Michael Greenwald
So, I posted the clip of Mike Huckabee–former Governor of Arkansas, former Presidential candidate (though, I doubt we’ve seen the last of him in that arena)–getting his ass handed to him on a Liberal platter by Jon Stewart. I hope you watch the clip below. It still astounds me. I’ll cop to the fact that I have Liberal leanings. But I believe conservatism has its good points. Don’t get me wrong, by no stretch of the imagination would I fashion myself along the lines of Alex P. Keaton’s Reagonomic view of the world. I think Trickle-Down Economics is the Rich’s guilt-free rationalization for grabbing as much of the pie as possible and disenfranchising the poor. But, wait a second, don’t cast me as a full on socialist. In many ways I believe in certain conservative economic doctrines. I am against bail-outs specifically and certainly against both the financial and automobile manufacturing bail-outs. I believe in smaller government, thus what Mr. Bush has done in terms of increasing Presidential power and intrusiveness over the last eight years scares me greatly. But there is a point where conservatism, just like all other polarizing doctrines goes too far. Our government does need to step in and help those who cannot help themselves. Health care, poverty, education, mental and physical illness, child care, among others, are issues which the government must intercede to balance and monitor. And I’d say my main break with conservatism lies in SOCIAL conservatism. In my mind this argument exists under the lines of common-sense. Lets suppose Mr. Huckabees statements on the Jon Stewart show were the main legs of the social conservatism’s platform. The biggest leg being the issue of gay marriage. Mr. Huckabee had some “interesting” points. I’ll attack them one by one:
Mike Huckabee: “…anatomically, the only way we can create the next generation is through a male and female relationship…”
Uh, Mike, let’s go back to human sexuality 101. The only way we can create the next generation is through a coupling of a sperm and an egg. I’ll concede the point that said sperm and egg are created within a man and a women, but the coupling can take place anywhere. In a test tube, through insertion of a needle, whatever. I realize you don’t understand the mechanics of sexual intercourse, because conservatives still believe that sex is “icky”, but lets try to be adult humans here for a moment and come to grips with the marvel of technology and not leave out the truth.
M.H: “…if we change [the definition of marriage] we’d have to change it to accommodate all life-styles…”
I’m not sure if this point was made to scare us straight or what. Is this country not the country of freedom from persecution? When has this devolved to freedom from persecution from only things that 51% of American’s aren’t afraid of? I can never understand why it sounds okay to lump gay marriage into the same category as polygamy. It’s shifting the argument to something that abhors most of us, thus making gay marriage guilty by association to everything but a male-female union. What’s next? Well, if we make gay marriage legal we will have to make child-adult marriage legal, too. No, its a case-by-case basis. As Mr. Stewart astutely points out, inter-racial marriage was once illegal. It’s case-by-case evolution.
M. H: (this is my favorite one) “…there is a difference between the equality of each individual and the equality of what we do and the sameness of what we do…”
Here, I think Mike (my respect for his has eroded too far to address him formally anymore) is confused by the definition of equal. This is another argument tact I hear the conservative platform using all the time. Taking a specific word that stands for a specific idea and subtly attaching a relativity to it. There are no grades of equal. There isn’t somewhat equal, mostly equal, kind of equal, little bit equal. Some words can be grey. Attach a grey definition to equal and it no longer is the five-letter symbol that directly stands for something else. For instance, Mike Huckabee is a bigot. Is he kind-of a bigot, sort-of a bigot, slightly bigoted? No, you are or you aren’t, there isn’t shades of grey in bigotry. My point is: preventing gay people from marrying is not endowing upon them with unalienable rights, Mike, thus they aren’t equal, as individuals, as people.
M.H: “…marriage is a privilege…”
Now, we’ve added condescension to the mix. Mike, what have you done to earn the right of marriage except be born a straight, white, American male? And yes, I said BORN. I know you’re about to say that gay-people choose to be gay, so I wanted to pre-empt that comment. Marriage is not a privilege, Mike. Marriage is a right. The sad part of this situation is that We, The People desire our government’s affirmation of this right. This is what bothers me about organized religion. Why should I have to pay to talk to God? Why should I have to sit-down in a church and be led by some man who has studied the Bible in order to talk to my Lord? Why should people be required to seek out the consent of a government to be married? But, that is not the government’s fault. It’s what governments do, this particular point is We, The People’s fault for allowing our government to control us this way. Marriage is a right, an unalienable right. What else can I say?
M.H: (here it is…) “…there is a big difference between a person being black and a person practicing a lifestyle and engaging in a marital relationship…”
I could cite articles here, but I’d be wasting my time. This is a fundamental belief of social conservatism: homosexuality is a CHOICE. Psychologists have been screaming into the right-blowing wind for years about this point. There is nothing I can say except: yes, Mike, there’s a difference between a person being black and a homosexual. Black people are an influential sub-group that the conservative movement realized it needed to get elected. Gay people are still not prevalent enough or organized enough or have fought long enough to be politically relevant. Plus, Mike, once the conservatives realize they are missing out on a pocket of potential voters, how would your voting machine identify gay people, anyway? You’ve thrown up your hands, haven’t you? Trust me when I say they LOOK EXACTLY LIKE YOU.
M.H: “…they’re asking to redefine the word…”
First of all, let me quote Robert Downey Jr in Tropic Thunder and say: “who you calling ‘you people’.” If Mike had said that about a black, Mexican, Jewish, Arab person the media would have burned HIM at the proverbial stake. To counter the point, though, and I don’t think I can put it more eloquently than Jon Stewart does, GAY PEOPLE are not asking to redefine the word, not trying to reshape the world, not attempting to corrode heterosexual marriage in anyway, they are asking for there God-given right to marry who they choose. Mike, what would Bob and Bob or Jill and Jill’s marriage next door do to your marriage beside force you to buy a wedding gift which I know you can afford? How would Bob and Bob Greene’s marriage erode Mike and Janet Huckabee’s marriage? Not one bit. To quote Dr. Phil (or Frank Caliendo doing Dr. Phil): “YOU’RE AN IDIOT!” There are so many people in this country who shouldn’t be married, Mike. People marry wife-beaters, cheaters, alcoholics, Fundamentalist Christians (AHHHH!!!!!), old people, young people, people of all races and ethnicities and religious beliefs, people with terrible BO, but the truth of the matter, Mike, is not one of these marriages has anything to do with, or even in the slightest, affects yours and Janet’s union, so I just don’t get it.
M.H: “…the basic purpose of a marriage is not just to create the next generation but to train our replacements…”
This, my friends, is the cloaked way of saying a gay couple cannot be as good parents (trainers) as a straight couple. For this statement I just don’t have any words. Anyone who believes this is just flat out wrong. Anyone who has children and believes this I fear for your kids because you are not teaching them one of the basic human sacraments: we are all created equal in His image. I’m quite positive that a gay man or a woman would suck at raising (training) a child just as much as a straight man or woman. And to say that a homosexual is inherently a worse parent based on sexuality compared to a crack-hole mother who prostitutes her children out but only sleeps with men blows my mind. Absolutely blows my mind.
M.H: “…a person who does not necessarily support the idea of changing the definition of marriage, it does not mean they are a homophobe, it does not mean they are filled with hate, animosity, anger…”
I will not speak for every person who does not support the idea of changing the definition of marriage–which by the way is the politically correct way of saying a person who is against gay marriage (though you say those phrases aren’t the same, yet they are)–but I will say based on your arguments above, which are representative of the overall social conservative platform, you are a homophobe, Mike, you are a bigot. Because those arguments are the incarnations of arguments prohibiting women from voting, black people equal rights, and every other social movement throughout America’s time.
In conclusion, Mike, your movement is an abomination and frankly your social beliefs are comparable to ones coming out of the Third World. As your “morality manual” says, Mike, “do the right thing” and evolve.
(Good God! I’d love to hear what you think of the video and my analysis. Please comment below.)
SleepSunshine 