Jon Stewart And Mike Huckabee Talk Gay Marriage

Jon Stewart And Mike Huckabee Talk Gay Marriage


As I’ve stated on this blog before, I wish government would get out of the business of marriage altogether and simply grant people civil unions. That way it’s a legal contract and then anybody can get a marriage in the religious institution of their choice thus creating a very clear separation of church and state. This is one of those common sense solutions I wish we could all get on board with so we can move on and solve more important problems.

In any event, the following is a good discussion between the two folks in the title of this post, and it seems to me that Stewart makes a good case that while those who argue that marriage has a steadfast, definitive meaning, it actually doesn’t since it has been constantly redefined throughout recorded history.

Take a look…

Do know that one way or another there will be gay “marriage.” Whether it’s the civil union idea I’m proposing or actual marriage, the next generation are roundly rejecting the idea that gay people should be treated differently because they frankly don’t care what people do in their bedrooms. Given that, they’ll start voting to give gay people the same rights that everybody else has. But it might happen sooner than that given legal precedent.

Because let’s remember, when the SCOTUS ruled that interracial marriage should be legal in 1967, public opinion was decidedly against it to the tune of 70%. And this was after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So given that “sexual orientation” is now a part of the language in every single anti-discriminatory law in this country, it’s going to be next to impossible for the conservative members of the SCOTUS to claim that marriage is somehow a special case without tying it to religious traditions.

Also, to those who say that gay marriage will somehow destroy the institution, I would respectfully ask for any evidence to support that beyond your opinion. We all know the divorce rate among the American heterosexual population is at 50% and these people can literally get married on a dare. And the procreation argument falls apart because numerous straight couple aren’t physically able to have kids (whether it’s because of biological defect or age) and not every couple even necessarily wants to have kids.

Moving on…

  • Russ

    Mike Huckabee is not only a bigot, he’s an arrogant bigot. He said in the Jon Stewart interview that gays need to prove to him why they should be able to marry (not the exact quote, but the gist of what he said). Imagine the arrogance of confidently saying in an interview that a portion of our population needs to do a song-and-dance act in order to win over the likes of Mike Huckabee. Shear arrogance. Shear bigotry. Mr. Huckabee may wrap his bigotry in a warm-as-fresh-baked-apple-pie smile, but in the end, it’s still bigotry. Like George Wallace in the ’60s and his rants and fights against integrating schools, Huckabee will look just as foolish in hindsight when his bigotry against gays becomes as outdated as Wallace’s views against blacks and school integration. Huckabee should be ashamed of himself, but he’s too arrogant to recognize his own shame. Thankfully, people who do not harbor prejudice and who believe in equal rights for all (after all, that is what the United States is supposed to represent; yes?) know a bigot when we see one. When I see Mike Huckabee, I see a bigot. Shame on him.

  • Dave

    Like every other anti-gay propagandist does when confronted with their bias, Huckabee refused to respond to any of Stewart’s reasonable arguments and challenges, even when Stewart just plainly asked “Why?” It’s completely arrogant for Huckabee to declare that gay people must convince others of their right to equality — especially when he’s promoting a a book (obviously fictional for him) called “Do the Right Thing”! No, gay people should be unapologetic in reaching for their equality. That’s doing the right thing.

  • Jon

    I’m a straight married guy. I’ll be dipped in chicken crap before I go make my case for Mike Huckabee about why I should be married. It’s not for him to say. So why does he think gay people owe him such an explanation? That’s the real problem with the anti-gay marriage rhetoric: it is predicated on the belief that we need to explain it to those people. Hell no! It’s NOT FOR THEM TO SAY. Huckbee isn’t affected one whit by my marriage, and he won’t be affected one whit by any others, gay or straight. The absolute hubris of someone who thinks someone else needs to explain himself to earn full citizenship!! the Hubris!
    I loved that Jon Stewart even pointed out how recent the Marriage-as-Sacrament concept is! or that religion is a real lifestyle choice.

  • grassboots

    Real marriage is hurt by counterfeit marriage the same way I am hurt when someone tries to cash a bogus $20 bill at the local hardware. Hardly at all, as long as it is understood to be counterfeit. But the moment that the government starts to recognize fake 20s as the real, every real bill is devalued.

    Homosexuals won’t really be married, anymore than a bogus 20 is a real $20 bill.

    Of course, my wife and I will still be married. But the culture will suffer.

  • Mollena

    So, grassboots, in your opinion, people who are gay are not human in the same way as straight people? Or are you saying that gayness is something artificially created to criminally defraud an unsuspecting populace? Your analogy is weird and your statement of cultural impact unsupported by anything addressing Mr. Stewart;s simple question: “How? How does this impact you EXACTLY?”

