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

[elwoodey]

If the basic purpose of a marriage is to procreate, we need to deny marriage to
women with dysfunctional ovaries, men with low sperm counts, all women of
postmenopausal age and especially to to all couples who simply choose
not to have children.
If we are going to be ignorant, let's be ignorant acoross the board.

[RagingStallion]

Huck was trying his best to be politically correct since progressive folks such as yourself have forced him to defy his own common sense, and speak in a manner that doesnt allow him to reveal the truth, or many other truths which have to do with societal goods and bads like gay marriage.
The people have spoken, they dont want it, get over it, stop trying to change and reframe the debate and label the MAJORITY of rational folks as haters.

[PKRWUD]

Civil rights aren't subjective to what the majority thinks, get over it.

[elwoodey]

I certainly apologize for causing Huckabee to bypass his common sense, and here
I was thinking this was something he had done himself. But please, by all means
enlighten me on exactly what the truth is as is relates to homosexuality.

[Quaoar]

"The people have spoken" has an air of finality that is not warranted. A majority of people are against gay marriage now, but the same thing may not be true ten years from now.
Anyway, do you honestly think that telling gay marriage advocates to $ T F U will keep them from speaking out about it? Gay marriage may have been voted down but the first amendment is still very much intact.

[roblabrousse]

Man this post sounds like you really have a hard time expressing what you want to say exactly. If Huckhead wanted to be politically correct he would have agreed with Daily. Huckhead wasn't forced to appear on the show. He demonstrated himself quite capable to reveal his"truths'. Huckhead is a politician. He has his own agenda and can explain it very well. Thanks for the heads up...but it's not over!! There's no reframing of anything. There's a cause,there's injustice, there are civil rights to be addressed. And those opponents aren't rational and yes a lot of them are haters. They also are perverts.They take the word of Christ to serve their purpose not His.

Maybe you should watch what you post from now on because you sound more like a Raging Fool!!!!!!

[PKRWUD]

A true Christian believes that God is infallible, which means that if you believe one part of the Bible, you must believe the whole thing, not just bits and pieces. There are many things that should be outlawed, according to the Bible:

Men having sex with men:
Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Marrying someone who is divorced:
Matthew 5:32 - But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Paying interest:
Leviticus 25:37 - Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.

Charging interest (banking):
Deuteronomy 23:19 - Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usuary of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury.

Eating lobster:
Leviticus 11:9-12 - Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales--whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water--you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat...

[PKRWUD]

...Wearing gold jewelry:
1 Peter 3:3 - Do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing.

Wearing poly/cotton blend clothes:
Leviticus 19:19 - Keep my decrees; Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Women talking in church:
1 Corinthians 14:34 - women should remain silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but must be subordinate, as the Law says.

Exercising:
1 Timothy 4:8 - For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

If someone wants to be consistent about their observance of Biblical restrictions and prohibitions, then they must also preach and practice abstinence from many other commonplace activities. With a few exceptions, most people are not willing to apply the morality of the Bible to their lives today. It's more than hypocritical to demand that others do so.

Perhaps they would do better to follow 2 Timothy 2:23 - Have nothing to do with stupid and senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone.

[Tyrione]

You buy this those statements? Everyone of those holy writs were about economic trading, including wives. The entire listing is a means to divide one culture of Faith from another one.

Citing the Bible [especially the King James Bible] of a dead world > 2,000 years prior is after dozens of translations is as accurate as you being accused of a future murder.

[Tsckey]

Wait a minute. What? No lobster?!

[diogeron]

As Gore Vidal wrote many years ago, the only thing Leviticus has to offer rationale people in our day and age is "the inadvisability of eating shellfish in the Jerusalem area."

[Cybersquirt]

Or shrimp or crab or clams or oysters or (shudder) snails.

I know there's several others..

[roblabrousse]

God belongs to everyone not just you and your viewpoint. The Old Testamnet is not used by every Christian Church.

[PKRWUD]

Actually, I'm an atheist. Scroll down and read the rest of my post, I believe you misunderstood me.

[tucsonarizona1]

I say if ya don't like gay marriage, then don't have one!

[delta7777]

a civil union between two persons commited uniquely to each should be construed as, and recognized as such by a secular society, regardless of what it is called----and such persons should be entitled to legal recognition of this commitment and should be entitled to full, equal, and identical civil rights, benefits and burdens before the law, including social security benefits, taxation penalties, divorce considerations, inheritance, etc, etc. ...

a heterosexual marriage between persons is not identically the same, in that the geometry of the situation is substantially different.....and no stretch of imagination can alter this....
(leaving transgender considerations out of this for purpose of clarity)

there is absolutely no reason that religious institutions should be forced to ignore these differences as a mattter of civil rights....which particular civil rights are not inherently within the scope of any particular system of belief....

If we hold that we are a secular state, then same-sex unions should have full legal recognition and rights as a matter of civil right equality under the law.......

If we hold ourselves as a religious state, then there is no requirement for legal recognition of such unions...

this should be a consideration of law, not of semantics.....

Marriage in accord with religious precept is neither the same nor is it incompatible with secular legal recognition of same sex (civil) unions.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.....and unto God what is God's.....

[myclarity]

you hit the nail on the head...now lets do it and end the controversy so that we can get on to more important issues.

[Keith52]

Like I always ask, why would anyone want to belong to a club where they are not welcome?

The church and a religious "marriage" for gays is just not going to happen. According to the bible being openly gay is a deadly sin. The church is very clear on that.

So who needs the church???? We should allow gay married couples to have all the RIGHTS of a heterosexual married couple. These rights are not about religion.

Otherwise, would the current definition mean that every married heterosexual couple should be forced into going to church or they lose their married status? How many heterosexual married couples actually are religious? It's just so much baloney.

[StevenKeirstead]

There are several Christian groups that interpret the Bible as banning male prostitution and promiscuity, or having sex that is not in your nature, that is gay people should not have heterosexual intercourse and straight people should not have homosexual sex. They believe the Bible does not ban homosexuality per se.

But it should be up to churches to perform what ceremonies they want and not to perform those they abhor. This, however, has nothing to do with legal marriage, a definition set by governments.

[numenprof]

When are we going to be courageous enough in the media to call people like Huckabee out on the fundamental premise of his argument, namely, that God institutes such things as laws and sexual relationships. No theologian and certainly no credible historian can provide a single piece of evidence that God has ever instituted anything! The only thing that we can show through real evidence is that cultural patterns of behavior (i. e., laws, customs like marriage, etc.) have been given normative authority in communities, especially when a community is confronted with unfamiliar or alternative ways of doing things, by teaching its members that these laws and customs were given to them by a god. In other words, human communities do the sanctifying, not God. We want our customs and traditions to be treated as authoritative so we make the claim that they came to us by divine revelation, a revelation that is always something that happened to a single person, and usually in a far distant past, making it immune from testing. That is absolutely the most anyone can demonstrate; humans take their own behaviors and attribute them to a divine source in order to compel community members to abide by them willingly. We, not God, construct our laws, and our definition of marriage, and then we attribute these traditions to a divine source. Since we create them, we can change them when we realize that traditions we've established no longer foster injustice, but injustice.

[DSOKM]

Why does the U.S. government recognize the participants of a strictly religious ceremony?

Everyone is hung up on the "sanctified" status of marriage:

sanctified - adj : made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use; "a consecrated church"; "sacred elephants"; "sacred bread and wine"; "sanctified wine" [syn:
consecrated, sacred]

If we have true separation of church and state, then marriage should exist ONLY within the confines of the church. If we are to have certain privileges for committed couples, then a new name should be created for that commitment, with the term "marriage" stricken from every law book in the nation.

[blah7]

Amen!! That's the crux of this entire arguement.

[flyjet787]

If that's the crux of the argument then the argument is SEMANTIC.

Where the government is involved (you know the over 1,000 federal and state laws j-benefits and responsibilities - demanded of couples who sign a marriage licence), this is a civil matter and has NOTHING to do with religion or historical presidence. The rights and responsibilities must be given to everyone willing to commit to them - equality under the law.

If a couple wishes to bring a religious component into their union (i.e. have a wedding ceremony at a church), the matter is between said couple and their church. Thousands of opposite gender couples get married every year in City Hall and never include a religious ceremony.

There is simply no way a logical argument against same gender marriage can win. Unless we take that terrifying step (from which we can never go back) of alowing religious concerns to be included in civil law.

[EricLightborn]

I saw this and agree completely with everything within the article here by Jason but I think that Huckabee was trying to fair and realistic when he said the statement about "Not all aginast gay marriage are homophobic" comment. That is very true.

I am strongly in favor of gay marriage. I am a single, straight man but I find it disgusting that the right wing and religous conservatives are allowed to make baseless arguments (birth rates will drop) and to spread falsehoods uninterupted (threat to marriage as an institution) while the opposition are left all but mute in the national discussion. Jon Stewart did a great job arguing the point but I'm sorry I could better and someone gay could interject genuine emotion into the matter.

If anyone thinks you support the American Way of Life and support a ban on gay marriage at the same time I would ask you to consider this:
If I was gay as of today I could give up my dream of marriage between myself and a person I loved. Civil Unions and unrecognized ceremonies would be all I could do. Right now my ability to reach this life-goal is no way hampered or limited, because I'm straight. The American Way of Life teaches us that if something is true for one American then it is true for the other. Another name of that is equality. Marriage is NOT between a man and a woman exclusively except in Bible-land.

[Cybersquirt]

He may have been trying to be "fair" when he said, basically 'Not all agianst gay marriage are homophobic' but I'm truly missing that point.

"They" deny a group of people the right to something they enjoy to "preserve" it. If that ain't fear, I don't know what is.

[SeconLine]

"marriage is a privilege"??????

WTF???

Like driving?

Too bad Huckabee doesn't consider having a child to be a "privilege".

What does that make divorce?

[Cybersquirt]

that's trying to bolster the argument that it's not discrimination because you're/they're not denying someone a "right", rather a "priveledge".

[StevenKeirstead]

Even if marriage were only a privilege like a driver's license, there would still have to be a RATIONAL reason the privilege was reserved only for heterosexual couples. A state can't deny someone a driver's license just because they don't own a car for example, that would be illogical. So why should any state be free to deny same sex couples a marriage license for any of the absurd reasons that people like Huckabee put forward?

[cardtosser]

If you believe that the Bible is infallible AND that it specifically prohibits same sex marriage I think that you have reason to oppose those marriages.

If that is your reasoning though, I don't see how you can ignore the some three hundred other commandments that the Bible includes. And even if you do live Biblically, I don't see how you can try to enforce your own beliefs on others.

All other arguments stem from some fallacious reasoning such as a connection to reproduction, which would prohibit marriage for sterile people.

To some opponents it seems that they fear that if same sex marriage were to exist, heterosexual marriage would founder.

[saturnine maniac]

The Bible never even mentions gay marriage once. It only says men doing men is a sin. Therefore lesbians should be in the clear, even by Biblical standards. However, more is made of sex outside of marriage than of male-male sex, so by not allowing them to marry, you're forcing them to sin more, which...kind of defeats one of the bigger conservative arguments.

[DSOKM]

I am a gay man with a very long-term relationship (28+ years) with another gay man. I don't really feel a need to enter into a "marriage" as a social act - we are already in a registered domestic partnership, which gives us many more advantages than we had before. What a marriage MIGHT do - if the Federal government accepted it - is put us on a par with "married people" who share things such as retirement and survivor benefits.
My partner has no pension, not even Social Security. When I retire, we will share my retirement checks, as we have shared my income. But when I die, he will have nothing. A married couple, married just one year before retirement, would not only have survivor benefits, but the person who did NOT work for the company would receive 50% of the spouse's retirement in addition. Why does a religious ceremony justify this?
We need to remove "marriage" from the table and give benefits, etc., to committed couples, not "married" ones. Call it civil union or whatever, but make it equal - separate but equal is NOT legal!

[myclarity]

I am sure that absolutely no one would appose the idea that a registered domestic partnership should recognize absolutely all of the same rights and priveledges that a committed heterosexual partnership called a marriage does.

[vvv123]

No, you'd be surprised actually. You know the ProtectMarriage.com site? The official campaign for California's Prop 8? Guess what they originally intended to push in 2006, as the forerunner to Prop 8?

Here's a snapshot of their FAQ page from 2006:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060508183535/www.protectmarriage.com/index.aspx?protect=FAQ

And I quote:
"6. Would the ProtectMarriage Amendment allow “homosexual marriage by a different name”?

Answer: No. By recognizing marriage between a man and a woman as the only legal union in California , this amendment would prevent any law from recognizing, or giving rights on the basis of, other personal relationships that attempt to imitate marriage, such as homosexual “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions.”"

In other words, while what you say would be considered ideal, in reality, there are actually quite a few who are opposed to any recognition at all. The fact that California recognizes domestic partnerships is merely used as a cloak of false compassion for such people: "but gays already have the same rights!"

That being said, the government cannot define the threshold to be in a legal gray area...it must recognize marriage for all groups (within the bounds of the law), or for none at all. And frankly, I'm good either way!

[SanFranJeff]

I'm truly lead to believe that MOST if not ALL of the Conservatives that are FIGHTING GAY MARRIAGE and promoting a BAN on GAY MARRIAGE must be repressed closeted homosexuals themselves.

1. When they made their "choice" to repress their sexual identity, they are going to EXPECT everyone else to do so;

2. They all INSIST being GAY is a choice, so OBVIOUSLY "they" MUST BE GAY, and they've CHOSEN TO LIVE IN DECEIT, Lie to their spouses, and HIDE THEIR TRUE ORIENTATION, and they expect "everyone" else to do this ... therefore, they'd rather DIE than support or allow marriage for gays and lesbians.

There truly is NO OTHER REASON to rationalize, or understand their motivation to so vehemently BLOCK marriage to Seventeen Million Gays and Lesbians in the US who cannot get married now.

Their claim that "homosexuality" being an abomination is faulty. The bible supports slavery, polygamy, rape and incest - and although the ancestors of these same zealots did try to block the elimination of all of the above - they are no longer fighting to bring these finer "attributes" of the bible back to our society! One must truly wonder why...?

[MichelleCuoco]

Ridiculous views like Huckabee's here drive good moral people away from church.

[amdezurik]

to bad so many churches are trying to enforce those bigotries by force of law lately.

[lynjs]

Your reasoning is so true. These guys are just so hypocritical that it isn't funny. They pick and choose what in the Bible to follow. But when you read it, what they're saying isn't even in it. You're going 'what?' Also, while they're telling you not to steal or cheat on your spouse, they've just come back from being with the deacon or the deacon's wife. Not to mention pilfering from the church's coffers. Just hypocrites.

Isn't it time that they take a step back, get over themselves and leave people be? If it isn't taking care of the basics, food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, transportation, they shouldn't even been participating in it. It is not their business. Go find a life and let these folk live theirs.

[SanFranJeff]

When will the IRS issue the "gay" tax credit on the Individual US 1040 Tax Form?

After all, if gays and lesbians are BANNED from marrying the person they love, why should they then be taxed on that ban, by not being granted the same tax credit married filing joint couples are offered?

I see another "Boston Tea Party" coming!

And I must ask - where is the democratic support on this issue?

Approximately TWO MILLION Californian's have lost the right to marry in California, yet no party leaders in California are screaming out!

Diane Feinstein did ONE "No on 8" Commercial. Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pilosi, Fabian Nunez and many other Democratic Leaders in California were NO WHERE TO BE FOUND!!!!!!

President Bush announced in 2003 that his invasion of Iraq would bring Civil Rights to the Iraqi people. I recall sneering at that statement ... and thinking: I'm an American - where are MY Civil Rights? Why can't I marry the man that I love?

And Five Years Later - a slim, uneducated and uniformed majority of 4% determined that my Civil Right to a Civil Marriage isn't warranted because I am just a gay man!

When, in the history of America - has one's "Civil Rights" ever been reduced to a popularity contest?

[amdezurik]

you do realize if that ever happened (the gay tax credit) the entire repuke party would 'come out" every April 15th?

:)

[MichelleCuoco]

Someone please ask Huckabee this question: Ifmarriage is reserved for those who can procreate, then I ask if a heterosexual couple doesn't have kids then must they get divorced?

[blah7]

And consequently, if procreating is reserved only for those who are married, is he going to start his campaign to outlaw child bearing out of wedlock???

What an A** he is...

[myclarity]

the answer would be no because they still CAN procreate

[JSiobhan]

Physically can? I know a number of heterosexual couples who have had their tubes tied or a vasectomy. Some before they have remarried. If marriage is reserved for those who can procreate then the marriage license application should require proof they can physically have children.

[Skeetshooter]

Yes, Mike Huckabee, you are a homophobe. Even if some of your best friends, Larry Craig and Ted Taggard are gay, your insistence that their lifestyle is a choice rather than a biological imperative, means you are a homophobe. You should pray for enlightenment rather than confirmation of your self righteous bigotry. Jesus loved all the little children, even the gay ones.