Now Huck is promising to deport every illegal alien -- all 12 million of them. Nobody believes that's going to happen. As hard a line as I take against illegal immigration, I don't want to see federal agents apprehend an old man who's been here 50 years, and send him back to Mexico. If they spent 10 seconds thinking about it, I don't think most of my fellow immigration hardliners would either -- and in any case, the kind of police effort it would take to make that happen would be hard to take. It is particularly hard to believe that a man who just two years ago was promoting an "open door" policy to immigrants believes what he's now saying. It's certainly possible to change one's mind on a major issue, based on new information or a re-evaluation of one's thinking: I did it on the Iraq War. But to go from being more or less an open borders guy to now wanting to ship every last one of the illegals back? I don't buy it. [Note amended comments to this below.]
Similarly with Huck's pandering on the Confederate flag. If he really believed that stuff, that'd be one thing. But I don't think he really believes it. I do think he believes what he said about the importance of preserving traditional marriage, and I think there's a good case to be made for it, obviously. Technically, I don't think he's wrong to point out that if the country considers marriage to be whatever a majority of the people (or worse, a majority of the Supreme Court) wants it to be, then there is no logical reason why we couldn't further, and more radically, redefine marriage, including in ways that seem absurd and repulsive to us now. People shriek, "He's comparing gay relationships to bestiality!", but nobody that I've seen has pointed out the flaw in his logic. If the definition of marriage is fungible, where, logically, does one draw the line? It's a valid question, and I'd like to hear an answer that avoids wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Anyway, for Huck to make this point in a way that appears to compare gay relationships to sex with animals is at best careless, and at worst pandering to the worst instincts in conservative voters. Call me naive, but I believe Huckabee when he says he's a conservative, but not angry about it. But you know, there's a way to talk about the sanctity of traditional marriage and the risk our society is taking by tossing out tradition, without trying to sledgehammer emotional buttons -- but it's not likely to jolt people into voting for you. There's a way to talk about the need to get tough on the illegal immigration problem without making promises you can't keep and have no intention of keeping -- but it's not likely to motivate people into voting for you by goosing them with emotion. There's a way to talk about decentralization of power, federalism and regional pride without raising the specter of white resistance to civil rights -- but, well, you know.
That Huckabee has taken the low road in all these cases does not speak well of him, I'm afraid. I believe he's a better man than these political gestures indicate.
[Note to commenters: If the thread turns into name-calling and bullying of anybody on the subject of gay marriage, I'm going to shut it down. Argue vigorously, but respectfully.]
UPDATE: A couple of commentators have pointed out that the Washington Times did too much editorializing in its headline on the Huck/illegal immigration story. In fact, Huck did not say he was going to deport 12 million illegals. He called for giving them no path to citizenship, and reducing their numbers by attrition over time. That last provision gives lots of room for maneuvering. It could imply a vigorous attempt to round 'em up and send 'em home, or it could mean sending illegals home when they're caught in the normal course of enforcement. Or it could mean something in between. In that case, this seems entirely reasonable to me, and I apologize for reading more into Huck's pledge than was there. I still think it's a remarkable change of opinion for a guy who was more or less an open borders governor only two years ago, but it's not as much of a stretch as I thought it was initially. I thank the readers for bringing this to my attention.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Rod,
"People shriek, "He's comparing gay relationships to bestiality!""
Hmmm, I say it, and I say it because it's true. He does. I don't "shriek" it. How come when you type it, it's "saying it", but when I type it, I'm "shrieking" it? Sorta like why is it 'family values when you put a picture of your spouse on your desk, but when I do it, I'm "flaunting" it? Isn't that what is known as a double standard?
"but nobody that I've seen has pointed out the flaw in his logic."
I've been doing nothing BUT pointing out the flaw in his 'logic'. My spouse is NOT comparable to an animal, nor to a child, nor to a plant. He is an adult human being.
"If the definition of marriage is fungible, where, logically, does one draw the line? It's a valid question, and I'd like to hear an answer that avoids wailing and gnashing of teeth."
I'm with Larry Parker: "a partnership between two consenting adults". There, see? No wailing, no teeth were gnashed in the typing of this post. I don't think the same can be said when reading about "polyphobes". Polygamy is not at issue, despite its Biblical provenance. Could we debate one topic at a time? Currently, the law already mandates 2 adult persons, and no one I know is proposing we alter the number, (nor including anmials, children or plants), merely removing the discrimination based on the sex of the persons involved. See, again, no shrieking, now wailing, no gnashed teeth.
"Anyway, for Huck to make this point in a way that appears to compare gay relationships to sex with animals is at best careless, and at worst pandering to the worst instincts in conservative voters."
Imagine now, if the shoe were on the other foot (kind of the 'Do unto others' test) and it were a liberal minister running for President, promising to alter the Constitution so that it would be more in line with his (or her) theological beliefs? I can already hear the righteous howls from conservative voters.
P.S. Why do you get to call them the "worst instincts" (which is a correct observation if the posts on your blog threads are any indication) and we can't? Just askin'.
I missed the conversation about "the risk our society is taking by tossing out tradition".
No one is suggesting that "traditional" marriages ought to cease (be 'tossed out'). Are they? I know lots of tradtional marriages have taken place since my non-tradtional marriage took place.
Francis Beckwith,
"Animals don't give consent to being eaten or being pets. If they can be lunch or at the end of a leash, why not brides or bridegrooms?"
Because being on the end of a leash does not require a contract. In the real world, contracts are entered into by human beings. Gay people are human beings, remember? O the humanity!
And I find it passing strange that Rod would "agree with Frank Beckwith, unsurprisingly." Do you really think animals can enter into relational contracts Rod?
"Now Huck is promising to deport every illegal alien -- all 12 million of them. Nobody believes that's going to happen. As hard a line as I take against illegal immigration, I don't want to see federal agents apprehend an old man who's been here 50 years, and send him back to Mexico. If they spent 10 seconds thinking about it, I don't think most of my fellow immigration hardliners would either"
With this illegal immigration thing, you really have to aim high to hit the target. The Reagan amnesty resulted in less enforcement than promised. You have to promise the draconian just to end up with reasonable results.
Reader John:
I realize that in the business law sense, "partnership" can involve multiple people.
In common sense, "partnership" involves two people. And that is what both traditionalists (of the non-breakaway Mormon sort, of course) and gay civil rights activists have always thought of marriage as being.
I could flip the argument on you and say that, as I read your words, the reason we should stigmatize polygamists is that we've always stigmatized gays in the past. Not exactly a virtuous (or strong) one, you must admit.
PS -- If the argument is that gay marriage would complete the triangle or square or what-have-you of polygamy (i.e., the women would be able to marry each other as well as the men), THAT'S NOT HOW POLYGAMISTS THEMSELVES DEFINE POLYGAMY. They define it in a hub and spoke model -- which is contradictory to any reasonable model of marriage (as a legal concept in the Western world) I've ever heard outside the border of Arizona and Utah.
And either way, on the contract model, the complication of polygamy is that there are multiple, interlaced contracts instead of one contract -- just as the complication of bestiality is that one of the two signers of the contract is incapable of legal consent.
Larry, Reader John, I think the term you are looking for is 'group marriage'.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.