Huckabee, total idiot or nearly total idiot?
 

Pearls of stupidity from the mouth of an idiot. Who does Huckabee think believes this garbage? What is his audience?

"If the courts rule that people have a civil right not only to be a homosexual but a civil right to have a homosexual marriage, then a homosexual couple coming to a pastor who believes in biblical marriage who says ‘I can’t perform that wedding’ will now be breaking the law,” he said. “It’s not just saying, ‘I’m sorry you have a preference.’ No, you will be breaking the law subject to civil for sure and possible criminal penalties for violating the law…. If you do practice biblical convictions and you carry them out and you do what you’ve been led by the spirit of God to do, your behavior will be criminal."

You would think (a word perhaps not in Huckabee's skill set) that someone who might have actually performed a few marriages for straight couples in his life would understand that as a "God tells me what to do" person he could refuse to marry any straight couple who came before him in his Church of Huckabee. He could refuse to marry Muslims and Jews and Catholics and Mormons and anyone he wanted to refuse to marry for any reason whatsoever and they had absolutely no civil or legal recourse to force Huckabee to say any magical words he didn't want to say in his Church of Huckabee. And no police are going to arrest him for the crime of not saying his words in his Church of Huckabee. But he cannot seem to understand that were the couple say two men or say two women or say two people he couldn't figure out what they were without checking their tingly parts himself, he could still refuse to marry them no differently than he can refuse now to perform his super special Huckabee approved Church of Huckabee wedding for any damn reason he wants. The man is an idiot.

I take it you are homosexual and upset, but for the life of me I can't follow your logic.

I'm guessing Huckabee was referring to the Klein's in Oregon who were just fined $140,000 for not baking a cake for a homosexual wedding. Huckabee is simply pointing out fact in relation to this latest Oregon ruling. I have no clue why you are so upset.

You are perhaps as unable to grasp reality as the demagogue Huckabee. How you think that anyone who supports gay rights must also be gay tells me much about your ability to process and analyze. Anyone who supports women's rights must be a woman, anyone who supports minority rights must be a person of color. So I guess I am a black female gay transgender undocumented atheist.

Huckabee is displaying, as are you, he complete lack of comprehension of the rights of a church to refuse to do anything it does not want to do (other than comply with basic health and safety) as protected by the first amendment. He should know, but acts as if the doesn't that a church person cannot be compelled to provide any church service to anyone it doesn't want to. His completely moronic argument that a minister of his church will be forced by civil or criminal law to give his particular brand of Jesus's ok and perform a church sanctioned service is complete garbage. And for you to attempt to conflate the protections given a church with the requirements of a public business shows your lack of analytical skill. We have had gay marriage in many many states for a few years. Show me one single example where any church person has been forced by the government or the courts to perform a wedding against the will of that church. Show me any example of any church service of any kind that is compelled by law to be provided against the will of a church. It does not exist. This is simple legal comprehension, and certainly a minister ought to understand how the courts would impact his profession, other than the profession of demagogue.

More Huckabee lack of understanding. See how many errors in understanding the function of the Supreme Court you can find in this pearl of stupidity.

"Getting a decision from the court, it's not tantamount to saying 'well that settles it. It's the law of the land.' And when I hear people say that I just cringe and I'm thinking 'How many people pass 9th grade civics?' This is not that complicated. There are three branches of government, not one. We don't like it if the executive branch overreaches and pretends that it can act in difference to the other two. And neither can we sit back and allow the court, one branch of government to overrule the other two. And so when a court rules that same sex marriage is okay, it doesn't mean that the next day, marriage licenses should be issued for same sex couples. It simply means that if the legislature agrees with that court decision and the representatives of the people—the elected officials—if they then put that into legislation and it is signed and enforced by the executive branch, then you have same sex marriage. But until those other two branches act, what you have is a court opinion and nothing else."

Somebody send Huckabee that 9th grade textbook as he slept through the class. Tell him that what the Supreme Court says is exactly the law of the land. And if the Court bases its decision on the Constitution the only mechanism to change the law of the land is to amend the constitution or get a new case on the same issue before the court. If it is based on non-constitutional issues but interpretation of statute, then a new statute passed by the legislature and signed by the executive branch can alter the law of the land. And until that happens the decision of the court is the law. Period. But you knew that from school.

And what the ... does this GOP frontrunner mean by the court giving people "the civil right to be a homosexual" I didn't know that people needed the court to grant them a right to be the way they are born. Soon the court might give people the right to be black or even to be a woman. Who knows what the court might come up with next. Good thing the decision of the court doesn't mean anything until the other branches of government agree.

The only thing I gathered from your incoherent rant is that you're one angry homosexual sympathizer! :rant-rave:

Yes, my conclusion as well.

The Supreme Court will hear this case on Tuesday and announce their decision in June, then Gov Huckabee will learn if the legislature gets to act or not.

When the ROE V Wade decision came down, each state did not get to decide if abortion was legal. The same goes with Brown V Board of Education. Eachstate did not get to decide if they would desegregate their schools.

The Op could be someone who believes in equal rights under the law. And, BTW, someone who 61% of Americans agree with.

Or the OP could be someone who believes in "equal protection under the law" which is included in the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court will have its say.

Prop 8 Attorneys: Marriage Equality Coming Soon - NBC News


For those that missed today's "Meet the Press", Attorneys David Boies and Ted Olsen said they believe the votes are there for the justices to rule in favor of same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

These are the same attorneys who argued successfully to overturn California's Proposition 8.

This case will be argued in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Its unfortunate that 9 people get to decide this issue. This is one of those issue that ouht to remain in the hands of the state. forget about the separation of powers. Obama has already rendered his opinion as did the presumptive new president Hillary. Congress has no political courage. And Huckabee is right . As a Pharmacistis is forced to issue birth control even if against his/her religion so too will clergy be forced to perform same-sex marriages . If the supreme court breaches the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman our social landscape of people etc is going to look more like the bar in aStar Wars movie.

I came across an old movie Cruisin (Encore) with Al Pacino playing an under cover cop in the homosexual community investigating killings by a serial killer.

That movie reaffirmed my position

The nuclear family was the bedrock of America but it has been and continues to be attack by liberals and secularist and if they succeed our biggest threat is not going to be nuclear or climate or invasion from a
foreign enemy its going to be moral decay

What part of separation of church and state are you failing to grasp. Clergy are not pharmacists, Churches are not drug stores. The former are non-secular the latter are secular. What laws apply to pharmacies do not apply to churches. A cleric is required by his church to serve his flock, not to provide services to any other people, just his people. A cleric is ordained by his church, the government gets no say in what training, continuing education or even morality the cleric must have (see Catholic church and pedophilia as an example), A pharmacist is licensed by the state with a specific set of regulations on training, morality, and ongoing education. Can you see the difference? The only organization that could force a cleric to officiate a same sex marriage is the hierarchy of that church if they decree that it is requirement for their clergy.

Just a quick answer to the OP's original question:

Huckabee is sooooooo far down the idiot highway that Total Idiot is just a faint glimmer in the rear view mirror.

I believe a Christian minister should have the right to not marry other faiths, but if two of the same sex profess to being Christian, then the minister is obligated to perform the ceremony. Let God judge. Too many people of faith misinterpret the meaning of their own faith.

Message from an intelegent kind hearted man of faith.

Losing my religion for equality

With all due respect to someone who was a former President of the United States, that is one "messed up" article that he wrote. Comparing Christianity to Islam as if they hold the same values where women are concerned. As a woman, I found the whole thing very insulting! President Carter has truly morphed into a champion for liberals. For someone who professes to be a life-long Christian, he appears to know very little about it. Or perhaps it's just the brain fog setting in that seems to go along with becoming a liberal.

Apparently the issue for many dems, including Carter, party trumps everything no matter what.....no matter what.

Given that same sex marriage is about to be redefined as a right, based on equal protection under the law, would someone please explain to us why the same arguments will not continue on to define polygamy and polyamory as a "right" as well?

In other words, it seems to be likely the LGBTQ movement will soon morph into the LGBTQPP movement.

This is a serious question ... so hopefully someone can provide a serious answer.

This issue was discussed on Meet the Press yesterday, and a very clear answer was given by Attorney David Boies. To paraphrase his answer in a succinct way, polygamy or polyamory are choices made by people. People are not born polygamist the same as being born homosexual.

