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

[Griffinick]

I failed to see anyone respond to the comment that Democrats voted Yes on Prop 8, so they are against Gay Marriage. No one has addressed here, the "WHY?"

It would appear that we, the people who were No on 8 in California-were far too faithful of the reasoning abilities of the voter-and didn't expect them to be so easily swayed by the Churches they so faithfully and often blindly, unfortunately, follow to the letter of the preacher's word.

We who were in support of Equal rights for Same sex couples, allowed the Yes or No to be confusing (I had to help out many intelligent voters who had to learn "NO on H8TE" to get their vote right)-Yes meant NO on Same sex marriages.­..great way to confuse the voting public right there, and then having all this silly religious stuff in the mix.
The entire Nation needs to re-define the way it USES the term Marriage. Marriage belongs in the Church, that is fine-the Church rites do no belong in Government or it's rules. Right. It does not belong in tax laws. I should NOT have to answer "are you Married or single" on a form or verbally, and have the way I am treated based on the answer.
Keep up the fight! (and I have trouble with the 250 word limit...!)

[DCX2]

I know gay couples who treat each other with greater respect and love each other more than many straight couples. I also know gay couples who would make a better family for children than many straight couples.

Committed heterosexual couples enjoy certain benefits when they are married, like lower taxes and visitation rights, etc. To treat committed homosexual couples differently is to in essence create a "gay tax". If you want to define marriage as between a man and a woman, then we must separate the legal aspect from the religious aspect. Let marriage be a civil union between a man and a woman, and call it something else. But, seriously, two consenting adults who are in love should be given the same rights regardless of sex.

That, and gay couples getting married boosts the local economy, because people spend a lot of money on marriage.

[bwalsh1]

Why can't we give them the same legal rights, tax breaks etc. without calling it marriage? This type of homosexual union is unique in the history of the world, even in places where homosexuality was approved of (such as ancient Greece) marriage was still only for men and women. So, instead of changing the definition of a time honored, and religious, insitution, why not come up with a new name for a new type of relationship?

So, let's make civil unions equal to marriage. That way you get what you want, and my religious beliefs are not trampled on. People may argue that "seperate is not equal." However, straight and gay relationships are different, that is a simple fact. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they are not exaclty alike, and if they were no one would be gay.

[ARobinson]

You just can't call the same thing by two different names. Gay people don't like it because "seperate but equal" doesn't work and it implies that their relationships aren't as good as others. Besides, gay people will answer "yes" when asked if they are married anyway and their churches are going to call it marriage anyway. You can't make them call it something other than what they believe it is. And the government can't use two different terms for the same thing. That is not equal under the law. The government would have to replace all references to "marriage" with "civil union", and that isn't going to happen. Besides, just get over it and let them get married. No church will ever be required to marry anyone they don't want to. I had some friends that were repeatedly refused marriage by all the catholic churches they asked because one of them was divorced. That is as it should be and will always remain so.

[ARobinson]

No one wants to trample your religious beliefs. You can think whatever you want about the nature of gay relationships and I can disagree with you. The question here is a legal one about how the governement treats those relationships. The governement is not allowed to choose one religion over another, therefore both of our religious beliefs must be honored. Your church gets to decide what relationships to sanction and so does mine and the government must honor both.

[elusivek8]

The problem, sir, is that your religious beliefs do not belong in government. Limiting the entitlement program of marriage to heterosexuals based on a religious justification is both discriminatory and a violation of the separation of church and state...in­teresting that your concerns about the trampling of religious freedom doesn't extend to our gay and lesbian citizens.

[Equality1]

Its your religious beliefs that are doing the trampling, if you feel that they should take reign over other people's beleifs.
Your religious beliefs and mine may not be the same, and Gay people may beleive differently from both of us. But what makes your beliefs better than mine, or anyone else's?
How about you living your life the way you want to and leave your religion out of everyone else's life.
Besides, why are you so afraid of Gay marriage? Are your own beliefs so weak that you feel it necesaary to stifle other's?

[cardtosser]

Separate but equal never works.

[myclarity]

change the laws to give civil unions all of the leagl and tax rights of a marriage..

[jaslyn]

p.s. good luck getting elected for president ever again with those views.

[jaslyn]

...and Huckabee's traditional marriage ideology has worked soooo well so far. Skyrocketing divorce rates, annulments etc. As to marriage creating the next generation, I think those that are 'anatomically correct' are working overtime overpopulating the planet. Get your head out of your Bible and your backside.

