Huckabee, Steele, Limbaugh, Romney, Others Share Their Thoughts

 

There was a mix of palpable joy and sorrow throughout the country Friday. The news came at 9:30 that morning, that the Iowa Supreme Court had determined that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, then, sadly, one hour later, a gunman, had entered a public building in a small New York town and, we would ultimately learn, shot dead thirteen people.

About 4:00 PM, via Twitter, I saw a comment from  Mike Huckabee amidst CNN and MSNBC’s non-stop coverage of the massacre in Binghamton. Here it is:

Yes, that’s right: “must fight to preserve family and amend the Constitution of the United States to define marriage as one man and one woman. #tcot, #iowa” At 4:00 PM, EDT, just as the nation was learning the full magnitude of the terrible shooting in that sleepy little town in upstate New York, (that I have visited many times,) Mike Huckabee, former Republican governor and presidential candidate and practicing minister, now a radio and TV personality, was more concerned about the Supreme Court of Iowa’s decision about gay marriage than about the families and neighbors of those poor thirteen people, some of whom were murdered while studying to take their citizenship test. Way to go, Mike! Glad you’re practicing your faith.

So, I thought I’d take a look around to see what other Conservatives were saying about the Iowa gay marriage decision. Ready or not, here we go:

Michael Steele, the “leader” of the Republican Party:

“The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision today to reverse an 11 year old state law outlawing same-sex marriage is sadly another example of judicial activism currently threatening family values in America.  While I respect an individual’s right to live his or her life as they see fit, decisions like this are better left in the hands of legislators and governors.

I firmly believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman.  A state’s autonomous nature allows it to change its laws as the citizenry sees fit, but it should be done by the people, not through judicial decree.”

Rush Limbaugh: the other “leader” of the Republican party.

“For how many years were they talking about gay marriage?  How many years were they talking about demonizing the SUV?  That started in 1995.  Here it is 14 years later, and they’re on the verge of doing it. Liberals don’t stop. It’s like the Soviets.  They didn’t have four-year plans based on the service of term of their leader.  They had forever plans, and if you had to take a year off, maybe a step back before you took two steps forward, then fine.  But they had the objective, it was there, and whenever it got done was fine, as long as you’re always working for it.  Same thing with Hugo Chavez.  Hugo Chavez is taking over the banks now.  Hugo Chavez is nationalizing the oil industry.  Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, we’re getting, you know, an early sign of what Chavez did by watching things happen here.  But they don’t stop.

This is why an electoral majority needs to happen in order to defeat these people, and even after they’re defeated, they try to go around it in other ways, getting judges, like unanimous decision in Iowa today, with the Supreme Court, unanimous, that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.  Now, I guarantee you, if we could go dig up James Madison and say, “Mr. Madison, did you intend for the Constitution to say people of the same sex could get married?”  And I guarantee you he would have the reaction, “What are you talking about?  Are you sure you’re asking me about the Constitution?”  But then the four judges, whatever the number, they’re unanimous in the Iowa Supreme Court, have just said what they think the Constitution says.”

Mitt Romney, the man who wants to be the leader of the Republican party:

“The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.” (Of course, Mitt’s a bit older now, so he hasn’t gotten around to prosteletyzing about this version of Iowa gay marriage. The quote is from 2007.)

Ed Whelan, National Review Online:

‘The lawless judicial attack on traditional marriage and on representative government continues…The judicial knaves who proudly regard themselves as trailblazers in carrying out this latest assault on the powers of citizens are Iowa chief justice…”

Western Iowa Representative Steve King, warned Iowa could turn into “the gay marriage Mecca”, stated:

“This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends. Iowa law says that marriage is between one man and one woman. If judges believe the Iowa legislature should grant same sex marriage, they should resign from their positions and run for office, not legislate from the bench.

Now it is the Iowa legislature’s responsibility to pass the Marriage Amendment to the Iowa Constitution, clarifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, to give the power that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself back to the people of Iowa. Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court’s latest experiment in social engineering.”

Rod Dreher, BeliefNet:

“This morning, I had breakfast with some guys, including a lawyer. We weren’t aware of this decision, but we talked about this issue. The lawyer said that as soon as homosexuality receives constitutionally protected status equivalent to race, then “it will be very hard to be a public Christian.” By which he meant to voice support, no matter how muted, for traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality and marriage. To do so would be to set yourself up for hostile work environment challenges, including dismissal from your job, and generally all the legal sanctions that now apply to people who openly express racist views.”

But I saved the best for last. Andrew Sullivan, conservative author, editor, blogger…

“Once you have accepted sexual orientation as a fixed and profound part of someone’s identity, and once civil marriage is not restricted to those with children, it is simply very, very hard to find a secular argument for denying critical civil rights under constitutions that guarantee formal equality. You can reach for Biblical injunctions, or try the logic of unintended consequences, or in the end invoke pure prejudice in a Burkean fashion. But even Burke understood that societies change and grow, social beliefs shift, our understanding of humanity deepens, and an intelligent conservatism adjusts.

That’s why, I think, so many conservative jurists have been forced by logic to adopt this position – from the early decisions in Hawaii and Alaska, through the numerous Republican-appointed judges who find it hard to reflect pure prejudice in rational legal judgment. Yes, fear can overwhelm logic and justice. But remove fear – and the case is overwhelming.”

If it’s true, “As Iowa goes, so goes the nation”, let’s hope we can also say, “As Andrew Sullivan goes, so go conservatives.” We can always hope.

(photo: kyeung808)