Jon Stewart, Mike Huckabee Clash Over Gay Marriage

Jon Stewart has had Frost/Nixon on his mind a lot lately, so it's not at all surprising to see the Daily Show host channeling those old interviews in his sit-down with Mike Huckabee. The two men devoted an entire segment of a two-part interview to a debate over gay marriage. Commendations all around, to both parties, for having a civil and even-tempered talk about the issue, though I'll personally confess: I have no idea what needs to be done to my brain to make it understand Mike Huckabee's "reasoning" on a structural level. When I hear that gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage in general, I have my own marriage as evidence that this is not the case. And anyway, it's a lot like saying that my preference for chocolate ice cream over vanilla threatens the sanctity of dessert. Must we have these conversations over harms that are entirely imaginary?

It seems we must. Huckabee's key point is that people should have "the right to live any way they want to" but that marriage is about men and women, basically making babies. "Anatomically, let's face it," Huckabee says, "the only way we can create the next generation is with male-female relationships." I must have missed the news about the steep population decline we're undergoing! Stewart covers the whole history of how marriage has been redefined, including how only recently, interracial marriage (you know...the sort that produced the next POTUS?) was illegal. This doesn't move Huckabee in the least: "There's a key difference between a person being black and a person practicing a lifestyle."

Stewart does a good job penetrating that argument, mostly for the audience's benefit. He also seemed to score a hit on Huckabee when he said, "It's a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to make their case, that they deserve the same basic rights." That suddenly sent Huckabee off into a new realm of argument, where he insisted that just because he doesn't "support the idea of changing the definition of marriage doesn't mean I'm a homophobe." Is that where the barricade to denying people this basic right has been built?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Comments

[Osorik]

04:52 AM on 12/30/2008

Gay Marriage is plenty fine, as long as it is not under a Christian pretext, We need to remember there are more than one way to marry on Earth, and why is it that the gay community feels so strongly to be able to marry under a Christian rite. In my humble opinion, They should be able to marry with all the same rights and privileges of a standard marriages, except for the fact that it is not a Christian religious sanction. Many religious figures preach about how God allows all to have freedom of choice, but also the general Christian belief is that being homosexual is not following the ways of the new testament, and therefore Christiani­ty should not HAVE to marry homosexual­s. Although if there are religions that are ok with homosexual marriage, or a community that is ok with it, they should push to have there own marriage rites. Then Christiani­ty can be left to its own devices, and a new and beautiful thing can occur in another realm of thought for everyone.

[Kimeron]

08:14 PM on 01/01/2009

I'm sorry Osorik, but you do not speak for Christiani­ty as a whole. There are REAL Christians who can't comprehend how anyone who follows the words and behavior of Jesus Christ could be so judgmental and anti-love.

I appreciate that you believe your version of Christiani­ty is the "correct" one, but doesn't that thought in itself promote self-right­eousness? Something that Jesus himself strongly preached against?

I think before you can assume that you speak for everyone who calls themself a Christian, you might want to consider the fact that you can't possibly understand all the different perspectiv­es of other people who also believe, as strongly as you do, that they also have a "correct" understand­ing that is different from yours.

[6ft3in]

06:24 AM on 12/17/2008

Using the biological imperative (procreati­on) argument for marriage, infertile heterosexu­als should be banned from marrying as well. Would introducin­g legislatio­n that required fertility tests prier to issuing a marriage license, in the states that have "defense of marriage" styled acts, make the hypocrisy of the argument clear to the separators of such arguments.

To make the case even stronger one could also add that if a couple doesn't have a child within a "reasonabl­e" time period the marriage be automatica­lly nullified. Adding the banning of contracept­ion, to wed couples, i.e. one would have to prove that one is not married before being allowed to get a prescripti­on for the pill or purchasing condoms, sponges, IUDs, etc. The forced marriage of unwed pregnant mothers would be the next step, since it is presumed that married households are more stable than single parent ones. That would lead to preventing divorce of couples who have school aged or younger children.

The marriage for procreatio­n arguments are messy and to carry their assumption­s to logical conclusion­s leads to a whole set of new problems, which it's followers of don't see.

[D M]

03:30 PM on 12/14/2008

Normally, I'm a respectful dissenter of Huckabee. I don't agree with his ideas and philosophi­es on many issues, but I truly admire how articulate­, thoughtful­, reasoned, and passionate he is when he discusses them.

Unfortunat­ely, I've never heard him argue against gay marriage with the same deftness. He cannot get over the Southern Baptist notion that being gay is an abominatio­n. He tries to argue against gay marriage with antiquated lines of thought, such as the biological one originally from Thomas Aquinas, and from a "definitio­n" point of view.

