Slog - Comments on Hoping to Connect to Evangelical Voters, Huckabee Looks to the Barn

Comment by vooodooo84

vooodooo84 — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:58:21 -0800

what about a dead horse?

Comment by J.R.

J.R. — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:00:35 -0800

Isn't this the guy whose kid was caught torturing and murdering a dog? Marrying some guy could provide that extra measure of protection from the Huckabee family that animals deserve.

Comment by Greg

Greg — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:01:14 -0800

Any Christian who claims that "one man, one woman" is somehow enshrined as the One True Way by the Bible is not only a homophobic jackass, but is profoundly ignorant of the Old Testament.

Comment by tsm

tsm — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:01:14 -0800

I think the radical view is to say that we�re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean ... a man and three women ... I think the radical position is to make a change in what�s been historic.

A man being married to multiple women is hardly "a change in what's been historic". Read that Bible you're always thumping sometime, Huck. Yeesh.

Comment by Hernandez

Hernandez — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:11:25 -0800

I will never cease to feel a profound disdain for the so-called "values voters" who cast their vote solely on the basis of being anti-abortion and anti-gay, as if nothing else matters.

Comment by ellarosa

ellarosa — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:18:37 -0800

a man and three women...it's true, you never see that in the bible--oh wait...the bible is full of "putting wives aside" in order to marry younger, nicer or just politically more advantageous ones. that meant, schmuckabee my dear, that they weren't divorced, they were still married, but out of favor with the patriarch. only idiots vote for people like him. i still hold out hope that they are NOT the majority of voters in this country.

Comment by Carollani

Carollani — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:21:47 -0800

Evangelicals are perverts. They must be, to always imagine how badly the rest of the world is dying to marry that sheep they've been fucking.

Comment by monkey

monkey — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:22:52 -0800

I bet my mom wants him to be president.

Comment by Fifty-Two-Eighty

Fifty-Two-Eighty — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:25:55 -0800

I can't hekp but wonder how many of those homo-hating rednecks have fucked a barnyard animal or two.

Comment by infrequent

infrequent — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:43:02 -0800

I will never cease to feel a profound disdain for the so-called "values voters" who cast their vote solely on the basis of being pro-abortion and pro-gay, as if nothing else matters....

Comment by max solomon

max solomon — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:43:47 -0800

its time to END MARRIAGE. mandatory divorce for everyone. then this BS goes away.

Comment by Lola

Lola — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:47:19 -0800

Is that why Huckabee's son killed that dog? Bad break-up?

Comment by vooodooo84

vooodooo84 — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:52:28 -0800

@12 or he wanted it to be a little cooler for insertion

Comment by UNPAID BLOGGER

UNPAID BLOGGER — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:02:26 -0800

Let's amend the Constitution with a defense of marriage:

"Marriage shall only consist of a union between consenting adults."

There Fuckabee, your dog and children are safe once more.

Comment by Geni

Geni — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:20:52 -0800

I frigging hate the strawman arguments about how allowing two same-sex adults to marry will somehow "open the door" to marrying the dead, children, inanimate objects, etc. The whole concept of informed consent seems completely lost on these imbeciles. A child cannot give informed consent to sex, or marriage (or enter into any other legal contract). Nor can a dead person, or an animal. None of those entities are able to understand the ramifications of the legal contract, therefore it is not, and never will be, legal to enter into such a contract with such an entity. That has NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING whatsoever to do with contracts involving consenting adults.

Polygyny and polyandry are another matter entirely. The problem there is more financial than societal or legal; because so many of our social financial benefits are based on a two-person marriage contract, any polygamous form of marriage throws that all out of whack. The solution there is to remove those automatic benefits from marriage altogether, or pass laws extending them to only the first partnership, not subsequent partnerships. (Ditto benefits extended to the children of multiple partnerships.)

I'll never understand why the government is involved with marriage anyway. The government should only be concerned with the legal union side. Marriage is a societal, religious, spiritual thing which should be completely separate from the whole civil, legal union side.

Comment by andy niable

andy niable — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:49:38 -0800

If Huckabee ever comes within shouting distance, I'll challenge him. Okay, fine. You keep your precious marriage limited to two different gendered adults, so long as you add to the Constitutional Ammendment the elimination of no-fault divorce.

How many Republican Presidential candidates would THAT have applied to? (It wouldn't touch any of the Democrats.)

I can only hope the Aw-Shucks Mark-Twain-on-Bible-Meth act wears thin before we go to the polls in November...

Comment by Reverse Polarity (formerly SDA in SEA)

Reverse Polarity (formerly SDA in SEA) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:54:40 -0800

Yes, we need to return to traditional marriage. You know, when wives were literally property, the possession of the husband, who's primary task it was to issue forth offspring, to obey her husband and do as he commands. Yay for tradition.

What an asswipe.

Comment by infrequent

infrequent — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:56:12 -0800

i'd bet huckabee would be in favour of making divorce constitutionally illegal as well. and that actually would some democrats, believe it or not, unless you, too, don't consider kucinich an actual candidate.

Comment by thumper

thumper — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:24:12 -0800

I can't believe Huck even graduated from Bible school. Here's what the Bible says about marriage: "It is good for a man not to marry." Straight from the mouth of St. Paul (I Corinthians 7:1). So to bring the Constitution in line, as @11 proposes, we should just abolish marriage.

Comment by thumper

thumper — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:25:19 -0800

Comment by kim

kim — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:26:24 -0800

I think the radical position is to make a change in what�s been historic.

how's he reckon anything has ever gotten done in the entire history of humankind, without changing what's been historic? how's he reckon america came to be? what a dumbass.

Comment by Gurldoggie

Gurldoggie — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:27:33 -0800

As has been well proven over the last few years, the people who make the most noise about banning given sexual practices are inevitably engaged in them. Watch for a news story real soon about Mike Huckabee's gay lovers or multiple wives.

Comment by Greg

Greg — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:45:59 -0800

Let's try an experiment. Why don't we make it legal for any two consenting adults to marry and THEN see how many man-on-dog applicants we get.

Comment by Westside forever

Westside forever — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:59:53 -0800

Marrying kids IS historic.

Not all that long ago, the age of consent in places like Kansas was as low as 12. Jes' right for marryin' up and raising a whole posse of God fearin' farm hands. My great grandmother got knocked up and married at age 13. And she'd have probably voted for a guy like Mike.

Comment by MoTown

MoTown — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:26:00 -0800

@16: Didn't Huckleberry encourage/pass/authorize "covenant marriage" in Arkansas? Doesn't that go something like: 1) Allow "covenant marriage" 2) Make "covenant" marriages easier/cheaper 3) Eliminate non-covenant marriage.

Comment by chasman

chasman — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:49:56 -0800

Until one of these idiots (politician or otherwise) remembers the whole "'til death do you part" thing and talks about abolishing America's divorce laws, they need to shut the ef up about returning/defending a "traditional" definition of marriage.