Huckabee’s Theocracy versus our Republic

I don’t think Mr. Huckabee quite understands the difference between the Republic we live in – and the Theocracy which he seems to wish for. And while I don’t care how he believes in the Bible, I do care that he seeks political power to enact or enshrine his beliefs into law. And that’s what he seems to wish to do. He’s not considering running for president for nothing. And no, I don’t think he’s “homophobic” or a “wacko” as he terms it – but he doesn’t seem to quite understand that gay folks don’t have to believe in the Bible the way he sees it. Indeed, there are many interpretations of the Bible and its many chapters and verses. So it’s not so much what he says about his beliefs, so much as what he doesn’t say. Let’s take a look.

I get the quotes from this source:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/huckabee-gaymarriage-bible-Iowa/2014/04/09/id/564496/

Former Baptist minister and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says he may be on “the wrong side of history,” but believing marriage should be between a man and a woman is “on the right side of the Bible.”

What he doesn’t say is a peep about divorce and adultery – and I dare say, both are quite more clearly mentioned in the Bible than gay folks. If he were to be so sure about the “right side of the Bible” then surely I would hear him say something about divorce and adultery, yes? Surely he’s met and spoken with Newt Gingrich, John McCain and Donald Trump, right? He’s never uttered a word about their shenanigans, has he? A freshman Republican congressman from Louisiana was caught in flagrant adultery just this week – is Mr. Huckabee going to speak up about that? Call for the man’s resignation based on Bible Commandments?

But he doesn’t, apparently, or not that I’ve ever seen or heard him, say a thing about these things. He’s not calling for banning divorce. He’s not calling for action against adultery. He’s only concerned with the Pursuit of Happiness of gay folks. And what exactly gay couples have to do with his beliefs is hard to say in a legal or logical sense. He, and many like him, are quite sure gay folks can’t be Christians – or not the sort they like to hear about. Good enough. There are many people in this nation who are not Christians. There are also many Christians who reassessed what the vague provisions supposedly against gayness are all about. Why are those Christians not able to believe as they do? The schisms amongst Christians on many things has a long history – 2000 years of it, actually. Surely he’s aware of this? There are some 1400 different denominations of Christianity as I recall – each with a different take on Scripture. In the past murderously against each other over it. There are dozens of 1,000 year old letters extant between Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux and Hugh, Abbot of Cluny over Biblical interpretation.

But since our government, which he rightly decries as too big, has made many things dependent on marriage and family law – without reference to any religion or religious text whatsoever – it seems hard to be against couples who just wish to make their lives easier under the laws we must live. And he spoke to a group styled as:

In a keynote speech to the conservative Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, the FOX News commentator insisted his belief doesn’t make him “homophobic,” however, CNN reported.

What does he think the people in this group believe? I’ve seen enough of their commentary here and there – I suppose I could go look it up to get the exactness of it. But they are quite against gayness in any form. I’m sure some among them are more rabid or adamant about it than others. A Robert Vanderplante or Vanderplatte, I believe his name is one or the other, is quite histrionic over gay folks. He’s part of this coalition in Iowa. Why, the man tried to remove Iowa’s gay marriage decision and all who made it from the judiciary. And have the gay couples of Iowa had one iota of impact on anything anyone else does? None that can be discerned. But the people against government recognition of gay couples are quite sure these couples will destroy or wreck something or other. They’re not sure. Some argue gayness itself will “Destroy” society. The hustings are filled with such people.

Huckabee says: “I’m not against anybody,” he said. “I’m really not. I’m not a hater. I’m not homophobic. I honestly don’t care what people do personally in their individual lives.”

But he does care – who is he kidding? He knows full and well that couples do all sorts of things that require law – insurance, owning a house, inheritance, joint bank accounts – and by using the government to refuse to recognize gay couples he makes life more difficult for those couples. Why would he wish to make life more difficult for other people? People he really doesn’t know. And surely, if he’s so sure about his Bible interpretation he knows full well and good what his version says about gay men – and it is certainly all about gay men – this little “debate” we’re all having. He’s spoken with the Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage and other sundry groups – surely he knows their position on “homosexuality” as they so love to call it. Those two groups simply wish gay men to disappear somehow – change, stop being gay – become celibate monks – certainly the Catholic Church thinks we should be celibate. That church is clear about their position. They are also clear that Mr. Huckabee is a heretic. The announced that centuries ago. Which leads us to this:

“But … when people say, ‘Why don’t you just kind of get on the right side of history?’ I said, ‘You’ve got to understand, this for me is not about the right side or the wrong side of history, this is the right side of the Bible, and unless God rewrites it, edits it, sends it down with his signature on it, it’s not my book to change.’ Folks, that’s why I stand where I stand,” he said.

I dare say – with so many different versions of the Bible to say that “unless God rewrites it, edits it …” is rather humorous. Why, the various Christians of this world have done exactly that. They’ve rewritten it many times. As early as the Council of Nicea in the 360s AD they’ve been diddling with the “word of God.” Threw entire books out – the Apocrypha, they’re called. The Council was called precisely because of the many rewritings, editing, translation and interpretation troubles that beset early Christianity. And indeed, I’ve often wondered what the ancient Hebrew or Aramaic of the Old Testament for “homosexual” is – and too of ancient Greek in which much of the New Testament was written in. And what of the provisions in the Bible against women in politics – does Mr. Huckabee stand foursquare against that? He sure loved Sarah Palin! And what of the prohibitions against pork and shrimp? Should we work on prohibiting those – to be pure of Bible and the “word of “God”?

King James I of England so famously rewrote and edited the Bible – and banned and burned dozens of versions he didn’t like – to consolidate his new found power. That James was gay is just one of the ironies of the whole situation. James is clearly on record, sitting in Parliament and Palace with his boyfriend as saying “Jesus had his John, I have my Robert.” Meanwhile, every Bible I ever looked at has a copyright stamped into the front matter – I dare say, cheeky to copyright the “word of God,” yes? There’s so many versions of the Bible they might well take up a bookcase – all of them “rewritten” and “edited” by the hand of man. What’s one more time at this point?

Huckabee – considering a bid for the White House in 2016 – used the speech to emphasize his socially conservative values, targeting big government and calling the IRS a “criminal enterprise,” CNN reported.

Well, I doubt he’ll make it – but good luck – but what would he do with the power? Oh, I’ve been complaining about the IRS for decades. I’m for getting rid of it and its confounded code lock, stock and barrel. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about a gay couple filing a joint tax return at all. But would Mr. Huckabee seek some law to make the government refuse to recognize gay marriage? The government doesn’t really “ban” the reality – they just stick their heads in the sand and scream lalala – they refuse to recognize that gay couples exist – and so make life more difficult and problematic. So, Huckabee is against government interfering in people’s lives – unless they’re gay, I guess. And surely he wanted to keep DOMA and DADT. He spoke loudly about the need to keep these laws.

Indeed, I recall him fighting any rights or decency towards gay men every step of the way over the past few decades. He didn’t even want to get rid of the sex laws. He was all for the right of government to stick their noses into people’s bedrooms. But, he now says he doesn’t care what people do in their personal lives. I don’t know what other sort of lives people have, actually. It’s all very personal. And when the laws against gay smooching were in effect the government was very much in our lives. And Mr. Huckabee was all for it. Perhaps he’s evolved, or done some rewriting or editing of his beliefs on these things. Still, he’s concerned, for some reason, with what a couple he doesn’t know, and says he doesn’t care about, does within the legal regime we all live in.

“Look, I’m not trying to be some whacko way out there, I’m talking about the basic, most fundamental rights we have as an American citizen, while those rights are being stripped from us by the IRS, the NSA, and the TSA,” he said.

Well, sure, I’m against these things too. He’s correct on this – the three agencies he references surely should be overhauled if not dismantled. I’m with him on this. But somehow I don’t think banning the recognition of gay couples and allowing a simple legal mechanism for inheritance or insurance and such is going to stop the IRS, NSA or TSA from doing a thing. Government refusal to recognize gay couples doesn’t impact anyone but gay couples. And government recognition of gay couples doesn’t do anything to anyone except gay couples. Heterosexuals – adulterers, divorced, married forever – aren’t affected one bit by any laws banning the recognition of gay couples. The only thing they might get out of it is their happiness that other people they don’t even want to know are inhibited from their Pursuit of Happiness.

But Huckabee isn’t arguing for laws banning the recognition of any heterosexuals getting unmarried remarried or shacking up. He’s not calling for laws against adulterers. He’s not up in arms too much over the single mothers of this land who so gravely impact the social welfare rolls. Nor the abandoning fathers. Both of which are far more serious problems than sissies smooching. He’s concerned that a gay couple might be recognized by the government to which we pay taxes.

Referring to Monday’s rejection by the Supreme Court of an appeal over a business owner’s right to deny services to gays and lesbians, Huckabee asked: “Why is it that Christians stand back and take it in the teeth time and time and time again?”

Well, Christians haven’t stood back and taken anything “time and time” again – for there seems to be this only one or two instances of this happening. There is not some huge numbers of lawsuits by gay couples against anyone. And none have surfaced in Iowa, where he spoke, in the years since Iowa recognized gay couples. And few gay couples have been denied anything. Personally, I’m not for gay couples seeking to do business with these adamant Christians, and if they can’t find a gay baker or photographer they’re not looking. But I’m also quite willing to allow a gay waiter at a conference center from serving Mr. Huckabee – how would that strike the man?

And the matter was decided under State law – not federal. He’s running for president, not governor. There already is a law protecting “Religious Freedom” at the Federal level – signed into law by Bill Clinton – another former Baptist and governor of Arkansas – and an adulterer of some fame. I’m sure Huckabee is all for state’s rights, doesn’t that state where he doesn’t live have the right to make their rules? Perhaps he seeks federal action against the states – while at the same time decrying federal action. Sort of a cake and eat it situation, yes?

But too – why should gay men have to “stand back and take it in the teeth time and time again”? Surely we have. There were many laws against us. There still are. Why must we take this? Just because Mr. Huckabee is sure of his interpretation of the Bible doesn’t mean gay men must believe similarly. And this “we’re the victim” thing he’s got going is sort of laughable given his happiness in the past with all the laws against gay men. He had no problem with them. He defended those laws. He was all for sticking it in our teeth.

Well, I don’t know how to solve the man’s problems. I do know, however, that I’ve never been against him and his fellow Christians as much as he’s been against me and mine. But perhaps the man should concentrate on what his fellow heterosexuals do which so gravely impact our society, rather than the tiny percentage of gay men and women who don’t.

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: