for the people of our state, and
    (2) it did slow down the gay marriage train in our state (to a degree) AND temporarily protected Christian small business owners and church-related businesses/schools, until the actual final USSC decision is made. At least the Christians get a little grace time to prepare for Nero’s bonfire.

    So it was worth it to fight back against the minions of gay marriage. In fact, it still is worth it to do so, even AFTER the Supremes do their thing. Nobodyy is obligated to vote for Gay Marriage Cult candidates, at ANY time. Please vote against ANY gay marriage candidates, no matter what party they are with.

    Finally, the gay activist Andrew Sullivan advised “one mind, one heart, one life at a time”, and that has been a good winning strategy for the gay activists. NOW it’s time for the Christians to start using that same strategy for victory (because after all, that’s pretty much all the Christians will have left once the Supremes are done).

  • “It’s a losing battle for Christians.”

    Poor, deluded Antony with his laughable, self-congratulatory handle “Doc.” It’s not a losing battle for Christians, hoss. It’s a losing battle for bigots. Period. Christians didn’t lose in 1865. Or 1965. Or 1967. And they aren’t losing now. Hating gayz and loving Jesus aren’t the same thing, no matter how twisted these ideas have become since your mind was darkened by idolatry. Like other bigots, you’ll either get over same-sex marriage or you won’t. Either way, the Christian faith will go on.

  • Eric:

    The Natural Law is what our governmental laws were based upon, and the Natural Law is clear: man, and not animals, have perverted the design of nature. I find the gay lifestyle to be repulsive, and grotesque (to say the least).

  • Greg,

    Your last sentence renders the rest of your sentences, and the dubious claims they contain, pointless to engage.

  • Greg, there is no rational or secular purpose behind sodomy laws.
    There wasn’t any back then either. The SCOTUS case which first discussed it punted the issue on Federalism grounds. The last refuge for avoiding a discussion on the facts. This is why Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 was able to boot the prior precedent so easily.

    You have things reversed. Things do not stand unless there is a reason for doing so. Change over time is the norm. Moaning about change and keeping tradition is begging the question. Unless the “tradition” serves a purpose, it can be tossed away.

    Its a deviation from the “norm” so what? There is no reason why it shouldn’t. You have no rational and secular purpose for banning such changes. All you are saying is you don’t have a substantive argument on the subject. Its much easier than admitting your POV is entirely guided by prejudices.

  • Huckabee is a hypocrite, a liar and a bigot. As are you. There is no rational and secular purpose behind a gay marriage ban. Without one, it has no business standing. SCOTUS is going to tear them down. You know its inevitable. So to save face you want to make a collateral attack on Judicial Review in general.

    You are on the wrong side of history. In 40 years the Christian conservatives are going to take credit for marriage equality.

  • I gave your comment some thought, Pan. I probably will edit things a bit differently next time, something like “worm-eaten Democrat candidates who sell their worm-eaten souls” and stick to the normal phrase “for 30 pieces of silver.”

    Goodness, these worms just love to munch on liberats, it would seem !!

  • That’s an odd phrase, isn’t it Larry? “The wrong side of history.” I’ve noticed the gay activists using it a lot these days to sell their beloved gospel of gay marriage. Don’t wanna be on “the wrong side of history”, they keep warning folks.

    But what if God actually exists? Wouldn’t it stand to reason that HE would get to say what the right or wrong side of history is? Could it be that a society that spits in God’s face, and flaunts their defiance and disobedience of God’s standards, has a far GREATER chance of being on the wrong side of history? I think the answer is “Yes.”

    Those are just some questions that could be asked about your phrase “the wrong side of history.” They’re not designed to promote bigotry, but merely to get people to think (while there’s still time).. What if legalized gay marriage is the absolute wrong side of history?

    Meanwhile, here’s “a rational and secular reason” that you were asking about. “(Heterosexual marriage} provides an ideal scenario for parents and children. Not every individual or individual couple lives up to the ideal, of course, but the ideal remains effective nonetheless —-except, of course, in societies that are breaking up.”

