Mike Huckabee: I will not bow to the Court on this gay-marriage decision any more than the Founders bowed to British tyranny

posted at 11:21 am on June 26, 2015 by Allahpundit

Embarrassing but true: When the Court’s decision dropped, for the first time in my life, I actually had the thought, “I’m curious to hear what Mike Huckabee says about this.”

He came loaded for bear.

“The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.

“This ruling is not about marriage equality, it’s about marriage redefinition. This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court’s most disastrous decisions, and they have had many. The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny.”

“The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature’s God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity. Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court. If accepted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment.”

As recently as a few weeks ago, the CW on Huckabee 2016 was that he was going to turn down the volume a bit on his social conservatism while turning it way up on kitchen table issues. His problem in ’08 was that everyone saw him as a one-trick fire-breathing pony on “values,” which made him an afterthought everywhere outside the south. The solution this time was to hammer at blue-collar economic anxieties. That’s why he started his campaign with some “molon labe” remarks about Social Security and Medicare. So here comes the big SCOTUS decision and … he’s the first guy out of the chute with a “top this” statement citing the colonies’ armed resistance to George III as inspiration for resisting a Supreme Court ruling. Did his strategy change in the past month? Was he worried that Ted Cruz might make the American-revolution analogy if he didn’t get there first? A Republican nominee can probably get elected president despite opposing gay marriage, especially since the Democratic nominee-in-waiting has only officially supported SSM herself for a few years now. (She’s only supported a constitutional right to SSM for two months.) Given the polling, I’m not sure he can get elected president by threatening a constitutional crisis, or worse, over the issue. Even among America’s gay-marriage opponents, how many view this ruling as so appalling that the GOP Congress should somehow resist its implementation?

And what resistance does he intend, specifically? Here’s what he said in an op-ed published yesterday:

Under our Constitution, we have three, co-equal branches of government. The courts can interpret law but cannot create it. The ruling still requires congressional funding and executive branch enforcement. The Supreme Court is not the “Supreme Branch,” and it is certainly not the Supreme Being. If they can unilaterally make law, and just do whatever they want, then we have judicial tyranny…

Let me be clear: When the Supreme Court abuses the limits of its power and attempts to create a right that doesn’t exist in the Constitution, it is the duty of the president to reject this threat to our religious liberty as “the law of the land.” As president, I will never bow down to the false gods of judicial supremacy.

What congressional funding is he talking about vis-a-vis a decision invalidating state marriage laws? Does he mean Congress should cut off funding that’s unrelated to gay marriage to punish a state for complying with the Court’s ruling? I.e. if a state agrees to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, they don’t get their Medicaid money? It used to be that prominent social conservatives vowed to counter Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage with a Federal Marriage Amendment, which would be a by-the-book constitutional response if it had a prayer of passing. (Scott Walker’s statement in response to today’s ruling says, “As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.”) Since it doesn’t, Huckabee’s moved into murkier remedies. It’s a given, I assume, that he wants county clerks to practice civil disobedience by refusing to issue marriage licenses, but that’s a small-potatoes protest that’ll slow down the process without stopping it. Some clerks will issue the licenses out of a sense of duty, whatever their personal feelings; those who adamantly refuse could be fired and replaced with ones who will. In any case, he’s talking about much grander expressions of opposition here than clerks revolting at the county level. He wants the president and Congress to do something. Okay. What?

Update: Rick Santorum’s also playing this by the book: He supported a Federal Marriage Amendment, he reminds everyone in his statement, and he’d use the bully pulpit as president to make the case for reinstating traditional marriage laws. Both perfectly fair responses. What would Huckabee do beyond that?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Just like in Soddom, they will demand we send the strangers out to be raped by the mob.

Yes, they are coming for us. Only fools believe otherwise.

Baggi on June 26, 2015 at 2:09 PM

QFT.

Deckard BR on June 26, 2015 at 2:57 PM

JUDICIARCHY – Totalitarian Rule by Judges

NOUN

a small group of lawyers having control of a country, organization, or institution:

“the ruling judiciarchy of Supreme Court Justices mandate government policies and social outcomes without regard to any other branch of government or the people.”

Antonym: Freedom

Schadenfreude on June 26, 2015 at 3:35 PM

Just like in Soddom, they will demand we send the strangers out to be raped by the mob.

Yes, they are coming for us. Only fools believe otherwise.

Baggi on June 26, 2015 at 2:09 PM

mazer9 on June 26, 2015 at 3:49 PM

gay parents bad.

everdiso on June 26, 2015 at 2:56 PM

Agreed. It’s child abuse.

The Boy with the Henna Tattoo

TheMadHessian on June 26, 2015 at 3:50 PM

Good for Huckabee. He needs to be the GOP nominee for the GOP to stand any chance in 2016, be it for POTUS, Senate, the House, or state and local races.

Stoic Patriot on June 26, 2015 at 4:45 PM

I don’t think anything much will happen till they start jailing the preachers,rabbis,priests etc. who won’t provide the church services and marry the gays.

That phase is next.

The rest is hot air in an election year.

workingclass artist on June 26, 2015 at 5:15 PM

Yes, the gays are coming for you to gay marry you and gay your kids and turn you gay.
Lighten up, Francis.
Good Lt on June 26, 2015 at 1:01 PM

Actually… Yes they are.

Skywise on June 26, 2015 at 2:07 PM

What did hat pervert Michael Swift, homofascist activist extraordinaire, say?

This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

The ignorance on display in Good Lt.’s comment is cut from the same cloth of that of conservatives who told us a few years ago, ‘Oh, the gays just want to get married, they’re harmless’. Now we have them trying to shut businesses down. This is the sort of ignorance that has gotten this country in the toilet.

avgjo on June 26, 2015 at 5:49 PM

Huck’s right, as he almost always is regarding social issues.

itsnotaboutme on June 26, 2015 at 6:44 PM

American Christians have been passive for far too long. When will the fight back against the left wing agenda begin?

You can talk the talk but not walk the walk. Actions speak louder than words.

Pathetic really.

Crux Australis on June 26, 2015 at 7:05 PM

Good grief, push legal protections for religious denominations as a means to protect individual freedom for all of us, gay, straight, atheist, believer. That is the smart Republican move. Not this hyperventilating.

rob verdi on June 26, 2015 at 11:30 AM

Apparently you haven’t been paying attention. You had that yesterday. You lost it today.

Skip2014 on June 26, 2015 at 10:33 PM

The President can issue an executive order forbidding any Social Security money going to a same-sex pseudo-spouse or pseudo-widow.

corona79 on June 27, 2015 at 12:15 AM

Gryphon, you’re right. The minute Huck becomes president, he would talk about how we’re all Gods children and that we should accept gay marriage.

cimbri on June 27, 2015 at 6:22 AM

Gryphon, you’re right. The minute Huck becomes president, he would talk about how we’re all Gods children and that we should accept gay marriage.

cimbri on June 27, 2015 at 6:22 AM

^ Precisely why I won’t back him. Yeah he pounds the pulpit NOW and he’s right NOW…so frigging what, that makes him a religious talk-show host without the talk show. Evidence that he would back up his big mouth? Zippo.

LawfulGood on June 27, 2015 at 10:56 AM

This is what can be done, not by Congressmen or bureaucrats, but by the people: since laws no longer mean what they say, we must ignore court orders, subpenas, summons to jury duty, and any legal fiction that previously guided our daily lives in an ordered, ethical, moral and democratically determined process. We must refrain from paying taxes as we now have no idea if the language in these laws mean what they say they mean. Challenge. Every. Thing.

devan95 on June 27, 2015 at 1:32 PM

LOL! The Huckster…
Talk big and then fold like a cheap suit when the rubber meets the road. That’s our GOP.
What a sad and hapless lot.

shorebird on June 28, 2015 at 1:49 AM

Yes, Mike, but where have you been? The time for this speech was years ago.

Technically, you a right. Enforcement of this will be a bigger disaster than the implementation of Obamacare. Leftists, Liberals, RINOs and go-along-to-get-alongs own this.

Conservatives worry about the conflict this could cause to average americans minding their own business. Leftists encourage conflict and violence because they think they will rule the chaos they caused. Once the bloodshed starts nobody will be thinking about gay-rights, of course, and the go-along-to-get-alongs will be s confused as to how this could have happened, when all they wanted was for everyone to “be nice”.

virgo on June 28, 2015 at 1:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2