Mike Huckabee continues to dig the hole deeper

First, he declined to retract the stunningly ignorant 1992 remarks he made about people with AIDS, followed that up by treating Ryan White’s mother like dirt (par for the course when women try to tell him things, apparently), and now this:

In this interview with BeliefNet, Huckabee is attempting to “clarify” what he meant when he said that “what we need to do is amend the Constitution to meet God’s standards.”

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.

Huh? Hey, Mike – I think you forgot to include “a man and a corpse.” Should we not be able to expect more of our presidential candidates than gutter-level nonsense like this? Equating pedophilia and bestiality with the committed unions between GLBT people is what one would expect from the hatemongering mouth-breather set. This is the guy who claimed earlier that he’s a social conservative, but he’s “not mad at anybody.” (“This is good,” quips Wayne Besen, “because the more we learn about his shady friends, the less he seems like someone we’d want to anger.”) If I’m not mistaken, he just accused me, and a lot of you reading this, of being the equivalent of a child rapist. I tend to think that when someone refers to me in this manner, they’re mad at me. Even if they smile sweetly while they’re doing it.

Look, it’s possible to have a reasonable conversation about whether recognizing marriage as the legal union between two people as life partners is actually “changing the definition of marriage,” but starting off by talking about animals and children as partners is not the way to do it. That’s a conversation-stopper right there. Not only that, it suggests a serious poverty of intellect.

I’d like to like this guy, I really would. In some ways he seems to want to change the conversation about our moral obligations to those in need. And he has that cute dimple. But with a ginormous blind spot like this one, that’s not possible.

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *