Republican Party

Mike Huckabee, Social Conservatism, and Hypocrisy in the GOP

|

Mike Huckabee
IowaPolitics

Less than a week after former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee  threatened to leave the Republican Party over its allegedly soft approach to dealing with gay marriage, Huckabee called out Republicans again over the weekend on his Fox News Channel show Huckabee, asserting that many in the GOP need to "grow a spine" by defending the traditional definition of marriage.

Huckabee is right that many in the Republican Party, especially younger members like myself, no longer believe that the government should be enacting laws that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman only. What Huckabee and many other social conservatives like him do not understand is that the reason a growing number of conservatives are rejecting the typical social conservative agenda has little to do with political correctness or fear that society may reject them. It's not about politics; it's all about liberty.

The Republican Party has consistently described itself as the party of "liberty," "freedom," and "limited government," but many Republicans also, in complete contradiction, have supported the notion that the government should be defining what marriage, perhaps the most personal and intimate institution in society, ought to look like. How can a party espouse freedom on the one hand and absolute control on the other?

Unlike other laws that prevent widely agreed-upon immoral behaviors, such as theft  and violence, laws that limit homosexual relationships do not aim to limit harm to third parties. If two people decide they want to privately enter into an agreement with one another, the government should stay out of the way and let people pursue happiness through freedom and without intrusion. The government should exist to promote liberty, not hinder it.

Huckabee, in addressing appeals to liberty, insists that freedom can only exist in a moral society.

"They say, 'I don't want to hear about social issues. All I want to hear is about liberty and low taxes.' Well, that's just delicious. Let me tell you something," said Huckabee, according to The Des Moines Register, in an August address. "…Liberty cannot function unless there are people who are willing to live with integrity."

Huckabee is right. Without morality, liberty is simply a permission slip to create unimaginable harm to others. The issue isn't whether morality is important in society or not; the real question is whether the government ought to be the one determining precisely what "morality" means and looks like.

This is why social conservatism is oxymoronic. Pure conservatism, what men like John Adams would have called "liberalism," seeks to maintain those inalienable and fundamental liberties established through the U.S. Constitution—liberties that protect the individual American's freedom to pursue happiness in any way he or she chooses. Social conservatism, however, seeks to establish a moral standard through the power of the government. It necessitates forcing others to adhere to certain moral principles in complete violation of individual freedom. It is impossible then for a person to be truly conservative and also willing to force moral standards on others.

Huckabee disagrees. He has consistently argued that individuals should have the liberty to live without government interference, but he picks and chooses which issues allow for liberty and which issues do not.

For instance, Huckabee opposes government-mandated health insurance required by the Affordable Care Act, and he believes the First Amendment guarantees the right to Hobby Lobby and others to avoid paying for contraceptives and abortion. He stands against both policies precisely because they violate individual liberty, and they most certainly do. But it's illogical and appears disingenuous to declare the government has no right to infringe on personal freedom in one instance and then insist the government should establish standards of sexual morality and marriage in the next.

It's this hypocrisy which has led many Republicans to develop a position on marriage that values liberty above all else. For instance, Rep. David Jolly (R-Fla.), who claims that same-sex marriage is immoral, came out in support of legalizing gay marriage in July, arguing along with several other Republican congressmen that freedom should trump personal religious and philosophical beliefs. They aren't alone. According to a 2014 Pew Research Center poll, 61 percent of self-identified "young Republicans" say they now support same-sex marriage as well.

While Huckabee sees these transitions in the Republican Party as a sign of kowtowing to the forces of social liberalism, a new generation of GOP leaders firmly believes that Republicans ought to truly embrace the principles of freedom and personal liberty that they so eagerly pronounce at every opportunity.

If Huckabee takes issue with that, perhaps he should follow through with his threat and leave the GOP.

NEXT: Douglas Butzier, Libertarian Senate Candidate from Iowa, Dies in Plane Crash

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I would really like Huckaboo to follow through on his threat just to see how many people are willing to leave Team Red for the No Fags Party.

    1. I think you mean christfags party. you can’t just hate teh gays, you also have to love jesus in a totally no homo way- but want him fully inside you.

      1. Oh God! Oh God! Ohhhhhh Gggoooooddddd!!!

        1. you forgot to say no homo- so now that’s totally homo.

      2. Awww Spencey it’s not God’s fault girls don’t like short pimply guys. Hate the haters not the maker.

        1. I’m confused by the aim of your comment. First- I dont hate a “maker” any more than I hate his noodlely appendage. Second- wouldn’t my comments be about hating the haters? Specifically those who hate in the name of something they believe in?

          Third- if God existed and was omnipotent- wouldn’t it very much be his (its?) fault for who girls do and do not like?

          1. It’s some trolling mongoloid, dude, just ignore it. It’s not even coherent.

            1. China built the Great Firewall to keep out the mongoloid hordes.

            2. I know- but it’s too easy.

              I am waiting for the day that a rational argument persuades an irrational person.

              1. Sometimes you get so close, kind of like when you try to get a wild bird to come to you. The little guy likes what you’re offering, they like what they hear, but at some point, they’re like, “HOLY FUCK ITS A HUMAN! RUN!!!1”

          2. Might be Mary Stack. Do not engage.

          3. Short and stupid that sucks.

          4. Awww an edgy fedora wearing, oppressed atheist! How cute!

            I’m sorry your mom makes you attend church every sunday, but you need to realize that “christfags” aren’t haters. That’s whiney PC SPLC-ADL bullshit.

            Libertarianism 2.0, watered down so it gets approval from hot topic wearing millennials and liberals.

      3. Jesus Fucking Christ! Fully inside?

        http://files.shroomery.org/fil…..Christ.jpg

        1. Oh, that link is NSFW

      4. Bunch of damn blasphemers. Thats what y’all are. Come into the closet and pray with me brothers.

        Wait…. that didn’t sound right.

        *

        Its all about liberty?
        The old guard Socons have no more respect for liberty than Obumbles proggies.

        1. the lesser of two evils is a false dichotomy brother.

          Come of of the closet and into the light of truth…

          wait… you know what i mean- no homo.

