QUESTIONER: 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.other bloggers are highlighting the comparison between this quote and rick santorum's similar and much mocked man-on-dog comment. but when i saw the quote i wondered something else. i wondered if huckabee really believes that if we change the definition of marriage once, then anything goes in the future.
HUCKABEE: 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.
doesn't that work both ways? i mean, the legal definition of marriage was radically changed in the 19th century. (see one of my earliest posts on the topic) before that, married women did not exist as legal persons; they couldn't even own property. then, through a series of legal reforms, their traditional legal status was updated. these changes changed the legal definition of "marriage" in the process. the common law definition was the eradication of the woman as a legal entity, subsuming their rights into the husband. once married women started gaining their own independent rights, that definition was no longer tenable, so it was dropped in favor of a different definition.
because the definition of marriage was changed in the past, by huck's logic the door is already open. which, again according to huck, means anything goes. so why not let gays marry?