[ShakeYourComplacency]

Funny when gay people have sex it's a "lifestyle" but when two straight people have sex, it's just sex. I mean, even if you hate gay people, can you at least make an argument that makes some sense? We just go round and round in a circle and never make up any ground. It's just like trying to argue religion with someone. Forget it. So it someone doesn't believe in the existance of gay people you're not going to convince them otherwise.

If marriage is for straight people, then why isn't it illegal or immoral for straight people to have gay sex? And what I'm talking about is anal sex. And let's not forget oral sex - a mouth is a mouth, and I'm pretty confident that neither mouth is going to bear children. Hey, my grandmother certainly didn't engage in those activities­....why should they? Huckabee says no non-reproductive. Only problem is...folks like him are NOT saying that. I would respect him tremendously if he did. But to hide the bases when a gay person gets up to bat, is not only unfair but ridiculous. It's not as if we can't SEE the base behind your back. We know it was there, and you moved it because you don't want us on first base.

Another ridiculous thing, besides oral and anal sex allowed for straights, is divorce and adultery being allowed for straights. These clearly violate the sanctity of marriage, yet Huckabee ignores that one as well.

[bwalsh1]

In many places it is still illegal to have "gay sex." And, most religions say that marriage is sacred and holy and meant for procreation between a man and a woman, and they do believe that homosexual sex is immoral.

It is not immoral because straights are better than gays. In Catholocism it is a sin to commit any sexual acts that are outside of marriage, marriage being a man and a woman. This inlcudes gay sex, straight sex, oral and anal sex, masturbation, and any sex that is not within the marriage bond and capable of creating life. Even sex using artificial birth control is outside of these requirements (although natural methods are acceptable).

This is called chastity, and in my faith it is how God calls everyone, gay and straight, to live. Not because it is easy, or fun, or because sex is evil, but because it will help makes us unselfish and holy.
Of course it is hard to be chaste, few people actually manage it. I didn't. But, just because I find it difficult to live up to the ideal my faith has established does not mean that I don't climb back on the wagon and keep trying. People don't practice chastity because they don't enjoy sex, they practice it because it can lead to something better than sex: peace of mind. This promise of peace is why the concept of chastity is found within Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism, and Islam.

[ARobinson]

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying the government should create laws based on your or anyone else's religious beliefs? Because that's not allowed in our constitution. I disagree with your religious views and I don't think you understand the nature of homosexuallity. It is not a choice any more than my being straight is a choice for me. But the bottom line is that the government isn't allowed to choose sides.

[helloAll]

The state of CA voted overwhelmingly Democratic this election - 7,441,458 for Obama compared to 4,554,643 for McCain. Please tell me why then conservatives are getting mostly blamed for the Prop 8 outcome? By those numbers, it appears that a majority of Democrats voted no on Prop 8 also.
Gay marriage is fine with me, but I think there's a problem when progressives don't want to take a closer look within their own political party as to see why Prop 8 turned out the way it did.

[zenlikejen]

Conservatives are the ones who crow the loudest against gay marriage and the ones who spent the most money getting Prop H8 passed. To be honest, gay marriage is one of those issues that isn't really limited by which side of the fence politically you stand on. As far as blame goes for it's passing - *personally*, I can't blame any one group in particular­...it's the fault of every individual who VOTED for it regardless of color, gender, orientation and political viewpoint.

What needs to be 'looked at' is what makes ANYONE standing alone in a voting booth vote to TAKE rights AWAY FROM *anyone*.

[SanFranJeff]

You are sorely mistaken, the "majority" of Democrats did vote NO on Prop H8, but the minority of democrats that crossed over and voted Yes created the slim margin that passed Prop H8!

And to answer your question, the "Conservatives" were responsible for:

1. Bringing this Proposition to the Electorate;
2. Funding the "Yes on H8" Campaign;
3. Creating a Campaign of LIES, LIES, LIES and FEAR;

Is this enough, or should I dig a little deeper and expose more of what the conservatives did in their attempt to ruin the lives of gays and lesbians?

[brandon102]

It's such a sad comment on Americans that it takes our prejudices and superstitions so long to fall. And that so many of those pathetically religious who believe in the Kaballah or Bible or Koran or Wanda the Weathermaker to shield themselves within their ignorance.

Some day maybe the religious will get back to the kind, loving "spiritual" side of what they supposedly believe. For now they are as relentless as pitbulls. I'm sure you gods would approve.

Society alway needs someone to look down on, and for now it's gays. In 100 years it may be someone else. But there is certainly nothing in this pathetic "debate" that demonstrates a religious person is in any way, be it loving, morality, values, giving, empathy, "do as to others . . . " as atheists. Actually, they show themselves to be what they are: little hate machines, with their leaders making big bucks from their stupidity.