          1. Yeah, I do. I know exactly what you mean.

            *wink wink*

        2. (Insert “the lord came unto me” joke here)

        3. Yeah, because people who oppose abortion and who don’t want the government to recognize homosexual marriages are as bad as democrats and republicans.

          Lets just conveniently forget that Rothbard supported Buchanan, that leonard reed was a pastor, that christian universities were the first to teach austrian economics, that Ron Paul is a traditionalist…

          1. Bob, they’re just having fun, don’t worry.

            Libertarians respect religion so long as religion respects liberty.

      5. Huh. My Sunday school class this week studied the “Secret Gospel” of Mark and the alleged homoerotic adventures of Jesus. I didn’t realize how topical the class would be.

      6. You also have to support raising taxes, and advocating to release convicted rapist and murderers from prison.
        http://www.arktimes.com/arkans…..oid=862759

    2. Huck and Santorum can go blow each other. Graham might want in too.

      The GOP might be redeemable if these assholes leave.

      1. Don’t kid yourself – the GOP is irredeemable and will continue to be the home of many other types of assholes.

        1. Don’t kid yourself – the Democratic Party is irredeemable and will continue to be the home of many other types of assholes.

          Don’t kid yourself – the Green Party is irredeemable and will continue to be the home of many other types of anti-sanity assholes.

          Don’t kid yourself – the Libertarian Party is irredeemable and will continue to be the home of many other types of anti-electoral assholes.

  2. but, if people disagree with me after understanding my arguments it must mean there are outside pressures that won’t allow them to admit how right I am… right?

    It couldn’t possibly be that my argument is flawed or they reject my premise completely…

  3. Or maybe disagree with gay marriage but also realize it is a particularly retarded hill to die on.

    What I’m saying is that for all the possible reasons to walk away from the crony-ridden, blood-thirsty, cop-loving stupid party, throwing a snit about the GOP going a little soft on a fairly settled social issue shows Huckabee to be little more than a cry-baby theocrat.

    1. Soooooo, Huckabee hates gay marriage so much, he’d prefer that Democrats be in office permanently as in California rather than give on that issue?!?

      As a libertarian, I can respect such dedication to a cause. It’s an incredibly stupid cause, so stupid that I wonder how he has survived long enough to reproduce what with all the rainstorms that hit the U.S., but the dedication is respectable.

      1. It’s not really that, I think. Mostly it’s that Huckabee thinks he’s so important that he can wag the GOP dog. How many people will leave with Huckabee? A few thousand? Maybe?

        Huckabee is deluded.

        1. He is, but this is his jam, and he’s sticking with it. Someone is going to stand up and be the mouthpiece for this dwindling constituency, and the Huckster has decided that it’s going to continue to be him.

          I mean, can you blame him? He doesn’t really have any other prospects to stay at all in the limelight.

          1. the good news is, when he’s given time to speak he only shows how stupid his ideals and ideas are.

  4. This may or may not be an issue for Huckabee’s church, but not for secular government. If his religious views are that a loving, committed and companionable marriage are ordained by God as only between a man and a woman, then that is his right to so believe. But keep it out of politics.

  5. That’s nice.

    Where’s the Huckster going to go? Does he need money for a bus ticket?

    1. I hear ISIS is equally against gay people pledging their love to one another.

  6. …the traditional definition of marriage.

    A non-State sanctioned union between two (or more) people that is sometimes celebrated in a quasi-religious ceremony? Sounds pretty good to me.

    1. “Traditional” marriage where prima noctis means agents of the state get first dibs on your love.

      “Traditional” marriage where the union was about pumping out child laborers to work your tiny assigned plot of land rather than about love.

      “Traditional” marriage where your parents chose your spouse to cement their political arrangements.

      “Traditional” marriage where most folks had a mistress or paramour on the side, because marriage wasn’t about love, and the sex was only a means to create more economic assets.

      1. This.

  7. It’s not about politics; it’s all about liberty.

    Well, then, try calling for fewer laws, not more.

    I’m sick of this shit.

    1. He’s calling for more just laws.

      1. Yeah, that so different that just more laws.

    2. It’s not calling for more laws to have laws restricting liberty removed or amended.

  8. Wait until Huckabee finds out about the GOP’s soft approach towards abortion and birth control.

    1. and drug users who get abortions then buy birth control for their polygamist and bisexual marriage. The GOP totally supports that now.

  9. Liberty cannot function unless there are people who are willing to live with integrity.

    I wonder if it ever occurs to Huckabee that perhaps it works even more the other way – that, without liberty, you won’t have people willing to live with integrity? That’s always been the thing I’ve noticed too many social conservatives missed. They think you can have the government come in and run everyone’s lives, and perpetually do so in a way that is moral. Empirically, this hardly seems to be the case. As the role of the state expands, even if initially to socially conservative ends, the moral character of the people tends to be undermined.

    1. I think he’s assumed facts not in evidence. He has not shown how homosexuality is exclusive of living with integrity.

      It is NOT by definition and I think he should check his premise.

      1. Point taken and largely agreed.

        But, I still wonder if he’s ever considered the possibility that the expansion of the state preceded the loosening of sexual mores.

        1. It definitely allows one to pass the buck. “If immoral things are also illegal, then if the state doesn’t prohibit an action it is most likely moral.”

          I can see that thought process taking hold.

          1. I think that’s a big part of it. But, I think there’s a couple of other factors in play as well:

            1. As the state expands, morality become less of a private matter and more of a public affair. And, like most public things, quickly devolves to the lowest common denominator.
            2. The expansion of the welfare state supplants the civil society (lodges, churches, etc.) that include a distinct element of moral education in their purview.

          2. It’s not just that. As the state grows it disconnects people from responsibility for their actions. Most of the things people would consider(or used to consider) to be immoral were also things that had negative long term consequences. Because of the welfare state, among other government programs, the feedback loop between immoral behavior and negative outcomes is broken.

          3. Other way around.

            I have no problem making laws against immoral actions. But my definition of morality is different than Huckleberry’s.

            In order for an action to be immoral, it needs to harm someone.

            1. If you like your morality, you can keep your morality. Period.

      2. I think he’s assumed facts not in evidence. He has not shown how homosexuality is exclusive of living with integrity.

        For the socon religious voter, anything their ancient book of multiple choice describes as “sin” is de facto immoral. Their ancient book of multiple choice says that their god doesn’t approve of homosexuals, so it is a sin and therefore immoral. For them, making SSM lawful is encoding immorality into the law. The socons constantly and erroneously conflate living up to biblical ideas of virtue as moral, and anything that falls short of their religious dictates as immoral.

        The GOP created its own monster when it courted evangelical voters on certain issues. Now it’s saddled itself with a faction of voters who are religious zealots unwilling to face political reality.

        1. For the socon religious voter, anything their ancient book of multiple choice describes as “sin” is de facto immoral.

          This this this this this this this….

        2. The creation went the other way around. The Religious Right in an organized manner went into, and became active in, the GOP in the late 1970s. It wasn’t the GOP that’d specifically courted them; the GOP was courting anyone who’d come in & be active.

    2. Because Huckabee doesn’t really believe in free will.

      1. I bet he believes in his free will.

    3. I think the conservative position is that one can only live a virtuous life if you can make your own moral choices (and have freedom to do so). The theocrat position is whatever the Old Testament says.

  10. Where is John to tell everyone how freedom-loving SoCons really are?

  11. This is why social conservatism is oxymoronic. Pure conservatism, what men like John Adams would have called “liberalism,” seeks to maintain those inalienable and fundamental liberties established through the U.S. Constitution?liberties that protect the individual American’s freedom to pursue happiness in any way he or she chooses.

    You’re speaking of political conservatism, but there are other types, so it isn’t precisely an oxymoron. At best, you could say that trying to advance culturally/socially conservative viewpoints through political power is not politically conservative, though only because a political conservative is a liberal in the US, while a “liberal” is neither.

    1. Read Hayek’s ‘Why I Am Not A Conservative’. He debunks the idea that 20th Century conservatives are today’s classical liberals.

    2. Conservatism didn’t begin with Goldwater you know right. The idea that political conservatism is synonymous with classical liberalism beyond laughable. Also John Adams supported the criminalization of sodomy so to pretend he’s some kind of libertarian is a joke.

      1. Also John Adams supported the criminalization of sodomy so to pretend he’s some kind of libertarian is a joke.

        That is a profoundly stupid statement.

        1. Come now, sarc. The Alien and Sedition Acts was the pinnacle of libertarian thought in its time.

        2. I wasnt aware that anyone ever considered John “Alien and Sedition Act” Adams to be libertarian.

          1. Dammit, should have refreshed before submitting.

  12. Huckabee is a fat twat with an inflated sense of self-importance. ’nuff said

  13. Ron Paul got crushed by both Santorum and Huckabee and they are the deluded ones? Ok guys. And that chubby blonde didn’t just blow you off she’s just playing hard to get. Keep trying. Maybe mention how much you like porn.

    1. The rank and file GOP are Big Gov SoCons. What is your point?

      1. CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!!

    2. sam-

      primaries are jokes rigged by the rabbid and frothy mouthed zealots. (also, he didn’t get crushed by them.)

  14. Heh… Got myself exiled as a “troll” from National Review for arguing this one. It was amusing to see all the “limited government” types extolling the wonders of state-controlled marriage.

    One nut explained that gay marriage was just a way to evade adoption rules and facilitate the buying and selling of children. ?!?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..n#comments

    1. Time to raise the black flag. =D

    2. I have been kicked out of National Review too, but I’m pretty sure the instigating factor was when I completely agreed with TFA but the moderators weren’t bright enough to follow my argument. In fairness, it is possible they sensed my ideas supported individual liberty, which is certainly offensive to mainstream conservatives.

      Nor can I really claim intellectual superiority when 2) I didn’t even realize I was banned for quite some time and, of course, 1)I read National Review.

  15. my friend’s sister makes $83 an hour on the laptop . She has been fired for ten months but last month her payment was $12435 just working on the laptop for a few hours
    Find Out More. ???????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

    1. Fuck your friend’s sister! Oh wait, that’s probably how she’s making that $83 an hour.

  16. Are you kidding? We allow teh gayz to marry and what happens?

    http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2…..l-time-low

    Marriage Rates At All Time Low!!!

    I wish someone would have told me that the only reason people were getting married was to taunt the homos. Since I didn’t have anything against them, I could have just continued living in sin.

  17. “Ricky! I need you!” Mike shouted into the mouthpiece of the office phone. He smiled as he heard doors slamming and the dull thud of running feet. Ricky burst into his office.

    “Mike! Mike! Mike!” Ricky yelped. He couldn’t stay in one place; he bounded around the office.

    “Who’s a good boy? Who’s a good boy?” Mike cooed as he flipped Ricky a dried fetus treat. Ricky took it out of the air and gulped it down.

    “Is’a that Rick-ah I hear?” Lindsey drawled. He came out of Mike’s private bathroom, naked from the waist down, his tiny penis dripping piss. Lindsay wiped himself off on Ricky’s tangled of hair and farted like a trumpet.

    “Imma sorr-ah about your terlet there Mike. Imma ‘fraid I made an awful mess with mah loose asshole,” Lindsey said. Ricky circled Lindsey a few times, sniffing his feet and ankles and then flopped over on his side. Lindsey squatted down and began rubbing at Ricky’s tummy.

    “Don’t worry about, Grammy. The spic maid will be in to clean it all up in the morning.” Mike began stroking himself under his desk in time to Ricky’s leg happily beating on the floor.

    1. “I’m glad you are both here,” Mike said, tugging at his balls with his free hand. “I’m finally going to do it. I’m leaving the GOP over faggot marriage.”

      “Faggots cann’t ghet married!” Lindsey yelled and Ricky barked “Faggot! Faggot! Faggot!” and his red rocket came out.

      “Oh, look what you went and done,” Mike said. “I wish it really was lipstick.”

      “We-ah must preserve traditional marriage!” Lindsey screeched, his mascara beginning to run from his tears of rage.

      “We must split off from the butt-lovers and dyke-lickers in the GOP,” Mike said. “We must be free to follow our conscience!”

      He climbed up on his desk and ejaculated on Lindsey and Ricky’s smiling faces.

      1. You know, I was about to go grab some lunch. But no, the dry heaves I’m experiencing pretty much killed that idea. Thanks, jerk.

        1. You should be thanking me. You were getting a little thick around the middle but no one wanted to tell you.

          1. Yes. this will be marked for my company’s wellness plan as an article to read about fighting overeating.

      2. Am I depraved since that actually made me laugh out loud?

          1. Good, I was getting a little worried that I was getting soft. GET IT?!?

            1. You need Cialis for daily use.

              1. And a couple of bathtubs in a field.

  18. He debunks the idea that 20th Century conservatives are today’s classical liberals.

    How’s the weather out there in Left Field?

  19. It’s not calling for more laws to have laws restricting liberty removed or amended.

    Let me know when President Christie’s Attorney General goes on a Fourteenth Amendment rampage.

    I’ll be over here, holding my breath.

    1. If there is ever a president chritie I will, with mustard, eat my hat.

      1. Dumber and fatter things have happened.

  20. I’ll add my thumbs up to Huckabee and his ilk leaving the Republican Party.

    1. so it’s officially the ordained thing to do? from the martyr’s mouth!

  21. This article is so stupid it manages to make Huckabee sympathic. That is no mean trick. This paragraph is classic derp

    For instance, Huckabee opposes government-mandated health insurance required by the Affordable Care Act, and he believes the First Amendment guarantees the right to Hobby Lobby and others to avoid paying for contraceptives and abortion. He stands against both policies precisely because they violate individual liberty, and they most certainly do. But it’s illogical and appears disingenuous to declare the government has no right to infringe on personal freedom in one instance and then insist the government should establish standards of sexual morality and marriage in the next.

    So I guess gay marriage is now the measure of all liberty? Since when is the equal right to the government to coerce other people into recognizing your marriage the end all and be all of liberty?

    The worst part about this article is that Huckabee is such an easy target. He is an economic illiterate and populist hack. He is nearly as bad on economic liberty and free market issues as the Democrats are. But Reason is so fucking obsessed with gay marriage, that fact is never mentioned and we get an entire article of “well sure Huckabee is for free association and freedom of conscience but he doesn’t support gay marriage so it doesn’t matter”.

    Does Reason have any adult supervision at all?

    1. Sorry, John, but Reason didn’t make it about gay marriage. Huckabee did. He didn’t threaten to quit the party over economics, but over gay marriage. So, yeah, in this case, gay marriage is kind of a relevant issue.

  22. To quote the gospel of Mark, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”

    You can’t on one hand argue for reducing the influence of government over the individual and trumpet the cause of personal liberty while on the other hand call for the government to regulate the most intimate details of people’s lives.

    Such an incoherent message is doomed to failure; the party needs to pick one side or the other.

    1. Such an incoherent message is doomed to failure; the party needs to pick one side or the other.

      It seems to have worked pretty well for the Democrats. They constantly play on the brand of being the party that will protect your private life from government and then go on to support policies that do anything but that almost to the total exclusion of anything else.

      1. You can get away with it if the media is the PR department of your party. The only dem voters who know don’t care, because they know what the real end game is, and its not protected classes of people, its power. OTOH if the media is against you, then you need to be logically consistent because logic may be your only weapon against them.

        1. It should work that way but it doesn’t because the media will just lie and make your pro liberty positions into anti-liberty ones. So for example, saying businesses shouldn’t be forced to pay for birth control becomes “denying people the access to birth control” and so forth.

          The Republican position on gay marriage of having civil unions that didn’t force people who didn’t want to to recognize them was the pro freedom position. Yet, here we have Reason saying that support of gay marriage is the single and only measure of one’s commitment to liberty.

          Once the culture goes against you, you are fucked no matter how right or logically consistent you are.

      2. Apparently the Progs constant and worthless moral preening work with the masses.

  23. The SSM issue has beaten me up, but:
    1) Marriage is a social institution, not of government origin; the state and national governments co-opted it. Government should not be involved in marriage at all.
    2) Marriage is the foundation for the fundamental building block of society: the family. To say it has been wildly successful is still understating things.
    3) Expanding marriage beyond heterosexual pairs improves nothing about its social purpose, yet costs plenty in terms of expanded government power and most saliently, additional benefits conferred to SS partners who work for government and government contractors.

    I cannot understand why anyone who claims to be liberty-minded would support expanding the definition of marriage. (NB. The fairness argument is lame for the same reasons the American with Disabilities Act is lame. The constitutional argument is also weak: the constitution is for individual rights not contract collective rights.)

    1. Yes. Marriage is a bargain of coercion. In return for the couple agreeing to let the government dictate the terms of their union and any disunion, they get the ability to have the government force everyone to recognize their union.

      The libertarian position has always been that the government shouldn’t recognize marriages and neither dictate their terms to couples or force anyone to recognize them. How exactly that position got translated into “the definition of government sanctioned marriage must be expanded to include gays” has never been explained other than Libertarians like gays.

      1. 14A

        No further explanation is necessary.

        Unless you simply like having some animals more equal than others.

        1. 14A

          No further explanation is necessary.

          Unless you simply like having some animals more equal than others.

          Only if you don’t understand what the 14th Amendment actually means. Here is a hint, it doesn’t mean the government can not make any distinctions amongst people.

          All saying the 14th Amendment means states must recognize gay marriage does is say that being gay is like being black. And making being gay a protected class does is open up all kinds of new areas for government coercion. This is why the left loves gay marriage so much.

          Lastly, even the pro gay marriage people don’t believe that gay marriage is protected by equal protection. If they did, we would court mandated recognition of polygamy and sibling marriages and such. There is no rational case for treating gay marriages any different than those. But that is not happening because no one believes what they are saying. All that is going on is judges and various influential people like gays and hate it that the voters don’t. So they are sticking a boot on said peoples face and using the 14th Amendment to do it.

          And Libertarians are so craven and in love with the culture war, they are cheering them on.

          1. Can you read John?

            …it doesn’t mean the government can not make any distinctions amongst people.

            That’s EXACTLY what is means (and says).

            nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            And that is what every court in every state that has challenged gay marriage bans has claimed. It’s so obvious even the SCOTUS has refused to hear further bloviations attempting to twist 14A into some different meaning.

            If they did, we would court mandated recognition of polygamy and sibling marriages and such.

            And there will. Those laws will be, rightfully, struck down as well.

            1. No, we’re not talking between being pro-discrimination versus being anti-discrimination, but an argument about what *kinds* of discrimination are constitutional.

              Eg, the government distinguishes between blind people and sighted people when it comes to the right to drive a car. I don’t know of anyone who’s claimed that violates “equal protection of the law.”

              And it’s now generally agreed that racial distinctions are unconstitutional (except, of course, discriminating against whites for the sake of diversity).

              So instead of a battle between Discrimination and Non-Discrimination, we’re down to the somewhat less dramatic task of figuring out whether distinctions in the marriage laws are like age limits on driver’s licenses, or like racial discrimination.

            2. That’s EXACTLY what is means (and says).

              No it doesn’t. Are you eligible for social security? Could you get a driver’s license when you were 15? Can you get unemployment even though you have a job? Can people sitting in prison leave before their sentences?

              The government by virtue of what it is treats people differently all of the time. It couldn’t function without doing so. All the equal protection clause says is that it can’t treat people differently unless there is reason to do so. That has been interpreted to mean that unless it involves certain protected classes of people like race, religion, sex and such, the states can discriminate all they like provided they have a rational reason for doing so. So they can tell you “no you can’t have unemployment but someone else can” but they can’t say “only black people get unemployment”.
              Saying that equal protection applies to gay marriage is making being gay into a special protected class.

              You really don’t seem to understand what the clause actually means. Again, it doesn’t mean literally what you think it does.

              1. Well, apparently, the courts agree with my interpretation.

                But let’s say for the moment, you are correct (yeah, I know, it’s laughable, but let’s pretend).

                All the equal protection clause says is that it can’t treat people differently unless there is reason to do so.

                What, in this circumstance, is the legitimate reason for doing so?

                1. The courts agree with Fransisco but they agree for the worst of reasons. If gay marriage is protected under the equal protection clause any other form of marriage or any union of any kind anyone wants to call marriage should be too.

                  And that is not what is happening and it never will happen. The courts agree with you for the simple reason that they like gays and hate people who don’t. That is all there is to it. You are supporting a position that is doing great harm to both freedom and the rule of law. I wish you could understand that.

                  The problem is not gay marriage. If you want gay marriage let the states pass it, and some did, and then force the other states to recognize the marriages under the P&I clause. It would give you the same result without raping the Constitution. It would also allow states to refuse to force people to act against their conscience as a matter of public policy. Everyone would win, except for the leftists whose entire reason for supporting gay marriage was as a way to make criminalize their political enemies.

                  1. If gay marriage is protected under the equal protection clause any other form of marriage or any union of any kind anyone wants to call marriage should be too.

                    Yep.

                    And you didn’t answer my question:

                    What, in this circumstance, is the legitimate reason for doing so?

                    1. Yep.

                      Except the courts don’t believe that. And it will never come to that. All that is happening is the courts are deciding they like gays and don’t think those who don’t are entitled to any protection under the law to object. That is it. And you and a lot of other people who should know better are cheering them on. All because you are so fucking obsessed with the culture war you have allowed it to make you stupid.

                      What, in this circumstance, is the legitimate reason for doing so?

                      Any rational reason the state decides. It is not mine nor the courts’ business to tell the people of a state what they think should and should not be a “marriage”.

                      But I don’t share your love of top men. I think it is people’s own business what marriage is. You in contrast think the top men on the bench need to make sure they make the right decision. That way the preferred groups can get what they want and the bad people can get screwed.

                    2. Any rational reason the state decides. It is not mine nor the courts’ business to tell the people of a state what they think should and should not be a “marriage”.

                      But I don’t share your love of top men. I think it is people’s own business what marriage is. You in contrast think the top men on the bench need to make sure they make the right decision.

                      Okay Red Tony. Freedom is slavery. Having the court tell the government that people may do as they choose, so long as they harm no one else, is statism…derp.

                      Christ, you’re deranged.

                    3. A Constitutional Republic, how does it work?

              2. “the states can discriminate all they like provided they have a rational reason for doing so”
                And what is the rational reason for discriminating against gays or polygamists?

                1. There isn’t one checdepremisis. But the states will get away with it because courts like gays and don’t like polygamists. There is no rational rule of law on this beyond which group is popular with judges and which group isn’t.

        2. As mentioned above, the 14th Amendment and the rest of the constitution covers only individual rights, the plenary powers of the various government branches and the states. It specifically does NOT cover collective social contractual rights. Every individual is equally protected and can take advantage of the (heterosexual) marriage institution or not as they will.

          1. It specifically does NOT cover collective social contractual rights.

            Oh really?

            How is a contract not between two individuals?

            It’s kinda fun watching you republicans twist in the wind on this. You are attempting to turn yourselves inside out in attempts to justify your immorality.

            1. “How is a contract not between two individuals?”

              This is begging the question. The 14th Amendment is not about contact equality. Please cite the passage in the Constitution that refutes my observation, or concede the point.

              For the record I am not a Republican.

              1. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

                1. Sigh. Okay F d’A follow me here:
                  Marriage is a positive right. The government in a given “jurisdiction” has specified that any individual (person), male or female, can pair with someone of the opposite sex. What you cited merely says government cannot stop heterosexual marriages based on who the consenting individuals (persons) are. It does NOT say that since government must allow an individual man or woman marry someone of the opposite sex, they must also be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. Thus the constitutional argument is weak.

                  Anyway, John was also correct in that this is not the libertarian position. I still want to see if someone can come up with a valid reason for why. I expect no one can.

                  1. Marriage is a positive right.

                    First, positive rights are illegitimate (unless established within the founding document) as they violate tenet 1. Second, government involvement in marriage at all, violates tenet 2.

                    1. A person may do as he chooses, PROVIDED in doing so he doesn’t violate the rights of others.

                    2. The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

                    break-break

                    That said, under your argument, a state can make a law saying a short person cannot marry a tall person. That about sum it up?

                    I’m not a moron. I understand what you are saying. You are saying the law says man and woman and therefore any man or woman can get married and it’s not a 14A violation.

                    I’m saying, and every court it’s gone to has agreed with me, that the part of the law saying “man and woman” wasn’t constitutional to begin with as it ruled out other options. The state made a law that made exceptions to one group over another without ANY justification whatsoever, except, “we don’t like them faggots”. May as well say, we don’t like them niggers or we don’t like them blondes or we don’t like them short people or we don’t like them [fill in the blank].

                    Tenet 1 above IS a libertarian issue. A person has the legitimate right (negative right) to marry whomever they choose.

                    The fact that government has turned marriage into a positive right is a separate issue. I can be for one and against the other.

            2. How is a contract not between two individuals?

              Will any court recognize and enforce your contract with a hit man to kill your wife? By your logic they would have to since they must treat everyone equally and recognize all contracts.

              No, they don’t. States are free to not recognize or enforce contracts as long as they are not doing so for a prohibited reason like race.

              1. I’m sorry John. I don’t comment on constitutional issues because I lack the academic chops and don’t pretend to. I’m just here to read and learn.

                That being said, did you just compare hiring a hitman to kill your wife with two gay people wanting to be married? I’m sorry if I’m being dense. Maybe it was a legal argument that went over my head( I’m just a mason. Not a free one, mind you. I cost a pretty penny).

          2. “Every individual is equally protected and can take advantage of the (heterosexual) marriage institution or not as they will.”

            Like back when interracial marriage was illegal, you weren’t discriminated against for wanting to marry someone of another race because you can marry someone of your own race instead!

            1. Being gay is not the same as being black. That is the the entire point. Pointing to interacial marriage just begs the question.

              1. Being gay is not the same as being black. That is the the entire point. Pointing to interacial [sic] marriage just begs the question.

                So you’d be fine with a law that said a short person can’t marry a tall person then too?

      2. Yes, a bargain of coercion indeed. Can anyone counter John’s statement about the de facto fluctuation in the official libertarian position?

          1. No you didn’t. And even if you were right, which you are not, why does it being consistent with the 14th Amendment make it a “pro liberty” position when it otherwise would not be? At best your response to my point about coercion is “but its required by the 14th Amendment”. So what? That doesn’t make it a pro liberty position. It just makes it a constitutional one. And the two are not necessarily the same.

            1. Equal protection under the law isn’t libertarian?

              Okay then, let me explain how it’s a VERY libertarian position. I can do as I wish, provided, in doing so, I do not infringe upon the rights of others. (that funny little NAP thing)

              That means, I can marry whomever the fuck I want, provided no one is harmed in the process.

              1. Equal protection doesn’t say anything about “liberty”. It is about being treated equally by the government.

                There are lots of things that are demanded by equal protection that are anti-liberty. Equal protection for example demands that the government arrest and try everyone for violating the drug laws equally. The government can’t consistent with equal protection give some people a break unless there is some rational and consistently applied reason. In short, equal protection demands the equal application of bad and anti-liberty laws just as much as it demands the equal application of good laws.

                Here, government sanctioned marriage is from the libertarian perspective a bargain of coercion. Just because equal protection in your erroneous view demands that that bargain be extended to gays, doesn’t make extending it any less anti-liberty and pro coercion.

              2. I believe that paying higher taxes to support partners of HSM government employees is a violation of NAP. Paying even higher taxes to support partners of SSM government employees is just exacerabting things.

                1. I believe that paying higher taxes to support partners of HSM government employees is a violation of NAP. Paying even higher taxes to support partners of SSM government employees is just exacerabting [sic] things.

                  If you’d like to discuss whether government should be in the marriage business at all, I’ll gladly oblige. It isn’t a legitimate function of government. But that’s not a legitimate argument for discriminating against any group. It’s a non sequitur.

                  You don’t get to treat one group differently, under the law, just because you are a bigot and don’t like them.

                  1. Still say you are the one splitting hairs here. And I object to your inference that I am bigoted. Some of my best friends are gay. I think gays should be able to hold any job they are otherwise qualified for. If individuals can adopt, then so too should gay individuals be able to adopt. etc…

                    I just know the 14th Amendment doesn’t give them, you, or anyone else the right to compel everyone else to say that we all must “recognize” two homosexuals in a civil marriage. You think it does apparently but I know you are wrong.

                    Refer back to my original post:
                    3) Expanding marriage beyond heterosexual pairs improves nothing about its social purpose, yet costs plenty in terms of expanded government power and most saliently, additional benefits conferred to SS partners who work for government and government contractors.

                    Two “wrongs” don’t make a right. If you truly believe that government should not be in the marriage business, then you would not support expanding it, even for a constitutional reason.

                    I recognize the SSM movement as the PC tyranny that it is. It is clearly aggravating current transgressions against the NAP.

                    1. “You” as in everybody, not you specifically.

                      See my 4:22

                    2. “Some of my best friends are gay.”

                      TO in TX. You might as well say, “Some of my best friends are black.”

                      This is where your argument is going to fall apart.

                  2. Mr. Francisco d’Anconia. I like you, like you like Stossel. That is all. =)

              3. That means, I can marry whomever the fuck I want, provided no one is harmed in the process.

                Sure you can. But that is not what we are talking about. You can marry whomever you like and no law should say you can’t. If however, you go and get a paper from the government that allows you to force other people to recognize your marriage even if they don’t want to, you are most certainly harming other people.

                1. So, being forced to recognize someone else’s marriage is harmful in general then using that logic. Straight and gay alike using that line of reason, both are harmful… So… Can I nullify and make invalid your marriage since it brings harm to me?

                  1. Can I nullify and make invalid your marriage since it brings harm to me?

                    If your marriage is against my religion, I shouldn’t be compelled to recognize it. You can still do it. You just can’t force me to recognize it. Saying you should and that doing so is a “liberty issue” is really saying “freedom is slavery”

                    1. Then, yes, I can. Cool!

                    2. How, in the fuck, are you being forced to recognize a gay marriage?

                      John, you are once again, talking out of your fucking asshole in an attempt to justify your immoral religious beliefs.

                    3. Agreed.

                      On a more serious note than my previous posts, what you are suggesting is daft and ludicrous. Any “harm” being done by someone having a marriage certificate is so superficial and childish that it is laughable that the “victim” could be called an adult. It is right in line with the PC policing of the left and the typical members of the “you’re not allowed to offend me” crowd.

                      Allowing more people to marry may in the most literal and unsubstantial way be an expansion of government power, but then again, the marriage certificate is not forcing anyone to do anything. It is no more forcing people to recognize their marriage than our current laws do, and as proven above, I don’t have to recognize your marriage if I don’t want to.

                      You don’t have to agree with that marriage and no one is FORCING you to call them a married couple. The only time this has ever been an issue is when a gay couple has used the judicial system to attempt private business owner to provide services for them. While I acknowledge that a private businesses shouldn’t be FORCED to provide anything to anybody, this is NOT the issue at hand, but is one that has the POTENTIAL to be related to this. The POTENTIAL to be related. it isn’t even necessarily related to it at all. It has a minuscule chance to be related to it.

                    4. But, hey, if you’re for the complete and total deregulation of marriage by the government and the nullifying of ALL marriage licences, more power to you. That also means no more tax breaks for any married people due to their marital status, which I’ve always been opposed to. I shouldn’t be forced to subsidize your life choices.

                    5. Until that becomes a reality, though, I’m not holding the rights of another group hostage until I get my way. That isn’t the libertarian way.

                    6. Thank you.

                    7. I don’t have to recognize your marriage if I don’t want to.

                      Unless, say, you’re an employer who is mandated to provide health insurance coverage to the government-sanctioned spouse of your employees. Or a creditor collecting a debt.

                      That you happen to be ignorant of the myriad ways in which a government marriage license does, indeed, force others to acknowledge and accept your personal lifestyle choices (regardless of your orientation) doesn’t make them go away. If not for the ability to force others to recognize the union, civil marriage wouldn’t have any function (and doesn’t have a function in any legitimate, negative-rights-securing limited government).

                      The only sensible libertarian argument for gay marriage is based solely on legal equality, which isn’t necessarily an admirable goal when the law to be equally applied happens to be a giant piece of shit (slavish deference to equality is customarily the domain of children and communists). Nevertheless, the concern wrt legal equality should start, not end, at gay marriage, of course, but don’t be shocked if the vast majority of “libertarians” who are presently concerned with the issue cease giving a single fuck about it once teh gais can attend the party.

                2. With what ? A paper cut ?

                  1. If however, you go and get a paper from the government that allows you to force other people to recognize your marriage even if they don’t want to, you are most certainly harming other people.

                    1. With what ? A paper cut ?

                    2. This applies to straight marriage as well.

                    3. How can you not get it through your thick head that straight marriage already does this?!

                    4. So, give up your ta benefits for being married. Stand by your word and nullify that benefit. Give all of that money to a cause of your choosing for all I care. But you should not directly benefit from my tax dollars in any way, shape, or form by your own philosophy.

    2. I cannot understand how anyone who is liberty-minded doesn’t see the hypocrisy of a statement like

      “I cannot understand why anyone who claims to be liberty-minded would support expanding the definition of marriage”

      Do you even liberty, bro?

      1. Freedom to get government permission isn’t “liberty” in any reasonable sense of the term.

  24. Absolute bullshit! Of course Huckabee is full of shit but so are you. I’m still waiting for one of the new wave authors at Reason to have a clue what’s going on, instead of just trying to find an audience.

    Yeah – we get that Reason has abandoned any sense of integrity and all power to the LGBT Alliance or whatever. Now it’s just a question of how stupid you can get.

    I realize that Justin Haskins is an editor at The Heartland Institute. If he’s not getting paid-off big bucks for this bullshit, he’s an idiot. That’s the only reason fake conservatives got onboard with this bullshit.

    1. I’m not sure who you’re trying to offend, but calling independents and libertarians “fake conservatives” is a positive thing to us.

      We see the way that the Republican party, what you would call “Real republicans” are a party full of hypocrites and liars, and are proud to have distanced ourselves from their toxic policies.

      Take your prattling dogma elsewhere, the “For us or against us” conservatism isn’t going to work here.

  25. Huckabee is what used to be called…a New Deal Democrat. You know, like FDR who regulated the economy along “corporatist” lines and banned Esquire from the mails in the interest of morality.

    But not all SoCons are like him. Isn’t the author aware of Frank Meyer, the “fusionist” who preached the necessary interdependence of liberty and morality? As in, morality needs liberty and vice versa. Meyer was only a key conservative intellectual back in the day, and for about 3 years he overlapped with Reason.

    “many Republicans also, in complete contradiction, have supported the notion that the government should be defining what marriage, perhaps the most personal and intimate institution in society, ought to look like”

    The SSM/give me cake crowd is at least as guilty of this as the Reps. They, too, want a government-designed definition of marriage – two individuals, and let the polyamorists wait in line and take a number.

    Why, then, single out the Republicans as if they were *uniquely* guilty of wanting the government to define marriage?

    All talk of “deregulating marriage” is, simply, talk existing in magazines and message boards like this. The actually existing debate is between the SSM/I want cake faction and the SoCons who oppose them. The main difference between the parties, in terms of liberty, is that SoCons seem happy to let private business extend benefits to same-sex partners if they choose, while the give me cake crowd wants to *force* private businesses to do this.

    1. In 2008, Robert Poole wrote in Reason on the occasion of William F. Buckley’s death:

      “thanks to the efforts of NR’s Frank Meyer to promote a “fusion” between economic (free-market) conservatives and social conservatives, Buckley and National Review fostered the growth of a large enough conservative movement to nominate Goldwater for president and ultimately to elect Ronald Reagan.”

      https://reason.com/archives/200…..ley-jr-rip

    2. That is the worst part of this article. It takes an easy target for criticism and still manages to fuck it up. Huchabee is a terrible politician for about a million reasons that have nothing to do with gay marriage. He is terrible on economic issues.

      I always thought Libertarians were the ones who understand that economic issues are also freedom issues. I guess I was wrong. All freedom issues must relate in some way to government sanctioned ass sex apparently.

      1. I wouldn’t go that far – but I *do* agree that Reason has great enthusiasm for the SSM cause, and tries to artificially separate it from the freedom of association/religious freedom cause.

        And of course the issue of the decline of the family is either too radioactive to touch, or those who *do* raise the issue are to be mocked.

        1. IMO it’s a non-issue. I know plenty of pagan. classic liberal, and ship captain JP’s that would marry anyone. For a fee of course. =)

      2. Get a grip John, Christ.

        1. Fuck off Tony.

          1. Fuck off JP.

  26. It’s one thing to believe that government should stay out of marriage all together. It is another to condone same sex marriage by supporting initiatives etc exhibit ARep. David Jolly (R-Fla.), who claims that same-sex marriage is immoral, came out in support of legalizing gay marriage in July.

    1. Gay marriage was never illegal after the sodomy laws went away. Gays were free to get married all they wanted. What they couldn’t do was get a piece of paper to force everyone to recognize that union.

      1. If homosexual couples want the “privilege” of paying the government a “fee” for government approval of their union, then let them have at it. Adoption is the crux, in the debate for same sex marriage.

        1. John. You are intelligent, and good at debate. You really need to do some research though. Homosexual couples just want the right to free association.
          Rights like adoption, or being able to visit a sick, or dying loved one without being denied access, because they are not considered “family”.

          The “Same Sex Marriage Debate” ultimately distills down to the right of Free Association.

  27. This is the same kind of threat that Pat Buchanan when he said he was leaving the GOP. Shockingly, the Republican Party didn’t collapse as a result, because it turned out that nobody really cared that much about Pat Buchanan’s opinions on anything.

    I think Huckabee is about to get a rude awakening on just how irrelevant an ex-governor’s opinion is.

    1. George HW Bush is on the line and would like to speak to you about his second term.

      1. Except, if memory serves me right, Buchanan didn’t leave the Republicans under GHW. Bush gave him a prime time convention speech, where he screamed and ranted about “CULTURE WAR!!!”. You don’t think that might have done a little bit to turn a few voters off of the Republicans, do you, John?

        1. I think the overall reaction to guys like Pat Buchanan, and Bob Dole was “Oh.. Grandpah. =)”

  28. Mor?s are not morals.

    Coercing individuals to conform to mor?s is immoral.

  29. So this writer is a rethuglican too? Hahaha all the neocons are coming out of the closet in reason today. And there was also an article about dumb rethuglicans. Maybe the writers will all hold a reason celebrity death match hosted by ted cruz and show it on the independents.

    1. Turd.Burglar. =D

  30. Great article. Hopefully as this transition continues libertarians and republicans can fully unite and stop destructive liberalism.

  31. The only difference between a government that legislates Christian values and Sharia law is the specific things forbidden.

    1. Same can be said of progressive values

  32. interesting that the coalition that reagan put together to win in 1980 would eventually potentially hurt the gop.

  33. If Huckabee wants to leave the GOP then he should. He has the right of free association. A right that he would deny others.

  34. Social conservatives are always threatening to leave the GOP but never quite get around to handing in their resignation. It’s all a ploy to get media attention and stay relevant.

  35. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

    Sorry Mike, but if that’s what you truly hold as most important for the Republican party then, please, don’t let the door hit you in your butt as you leave.

    We’ve got too much moralizing via government force from the Left. We do NOT need it coming from the Right.

    And such moralizing via government force is also the best and quickest way for the GOP to lose elections.

    1. ^ Yup. Yup.

  36. The only way so-cons can preserve their concept of ‘sanctity of marriage’ is the elimination of all civil and financial advantages in marriage, i.e., making it purely religious. As long as there exists separate groups of haves and have-nots, there will exist those wanting to cross those lines. So erase the lines, repeal all civil and financial advantages favoring the married, and problem solved.

    1. The feds stick their noses in on these issues by pretending it is an equal protection issue yet there is no equal protection between married and single when it comes to many financial situations. The gays want marriage for work related benefits and inheritance. Single people are cheated in that those work related benefits are not equally distributed. The company pays 15,000 for the families health care but only 6000 for the single employee. The family guy gets family leave.

      You are right all the benefits should go away.

      1. Private companies should be able to discriminate in their dispensing of benefits in whatever manner they choose. They just shouldn’t be mandated to do so based upon the government’s having stamped its seal of approval on somebody’s personal relationship.

  37. I too have had enough of the Huckabees, Bozells, etc; I want my party of Lincoln back. So, just leave, already. In the words of Redd Foxx, let the screen door hitcha where the good lord splitcha…

  38. Why isn’t this really a state issue. We have too many made up “rights” the federal courts have created out of whole cloth. If California wants gays to be married and Alabama doesn’t let the gays in Alabama fly out to California and Alabama must recognize those marriages.

    This federal creep is the basis for the erosion of our rights and the expansion of the feds into everything we do. With that creep comes the need to keep us all under their watchful eye.

    1. You would really get along with a guy named craiginmass. You two are different sides of the same coin.

  39. If your morality or religious views require some sort of prop from gov’t, what does that tell you? Either your views are irrelevant or gov’t has become too intrusive, probably both.

  40. Huckleberry is not even a conservative. He is more in line with Democrats. Conservatives don’t raise taxes, and advocate for the release of convicted rapist and murderers.

    http://www.arktimes.com/arkans…..oid=862759

  41. the younger generation just might save the republican party……You take away the social politics from the democrats they’ll never win another election….legalize weed and gay marriage….figure out how to or what to do about immigration and illegal immigrants….what do the democrats have left? its about liberty and limited government….the drug war and state sanctioned love are both ridiculous positions to then say i believe in liberty! yes you do your own liberty and no one else…..

    1. Given the comments you get from the younger generation on these forums, saving the party will only turn it into the Democrat lite party, Thanks, but no thanks.

  42. the reason a growing number of conservatives are rejecting the typical social conservative agenda has little to do with political correctness or fear that society may reject them. It’s not about politics; it’s all about liberty.

    Who explains this to Ron and Rand Paul? Rand says abortion should be a state issue, but also brags of sponsoring a FEDERAL law to ban ALL abortions … which the liberal media are now exposing, calling him a phony for now accepting Plan B (but still nothing after implantation). So much for the libertarian moment. (gasp)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.