    I live outside of what I considered to be the straight-and-narrow confines of mainstream lifestyles. And my choices don’t impact you.

    Now, if you stick by your evident conviction and feel that homosexuals are sub-human, then your analogy is clear. And that is saddening.

    I will pray for you.



  • Ric Avelino

    Marriage is a union of two to become one and this is a learning from that book called Bible that is known as the Word of God.

    If that book source of learning about marriage says that marriage is a union of a man and a woman then it definitely will go against same sex marriage.

    And marriage, definitely, is the bedrock of our society that it should not prevent the jump in of many to marriage unless the act is a violation of the book which is the source of learning about that thing called marriage.

  • TerenceC

    Marriage is nothing more than a legal joining of property and title between two individuals. Anyone who thinks marriage is anything other than that is simply too stupid to be married. The bible is a religious book and has no place in a secular government and no place in the determination of law. 50% of the people who get married eventually get a divorce – in a divorce there is never any determination about whether or not God ordained the union, there is no determination about the emotional aspects of the divorcing relationship, there is no determination as to anything other than the fair and equitable distribution of the marriage assets. Marriage is a virtue of personal choice between people nothing more. If a church states they won’t perform a marriage that’s their business – if a church says two people can’t be married in a secular service they should lose their tax exempt status. There are billions of people who don’t believe one word of the bible – they have another set of beliefs. If religious people can spew their devisiveness in order to keep others oppressed – while hiding behind the bible and saying they speak for God – that’s simply insane. Who cares if 2 adults want to get married? There are good things and bad things about marriage – but the one consistent theme is the advantage in property, assetts, and tax. It’s discrimination and a violation of an individuals Civil Rights for a government to say who can and can’t be married. Religion, the Bible, God’s word – it’s all crap and historically creates far more problems for the larger society than it ever solves.

  • greysells

    Marriage in the 21st Century.

    I assume all Evangelicals believe that God loves all people, straight and gay. So being on God’s side and Him on ours, we need to find a solution that works which includes loving gays in the Christian Community. Try this one. There is only one kind of marriage that the State recognizes – [Civil] marriage by a justice of the peace. Everyone gets married that way. Everyone including all those that were previously married under the old rules. Remarriage could be an occasion of great rejoicing and renewal. My wife and I are up for it. And if would help solve this problem it is worth it.

    Since we have separation of Church and State, churches are free to do what they want additionally including remarrying members in any manner they choose and within their own rules. The Constitution protects worship so no one could force a church to do anything it did not want to do. Individuals are free to participate in whatever ceromonies they want. Some churches will want to marry gays. Some won’t. That’s OK. However, with declining church participation rates, many churches might review their policies on membership once we remove the conflict and get back to being followers of Jesus. Good stuff like love thy neighbor and being my brother’s keeper, etc. New Testament stuff.

    So now what do we have by doing the above? Everyone who wants to marry can do so Those who want a [church] marriage in addition can do so. The State is out of a church’s business. And the churches are out of the States’ business. All marriages are equal in law. The more marriages the merrier. No one is harmed and no one is hurt. Sounds Christian to me. Isn’t love wonderful?

  • Kris

    Greysells –

    My thoughts exactly. “Marriage” may have been, in the Church’s mind, their term to begin with and is still a sacred religious term for them – but conceding that is just all the more reason for the State to stop using a sacred religious term in their governance.

    As for the disparity in terms – as many say they are for gays having the same legal benefits (property, assets, tax, hospital visits) but don’t call it marriage – I see it like this: We used to have separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites, but eventually we realized that even if the water was coming from the same place, and the fountains looked identical, “separate but equal” was not the right way to treat a fellow human being. The same applies here. (Yes, that’s my answer to “counterfeit 20 poster”)

    Grassroots – Homosexual couples are not “counterfeits”, their orientation is as it is – by nature or by nurture, they are as they are. Just because they are in the minority doesn’t mean their unions are inferior or less valuable than and heterosexual couple’s.

    -Ric Avelino – Oh, I am a Christian, and a heterosexual myself – FYI. There’s a lot that’s tough to come to grips with in the Bible – like the genocide of the land of Canaan where God told the Isrealites to go into the land and kill every man, women, child and animal. I will not mistreat or discriminate against another human being when I know I don’t have all the answers. I want to love people and avoid the temptation of trying to control their choices.

  • http://none will

    We truly seem to be dancing around the REAL issue.Why is our American “secular” government using a religious term like marriage anyway?Marriage is defined by the Church,not the government.I guarantee if the govt used the term “civil union” instead of marriage,this subject would close quickly.

  • karen

    God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. How would same sex marriages ever reproduce.
    And how were you concieved????? Not by having two fathers or two mothers.

    GO MIKE HUCKABEE!!!!!!!!