    — Paul Nathanson (who is homosexual, by the way) and Katherine Young, scholars at McGill University, Canada, from “Answering Advocates Of Gay Marriage.” (2003)

  • So, Eric, do you consider the words of the New Testament, such as 1 Cor. 6:9-11, to be “bigotry” and “idolatry” as well?

    9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [effeminate, nor homosexuals,

    10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

    11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

  • Poor Doc Delusion, yammering away with the same ol homophobe song and dance. Not that you care a whit about history or reason or truth, let me just note how unconvincing your comments are, and must be even to yourself. Trying to grab any “argument” against gay marriage and families, no matter how easily debunked, is a sign of ad hoc justification. Trying to scare people with self-serving rhetoric about defying God’s standards and the wrath that invokes is just a sign of desperation.

    All of your “if”s are wishful thinking. All of the *reasons* same-sex marriage was thought to be wrong have been exposed for the limited cultural assumptions they are. Understandings of marriage as a permanent, monogamous commitment between two adults have been articulated, often in traditional theological terms. Marriage equality is not on the wrong side of history or of God’s will. How could freeing people from unfounded prejudice to make a commitment that reflects God’s own commitment to the Church be wrong?

    You’ve got nothing left and you know it so you resort to making apocalyptic threats, which you want to trump the merely historical shame of moral cowardice. Your own, that is.

  • A dubious claim about natural law, and animals,and man, to put it mildly, and which is a purely catholic concept, not a constitutional one. Who knew that natural lawman responsible for slavery, freedom of religion, and corporate welfare.

    however, I do wish to thank you for finally admitting that it is not God, or law, or concern for families, or anything else that you claim motivates you, but simply plain old bigotry, which I find repulsive and grotesque…

    To say the least.

  • Tony, please. Just…please. The exegetical arguments about any or all of the verses that talk about same-sex sex have long been discussed and debated. Interpretations that point out the cultural assumptions in those texts have been around for, well, probably at least twenty years now. I’m almost positive you’ve read some of them in comment threads like this.

    So, your questions are either painfully ignorant or willfully naive. You don’t care, though. You just want to keep reanimating zombie arguments about the Bible so you can pretend you still have a perspective that deserves to be seriously considered. But no, Paul’s statement is not idolatrous, even if it depends on the bigoted cultural views of his day about sex and gender.

    No, what’s idolatrous is to know that ideals about gender and sex are culturally created and *then* insist they be treated as fixed, eternally-valid, and divinely-ordained realities. That’s putting something man-made in the place of God. That’s idolatry.

  • Just trying to be helpful, Doc. I know you like to err on the side of bombast, but you were getting mighty close to purple prose with that one. And you know purple is just a shade or three away from…LAVENDER!

    I don’t know of any worms that eat people who are alive. They do eat corpses, of course, and I don’t think they much care about the corpse’s former political stances. I hear they can’t wait for that plus-sized gay-hater, Maggie Gallagher, to kick the bucket. She’ll be a veritable feast!

  • @Eric:

    “The exegetical arguments about any or all of the verses that talk about same-sex sex have long been discussed and debated.”

    True. And in what way does the mere existence of an opposing view rebut Doc’s position?

    “Interpretations that point out the cultural assumptions in those texts have been around for, well, probably at least twenty years now.”

    True that. And they were certainly nowhere to be found when those texts were written, nor in the two millenia following. So the existence of new interpretations establishes what, exactly?

    “You just want to keep reanimating zombie arguments about the Bible so you can pretend you still have a perspective that deserves to be seriously considered.”

    Doc’s are not “zombie arguments” and you have yet to show why they “do not deserve to be seriously considered.” Indeed, precious little has been shown as to why the opposing arguments deserve to be seriously considered.

    “You just want to keep reanimating zombie arguments about the Bible so you can pretend you still have a perspective that deserves to be seriously considered.”

    “No, what’s idolatrous is to know that ideals about gender and sex are culturally created and *then* insist they be treated as fixed, eternally-valid, and divinely-ordained realities. That’s putting something man-made in the place of God.”

    “Divinely ordained” is EXACTLY how Jesus described ideals about gender and sex, and marriage. Try again.

