My daughter points out that a divorce rate of over 50% should be a much bigger concern to anyone concerned about the "sanctity" of marriage.

Will idiot Rs ever wake up to the filetting abilities of the friendly nebbish Jon Stewart?

I thought John could have been even more devastating. John touched on the fact that the definition of marriage has changed over time, but he should have hammered Huckabee with it every time Huck said "We can't change the definition of marriage". Also, Huck kept saying things like "68% of Americans don't want to change the definition of marriage". John should have pointed out that our country was founded in such a way that the majority cannot trample on the rights of the minorities. That's why we have a Constitution, Bill of Rights, Supreme Court, etc.

As I have said repeatedly, if people like Huckabee *really* wanted to defend the sanctity of marriage, they would do away w/no-fault divorce. Until they advocate for that, I don't want to hear any complaints about restricting the rights of people who actually want to get married.

Hypocrites, but what else is new,
-Z

Stewart is absolutely brilliant when he speaks matter-of-factly and substantively about certain issues. This video was nourishment for those of us who crave more of that from him. Often his comedic instincts overtake his serious instincts and we lose a lot of well-said, smart, poignant commentary in exchange for healthy laughs.

It's a difficult trade-off: a brilliant comedic mind vs a brilliant social commentator. That they are both attached to same mouth means we are all the better for it. Thank you, Jon.

The fact that 68% of USians don't want to change the definition of marriage (is that even true?) doesn't mean anything. What percentage of USians wanted blacks to be citizens and have the right to vote? What percentage of USians wanted women to have the right to vote?

Allowing the majority to trample the minority is going to work out really well for people like Huckabee when whites are no longer the majority, which I think is slated to happen in about 50 years.

Stewart is great in this. One thing he didn't pick up on, though, is Huckabee's offhand remark that marriage is a 'privilege'. Um...no. Loving v. Virginia established conclusively that marriage is a fundamental right.

Just to be clear, I look forward to that day, though I probably won't be around for it.

My husband is a musician and posts his songs on stereofame. For some reason, though he doesn't write hiphop or rap, he is very popular with the hiphop/rap crowd. One commenter asked my husband if he was black (he isn't) and then wrote, "don't be offended if you're not".

I so want to live in a world where being accused of not being black is offensive.

The timing of this is interesting given that yesterday was also oral arguments before the Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v Brien, the next same sex court case in the queue.

Most of the arguments were the same old stuff; the anti-marriage attorney focused primarily on what worked in Washington state - that the optimum environment for procreation and child-rearing was a rational basis for banning same sex marriage.

Then one of the justices asked the question that should absolutely end the case: "Can we constitutionally ban sex offenders from getting married?" The anti-marriage attorney answered "No, I don't think you can."

If the argument is that otherwise fine, upstanding gay people cannot marry, but known sex offenders cannot be precluded from marrying, then the premise about the best environment for children is beyond laughable.

i am very hopeful the Iowa Supreme Court will get this one right, although it may be 6 months before a ruling comes down.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that, in the still-image of the embedded video, Huckabee bears a distinct resemblance to Richard Nixon?

As usual, Huckabee's argument also should prevent heteros who don't want children from getting married, too, since it's all about having rugrats.

It's a tired argument that the next generation's not buying. I only hope the floodgates break open before Huckabee departs this planet.

I am not looking forward to the day when I have to explain to my 2 year old daughter why this nation wouldn't allow two people who love one another to get married. Just like how my parents had to explain to me why black people weren't allowed to go to the white schools or white restaurants. I have a feeling this hate won't last for long. Each generation is more tolerant and accepting than the previous.

As usual, Huckabee's argument also should prevent heteros who don't want children from getting married, too, since it's all about having rugrats.

Exactly.

Huckabee is the most genuine of the Republican heavy hitters, the most likable, and the best at thinking on his feet. I could not disagree with him more on so called "culture war" issues.

However, what is most remarkable about this exchange is that it demonstrates two things:

1) Jon Stewart respects Mike Huckabee enough to engage him directly on this issue. I think he genuinely wanted to know the motivation.
2) Huckabee was way outclassed from a moral conviction standpoint in this debate. Not only were Jon's arguments direct and pursuasive compared to Huck's almost Kafkaesque answers about "preserving definitions," but he clearly lacked anywhere near the same level of courage or fervor concerning his side of this issue. Huckabee's defense was lukewarm at best, which makes me question whether his position on this issue might be purely political as it is with so many other Republicans. Huckabee actually fell in my estimation of him because of his lack of conviction.

I hope Huckabee continues to be a "friend of the show" on both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I think my side has the better argument, and the more times a GOP spokesperson of his stature is directly engaged on this issue, the better.

Watching the interview I was just overcome by sadness. That it seems like the only place in our most popular cultural medium that two people who disagree with one another can sit down and have a respectful, erudite discussion is on a fake news comedy show.

If there was any place where Jon was too kind it was when Huckabee attempted to absolve the anti-gay movement of its homophobia. He agreed to that before he attacked him on it. If social conservatives liked the gay 'lifestyle' this wouldn't be an issue. That they abhor gay people is the only reason that they seek to distance themselves and their institutions from them. Their arguments are ad-hoc excuses created to justify a bigotry they know to be unreasonable and unsellable.

Posted by: zeitgeist on December 10, 2008 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

zeitgeist, I have been reading your responses for months now, since the CBR... I have to ask: Why don't you have your own blog? You're posts are some of the most insightful.

You are correct, the justice's statement should have ended the case. I am going to incorporate that line of thought in future debates. Thanks.

I'd like to pose a challenge to everyone here who wants to help end discrimination against gays, lesbians, transpeople, and genderqueers, ie, everyone who doesn't conform to Huckleberry's view of sexuality and gender roles. It lies in language. The words we use to define people say a lot about what we think of them. Look at the differences in how gay people are described vs. how straight people are described. In American culture, straight people have relationships, spouses, lives, families, and values. Gay people merely have sex, partners, lifestyles, a community, and an agenda. These are dogwhistles for people who have no problem with "othering" an entire group of people out of hate, or even just used by folks who don't know any better. I think this is absolute horseshit. I don't go home to my beloved and ask her, "Hi honey, how was your lifestyle today? Are we going to hang out with our community Friday night?"

Part of ending legal discrimination entails welcoming people a part of the larger population. This means accepting them as human beings and not "othering" them. Thus, I challenge each person here to think about the words they use, and make an effort to use inclusive, rather than exclusive language. Do not refer to being gay as a "lifestyle." It's just life. We don't refer to religion as a "lifestyle," and that is far more of a choice than being gay. Do not refer to LGBT people as having an "agenda." We have values, based in religion and/or personal experience, just like everyone else. If you really want to blow minds, start referring to straight people's spouses as "partners" or "companions." Make a point of the impact that words have. People like Huckabee have way too much power, and it's long past time to take that away from him.

I also agree that Stewart could have zeroed in on the procreation angle. Huckabee made the point several times that a key element of marriage is having children. His conclusion is that since homosexual couples can't procreate, they can't marry. Must be small comfort for couples that either can't have children or simply choose not to. Hope the marriage police don't come after them next.

That said, I think Jon Stewart did a great job. Rather than just attacking these guys, I think it's very important to have a civil conversation with them and expose their line of thinking. Either their philosophy bears up to examination or it doesn't.

Zeitgeist,

Convicted murderers on death row are allowed to get married in prison. What does that tell you?

It saddens and angers me that we are still having this debate. The conservative narrative is driven by clergy who choose to pick out certain passages in the Bible and elevate them above others. Why don't they support slavery? There are certainly passages to support it. Why don't they advocate stoning disobediant daughters? There are certainly passages to support it.

Oh they try to mask it in secular language like traditional definition of marriage, but the sad truth is they want to force everyone to live exactly like their chosen dogmas instruct them.

It is just like the Intelligent Design meme. Couche their religious dogma in seudo-scientific sounding terms and try to force their religious beliefs into every public school science classroom. It doesn't matter that ID (or whatever term they are using these days) is just smoke and mirrors, so long as it succeeds in forcing everyone to learn their religion.

Why not just do away with all laws regarding marriage. Just let people do and live anyway they want. After all, they're doing it now. This way when people get tired of each other, they just move on to someone else. We can also have a dozen "mates" as well. I'll have 2 whites, 3 blacks, 4 hispanics, 3 Chinese and a Japanese. Oh, and if the Nambla assoc. gets their way we could also have a few young boys and/or girls around just for kicks. [I am of course being a tad facetious].

God told Adam & Eve [not Adam & Steve], to "be fruitful and multiply". Please explain how two men or two women can do this. It takes a man and a woman to pro-create.

There's the argument that homosexuals and lesbians were born that way. I agree, they were born with inbred sinful tendencies as were all the human race. But when we come to know the God who created us and want to live according to His righteousness, then we will stop this foolishness and clean up our act.
People today have no fear of God.

There is a day of judgment coming my friends and we will all give an account for what we have done. There's a difference between sheep and goats and God will separate them in the last day.
Some to everlasting life and the others to everlasting punishment.
Prepare to meet thy God! Amos 4:12

Keori, two things.

First, your "challenge" is no challenge to us. Most of us gay-friendly straights figured that one out years ago. For instance, my gay friends know perfectly well that my husband and I knowingly and willingly use the language they prefer us to use (in fact, we went so far as to ask them for their preference on the matter). We know full well how not to "otherise" them.

Second, Zeitgeist is by any measure a gay-friendly person, and already quite adroitly made the point that you are trying so clumsily to get across to him. I think you might want to re-read his post.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems to me you don't realize that you are preaching to the choir here.

mark r said: Watching the interview I was just overcome by sadness. That it seems like the only place in our most popular cultural medium that two people who disagree with one another can sit down and have a respectful, erudite discussion is on a fake news comedy show.

I had much the same feeling watching the show. Stewart asks more intelligent and insightful questions about qay marriage (showing a real depth of knowledge) than any of the talking heads on cable.

If this was a just world that Huckabee interview would be getting a lot of play in the MSN right now. It was a genuinely news-making interview that covered a lot of ground.

Another thing that struck me was how Huckabee seemed to be enjoying himself quite a bit during that discussion. It was like he actually relished the chance to have a REAL conversation for once. A conversaiont with someone who actually engages and listens to him. As opposed to the empty by-the-numbers interviews he normally has to deal with.

Keori, excellent point. If nothing else, the recent election proved that words most definitely have power. Millions of people were moved by Obama's emphasis on positivity. You are exactly correct that the words used to describe LGBT people are often designed to marginalize them..."othering" as you aptly put it. I am a straight (but not narrow) man who has recently moved away from his religion for, among other reasons, its stance on marriage. A member of my family is lesbian, but I don't think of her first as that. Sure, it is a part of who she is, but to me she is simply my aunt.

Keori -

Indeed, prisoners can. And one of the Iowa justices made great use of the US Sup Ct's Turner case, noting that it is hard to seriously claim the "essence" of the marriage right is procreation when even "prison inmates in a situation with no conjugal visits" were found to have the right to marry.

And I join those in agreement with your great post on the power and importance of language, particularly as to long-term framing of issues. While surely most of the friends and family get it, a reminder never hurts. The Right certainly gets it: at core, most of their resistance to gay marriage is that they understand that as soon as we can stop prefacing it with "gay" and just call it "marriage" there is no longer a separate "them" to serve as a focal, organizing (and fundraising!) point for Rightwing charlatans.

Thanks, Mick and Shade Tail, for your various and subdry support.

Mick, I once tried to have my own blog. I always had some or another excuse for why I wasn't posting often enough. Once it felt stressful to not "keep up," it ceased being fun enough to justify the effort. (Bizarrely, when it ended in 2004, the last post was on the marriage debate, and another recent post was a scandal involving an Illinois politician!)

I can tell you this: it certainly made me appreciate all the more just how impressive and hard-working our Mr. Benen is to put out the level of quality he does, 10-14 posts a day, every single day. I found out with certainty that I can't do it. But I am most thankful that he provides a great place for me to come and contribute when I am able!

What struck me as peculiar in Huckabee's arguments is that he's trying to have it both ways (no pun intended).

On the one hand, he says that gay partnerships are all about sex and that's not enough of a basis for marriage, suggesting that marriage, somehow, transcends such nasty things as underbelly regions. On the other hand, however, he also claims that marriage is all about biology -- chromosomes and children. But, so far as I know, most offspring -- at least among humans -- is not conceived a-sexually; Virgin Marys come but once every couple of thousand of years. And, as several people pointed out, lots of *straight* married people don't have children, either and their marriages, therefore, must be all about sex also, without the redeeming feature of procreation...

Absolutely agree with zeitgeist, keori, and others about language, and with Shade Tail that a lot of us are already making the effort to be conscious of it.

One example of this that I hit on every time I argue the point: the issue isn't 'gay marriage' (i.e., a special class of marriage for gay people) but marriage equality (i.e., all people who want to marry having the right to do so). I make an effort never to use the former phrasing, and always to use the latter.

God told Adam & Eve [not Adam & Steve], to "be fruitful and multiply". Please explain how two men or two women can do this. It takes a man and a woman to pro-create.

So it's okay for Richard Ramirez or Kenneth Bianchi or the Menenedez brothers to get married, but God forbid that Ellen DeGeneres be allowed to do the same?

That is some weird-ass "morality" there, my friend. Glad to know you think that being a lesbian is worse than murdering innocent people.

That is some weird-ass "morality" there, my friend.

It's the same 'morality' according to which Britney Spears's 55-hour marriage is more deserving of respect and dignity than the 55-year relationship between Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon.

'Weird-ass' is a tremendous understatement.

I tend to think we're moving toward a separation of church and state where churches or other religious institutions perform marriages ("in the sight of God") and the state licenses relationships called unions. Maybe it's that last part which throws Republicans who hate unions.

How ticked off would people be if the state started looking into other factors of a couple who wish to become legally married? Would you be bothered if they began to question you on your political or union affiliations? Would you be bothered if they began to deny a license because your vision wasn't good enough or if your DNA showed you were very likely to develop an incurable disease while still young?

How much government curiosity should be allowed? None. We decide what the government MUST do, and this intrusion into our privacy ain't it.

I see that many of the posters here believe that the definition of marriage is in constant flux. Actually, for over 4,000 years, in all languages in the WORLD (sorry, didn't mean to scream), there has been a word equivalent to our word for marriage in English and in none of these over 600 languages can that word mean anything but a union between a man and a woman. The content has changed to accommodate changing times, but the definition has not. And you know why not? Because ancient humans were smart enough to know about applied anatomy.

In the true words of Mr. Stewart:

"you keep talking about, jeez, it would be redefining a word... and it feels like semantics is cold comfort, when it comes to humanity."

The pro-homosexual marriage activists want us in the vast majority of American families to believe that gay and lesbian marriage "is okay" because of the high divorce rate in the U.S. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water even though the baby is sick or in pain!

There is happening right now a conservative "push back" that will halt the election in its tracks and block any further move towards Socialism and Fascism. It started with the patriot (conservatives and some Demos) move to force Obama to prove he's eligible to be President. It continued with CA voters and two other states' voters saying "No" to homosexual marriage and it continued today with the Senate Republicans blocking a Pelosi-crafted Auto Maker Bailout.

The pro-homosexual marriage activists want us in the vast majority of American families to believe that gay and lesbian marriage "is okay"

In a recent poll the vast majority of American families supported either gay marriages or gay civil unions - -a whopping 75%.

I'm sorry to inform you that you are in the minority, my friend.

The rest of your post was incoherent kerflubble, which I'm also sorry about. Fascism? You must be kidding.

There is no greater threat to marriage than straight people - period. Straight people are getting divorced like it's nobody's business. And where are they getting divorced most frequently? In the Bible Belt. You should be ashamed for even defending them.

Nothing makes a Republican happier than combining sex, religion and bigotry. The trifecta of smarmy ignorance.

Hence, this non-issue will not go away until we ignore them.

"Huckabee made the point several times that a key element of marriage is having children. His conclusion is that since homosexual couples can't procreate, they can't marry."

Someone should show Huckabee a turkey baster.

Personally I do not care what laws are changed in this world. None of them change the clear commands of God. Nothing is going to change God. He is Who I follow. Please, drop the hate lingo for I do not hate anyone. First of all why would anyone try desperately to warn someone they "hate"? The one who truly hates and is your enemy is the one who is telling you that homosexual behavior is in God's plan.

You may choose not to believe in God but that in no way causes Him to not exist. The same holds true if you deny the train that speeds ever closer as you stand in the tracks. Sad part about it is this, they who choose not to hear truth and turn from sin will see this non-existant Being and suffer eternity tormented for refusing to accept the free gift He has given.

Had God wanted homosexual marriage He would have given us a picture of this being one of the ways to complete His most beloved Creation. He did not.

The most ignorant thing said by Stewart was this, "I think it's that it's a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to make their case that they deserve the same basic rights as someone else."

"People" have not forced anything on anyone. God set the standard not people. Homosexuals have the same marriage rights as anyone else. They can get married, just not a man and a man and a woman and a woman. It is impossible for two men or two women to become "one flesh".

No one here is in favor of sin in any form IF they belong to the King. That is the frosting on the cake.