[bwalsh1]

I don't need to "look down" on anyone, afterall Jesus was associated with prostitutes, lepers, even tax collectors. This type of inclusiveness and lack of prejudice is what makes the New Testament unique.

However, you can love someone and still disagree with their behavior. According to my faith, we need to practice self control when it comes to sexuality. We are to refrain from any sexual act that is not between a man and a woman in the context of sacramental marriage. We are also required to have our hearts open to children, as procreation is what sex is designed to do.

This is not ignorant, it shows much more insight into the human condition than your rant does. After all, the basic biological purpose for sex is procreation, the physical pleasure is merely an incentive to do so. If we start to treat sex as if there is no other purpose than our own pleasure, than we strip it of some of it's true value. You simply can't change this fact, no matter what your political or religious views happen to be. The truth can't change just because you think it should.

[ARobinson]

Think what ever you want about the purpose of sex and I will too. But the governement can't dictate to me what the purpose of my sexual relationship is and neither can you.

[anney]

No, the basic biological "purpose" for sex is pleasure. It isn't like a gardener planting seed with the incentive being a harvest. Human beings participated in sexual activity long before they ever knew the role of sex in procreation for pleasure and because of an irresistible drive, and it's no different today. Some churches teach that the purpose of sex is the pleasure that brings two people together and sanctifies their marital relationship, whether they have children or not.

You may think of sex as you wish, of course, but everybody is different, and sexuality can't be legislated, since various religions teach different values. Neither should marriage be denied to some but not others.

[imaginelovehope]

Bwalsh, what makes you think you actually know the truth so certainly that you can emphatically claim it is representative of how YOU see the world? Have you ever read the parable of the sheep and the goats and how both are surprised to find which group they ultimitely fall within? Before reading your post, I was about to ask that all followers of Jesus (or other religions for that matter--Gandhi? MLK?) not be lumped into the same category of "hate machines".­.. but after reading it, I realized that, at least with much of American fundamentalist evangelical Chrsitianity in view (which, unfortunately, tends to dominate the conversation of faith and politics in America), I can at least understand where brandon102's anger is coming from. And I believe it is more than justified.

I, too, long for the day we stop hiding behind the "clear" truths of the Bible in order to justify our prejudice and ignorance. This is why the bible reading strategies of Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day and so many faithful others are so much more appealing than those of the religious establishment that do no more than unfaithfully defend and promote the status quo. I long for the day we can grow out of these fundamentalist categories, recognize and own the way we are shaped by our unique social settings, and more faithfully follow in the footsteps of the teacher from Nazareth who was radically for the oppressed and marginalized.

[wr3276]

The old standard criticism of homosexuality was along the lines that homosexuals were hedonistic pleasure seekers not interested in serious long term relationships, the implication being they should be more like the rest of "us" - committed, monogamous, and generally more in keeping with traditional notions of relationship. Fast forward to now where gay life in America has grown and matured to meet and include (if it ever didn't) those notions of commitment, etc. the criticism of loving gay couples in America who do wish to enjoy the benefits (and not so much fun aspects) of marriage is that such things must be reserved for straight people, that marriage is not based on love and commitment, but pro-creational family structure provisions, while completely ignoring the fact that more than half of all straight marriages end in divorce. This is hypocrisy masquerading as sanctity.

[theiccemann]

I think that those people who marry as heterosexuals, or who wish to be married as man and woman, find it offensive that gays want to include themselves within the sanctification of marriage; that gays being married, dilutes the sacredness and spiritual essence of marriage. Does it?

What I do not understand, is, gays thumb their noses at the Bible, but want to take something from the Bible, such as marriage, and make it part of their lives. Being married is an affirmation of a religious and spiritual connection among a man and a woman. This joining of souls is a declaration of becoming one with each other, and from that, creating a future with each other. For the most part, that future involves attempts at giving birth, and carrying themselves, their DNA, their genes into the future. A man and a man can not have children.

I believe that those who espouse being gay adamantly, do not hold religion or worshipping God, close to their hearts. Why? Because they wouldn't be so loud, and defiant in shouting that they ignore the Bible or any other religious text, in order to carry on what they feel they want to do. Those who are gay, and are religious, seem to be at war with themselves. Trying to find unity with their religion, and or "needing" to be gay.

Basically, if ya wanna be gay, and practice gayness, go ahead. As far as using marriage to validate your gayness, nuh uh.

[lilkunta]

@ice mann Marriage isnt from the bible.
Ppl have been getting married since time immemorial.
The bible was written jsut thousands of years ago.

If youre gonna totu the bible, then follow these words
love one another
judge not lest ye be judged.

[Camm s]

You are good!

[theiccemann]

No, to gay marriage.

[helloAll]

Barack Obama opposes gay marriage also. How does everyone feel about that? Does anyone think Jon Stewart will take this issue up with Barack Obama? I like Jon Stewart but I think he cherry-picks when it comes to stuff like this.

[ReadyNow]

Please don't criticize Barrack. He is incapable of error. Barrack's position on gays is Bush's fault

[brandon102]

Now let's not be a sore loser. I know how distraught you will be to no longer bask in the glory of the Bush/Cheney/Rove mendacity. Oops. Meant presidency.

[qdog112]

I don't think Jon would have a problem discussing this issue with Barack or anyone else.

You are wrong. Your cherry picking is called journalism. You ask relevant questions to whoever the guest may be. If Jon had Barack today do you think he would ask about Blagojevich or spend his time talking about gay marriage?

[helloAll]

It appears that progressives like Jon Stewart like to skewer conservative Republicans on this issue as do alot of folks. Sorry to say this, but I think progressives need to focus a little more within their own politcal party when it comes to this issue. In relation to other states, CA is pretty progressive. and overwhelmingly votes Democrat every election. There was a record DEMOCRATIC turnout in Nov, but the Prop 8 vote didn't go their way. I don't think anyone saw that coming.

[huzzah]

There are a few things that candidates for POTUS have to do. They are deal-breakers. We may believe them to be stupid, but it's just the way things are right now. It's why Dennis Kucinich, the only Democratic candidate who is truly a leftist, would never be elected Prop 8 showed us even a relatively liberal state still may have hangups about homosexuality. A significant, though shrinking, portion of the population is against gay marriage. As McCain/Palin tried to reignite the culture wars, coming out in support of gay marriage would've been political suicide.

I know Obama's not a leftist on most issues. I don't claim to know his mind. Maybe he really is opposed to gay marriage. The wording I've heard leads me to believe otherwise, as least as far as policy is concerned. He may have said he opposes gay marriage or that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He may not make legalizing gay marriage a priority in his administration. But if I remember right he is also opposed to amendments banning gay marriage and I believe that if Congress were to pass a bill legalizing it he would sign it, regardless of his personal beliefs, real or professed, on the matter.

[damali]

I can't speak for everyone else, but i'm am a HUGE Barack Obama supporter who worked tirelessly to get him elected and i DEPLORE his stance on gay marriage. But that doesn't change the fact that he is the President that we need right now. Gay marriage is important but it is but one issue of many that faces our nation right now. the economy and all the dominos that are affected by it needs the attention of someone who has the intelligence, presence of mind and wisdom to gather the right people to fix it. Barack is that guy. I don't expect him to be a perfect; man; just a good President.

[amanaceo]

Gay marriage is not important. This left-fringe issue is going to bring down democrats in the future.

[Midnightrain]

And just how many black men do you know who support gay marriage, openly? You don't know a lot about black culture, I see.

[RationalityPlease]

Was there a note of wistfulness in Huckabee's voice when he spoke of not being allowed to burn people at the stake?

[Wilburrr]

... or marry Jon Stewart?

[laragale]

"Practicing a lifestyle" - I am so sick of these people thumping the bible and using that as their shield for sheer ignorance - the bible also says you can have multiple spouses and doesn't it condone marrying children? The bible also condones slavery...­.I like what Wanda Sykes says - if you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry a gay person!!! Who has the right to tell ANYONE who they can marry???? It is discrimination PERIOD. And what about people who marry and choose not to procreate - ie my husband and me - are we technically not married since we aren't populating the earth???? Give me a BREAK!

[StevenKeirstead]

According to the Good Book, the only good man in Sodom was Lot. How did Lot celebrate the destruction of that wicked city? He gets drunk with his daughters and has sex with them! These were the same daughters he had earlier offered to the mob to rape instead of raping the angels. He was a real family values man.

[ggorilla]

Thank goodness you are not procreating.

Back in the Old Testament when men had multiple wives there was a reason. Over time those reasons have changed as has the definition of marriage.

Now gays want to redefine the definition for their chosen lifestyle. It was put to a vote and 68% said that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Marriage is not a right. It is a privelage. So no rights were taken away.

[anney]

Well, you could also say with as much veracity that straights want to redefine the definition of marriage for THEIR chosen lifestye.

If marriage isn't a right but a privilege for straights, where are all the straights who have been told they can't marry?

[qdog112]

"Now gays want to redefine the definition for their chosen lifestyle"

Similar to the way blacks wanted to redefine "citizen" to include them as Americans.

Now that really destroyed the fabric of Americana - right?

[damali]

"Marriage is not a right. It is a privelage.­"

The Supreme Court case Loving vs. Virginia would disagree with you. The opinions in that case set a legal precedent that marriage is a basic right.

[Rawkcuf]

If marriage is a privelage, I'd like to scrutinize your marriage, and see if it measures up. You should probably have some DNA testing. We should probably prevent you from marriage if you have a history of diabetes or heart disease in your family, (dont want to muddy the gene pool!) If you have ever abused drugs or alcohol, you really shouldn't marry because that would not be the proper environment for raising children. Of course, your mental health will need to be examined, and the stability of your relationships so far... you know, they give us a good idea of how you will handle a marriage situation.

Does anyone think any marriage could survive the kind of scrutiny an attitude of 'not a right, but a privelage' would promote?

[SanFranJeff]

Who gave you your statistics - when it was put to a vote, 52% said NO to same-sex marriage, not 68%

My FIRST question is this: "When do I get to VOTE on your marriage?"

And my SECOND question is this:
"Who wants to REDEFINE marriage?" I intend on having the SAME TYPE OF MARRIAGE THAT YOU HAVE. No 'REDEFINING' is necessary!

[microcosm]

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

google "Fix News Now" and then sign the petition for a News Quality Rating System

[ggorilla]

As long as that standard is held to the NY Times, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, NPR, CBS and all other media. They should also tell the whole truth and not just what they want to report. If you want to be fair than be fair.

[anney]

I thought Stewart's strongest point was that religion is a choice but being homosexual is not, and religion has all sorts of protections that gays and lesbians don't have.

Huckabee also claimed that it's a matter of "approving" a lifestyle, and if gay marriage is allowed, then polygamy must be allowed, too.

False equation. Nobody is recommending that anybody has a right to marry more than one person. Gay marriage ua just as monogamous as straight marriage, and it is not allowing" marriage for a lifestyle but for two human beings.

Mr. Huckabee, if you disapproves of gay marriage, don't marry somebody gay. Period. That's the ethical extent of your position, no more. Just as if you disapproved of bi-racial marriage, I'd advise you not to enter into bi-racial marriage.

Furthermore, claiming that gay marriage is the same as giving people a choice to murder, steal, or otherwise harm others is also a false equation. Marriage is not harmful to anyone anywhere -- it is a positive act for the two individuals and for the larger society.

It was a civil discussion, and we can all appreciate that. I just think Huckabee is dead wrong about gay marriage. And I do wonder WHY anybody straight wants to see marriage denied to gays. Like Stewart, I'd keep asking "why" until the question is answered. Huckabee's responses to that question switched from premise to premise, and as such, they didn't make sense because each premise was demolished.

[RobHughey]

Yes, but Huckabee wasn't in a position to just come out and say what he and his ilk all feel and believe.

It just wouldn't be in his best interest to say "because it's gross and icky!" That's what it comes down to, isn't it? These people are sincerely uncomfortable with the idea of two men (not necessarily two women) being together in "that way." But they seldom ever confess this pervasive feeling, as it'd point correctly to their prejudices. So they have to fleet from issue to issue whenever pressed on their arguments. It's infuriating at best.

[pvo]

I'll second that...It'­s been proven scientifically that gays are born to be gay, just as much as you're born with a set of genes that make you are left handed or right-handed, short or tall..... so why are they denied the most fundamental right to be married, if they chose to do so? It makes absolutely no sense and is downright unfair...I­t's worth noting that religions, philosophies, and institutions and or celebrations of human affairs such as marriage/ divorces are all man-made.

[captainindustry]

it seems the gays have done an excellent pr job of changing the whole perspective of being gay. Now they are all well-dressed ladies and gentlemen, pillars of society who want monogamous relationships and want to raise autistic children.

The ones I know like to run naked through the begonias and fornicate with wild abandon. In public. IN MY BACK YARD!!

Maybe we should stop calling them gay. Maybe we need a new word. Maybe we should call them "morose". That might help that whole marriage campaign. All bigotry includes more than a little jealousy

[SiberianRat]

"The ones I know like to run naked through the begonias and fornicate with wild abandon. In public. IN MY BACK YARD!!" Are you sure you're not watching porn?

[StevenKeirstead]

They don't wave and smile while streaking through your yard? How rude!

[damali]

"The ones I know like to run naked through the begonias and fornicate with wild abandon. In public. IN MY BACK YARD!! "

Plenty of straight people do that too. Apparently, you've never visited a college campus.

[RobHughey]

All I got from your comment was the great "Stay off my LAWN" attitude.

Thanks for the laugh.