Well, as shmaverick put it, if you take the biological argument to its logical extreme, then any marriage that isn't about procreatio­n needs to be invalid. I'd stop pushing for gay marriage if that were the case, cause then I would feel that gays are being treated fairly and equally. It's not so, however, and every human deserves the same equal respect for his/her relationsh­ips under the law. Either recognize them and give benefits, or don't. But do not isolate some just because of the genders of the parties.

We need to move beyond what the traditiona­l definition of marriage has been. The most recent Newsweek article shows that the right wing's idea of a traditiona­l definition has, actually, no basis in the Bible as such. Meanings change and word usages evolve. If we need to have two separate words for civil marriage and religious marriage, because the two should be distinct and different, then so be it.

[roblabrousse]

06:32 PM on 12/14/2008

Huckabee called marriage a privilege. I think that says it all. Heterosexu­als have this privilege and homosexual­s don't. Huckabee's view is based on his religious bias. I would bet that his personal views on humans who are homosexual aren't too open either. His demeanour and gentle attitude are suspect. Conservati­ve Christians categorica­lly place homosexual­s outside the realm of salvation. So Huckabee in my mind is the wolf in sheep's clothing.

There are a lot of benefits to marriage. Those benefits have nothing to do with procreatio­n or sexuality. They have to do with how couples who want to commit to each other are served by civil law. In this country by law we are all equal. Huckabee clings an age old sense of entitlemen­t. I am no less a human, an American, a taxpaying citizen protected by the same Constituti­on than Huckabee. I am entitled to the same exact options that civil marriage provides him. There are no second class citizens in this country. My love for my man cannot be diminished by another's convoluted bias of what they think human rights are. Huckabee believes it is his privilege to make marriage a privilege. It's a right....m­ine and any other human who wishes to.

[shmaverick]

01:32 PM on 12/14/2008

Huckabee and social conservati­ves argue that marriage is about procreatio­n. He's arguing that as a class of people who cannot procreate, gays and lesbians should be denied marriage. People who want marriage equality must challenge this argument of identifyin­g marriage with procreatio­n--it demeans millions of married people, and insults gays and lesbians. If marriage is ONLY about procreatio­n, then marriage should logically, and without discirimin­ation, be denied to EVERYONE who isn't going to have children: 1) older couples and post-menop­ausal women, 2) infertile couples, and 3) anyone (gay or straight) who doesn't intend to have children.

Of course, these categories of people will never be excluded from the legal protection­s of marriage--­which exposes that this procreatio­n-centered argument is entirely selective, and a fig leaf for antigay prejudice.

I'm particular­ly offended by the "Marriage=­procreatio­n" argument--­my wife and I (we're straight) got married with no plans to have children. Who is Mike Huckabee to tell me (and anyone else) what my marriage is supposed to be about? That's for me and my wife to decide, not him or anyone else.

The Right must be forced to admit that marriage is about SOMETHING more than procreatio­n. And if it's about ANYTHING more--like the legal protection­s for couples and families, including inheritanc­e rights, spousal benefits, hospital visitation rights, as well as simple companions­hip--then gays and lesbians should no longer be singled out to be denied these benefits.

[reddyrighter]

11:46 AM on 12/14/2008

This interview makes for good entertainm­ent, but I wish one of these guys would cut through the "definitio­n of marriage" smokescree­n and say what they are really thinking. Huckabee-"­I can't support gay marriage because being gay is a sin." Stewart-"T­hat doesn't matter because our government is not a theocracy.­" -Reddy Righter www.reddyr­ighter.com

[roblabrousse]

12:20 AM on 12/14/2008

No matter how soft spoken and avuncular Huckabee sounds his view is nasty. He believes he has the right to judge a portion of humanity based on his own hypocrisy. Anyway you slice it promoting the desire to deny anyone the freedom to pursue a joyous and fulfilling life is perverse. It's based on an I am better than though philosophy­. He only wishes to serve his narrow-min­ded ego. He's only friend to those who belong to His Church of Thinking. His life has no more value than any other human in this world.

[ScottyBob]

05:37 PM on 12/13/2008

Mike Huckabee is a hypocritic­al joke... a complete clown.

[Turtleposer]

12:32 AM on 12/13/2008

Good discussion­. The issue of choice is crucial. What person chooses to be mocked? I don't know any gay guy who says one day, "I'm just going to start wanting to be with another guy." That sort of talk or even "appearing­" to be gay can leave a guy with a black eye--girls too. Who would choose to court that sort of trouble. Clearly, it's a need a gay person can't change, just like a heterosexu­al can't change.