  • Sorry, Shawnboy, I’m not doing your homework for you. Like the deluded Doc, you seem to think if you just keep ignoring or denying counterarguments and keep insisting your perspective deserves attention by repeating tired assumptions and talking-points, then there’s still a chance your views are correct. But I’m not going to give your perspective that much credit. And I’m not certainly not going to write a monograph’s worth of ideas and facts you can find elsewhere just to have you gainsay it all with redundant questions.

  • Larry,

    What is a prejudice? Prejudice is the act of being anchored in unreasonable preconceived notions. I would state that my aversion to homosexuality is not unreasonable. Psychiatrists classified homosexuality as a “disorder” up until 1973. And prior to that, it has always been understood as either a disorder, or an aberration, which deviates from the Natural Order, or Nature itself. The sodomy laws simply put into law sins against Nature–and, in many ways, not much different than our Government establishing Green laws in our day. As far as legitimizing the disorder of homosexuality, well, that has had, and will continue to have, a destructive force upon society at large. In fact we can see the spillover effect, where weak minded people become victims to societal trends. How does one twin brother “become” a homosexual, and the other a heterosexual? That is a societal effect, not a genetic thing. If we were to be true to the evolution model, then we would have to conclude that homosexuality would become extinct at some point, as these people cannot reproduce naturally, and the genes would be eliminated from the model. However, in our day, when homosexuality is being “normalized,” we see an increase in homosexuality, we see women leaving their families to marry other women. So homosexuality is either a learned thing, or there is something in our food and water that is having a transitional effect on people. But back to the sodomy laws, I myself don’t believe in sodomy laws, but I am clearly against normalizing homosexuality, especially to the point of allowing gay marriage.

  • “Natural order” is just a catchall for things you can’t produce a rational explanation to justify. It was a junk phrase even in Aquinas’s day.

    You have no rational or secular argument to make for criminalizing sodomy. So you are relying on begging the question. “Natural law” means nothing more than, “because I say so”. Always has been. Its why it is never used as a legal argument in our nation for justifying laws under the 14th amendment.

    You have no argument to make why a normally permissive right, to be married needs to be restricted as such. In the case of all marriage laws, a union will be allowed unless there are rational and secular reasons against it. Such is the case with any “slippery slope” argument the anti-gay nabobs dredge up.

    Procreation is not the purpose of marriage nor is natural procreation given priority in any way under the laws. As a married couple’s child by any legal means is considered theirs, biology is not relevant. It has no rational relation to a gay marriage ban either. You are taking away a right for unrelated causes.

    Your argument against homosexuality being “normalized” simply means you want a right to act maliciously towards gays. Its a right nobody has to consider. There is no socially redeeming public interest in doing so.

    You have this fantasy that people will suddenly turn gay once such things are legal. Newsflash, they were gay before, they will be gay after. You sound like someone who is deeply in the closet and fears that the lack of discrimination against gays will be far too great a temptation for you. Straight people will continue to get married. Gays will get married as well. They will raise families.

    Most importantly, being such a dishonest person that you are, you completely ignore the fact that several states and countries had marriage equality for some time. Unless you could point to specific harms caused by it in those places, you are full of crap. Treating gay marriage as a hypothetical when the real thing is already implemented.

    So in short, you are an irrational and dishonest bigot who wants their view given color of law. You wrote a lengthy response and avoided answering my simple question about rational and secular arguments REQUIRED for a law to pass muster under equal protection challenges. .

  • Oh I’ve already seen how averse your side is to homework. Maybe one day one of you who isn’t so averse to it will show up and there can be a real discussion of the subject minus the put-downs and posturing.

    A word to the wise, Eric — homework is good for you.

  • ““(Heterosexual marriage} provides an ideal scenario for parents and children.”

    Except it doesn’t justify a gay marriage ban. It is not rationally related to the law. Its also incorrect and begging the question.No reason against gay marriage at all. Studies showed that gay couples may actually be better at raising children due to the lack of “accidental” children

    To ban something you have to have a reason AGAINST it.
    An alternative which is comparable is not a reason. You have to show why gay marriage in of itself, on its own facts cannot be allowed. Not that something is better in your mind. You are engaging in irrational Zero-sum thinking.