Watch the entire interview on NBC.com

Sorry, but that is not a logical conclusion of this issue. Those of us who believe in separation of church and state understand that such a separation requires that the state not tell the church how to perform its religious functions. The state is required to follow the law and equally make available a civil marriage to same sex as they do to non-same sex couples. The state absolutely cannot tell a church what it is "obliged" to do in matters of faith. It the couple wishes a church sanctioned marriage it will have to find a clergyperson or denomination whose interpretation of their faith agrees with the couple.

When you call people names, it reflects badly on you. I am pretty sure you have never met Mike Huckabee. Why do you feel you need to try to belittle someone you don't even know? You are acting like a troll. If you are unfamiliar with the term you can google it.

I don't really care one way of the other but we should at least be honest about this. In my opinion, this is really all about access to spousal Social Security Benefits. You don't need the government to endorse your relationship except if you want access to spousal social security benefits.

Social Security benefits are just one of many benefits that same-sex couples are denied if they live in one of the 14 states that don't recognize their marriages.

The case that Attorneys David Boise and Ted Olsen argued in front of the Supreme Court, commonly known as the Windsor case, centered around estate taxes.

Yes that Ted Olsen is the same Ted Olsen that represented George W Bush in the Florida recount case in front of the Supreme Court.

Yes, it always comes down to money and what the Government can give you.

How about same-sex spouses being allowed to visit their dying spouses in the hospital, or being allowed to make end-of-life decisions for their spouses when necessary? Where does the government pay-out come in those cases?

I do understand the difference but it has never stopped the government from trying to back door an issue or offer incentives. If 9 men and women can decide on a national level the redefinition of marriage then I believe they can conveniently redfine many things.

I could give a hoot about people's private lives but this issue of same-sex marriage goes beyond benefits because benefits can be obtained with redefining marriage. No this is about a need to validate a lifestyle to socialize it and then to normalize it and unfortunately with the assistance of liberals and Hollywood now-a-days homosexuals are winning their makeover campaign . There are already increase movements in boy-man relationships and incest and despite experts opinion on pologamy the fact remains that attorneys are quite gifted in inventing rights that never existed or omission of rights that never existed.

There was a case in San Francisco some years back concerning a trolley car that let loose. a woman found only to have a contusion her her thigh made claim that the accident caused her to become quite promiscuous ;albeit she testified that she was quite sexual active in college. She won a very handsome reward.

the moral of the story is never say never

You can specify who can make end of life decisions for you. You can visit non-spouses in the hospital. Neither of these requires Government sanctioned marriages. In the future, you may want to be sure of your facts before posting. It is still all about the money.

It's clear the Courts will "discover" the right to homosexual marriage.

Your analysis, and predictions about what's next are unfortunately likely correct. The man boy thing is particularly reprehensible. Come to think of it, I wonder if any wacko liberals on this board would like to defend that lifestyle?

Thanks to President Obama's 2010 directive. Thanks Obama


Obama extends hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners of gays

Is this the same Obama who was on the record for not supporting gay marriages but then was in favor because if could get some more votes? I will modify my statement: it is not all about the money, it is all about the money and getting more votes. Just be honest about the motivations.

Imagine all those same-sex married people trying to collect the money they have paid in to social security and medicare all those years. No respectful tea party member would ever be involved in these socialist programs.


It wasn't until after the election of 2012 that the president came out in support of same-sex marriage, so whatever the motivations were, they worked. He won by a landslide.

The lesson is Obama is a man of his word, and you can trust him ... right up until he flips his position, and then you can rationalize a way to defend his new position.

It's like your a groupie or something ...

or until Josh and other WH staffers come out with the old "...this or that is not what he meant..."

Democrats have nothing to worry about Huckleberry getting the nomination from his party. He is not electable and the Republicans know that.

Actually, all of their possibles so far are not electable.

The local Republican yokels can rant and rave but the end result will be another Democratic victory for President in 2016.

This is getting to be humorous ... the standard liberal reply when asked a question, or a point is made, they can't respond to ... employ the mantra that the Dems will win anyway.

Maybe so, maybe not, but how about answering instead of dodging all the time?

What's wrong with you? Anybody who meets the SS qualifications can draw SS. Same sex marriages will expand the amount of benefits that could be paid. Just what we need, another expansion of a program with deep financial issues.

Check your facts, you are wrong. He came out in favor of same sex marriages before the 2012 election. Once again, if you don't know what you are talking about you should refrain from posting on a public forum.