The Full Unadulterated Huckabee

There’s an interview on BeliefNet with Mike Huckbee. Wow… that’s some interesting and quite scarey reading. Here’s what Huck had to say about his controversial statement on changing the Constitution:

One of the comments you’ve made that’s getting a lot of discussion in the press is the point you made in the last day or so that we might need to amend the Constitution to have it apply more to God’s standards. Do you want to elaborate on that? In particular the question of people who might hear that and think, “Well, that’s a conversation stopper,” people who might agree with you on policy but feel that the constitution is secular document and should be driven by secular concerns rather than aligning it with God’s word.

Well, I probably said it awkwardly, but the point I was trying to make– and I’ve said it better in the past – is that people sometimes say we shouldn’t have a human life amendment or a marriage amendment because the Constitution is far too sacred to change, and my point is, the Constitution was created as a document that could be changed. That’s the genius of it. The Bible, however, was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture. If we have a definition of marriage, that we don’t change that definition, that we affirm that definition. And that the sanctity of human life is not just a religious issue. It’s an issue that goes to the very heart of our civilization of all people being equal, endowed by their creator with alienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the point. 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.

Just to follow up on that question, according to that standard, if the Constitution and its amendments are subject to biblical interpretations, doesn’t that mean it would be subject to biblical argument over what the proper interpretation is? And where does that leave, say, nonbelievers or members of other faiths in a proudly pluralistic like our own when amendments to the Constitution are subject to a biblical interpretation?

I think that whether someone is a Christian or not, the idea that a human life has dignity and intrinsic worth should be clear enough. I don’t think a person has to be a person of faith to say that once you redefine a human life and say there is a life not worth living, and that we have a right to terminate a human life because of its inconvenience to others in the society. That’s the real issue. That’s the heart of it. It’s not just about being against abortion. It’s really about, Is there is a point at which a human life, because it’s become a burden or inconvenience to others, is an expendable life. And once we’ve made a decision that there is such a time – whether it’s the termination of an unborn child in the womb or whether it’s the termination of an 80-year-old comatose patient — we’ve already crossed that line. And then the question is, How far and how quickly do we move past that line?

And the same thing would be true of marriage. Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?

Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

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.

Do you think that on issues other than marriage and the life of the unborn that the Constitution should be brought into conformity with the Bible, which is what that quote seemed to suggest?

No, I was specifically talking about those two issues. Those were the only two issues I spoke about in the speech, and that was the point. I’m not suggesting that we say, “Okay, the Bible says you should tithe, so now in the Constitution we’re going to amend it to say everyone tithes.”

Those were the two issues that I felt like are talked about in the political realm. I support both the human rights amendment and a marriage amendment, and the reason that I do is because I think we need to codify in our Constitution that which has been acceptable and accepted view of what life and what marriage means. Frankly, if it weren’t being challenged, it wouldn’t be necessary. But it is being challenged. Now you have states that are passing same-sex marriage laws or civil union laws.

And you also have states that not only practice abortion, but if Roe v. Wade is overturned, we haven’t won the battle. All we’ve done is now we’ve created the logic of the Civil War, which says that the right to the human life is geographical, not moral. I think that’s very problematic. That’s why I think that people like Fred Thompson are dead wrong when he says just leave that up to the states. Well, that’s again the logic of the Civil War – that slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts. Obviously we’d today say, “Well, that’s nonsense. Slavery is wrong, period.” It can’t be right somewhere and wrong somewhere else. Same with abortion.

Please… Spare us from putting this man in the White House. I really pray that Huckabee continues to stumble across America. As Greg Sargent wrote on TPM Election Central:

At some point you’d think Mike Huckabee’s views would be seen as so controversial that there’s no way he could possibly be a contender for the nomination of one of America’s two main political parties.

Especially now. In an interview with, a religion Web site, Huck has just clarified his view that the Constitution should be amended to be brought in line with God’s will — and he directly equated homosexuality with bestiality.

Huck, in elaborating on his views that the Constitution should be subjected to Biblical standards, had just wrapped up a discussion of the fact that marriage has meant “a man and a woman in a relationship for life.”

And incase you haven’t had it up to here with Huck and hos unconventional notions, here’s more: “Huckabee: Outsiders not welcome in Confederate flag decisions.”

Bookmark and Share

About Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey is the Editor in Chief, Owner/Publisher of The Democratic Daily as well as a freelance writer and photographer. Pamela holds a certificate in Contemporary Communications from UMass Lowell, a Journalism Certificate from UMass Amherst and a B.A. in Creative Writing and Digital Age Communications from UMass Amherst UWW.
Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Full Unadulterated Huckabee

  1. This Huckabee is truly scary!!! I like Govenor Huckabee am a Christian. However, I in no way feel that my private and family religious beliefs should be forced on the public at large. A candidate can still maintain his own religious perspective, without trying to transform America into a mirrow image.
    Presidnt Jimmy Carter is a primary example. He too was an ordained Baptist minister. However, unlike Huckabee, he did not go around wearing his faith on his sleeve. In his book, “Our Endangered Values”, President Carter stated, “Christian fundamentalists have increasingly and openly challenged and rejected Jesus’ admonition to “render Cesar the things that are Cesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” He further added, “I was careful to seperate my official status as president from the private worship habits of my family. I have been asked whether my Christian beliefs ever conflicted with my secular duties as president. I honored my oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. The government and the church are two different realms of service.”
    It’s unfortunate that Mr. Huckabee rather than being sustained by his faith, seems to be blinded by it. As president he would be sworn to protect the rights of ALL American’s. This would include gays, lesbians, agnostics, and even atheists! When the president is sworn in, although placing his hand on the King James version of the Bible, he is sworn to protect the Constitution. These wacko fundamentalists want to change this country from a democracy into a form of government more closely resembeling a theocracy. As a faithful Christian I ask, “How and why have we allowed this to happen.?

  2. Dizzy Dezzi says:

    I think it’s scary that there are people out there, like Huckabee who have no problem using the Constitution to TAKE RIGHTS AWAY from Americans rather than using the Constitution to remind the government what our rights as Americans are.

    The fact that he wants to take away my right to choose what I wish to do with my uterus is scary enough. The fact that he is adamant that gays should not be allowed to be married under national law is scary, as well.

    The way I read these comments, along with comments he made at the same time is that “since the Constitution is ‘designed’ to be changed” that the “Life” and “Anti-Gay Marriage” amendments are just the tip of a very big iceberg. His “dog whistle” in this instance is that if they can add these amendments, it’s just a hop, skip and a jump into adding more religious rhetoric into the Constitution.

    I may be jumping the gun, here, but what I “heard” him say is that “since we can’t force the bible on those atheists and other heathens, then we will use the force of government to make them conform to our ‘Christian Values’, whether they like it or not”.

    Scary, scary shiz…