It’s time for another Fundie Friday!
Name: Mike Huckabee
Defining Characteristics: Weird last name. Likes to run for president.
Fundie message: Doesn’t think gay people should be allowed to get married for the following reasons:
1) it’s “traditional” that only a select few as determined by Judeo-Christian values are allowed to be “married” according to their narrow definition of the term;
2) people keep passing these laws, so it must be acceptable to ban people from living their lives, because if people vote for a law it’s not his responsibility and I’m sure if they changed their minds so would he in order to best serve the interests of the majority and not to serve his own narrow world-view;
3) it’s necessary for procreation, because apparently gay couples can’t adopt and married couples with no children are made of fairy dust; and
4) the word “marriage”, unlike most of the English language, is a magic word that never changes it’s definition no matter what social evolution might take place. Also, changing the word at all means changing it so radically that anyone would be allowed to get married to anything.
His interview with Jon Stewart is embedded below.
Why dangerous: One day he (and people like him) could decide that he doesn’t like what you’re doing either, and then what? In any case, if he produced an argument based on feasibility, financial and social impact, probability of social harm, etc. that at all suggested that he was thinking about this on a broad social level, it might be easier to accept his POV (or at least respect it). But as it is, he is talking about “tradition” and procreation based on his personal religious beliefs. Going on television spouting stuff about tradition and whatnot (i.e., “you’re not like me and I feel that what you’re doing is weird and not to be recognized by my traditions so I’m going to support a law that prevents you from that”) only serves to make people feel marginalized when they aren’t doing anything wrong — it promotes “us vs. them” mentality. Defensiveness vs. other defensiveness just ends up in one big unending arm-wrestle that promotes hate and ignorance.
Bottom Line: I can see where people are coming from in arguing that marriage has a defined legal definition — although I think the issue is deeper than a simple argument over semantics — or that opening it up to gay couples and not to, say, polygamist families is unfair. But rather than come up with some decision that all parties can agree is fair and non-discriminatory to the relationship style chosen by consenting adults, there’s laws being written and voted on before any such discussion has taken place (including banning gay couples from being able to adopt children, for example). Also, fairness is not the argument taking place at a voting level — the arguments mostly resemble MH’s views on tradition and Christian values. I don’t think people are as concerned with being fair to everyone as they are keeping their precious definition the same for all time and only including themselves and people like them rather than people whose lifestyles they do not approve.