    As for your arguments about God’s law. I don’t give a flying crap, nor do I ever have to. Its why secular arguments are absolutely necessary for justifying our laws. That is the advantage of religious freedom. Never being compelled to accept someone else’s religious beliefs as the basis of laws of the land.

    “What if legalized gay marriage is the absolute wrong side of history?”

    Well then, you would have gotten concrete examples of why marriage equality was so wrong from the various states and countries which had it. Some had it for a long time.

    But you don’t.

    Nobody with your POV does.

    Treating the subject as hypothetical, despite it being implemented all around the country and the world, renders your arguments irrational and nonsensical.

    Maybe next time you want to think things through when you attempt to answer my claim about the lack of rational and secular arguments in your view.

  • Kudos to Larry for taking on your tired cliches, Greg. Because anyone who says this –“I would state that my aversion to homosexuality is not unreasonable”–after saying this– “I find the gay lifestyle to be repulsive, and grotesque (to say the least)”–doesn’t really deserve to be taken seriously.

  • Thanks to the 1st Amendment, nobody has to care what the Bible says when it comes to justifying laws of the land. Your sect may forbid homosexuality, but others do not. Many of those sects are Christian (whether you chose to acknowledge them or not).

    Shawnie and Doc, nobody elected you Pope of all Protestant sects. Nobody has to accept your take on Biblical scripture as the sole one for the 500+ sects of Christianity which lack central authority. Plenty of Christian sects do not justify bigotry against gays. Just because you want to deny they are “really Christian” doesn’t mean squat.

  • Shawn, I’m almost positive you’ve read, in comment sections like this, detailed and reasoned responses to almost every talking-point you mentioned in your first response to me. So, like I said, I’m not doing your homework for you, no matter how many silly comments you make about “my side.”

    I will, however, give you an assignment: go read Matthew Vines’s God and the Gay Christian, and James Brownson’s Bible, Gender, and Sexuality, Mark Achtemeir’s The Bible’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage, and, for extra credit, Dale Martin’s Sex and the Single Savior, and Bernadette Brooten’s Love Between Women. When you’ve read and understood their arguments, can represent their points fairly and engage them charitably, and can articulate rebuttals that involve arguments rather than assertions–then, maybe, we can talk.

  • Larry,

    I did not have a reply option to your question (below), so I will answer it here. If your argument is equal rights, supposedly broadly conferred by the 14th Amendment, then why can I not marry two women? Why can I not marry my sister? Why can I not marry my mother? Why can I not marry my father? Why? The 14 Amendment has built in limits. If I truly loved my mother, then why can’t I marry her? That would be equality in its highest form. The answer is that society has to have limits that are built in for the common good. And homosexual marriage is opposed to the common good, just as marrying my mother would be opposed to the common good.

  • Eric,
    We all have an immediate negative response to things we know are wrong, and that is called conscience. If we keep convincing ourselves that something which wounds our conscience is okay, and not wrong, then we get to the point where we deaden our consciences. And that is the point where many Americans have gotten to in our day. The problem is we have gotten to the point where Isaiah 5:20 has come to be. And I’ve said this before, and will say it one more time. We ALL will stand before Truth some day, and be asked why we deadened our consciences, and not followed them when we were given the grace to discern properly.

  • Greg, like Antony and others here, you keep repeating ideas as if they’ve never been addressed. Like the intuitive correctness of our “consciences.” Like the scare-figure of moral anarchy and national decline. Like the threat of final judgment. None of these amount to a reasonable view about same-sex marriage or sexual morality in general. And they certainly aren’t adequate responses to those who’ve questioned these ideas. I mean, your claim about “conscience” is absurd on its face and hardly Christian.

    No Christian who believes in original sin can believe our consciences are reliable moral guides. No one who is honest about history can believe that people naturally, intuitively do what is right rather than what is in their own, immediate self-serving interests. And no one who loves his/her neighbor as his/her self can ignore what the consciences of gays and lesbian and their allies say about discrimination and bigotry, or about their own love of God and others.

    If anyone is denying the power of grace to redeem our sinful perceptions and to discern properly, it is Christians who let their admitted phobias and disgust dictate their “morals.”

  • Eric:
    Conscience is the first warning that something is very wrong. Anyone who truly desires to follow the Lord (this is a Religion website last time I checked), will be sensitive to his/her conscience. If gay marriage is being justified because a “loving relationship” is supposedly in place, then I should be able to marry my mother if I so choose. So my question to you is, why can I not marry my mother? How is it the State can say no to that if a loving relationship is in place? Help me understand this.

  • Greg, please spare us and yourself these ridiculous hypotheticals that you desperately hope will function as reductio arguments against same-sex marriage. Answers to your silly example of marrying your mother are widely available. I suggest reading Andrew Sullivan’s arguments for same-sex marriage in this case. Just because the state should not discriminate on the basis of gender/sexuality when it comes to marriage, does not mean that the state must allow anyone to marry anyone they wish just because they want to do so. Sorry, but no apocalypse, no moral anarchy follows from allowing people of the same sex to make an exclusive commitment to one another. Same-sex marriage is a profoundly conservative idea.

  • Eric,

    By stating that marrying my mother would be ridiculous renders you intolerant, and bigoted. You need to be open to ALL LOVING RELATIONSHIPS as valid and worthy of marriage. The same goes for if I want to marry not only my mother, but also as many of my family members as I choose. And we all will demand full tax credit for our Loving Marriage. You need to be more open minded.

  • @Larry: My comments here are not concerned with the law. You’re intruding into an intra-church exchange again.

    @Eric: I am familiar with Matthew Vines’ arguments, and those of more gay christian apologists than I care to remember. I would actually love to find a plausible argument for reconciling homosexual practice with biblical Christianity. The problem is, there isn’t one that makes any sense. Just like “all roads lead to Rome,” all of these arguments lead directly back to one John Boswell, who unfortunately spent his entire professional life trying to reconcile his own homosexuality with Catholicism. He didn’t make his case among his peers, of course, and gay atheists utterly despised him, but gay christian apologists latched on to his ideas without much regard for their accuracy–or more importantly, their lack thereof.

    What makes this subject such a dead end around here is that virtually nobody who champions this view is prepared to take each of these arguments one by one and explain why they buy it from a historical and scriptural standpoint, or conversely why they do not feel that the opposing arguments are supported. They simply point to the existence of the arguments, throw out a few personal insults to go with them, and think they’ve somehow made their case. Sorry but that doesn’t cut it. That’s just nuh-uh/uh-huh. Oh well, maybe someday.

  • Greg, that’s another effort at a reductio, this time mocking (your impression of) pro-gay marriage rhetoric. Hence it has meaning only in your bubble of willful misunderstanding. Either find and address actual arguments about why allowing same-sex marriage does not entail allowing human-toaster marriages and other anti-gay phantasms, or be ignored.

  • Shawn, that’s a nice self-description there, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And, in light of your ill-informed comment about the continued influence of John Boswell, I send you back to your homework. Clearly you have not done all of your reading, much less shown yourself capable of understanding and fairly representing the ideas contained therein. Like I said, I’m not repeating a book’s worth of ideas and arguments in a comment thread when that perspective is readily available elsewhere. Get back to us when you’ve done your work.

  • “… then why can I not marry two women? Why can I not marry my sister? Why can I not marry my mother? Why can I not marry my father? Why? ”

    But that was not my argument. I wasn’t talking about equal rights. I was talking about equal protection. Meaning the government has to justify why some situations get protected by law and some are banned. You obviously have trouble working off script and didn’t read my response. I was saying that you need rational and secular reasons to ban gay marriage. Unlike those slippery slope analogies which have rational and secular arguments against them.

    There are no rational and secular arguments against incest?

    Really?

    Are you trying to insult my intelligence?

    Anyone off the top of their head can find two. Issues of causing severe damage to bloodlines and issues of consent/power come to mind. But that is because I am looking at a situation sanely and not relying on a ridiculous canned argument.

    “No Christian who believes in original sin can believe our consciences are reliable moral guides. ”

    Which is why so many Christians engage in immoral, malicious and harmful behavior and write it off as being done on God’s behalf. Your take on Christian morality is a relativistic swamp of excuses. Any act, no matter how atrocious can be excused. You are saying “True Christians” are sociopaths on a divine leash. Without God looking over their shoulders, they will run amok. They should seek professional help. Given such views they are a dangerous bunch.

  • Not enough to call me ill-informed, Eric. It is meaningless bluffing and posturing (depressingly common around here) without a description of specifically HOW I am uninformed.

    Go on, knock yourself out. Show us some of those ideas that I don’t understand but you do, of course.

  • No, Shawn, I will not write your term paper for you. Read for yourself. Then you’ll see how ill-informed you are. Because neither Vines nor any of the other authors I instructed you to study depend on the arguments of Boswell. Until then, I repeat my assignment, noting that you must complete all the steps to receive full credit:

    When you’ve read and understood their arguments, can represent their points fairly and engage them charitably, and can articulate rebuttals that involve arguments rather than assertions–then, maybe, we can talk.

  • Someday, Greg, you will be intellectually honest and just admit that you hate and/or despise gay people. You have gotten close a few times, but you always prefer to come up with some “facts” to justify it.

    Your “twin” argument, of course, ignores bisexuality, the nature of identical twins, epigenetics, and a host of other scientific facts, logic, and experiences. Here’s Francis Collins, head of the NIH, head of the human genome project, and big time evangelical.

    “It troubles me greatly to learn that anything I have written would cause anguish for you or others who are seeking answers to the basis of homosexuality. The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book “The Language of God” (pp. 260-263), but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.

    The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.

    Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.”

    So, who am I going to believe? a real scientist, or an anonymous guy on the Internet who cherry picks his “facts” to support his admitted prejudices.

  • So, doc, when are you going to jump on Greg for his destructive to society comments? Sounds like reviling to me.

  • So, nothing to offer, huh? I didn’t think so.

    You remind me of another gay apologist who used to drop in here from time to time called CarrotCakeMan. He was always replete with personal attacks and vague assertions about “modern scholars” but would disappear quickly and quietly whenever called on to defend his positions directly and specifically.

    Oh well, the invitation still stands if you change your mind and decide to read up.

  • Shawn, I’ve done my reading, which you know, since you keep insisting I let you copy my notes. Sorry, ain’t happening. Your assignment stands:

    When you’ve read and understood their arguments, can represent their points fairly and engage them charitably, and can articulate rebuttals that involve arguments rather than assertions–then, maybe, we can talk.

  • Doc Anthony,

    Fantastic post. But trying to reason with the rabid anti-Christian mind is as futile as trying to separate a heroin addict from free heroin. Let nature take its course. And of course, following your great advice is key. The degenerate will never rise above their chosen fate. We are looking at the children of Nero. And Christians came FROM that debauched world. This is nothing more than history repeating itself. And when the secular society sinks once again into the abyss of sexual horrors, The Church will still be in business.

    Read the book of Jude. He is showcasing that the same kind of people that cruise the denominations now and promote homosexuality and every other connected liberal-behavior and theology. . . were present in his day. Of course. I like Mike Huckabee and most other “conservative” Christians like him. But they would be better off proclaiming the Truth by behavior and deed and allow those crushed by the constant nature of the debauched and debauchery find the solace of The Church once again. This is just humanity choosing what it always does.

    History is not over until Christ says so.

  • To Mike Huckabee and every other Christian that stands for the Truth:

    Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam

  • Mr. Huckabee excludes himself from being president of the United States by his own words. He is urging other public officials to violate their oaths of office. If Mr. Huckabee does not want to uphold the principles of the U.S. Constitution, then you’d think he’d remove himself from any queue of Republican politicians running for any and all public offices. It is just WRONG for Huckabee and similar Tea-publican types to cloak themselves in the First Amendment as well as claim they are really fighting for freedom of religion. They are bullies trying to force a majority to follow their view of the world — and are, in fact, trying to create a view of God/a Supreme Being formed in THEIR image an likeness, rather than working so that their lives are reflective of what God/a Supreme Being is. Same approach used by ISIS — without the beheading.

ADVERTISEMENTs