|
|
Mike Huckabee on Civil RightsFormer Republican AR Governor; possible draft candidate |
HUCKABEE: Because the court's decision on the issue was a wrong decision. And to say that we have to surrender to judicial supremacy is to do what Thomas Jefferson warned against, which is, in essence, surrender to judicial tyranny. We had so many different presidents, including Jefferson, who made it very clear that the courts can't make a law. The Constitution is expressly clear that that's a power reserved to Congress.
Q: What about the 1967 ruling that effectively legalized interracial marriages? Was that unconstitutional?
HUCKABEE: No, it's not the same, not even close. Because you still had a marriage which was a man and a woman, and it was equal protection. But it didn't redefine marriage. That's what the Supreme Court did in June.
"For those who do not think that we are under threat, simply recognize that the fact that we are now in city after city watching ordinances say that your 7-year-old daughter, if she goes into the restroom cannot be offended and you can't be offended if she's greeted there by a 42-year-old man who feels more like a woman than he does a man."
Huckabee said there was "something inherently wrong about forcing little children to be a part of this social experiment. And yet today we are the ones who are ridiculed and scorned because we point out the obvious," he said.
Huckabee voiced sharp opposition to the Supreme Court's June ruling on gay marriage, writing that the prevailing justices acted as a "judicial tyranny" that must be resisted. The former Arkansas governor is calling for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. He also opposes allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.
The former governor of Arkansas said it is his "biblical duty" to pray for the members of the Supreme Court as they prepare to rule on same-sex marriage this summer.
"If the courts rule that people have a civil right not only to be a homosexual but a civil right to have a homosexual marriage, then a homosexual couple coming to a pastor who believes in biblical marriage who says 'I can't perform that wedding' will now be breaking the law," he said. "Let me make clear: It's not just saying, 'I'm sorry you have a preference.' No, you will be breaking the law subject to civil, for sure, and possibly criminal penalties for violating the law, depending on how the law is written in communities, states and in the nation."
Huckabee said that he cringes whenever he hears people call a court decision "the law of the land." He said, "how many people passed 9th grade civics? There are three branches of government, not one," adding that when a court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, that does not mean that licenses should be issued the following day.
Huckabee told the pastors that if they do follow their convictions according to the Bible, "your behavior will be criminal. Once the courts have been allowed to run over us and nobody stands up for us in the other two branches of government, then God help us all," he said
In an interview with the American Family Association, Huckabee had charged that Republicans have given in on battling gay marriage and other social issues and vowed that it jeopardized his standing with the party. "If the Republicans want to lose guys like me, and a whole bunch of still God-fearing, Bible-believing people, go ahead and just abdicate on this issue," Huckabee said. "Because at that point, you lose me, I'm gone. I'll become an independent."
He said that he was most disturbed at the general tenor among Republicans to the Supreme Court's action was, essentially, "Well, that's settled."
"Of course, it isn't," Huckabee said. "The courts can't MAKE law. Even if one agrees with their ruling, the legislative branch has to pass enabling legislation, and it has to be signed by the chief executive and carried out. One branch of the three equal branches doesn't get to override the two other branches," Huckabee told Newsmax. "Civics 101."
But remember, Huckabee was one of Todd Akin's biggest defenders in 2012 [when Akin lost after citing "legitimate rape"]--pretty much the ONLY national Republican who stuck by Akin.
HUCKABEE: Well, he said it in a way that would be a more appropriate for the duck woods than it would be for the pages of a major news magazine. But that being said, this issue was specifically about GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign protesting to A&E over his comments regarding same sex relationships. Now, let's keep in mind, that for a Christian to talk about sin, homosexuality is no more sinful to a Christian than is pride, than is lust. So, if a person who is totally heterosexual lusts in his heart after a woman, that's as much sin as any other sin. There's no division about which sin is the most important, they're all out of the glory, out of the perfect will and mind of a holy God. So, that's the whole point of being a Christian. We're all sinners. None of us are perfect, none of us have measured up.
A: Well, I think the great risk is not so much that we would come. The far greater risk is if we didn’t. And it’s not just that we would offend or perhaps insult the Hispanic audience of this country. I think it would insult our own party. It would insult every voter in this country. To act like that somehow we’ve become so arrogant that there’s any segment of our population that we’re either afraid to speak to, hear their questions, or somehow that we don’t think that they’re as important as another group. And it’s why I think whether it’s an African American audience, a Hispanic audience, a union audience, as Republicans, we ought to be more than willing to sit down, even with people with whom we might know there are disagreements. And I think, frankly, it’s important for us to be here. It’s important that you gave us this opportunity. And I want to say thanks for letting us have this audience on Univision.
A: Well, I was governor of the state that is the second fastest growing state for Hispanics in the country, and we faced that. Quite frankly, when we fix the situation and make the border secure and people are here legally, a lot of the sentiment goes away. But it’s a terrible thing when a person who is here legally, but who may speak with an accent, is racially profiled by members of the public, and people assume that they may be illegal. It is in everybody’s best interest--and most of all in the best interest of the legal immigrants--that we fix this problem, so nobody questions the legitimacy of their being here, which often happens, unfairly, unnecessarily and, frankly, in a completely un-American manner.
A: Well, I want to be president of the United States, not just president of the Republican Party. Frankly, I’m embarrassed. I’m embarrassed for our party and I’m embarrassed for those who did not come, because there’s long been a divide in this country, and it doesn’t get better when we don’t show up. Quite frankly, for a lot of people, there’s a perception that Black Americans don’t vote for Republicans. I proved that wrong in Arkansas, with 48% of African Americans voting for me. But I want to make sure that the people of this country recognize that we’ve come a long way, but we have a long way to go. And we don’t get there if we don’t sit down and work through issues that are still very deep in this country, when it comes to racial divide. I’m honored to be here. I wish all of the candidates had come.
PAUL: I think the current policy is a decent policy. If there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality.
HUCKABEE: It’s already covered by the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. I think that’s what Congressman Paul was saying. It’s about conduct, it’s not about attitude. You don’t punish people for their attitudes. You punish them if their behavior creates a problem.
Q: So you wouldn’t change existing policy.?
HUCKABEE: I don’t think that I would. I think it’s already covered by the existing policy that we do have, in fact.
Everything you do and believe is directed by your answer to the ultimate question: Is there a God? It all comes down to that single issue. If there is a God, then everything moves one way. If there isn’t, it moves another.
By refusing to define character using fixed standards, we lose our reference point., we lose our ability to navigate, and, therefore, we drift. Who is right and who is wrong? Who knows?
A: Unfortunately, so much of this argument has been framed about what the same-sex couple wants. But the real question needs to be child-focused, not couple-focused. And that’s true whether the couple is same-sex or whether they’re heterosexual. In our state, as in most, the criteria for adoption is always what’s in the best interest of the child.
Q: So is it in the best interest of the child to have gay parents?
A: I’m not sure that we have a positive answer to that. And until we absolutely could say it, then I’m always hesitant to change those institutions.
Q: Do you believe that you’re born gay or you choose to be gay?
A: I don’t honestly know. But the point is, people are who they want to be, and we should respect them for that. But when they want to change the institutions that’ve governed our society for all the years of recorded human history, then that’s a serious change of culture that we don’t just make readily or hurriedly.
A: It was a matter of a rhetorical device to talk about the different cultural shift that we have, and it wasn’t any particular attempt to be derisive of him. But there has been a huge cultural shift in this country.
Q: Some would suggest by including Barney Frank in that reference you are tearing a gay man down. You’re against gay marriage, you’re against gay civil unions. Do you have a problem with gay people?
A: No. I have a problem with changing institutions that have served us. Before we change the definition of marriage to mean something different, I think our real focus ought to be on trying to strengthen heterosexual marriages because half of them are ending in divorce.
A: No.
Q: Should Arkansas restrict marriage to a union only between a man and a woman?
A: Yes.
Q: College and university admissions
A: No.
Q: Public employment
A: No.
Q: State contracting
A: No.
Alas, no longer. The debunking suffragettes have won. And thus, we have all lost immeasurably more than we can imagine.
If that "unsinkable" liner were to go down in the North Atlantic today, we could hardly expect the standard of "Women and children first" to bring order to the crisis. The great sea disaster would undoubtedly cost even more lives were it to occur in our time--when notions of sacrifice, duty, and chivalry no longer dominate our cultural landscape.
As one cover story asserted, "American women have been sold a bill of goods. Instead of making life easier, or better, or even more just for women, the sundry programs of social engineering have made it harder, worse, and more unjust. They have broken down traditional family structures. They have contributed to epidemic irresponsibility. They have opened a Pandora's box of social ills not the least of which is the progressive impoverishment of the very women it is supposed to liberate.
Evidence of the feminization of poverty everywhere abounds. 70% of today's women in the labor force work out of economic necessity. More often than not, they are single, widowed, or divorced. And more often than not, they are poor. A full 77% of this nation's poverty is now borne by women and their children.
The practical result was that divorced women, Q: What about the Duck Dynasty comment about gays, paraphrasing Corinthians, "They won't inherit the kingdom of God"? Are you offended?
HUCKABEE: Well, he said it in a way that would be a more appropriate for the duck woods than it would be for the pages of a major news magazine. But that being said, this issue was specifically about GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign protesting to A&E over his comments regarding same sex relationships. Now, let's keep in mind, that for a Christian to talk about
Everything you do and believe in is directed by your answer to the ultimate question: Is there a God?
As you prepare the budget resolution for the coming fiscal year, the nation’s Governors urge Congress to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). When the law, formerly known as the Education of the Handicapped Act, was passed in 1975, full funding was defined as 40 percent of the costs. Currently, the federal government’s contribution amounts to only 13 percent, and states are funding the balance to assist school districts in providing special education and related services. Although Governors strongly support providing the necessary services and support to help all students succeed, the costs associated with implementing IDEA are placing an increased burden on states.
We are currently reallocating existing state funds from other programs or committing new funds to ensure that students with disabilities are provided a “free and appropriate public education.” In some cases, we are taking funds from existing education programs to pay for the costs of educating our students with disabilities because we believe that all students deserve an equal opportunity to learn. Therefore, Governors urge Congress to honor its original commitment and fully fund 40 percent of Part B services as authorized by IDEA so the goals of the act can be achieved.
In 1976 the National Governors Association expressed support for ratification and implementation of the Equal Rights Amendment, which would constitutionally guarantee full citizenship rights and opportunities for women. In 1982 the drive for ratification fell short, and efforts to initiate the amendatory process were taken.
The National Governors Association reaffirms its support for the principles embodied in the Equal Rights Amendment, i.e., that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on the basis of gender.