Home > Politics > Huckabee does a Santorum

Huckabee does a Santorum

January 18, 2008

Huckabee was asked whether it is his goal to "bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible?" He didn’t clearly answer that question, of course, but instead said:

Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

See? Gay marriage will allow polygamy, paedophilia, and bestiality. So we need to "affirm marriage".

Earlier on in the interview, Huckabee opines that "[t]he Bible, however, was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture" thus showing that knowledge of the history of the composition, translation and reading of the Bible is not required to be ordained a Baptist minister.

Advertisements
  1. J-Dog
    January 18, 2008 at 2:30 pm

    Are we gonna have to deal with a “Frothy Huckabee” now to go with the “Frothy Santorum”? 🙂

  2. Ian
    January 18, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    It amazes me that we allow a public official, a candidate for the highest post in our nation, the ability to compare homosexual Americans to “animals”. Of course, we are all animals, but that is not the connotation here – it clearly denotes non-human, “lower” animals. The scary part of this statement is not that Huckabee is making it – it’s that many politicians have made it before and will make it again, without a majority outcry. This same line of thought was once commonly used by those in public office to refer to African Americans and other non-whites. No national candidate could make that racial comparison publicly today and get away with it, and it’s sad that any demographic of American still needs to hear themselves essentially reduced to a subhuman status by someone who wishes to govern them.

  3. Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD
    January 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm

    The Bible was not written to be amended. The Constitution was. Without amendments to the Constitution, women couldn’t vote, African-Americans wouldn’t be considered people. We have had to historically go back and to clarify, because there’ve been injustices made because the Constitution wasn’t as clear as it needed to be, and that’s the point.

    The man is very confused. Did the addition of amendments outlawing slavery and legalizing women’s suffrage make the constitution more or less like the Bible?

  4. Eirikr Einarsson
    January 18, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Huckabee doesn’t seem to realize that aside from the 18th Amendment, which was repealed, the Constitution has never been amended to limit the rights of the people, as he would hope to do. And the Amendments he references actually took the Constitution in the opposite direction of the Bible, which didn’t have a problem with slavery and certainly didn’t extend equality to women.

  5. DLC
    January 19, 2008 at 4:41 am

    I have to wonder — if Huckabee does not get elected, does that mean God lied to him ?
    Me, I wouldn’t vote for Huckabee the theocrat if you paid me.

  6. Jim RL
    January 19, 2008 at 10:39 am

    thus showing that knowledge of the history of the composition, translation and reading of the Bible is not required to be ordained a Baptist minister.

    Give the guy a break, I’m sure complicated stuff like that doesn’t show up until the 3rd of 4th year of a Theology degree.

  7. Ginger Yellow
    January 21, 2008 at 10:56 am

    I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal.
    Like in the Old Testament, you mean? How many wives did David have, Mike?

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: