- Mike Huckabee, in explaining his remark about bringing the Constitution in line with God, says this (actually the interview is here):
And the same thing would be true of marriage. Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?
Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.
Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.
So, first he states that marriage has always been one man and one woman (which is wrong, polygamy has been around since there have been marriages and some sort of marriage for same sex couples does seem to have been around before), then he says that if we do offer same sex marriage, marriage with animals is sure to follow (hmm, I wonder when MA will get to this?). Lovely guy.
I might as well get into the Ron Paul problem with past pamphlets given out under his name. Like most of the others who have commented on this, I don’t assume that Paul is a racist but it still makes him look bad. I can understand that other people wrote articles for him (although as late as 1996, he was intimating that he did write them) and I can understand that he might not have been aware of it for awhile (but for 5 to 10 years?), but then why wasn’t he angry when he found out? If it was me, when I found out, I would have publicy and loudly denounced the person who was writing under the material and the editor. Shortly before or after this, I would have fired both of them. Paul still will not say who wrote the articles (even though he could have easily found out). It makes me think, he wasn’t that angry. If you look here, you’ll see that this isn’t an aberration. Another lovely guy.