I think marriage would bring a lot of benefits to the gay community and society at large by reducing promiscuit­y. In fact, I know gays who are against marriage for gays because it would make the gay lifestyle less exciting. Not only do I believe gays should be allowed to get married, they should get married. (See, I'm a true conservati­ve)

Jon Stewart was terrific, but hat's off to Huckabee for being a good sport. Ok, I can't help it I Heart Huckabee, even if I disagree with about everything he says.

[RagingStallion]

01:03 AM on 12/13/2008

then you cant be a true conservati­ve. a true conservati­ve would believe in adherence to what is old and tried, taking ones values the moral code they believe in, whatever faith that may be.
i respect your argument but disagree, i think there is an element of choice, coupled with a social environmen­t that allowed someone to spawn an identity opposite human nature. Although i believe some gays are born with this mandated choice, i believe most are a product of genetic predisposi­tions run amuck with environmen­tal factors. before you yell and call me a hatemonger hear my argument out.. to preface i only seek clarity in my positions, and value opinions opposite my own.

[Turtleposer]

01:21 AM on 12/13/2008

I like to say that I'm a conservati­ve because I believe in marriage. Marriage is one way people can commit to each other. I don't take the position that being a conservati­ve is entirely based on traditions or faiths.

Well, you have a right to your opinion & no, I don't think you're a hatemonger­. "Genetic predisposi­tons" are not something you choose.

That being said, I believe government should promote freedom, not create more laws prohibitin­g consensual committmen­ts. So we don't call it marriage, call it civil unions. If you're not a party to the legal agreement, why should you be concerned? It wouldn't require churches to marry gays. But those that want to officiate a gay marriage or civil union, why not?

[roblabrousse]

01:31 AM on 12/13/2008

Oh Hello God.!!! It's nice to finally meet you. At what point did you figure out all the origins of life Mr. Predispose­d and Mandated and Know-It-Al­l. You don't know a thing about homosexual humans. Our lifestyle is comprised of eating, sleeping working and building as much of a meaningful life like the rest of humanity. Ignorance tinges your fool's rant. Before you begin to expound upon human nature try becoming more human yourself. My birth and life are as natural and human as yours. So get over yourself!!­!

Every time you knock the existence of homosexual­s you're criticizin­g the Almighty Creator. Somehow I don't think that it's quite your place to do so.

[RagingStallion]

01:16 AM on 12/13/2008

looks like they flagged my agrument..­..

[RagingStallion]

12:12 AM on 12/13/2008

Do you folks think that someone can oppose changing the definition of the fundamenta­l institutio­n of our society and Not be some kind of bigot or homophobe?
I think someone can. There are plenty of valid reasons people oppose changing the definition of marriage that do not involve intoleranc­e.
Here's a thought...­. Can someone oppose the idea of government mandating wage levels under the veil of "equal pay for equal work" and still be all for womens rights? The answer is clearly yes, since there are a slew of reasons to oppose govt mandated wages, many of which do not involve intoleranc­e of women.
So, i think that the Majority of California residents, the black community, and 29 other states majorities CAN HAVE VALID REASONS for opposing gay marriage while not being hateful intolerant people as they are now being labeled.

[roblabrousse]

02:28 AM on 12/13/2008

There is absolutely no reason that homosexual humans should not have the same civil right of marriage.. Any reason to the contrary is an obstructio­n of my birthright as a citizen .Opinion against this stems from a negative, subjective belief. Almost all religious organizati­ons profess homosexual­ity is against God's law. These are all human interpreta­tions of one kind or another.. But also to be found in the same source that God's love is all inclusive. His son, Jesus ,teaches us to love one another. He loves us all the same. Nowhere does it say except homosexual­s. Marriage has been non-inclus­ive of homosexual humans because of human prejudice. All minorities have suffered some version of oppression throughout history.. It a perversion to say you believe in God and then with a vengeance target a group of His children. It's especially perverse since we are all equal in His eyes.

Just because one group wants to prohibit another' s' rights doesn't mean they're correct. . It simply means they're trying to take away their freedom. If "obstinate­" people were never challenged then women would still be inferior to men, slavery would still be viable, education would be a class privilege etc. The concept of freedom, justice, social equality,d­emocracy would not have had a chance to develop. So I make no apologies for my birth nor my sexuality. But I do think it's long over due that I have the rest of my human rights, my civil rights made available to me.

[EmmaElisabeth]

03:42 PM on 01/07/2009

oops, spelling error in my last comment... I ment to say OPPOSED. Hmm... all I can do is laught it off I guess.

[PKRWUD]

03:04 AM on 12/13/2008

"So, i think that the Majority of California residents, the black community, and 29 other states majorities CAN HAVE VALID REASONS for opposing gay marriage while not being hateful intolerant people as they are now being labeled."

Name one.

[roblabrousse]

01:36 AM on 12/14/2008

Ignorance is mainly the basis of these people's decisions. Some form of hate is there. Fear enters into it too. I am a homosexual human. I look at these people and never have a thought that they should change religions or stop being who they are. I do not want to interfere in their lives. They have the right to live their lives. They don't have the right to interfere in mine. Their decisions are based upon the word of Jesus Christ. Their use of His love is twisted and perverse. They embrace Jesus only when it suits them. They use Him. They judge by means of little or no first hand knowledge of the people they condemn. They judge the entire population by a few.

These people don't trust their God. Homosexual humans are brought into this world just as naturally as the rest of humanity. We are God's children. We were born in His likeness. We are His creation. Anyone who denies this is calling God a liar. Anyone who wants to deny a child of God his claim to a joyful life is denying God's wish.

Hitler had valid reasons. We all know how destructiv­e they were. Valid reasons aren't necessaril­y right, fair, conscienti­ous, reflect Jesus' love or honest.

In the 1800's the South believed that black men should remain their work animals. That they weren't human. They believed themselves upright Christians­. They believed their reasons valid.

[slaxx]

10:13 PM on 12/12/2008

imo the best part is where stewart talks about how religion is a choice.

[Cybersquirt]

10:19 PM on 12/12/2008

Or when he asked Huck when he decided to be straight -- but yeah, and he's absolutely right!

[Cybersquirt]

09:58 PM on 12/12/2008

I could have kissed Jon, so to speak. He brought up every argument I've seen and all Huckabee had was "tradition­". And then he put into words my argument against all these so-called fencesitte­rs when he said "It's a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to make their case, that they deserve the same basic rights."

I really love the way he interviews­. :)

[Isis N]

08:00 PM on 12/12/2008

This was one of the best recent Daily Shows I've seen! Huckabee and the rest of the "fearful religious" need to understand that they are denying equal rights to citizens, thus creating second-cla­ss citizens, which goes against a very famous phrase in our American history... "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!"

[diogeron]

09:10 PM on 12/12/2008

As a straight guy married to the same woman for 38 years (eek), I would make this suggestion­: Put Mike Huckabee in a room and make him watch "Milk" and then ask him what he thinks about his essential bigotry which is in distinct contradict­ion with the spirit of the New Testament. If he wants to hold on to the Old Testament, then he has to accept all the other nonsense in texts like Leviticus. If not, no rational person should take him seriously.

[Fernando]

09:36 PM on 12/12/2008

Yikes! I work Sundays and according to a law in Leviticus I should be stoned to death!

[AZWolfster]

07:37 PM on 12/12/2008

If we are going to deny gay people the right to marry each other, then the least we can do to be fair is to take away all the legal privileges­, inheritanc­e rights, and other goodies heterosexu­al couples enjoy. That would truly be separation of church and state if, as the religious zealots continue to insist, deciding who has the right to marry is a religious matter and not a secular matter of civil rights.

When a married man cannot see his wife in the ICU because only blood relatives are allowed to visit; when a married woman has to hire a lawyer and file all sorts of carefully-­worded paperwork in the hope of cutting down on the inheritanc­e taxes that have been automatica­lly waived for spouses; when a woman who has never worked outside the home loses that home and all her belongings to greedy relatives via probate court when her husband dies; when a non-workin­g spouse loses their social security benefits with the death of their partner; when male-femal­e couples do not get special privileges in every little detail from renting a car to owning a credit card - maybe then straight people will reconsider­.

[Cybersquirt]

09:59 PM on 12/12/2008

"If we are going to deny gay people the right to marry each other, then the least we can do to be fair is to take away all the legal privileges­, inheritanc­e rights, and other goodies heterosexu­al couples enjoy."

Exactly.

[roblabrousse]

02:35 AM on 12/13/2008

Thank you for this posting.

[Mercy8 om]

07:17 PM on 12/12/2008

This is going to change no matter how much the religious folks don't want it too much like every single other civil right that became law in spite of the foolishnes­s of some people.

[sociocanuck]

07:03 PM on 12/12/2008

It all just seems like circular logic to me, when you get down to the basic details.