Video: Huckabee battles Stewart over gay marriage
posted at 3:35 pm on December 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Nothing you haven’t heard before but I know how much Hot Air readers like to watch Huck squirm. The tone is set early, with Stewart pressing him on why conservatives think government should be in the business of commanding armies but not, say, handing out cheese or otherwise playing perpetual wet nurse to the population. The gay marriage exchange comes in the second clip; as often happens with opponents, he hops from one justification to the other without trying very hard on any of them. First it’s tradition, then it’s a slippery slope to polygamy, then (by implication) it’s a distinction between immutable traits like race and “lifestyle choices” like homosexuality, then it’s procreation. He’s in retreat the whole way. Not his finest hour.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 Next »
… then he blamed the Mormons
joey24007 on December 10, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Where’s a smart bomb when you need one?
Vashta.Nerada on December 10, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Must’ve been pretty bad then… I just can’t bring myself to watch Huckabee speak. I just ate lunch.
Zetterson on December 10, 2008 at 3:43 PM
haha huck gets PWN3D
Noneya on December 10, 2008 at 3:43 PM
No need to watch.
upinak on December 10, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Doesn’t sound too difficult to do.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Meh, they’re both douchebags. They can have each other and gloat over their moral superiority over each other.
mjk on December 10, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Indeed. More same old same old bleating about teh gheys and their evil plot to inflict buggeration on mankind.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Hey, Huck seemed like a pretty good operator beforehand…good on his feet, did well enough in the debates to get my girlfriend swooning, hes normally a sharp wit but he’s defending one of the toughest “conservative” principles to defend…i cant really blame him
ernesto on December 10, 2008 at 3:47 PM
short version of Hucks point is that libertarianism pressuposes a rational(and sinless) world, since its not such a perfect world it creates a market demand or need for some Govt. Doesn’t mean all Govt. programs are the solution to this problem necessarily. People don’t follow the 10 commandments, so we have about 10,000 laws and regulations trying to enforce them.
jp on December 10, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Why do these guys go on his show? It’s impossible to tell whether it will be a friendly atmosphere (clown nose on, as Allahpundit says) or a hostile interview.
Why risk it?
BadgerHawk on December 10, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Sending Huck into be a spokesperson on anything, much less something as important as this, is absolutely retarded.
SkinnerVic on December 10, 2008 at 3:52 PM
GOP politicians have to begin to realize that by satisfying their ego by going on leftist talk or entertainment programs they only serve to enhance the ego and confidence of the Democrats, MSM, liberals, socialists and nutroots. The latter’s only agenda is to gather unflattering or incriminating political evidence-they have no interest whatsoever of enightening their audience or the American people.
technopeasant on December 10, 2008 at 3:54 PM
FTFY
That’s what he gets for trying to defend the indefensible.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Two geeks.
Bishop on December 10, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Here’s how you debate liberals on gay marriage.
“I just personally feel that every child needs both a father and a mother, and taking either one away from a child does harm.”
That is our winning argument.
indythinker on December 10, 2008 at 3:56 PM
ugliest indeed
ernesto on December 10, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Too bad people forget the only pillar of modern law hinging this matter from falling apart is because of the Mormons.
SkinnerVic on December 10, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Marriage is not a “right” nor an institution to be redefined to mean anything.
Jon Stewart ask this to Barack Obama(who opposes Gay Marriage)……never
jp on December 10, 2008 at 3:56 PM
And in opposition there’s “The Constitution”
Game Set Match
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 3:57 PM
I’m not that bad-lookin’
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Huck AND gay marriage?
Okay, my plus/minus is 300 comments.
By the way, I didn’t watch the clips for the same reason I never watch Olbermann clips, its basically the same thing every time. I remember Jon Stewart squirming to understand Jonah Goldberg when he tried to explain “Liberal Fascism” and it was embarassing.
Stewart is no better at defending liberalism than Huck is at defending conservatism. The problem? Neither quite understands what it is they’re defending.
jimmy the notable on December 10, 2008 at 3:58 PM
…with Stewart pressing him on why conservatives think government should be in the business of commanding armies but not, say, handing out cheese or otherwise playing perpetual wet nurse to the population.
Ummm, because the Constitution spells out what the government can/should do:
Military = Check
Wet Nurse = Not in any copy I’ve seen
That Huckabee couldn’t counter that shows he’s a nitwit.
catmman on December 10, 2008 at 3:58 PM
he’s trying to sell a book, and himself for 2012?
granted he has zero chance with these idiots to begin with.
jp on December 10, 2008 at 3:59 PM
I could almost enjoy the Daily Show if it weren’t for the audience creaming their pants and going into seizures every time Jon Stewart makes a joke or a point. He himself does decently in these interview. The fan club, however, nauseates me.
I don’t think Huckabee seemed squirming, but I get the feeling that he sees the logic that Stewart was proposing and is still somewhat conflicted over it.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Wow. People are rooting for the liberal (Jon Stewart) and trashing Huckabee for being against gay-marriage? I guess hatred of a person is more important than principles, huh?
keepinitreal on December 10, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Is this hostile? It seems like there’s disagreement, but not hostility.
DeathToMediaHacks on December 10, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Over to you, Olaf!
Good Lt on December 10, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Who sent him? He’s kinda self-appointed, eh?
If you ain’t sent, you just went.
Akzed on December 10, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Whenever politicians go on MSM television and discuss religious-based or social conservative issues, for the most part they come across as inconsiderate, intolerant or pompous. I know this is not their intention, but it is what it is! The perception becomes the reality. The viewing audience is thinking to themselves, “Hey man, nobody is going to tell me how to live my life, even my parents; i don’t need this s**t. Get out of my face and stay in your own backyard.”
technopeasant on December 10, 2008 at 4:01 PM
I don’t hate Huck, I just happen to consider this particular ‘principle’ as being particularly revolting.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 4:02 PM
But what about children who get neither? Does the second father detract from the value of the first, or vice versa with two mothers?
If a father and a mother both have intrinsic value separately, so that a child raised by a single parent is better off than one raised with no parents, then certainly that separate intrinsic value has some combination effect with two fathers or two mothers. After all, two women won’t necessarily both act like mothers to a child, and two men won’t necessarily both act like fathers.
And who’s to say that even in a couple that has a man and a woman, they will fill their roles properly?
I’m just playing Devil’s advocate, by the way, because I don’t happen to believe your argument as “our best argument” makes a lot of sense. I don’t really have an opinion on gay marriage, but I have an easier time convincing myself that it makes sense than that it doesn’t.
jimmy the notable on December 10, 2008 at 4:03 PM
The Constitution endorses gay marriage? The same section that provides for abortion on demand? Huh.
Akzed on December 10, 2008 at 4:03 PM
bizzare posting for sure after watching the clips.
jp on December 10, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Every homosexual that wants to get married can.
There is no such thing as marriage between two men or two women.
Sorry.
spmat on December 10, 2008 at 4:03 PM
And those of us who are conservative but are in favor of gay marriage will argue “I feel that it doesn’t do them any harm, because there are some gay people who would make better parents than some straight people.”
Where do we go from there, other than agreeing to disagree?
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:03 PM
the darwinian “Living Constitution” does for sure.
jp on December 10, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Easily countered. There are over a quarter million kids being raised by gay couples in the USA anyway, and preventing their parents/guardians from gaining the legal benefits of marriage is more harmful to kids than allowing them to enter into a civil contract legitimizing a pre-exiting relationship.
Big S on December 10, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Same here. Seemed very civil.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Olaf, some bible scripture maybe.
The winning argument for the holy rollers on the religious right is one made, ironically, by Sir Elton John. He thinks it’s silly that the gay community is demanding the right to be “married”. As he says, “marriage” is for heterosexual couples (by definition). Give gay couples all of the legal rights and obligations inherent in a heterosexual marriage and call the arrangement a civil union, partnership of love or whatever the hell else the gay community comes up with. Elton sees the outrage in the gay community as silly and misplaced. Smart guy.
dakine on December 10, 2008 at 4:06 PM
You can change your moniker to MadisonLibertine for starters.
Akzed on December 10, 2008 at 4:06 PM
…agreeing to disagree?
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:03 PM
But that’s just it, most people can’t do this anymore. They let their emotions or “hyper-partisanship” take over and it just gets uglier and uglier…
catmman on December 10, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Marriage shouldn’t even be left to the states, it should be left to churches
lodge on December 10, 2008 at 4:06 PM
You’ve got me. Stewart’s audience is pretty unlikely to vote conservative/Republican anyway. Why waste your time?
meltenn on December 10, 2008 at 4:07 PM
I don’t hate Huck, I just happen to consider this particular ‘principle’ as being particularly revolting.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Alright, that’s understandable. If you are in favor of gay marriage then that makes sense. However, my guess is that most people here are against gay marriage and agree with Huckabee on this issue but they let their disdain for him take precedence over the issue.
keepinitreal on December 10, 2008 at 4:07 PM
What a daft thing to say.
The Constitution says nothing about “gay marriage”, just as it says nothing about authorizing government to legislate such matters, just as it says nothing about authorizing the government to arbitrate the english language.
Therefore any attempt to interfere in such private matters is unconstitutional.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 4:07 PM
What is marriage?
spmat on December 10, 2008 at 4:08 PM
what exactly is so important about keeping gays from getting married? god forbid gay children grow up to learn they are actually treated as equals. do you think homosexuality can be stamped out if they can’t get married? or that your children will never know they exist? there is no argument againsy gay marriage that holds water in a secular court system, which is why it’s legality is inevitable.
Noneya on December 10, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Oh, that’s silly. Where’s the evidence of that?
Oh, wait…
Never mind.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:08 PM
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:08 PM
*Zing* for that…
catmman on December 10, 2008 at 4:10 PM
There are better answers than those what Huckabee gave.
But, on the other hand, whenever Huckabee was starting to answer, Stewart would interrupt and Huckabee let him do so.
And here’s a thought: Gay people do have the same right as anyone else to marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex over a certain age just like anyone else in the country. Just because they do not choose to do so does not mean they don’t have the right. An inequality of desire is not necessarily an inequality of right.
Last thought: Did Stewart agree that abortion is the number one travesty in our nation?? If so, Huckabee should have asked Stewart to help him with the “number one” travesty before moving on to “number two”!
DPierre on December 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM
+1 – He’s always been self-appointed. My bad to think someone actually would send him.
SkinnerVic on December 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM
then you will have to outlaw having a child out-of-wedlock. bristol palin would have to march straight to jail right now. or did she marry already?
Noneya on December 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Folks, there is NO winning argument on gay issues when you appear on mainstream TV or radio. None, period. It’s only a matter of the degree or steepness of fallout from the interview. Just accept it, Huckabee or anybody who aspires to the 2012 GOP nomination. You’re going into the lion’s den and the lion has been licking his lips the whole day awaiting his prey. Your only viable option: stay out of the lion’s den. It is what it is!
technopeasant on December 10, 2008 at 4:12 PM
I’m not even “in favor” of it….I simply don’t give a damn what gays do, much like I don’t give a damn what anyone does in their private life.
Gays wanna betroth themselves to each other, wonderful….I wish them happiness.
If multiple people want to get hitched in some polygamous arrangement, go for it.
None of my damned business….and it’s especially none of the gubmint’s business.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 4:12 PM
You’ll find few people in here who care.
Until someone says, “so does that mean single mothers shouldn’t be legally allowed to have children?”
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Here’s a question…if gay marriage is made legal how will we ensure that pastors, priests, rabbis, etc. will be protected? How do we make sure that they are not sued for refusing to marry a gay couple at their church or house of worship? That’s just one worry that I have.
keepinitreal on December 10, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Not yet, but 1. the father is still in the picture, and 2. she hasn’t had the baby yet either.
So, bad example.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 4:17 PM
it is a Libertine position, not a thing in the world conservative about redefining marriage.
apparently Elton John doesn’t get that to many its not about actual legal “rights” or they would be all for the Civil Unions. Its about something much more than that, a rebellion. There’s a reason this whole ‘issue’ is occurring to people now, and wasn’t even a thought say 30 yrs ago, or 50 or 100….Postmodernism.
The next step in this process, which NAMBLA is already making arguments in journals for is Pedophilia and selling it on the same basis gay marriage is being attempted on: Love. Just give it a couple decades for the postmodern mind to become further deluded.
jp on December 10, 2008 at 4:18 PM
The same way they’re currently able to discriminate hiring employees based religion.
The people who need to worry are the ones in private businesses, like eHarmony and photographers, but they’re already in jeopardy without gay marriage being legalized.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 4:19 PM
It’s impossible to win that argument, there is no good justification. This is the issue for the GOP to drop, not abortion.
Dash on December 10, 2008 at 4:19 PM
If I were Huck, I wouldn’t even have gone on there.
No sense in entertaining someone who refers to conservatives/Republicans as nutjobs and says about a sitting president “why do we have to talk to this jackass like he’s 4?”
Ryan Gandy on December 10, 2008 at 4:20 PM
That’s a HUGE worry that I have, too. And its not as if it isn’t sensible, either. The gay community is prone to lawsuits.
jimmy the notable on December 10, 2008 at 4:20 PM
The definition of marriage is a private matter? Obviously some in this forum consider the definition of conservative to be a private matter as well, so maybe. I wasn’t aware that everyone was making up his/her own definition. If so, it’s funny how 99.99999999999% of humanity comes up with he same definition.
Akzed on December 10, 2008 at 4:20 PM
thats one of huckabee’s problems, he doesn’t bring a knife to the knife fight.
jp on December 10, 2008 at 4:21 PM
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
manwithblackhat on December 10, 2008 at 4:21 PM
…except being in favor of not amending the Constitution over such matters. You know, conserving the Constitution, and rejecting the “living document” attitude that some, like Barack Obama, hold.
Oh wait, Bush was pushing the marriage amendment. And he is a beacon of conservatism, after all.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:22 PM
The Democrats want even go out in favor of Gay marriage yet, and you think the GOP should drop it?
and btw, if they did the GOP would hold maybe 50 seats in congress at that point, if they were lucky.
jp on December 10, 2008 at 4:22 PM
The religious issue is the strongest argument. Churches should not be forced to act against their doctrines. The first amendment guarantees the right to the free exercise of religion. If pastors are forced to marry those who are going against their religious beliefs it goes against the first amendment. If gay marriage is made legal than churches will eventually be forced to perform such marriages under the guise of discrimination.
Rose on December 10, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Although this comes up a lot, it’s little more than a scare tactic used by those who disapprove of gay marriage for other reasons. Plenty of religious groups, including Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, etc., already have strict requirements for anyone who wants to marry into their faiths, and these requirements are astoundingly uncontroversial unless they include something like child abuse (See: FLDS). They are uncontroversial because people know that the courts won’t touch them on grounds of separation of church and state.
Big S on December 10, 2008 at 4:22 PM
well let’s put an ankle bracelet on Levi then so he doesn’t run. and why haven’t they married yet? surely there are plenty of shotguns around the Palin house!
Noneya on December 10, 2008 at 4:23 PM
And the whole thorny mess can be neatly avoided if we insist that the government obey the Constitution….
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Gay marriage is akin to ’squared circle’. The essence of marriage is sexual complimentarity. Why? Because it is intrinsically life-giving. Same sex ‘marriage’ lacks the very essence and essential properties of marriage, and so is invalid.
Proponents say that all that matters is love and fidelity between persons, but this is silly. Love comes in many different ways, but this view basically imposes the world’s definition of love on God’s natural law. If I love my cat, I then can marry it. This demeans and twists the very definition of marriage.
One need not appeal to the Bible to make a case against gay marriage, just follow Natural Law to its’ inevitable conclusion.
GoodSamaritan on December 10, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Nothing more Constitutional than a Constitutional Amendment.
Trying to legislate(whether by judges or congress) Secular Humanist Morality is not Constitutional or conservative. Which is exactly what
jp on December 10, 2008 at 4:23 PM
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
manwithblackhat on December 10, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Unless the blind are all good with a sword and smell things real well…
catmman on December 10, 2008 at 4:24 PM
I wasn’t aware you were the end-all be-all knower of what is conservative and what is absolutely not conservative.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Yes, because we all know lifeless sodomy is equivalent to child-rearing marriage.
We all know that “Men Seeking Men” is morally equivalent to forming a real, conjugal, consummatable, life-producing relationship and that only a backwards bigot could possibly believe that Adam and Steve are not the moral equivalent of Adam and Eve.
Please LimeyGeek, the only ugly about the defense of marriage is that nobody does it competently anymore.
BKennedy on December 10, 2008 at 4:24 PM
What is the practical difference between marriage and civil unions? If none, why not switch?
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2008 at 4:25 PM
For sure. Now start thinking through the implications of using the Constitution to constrain the people, rather than the government.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 4:25 PM
So is AP for his snarky commentary. Gee AP, how about telling us moral idiots why gay marriage should be allowed?
Nevermind, that whenever it comes to a vote, its always defeated.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 10, 2008 at 4:25 PM
I don’t see that helping the GOP. The vast majority of Americans are against homosexual marriages. Prop 8 didn’t even pass in blue state California. Even Obama had to speak against homosexual marriage when running for president.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 4:25 PM
I’d use the force
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Neither is legislating based on religious beliefs. Are we next going to make it illegal to not keep holy the sabbath?
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:26 PM
plenty of straights practice sodomy, i can direct you to 1000 web sites that show it. let’s not be so prudish, ay?
Noneya on December 10, 2008 at 4:27 PM
That’s rich coming from you.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:27 PM
theres a good chance it would spark a revolution if it got to that(suing pastors for not marrying gays). Which would be ironic since the Founders were escaping the Church of England for religious freedom and all. This would be the Secular Humanist church of America
jp on December 10, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Oh, gonna try and start with me are you? You’re delusional. I’ve seen the circles you start with others, and I’m not going to play for more than a couple posts – we’ll agree to disagree from the get go.
With that out of the way, you have *absolutely* no basis to “claim” your right to having the definition about what marriage is until you (collectively gay people) “do time” to change the laws of this nation. What do I mean, go Google US v. Reynolds. George was willing to put himself to the test and died for what he believed in; he put in his time. How do I know that our lovely government killed him because of his time in San Quentin? I’m married to his great granddaughter.
No one has the sack in the “gay rights” community to put their life at risk for what they believe. Until you do, it’s just not that real for you.
SkinnerVic on December 10, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Nothing more pleasing than the religious right doggy-paddling in a debate on social issues: rights for some but not for others…compassion for only those that think like we do.
dk on December 10, 2008 at 4:28 PM
I’m not drawing any equations, moral or otherwise.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Well, Bristol and I aren’t exactly BFFs, but I’d guess that they’re waiting until after the baby is born. It could just be the timing. With mom running for VP, there’s not a ton of time to plan a wedding.
Besides, Palin’s a good hunter. If he runs, she can catch him, and I’m sure Levi knows that.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Blowout for Stewart
Baphomet on December 10, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Thank you GoodSamaritan. Every Single time I talk about this I forget that word, and it’s an important word.
Complimentarity. E.g. Two different things working together to create a whole.
The only thing complimentary about homosexual relationships is the spread of venereal disease, to the point where you’re 2 and a half times more likely to get AIDS from sleeping with another gay man then you are from injecting needles (See: US Dept of HHS, US CDC)
BKennedy on December 10, 2008 at 4:30 PM
I was going to make that point. Odd how it’s only “lifeless” when it’s between gay people, despite having the exact same mechanics.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:30 PM
I have no reason to watch two of my least favorite public personalities going at it.
Mike D. on December 10, 2008 at 4:30 PM
First of all, same-sex marriage is not about the children. Its about the acceptance of something obviously abnormal. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. The State has a compelling interest in keeping marriage that way. If homos wanna live together, draw up a contract or accept civil unions. Other than that, eat sh!t.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 10, 2008 at 4:30 PM
In the US alone, yes. In the rest of the world, not so much.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 4:31 PM
If you don’t like their hypocrisy, then don’t participate in it yourself. “compassion for only those that think like we do” applies to you here as well.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Nobodys right to Marry is being taken away.
1.Every Homosexual man has the right to marry any woman he wants.
2.Every Lesbian woman has the right to Marry any man she wants.
If gay/lesiban people choose not to use the right to marry, than that is not a heterosexuals fault. You can’t change the rules to make it more “comfortable” for others. Before you bring all the Slavery, Segregation, Plessy Vs. Ferguson crap…take a breath, get relaxed don’t bother. I’m sick of hearing it.
portlandon on December 10, 2008 at 4:31 PM
What is “marriage” between two men meant to conserve?
Akzed on December 10, 2008 at 4:31 PM
The key term in that sentence was “lifeless,” not sodomy.
Thanks for missing the point entirely.
BKennedy on December 10, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 Next »