Jon Stewart calls Huckabee out on hypocrisy of gay marriage bans.
Check out Stewart calling out the idiocy, homophobia and blatant discrimination behind gay marriage bans. The hypocrisy makes Huckabee wiggle, a little bit. Oh and apparently, people that viciously vote to deny rights to our gay citizens do it not because they are homophobic, but because they just really like straight marriage. A lot.
Can someone please find me a Jon Stewart type to make out with? kthxbye.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Jon Stewart calls Huckabee out on hypocrisy of gay marriage bans. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10907
"It would be redefining a word- and it feels like semantics is cold comfort when it comes to humanity."
: )
"Semantics is cold comfort when it comes to humanity."
Truer words were never spoken about this "issue" which I put into quotation marks because defending a definition as a front for spreading hate to gain money and power is hardly addressing the issue.
I'm Catholic, but the absurdity of choosing one Biblical quote over another and clinging blindly to it is nothing short of ridiculous, as Stewart correctly points out. Without progression and changing definition of our social standards, I wouldn't be in college planning my future but would be married as property to one of the old white men that, by law, would run our society.
If we can change the definition of "person" to include people of color, a change from slavery days, and women, also a change from their previous status as property (or to include a fetus, a semantics-change I'm sure Huckabee wouldn't object to), we can certainly change the definitions of what a "person" can do.
Stewart's brief timeline of the changing definition of marriage WHICH CHANGES ALL THE TIME stomps on Huckabee's we-have-to-respect-(some not all)-5,000-year-old-traditions-because-application-of-archaic-rules-to-modern-society-is-just-respectful-not-nonsensical argument.
In fact, all Stewart's reasons destroy all Huckabee's arguments which makes it interesting to note that H. never brings up the real reason for the persecution of homosexuals: instilling fear in their followers increases the Church's political influence and monetary gain. Period.
---
By the way, the Biblical phrase "abomination" means a trespass against orthodox rules, which even Fundamentalists have given up, so even though he doesn't harp on it in this interview, people who invoke this phrase piss me off.
Empathetic person?
...
Try striking two letters off that adjective. Good for John, though, to not say what the rest of us are thinking!
Leave it to a politician to suggest that linguistics are the final say concerning ethics. It seems absurd and asinine to even suggest that words define concepts and not the other way around. We should really introduce Mr. Huckabee to the concept of a living language, and the fact that English is constantly evolving.
I do appreciate that Huckabee recognizes that he won't be swayed by silly things like logic, and that he can't convince John with his religious arguments(?).
Going to a Catholic school, you hear a lot of opinions on the gay marriage. They're Jesuits here, so they're a little more liberal--"social justice Catholics"--but I'm constantly faced with people who argue that being gay is a choice, and if that choice will make your life harder, you should just not make it.
And I'm not sure why it never occurred to me to invoke religion, like John did--that being gay is even less of a choice than religious practice. And we protect churches and synagogues and mosques; it's even in our Constitution. So clearly, even the idea that homosexuality is a choice doesn't equal a reason to refuse protections.
I don't feel like I've heard this argument from anyone before,really--any thoughts on why, or has anyone else heard this one before?
Great point! I noticed that argument, too, when Jon pointed it out, and I also realized I'd never heard anyone use it before in the gay marriage debate.
I can't immediately find a real flaw with that reasoning; why aren't we using it more to counter their argument that homosexuality is a choice?
Of course it's not, but if they want to use that as an excuse, why not compare it to their own choice of religion? Because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it's illegal to discriminate against someone based on sex, age, race, color, national origin, religion. A few other categories have been added since, but religion seems to be one of the only categories where being a member of that group is a choice.
Since it's illegal (and I would add, immoral) to discriminate against someone based on their choice of religion, shouldn't it also be wrong to discriminate against someone based on their "choice" of sexuality? Saying that it's okay to deny someone a right based on choice of "sexual lifestyle" when they choose a religious lifestyle and still benefit from the right to marry is ludicrous.
I actually have used this argument several times. Most people respond with shocked, inarticulate spluttering. On one and only one occasion the other person said "that's a good point...".
In fairness, I think religion is a lot more complicated than being a matter of simple choice. Belief, in and of itself, is not always volitional; I've known non-believers who wished they had faith in a more spiritual universe, and believers with rigorous scientific backgrounds. The religious practices these people choose to follow is much more a matter of conscious choice, albeit one that derives from what they believe.
But it still stands that religion is more of a "lifestyle choice" than sexuality, and it's ridiculous that our liberty-loving culture sees one is seen as a privileged matter of conscience and the other as "special rights".
There seems to be a cultural taboo in our society against analyzing religion for what it is -- one of many human behaviors. My guess is that a lot of talking heads are afraid of opening that can of worms. It's good to be a fake news host!
"Marriage" as we know it today was conceived as religious institution, not a civil one, which is what I feel is the biggest problem with those who oppose gay marriage. They can not separate their religious views of marriage from the civil rights that gays should have.
I'm not one for trying to force churches to marry gay's, because it's part of the church's beliefs that same sex couples should not marry and even though I don't like it, that's their view and they're entitled to it, just like I have decided to opt out of their religious practices. Simple. But to put write it into law goes against their civil liberties, and that is just flat out wrong.
I think we need to work on the civil views of gay marriage before we should work on the religious views, because that's change is going to be much harder to institute than civil views.
I'm not one for trying to force churches to marry gay's,...
Oh this makes me crazy.
First, I have never, ever, EVER, heard ANYONE argue churches should be forced to marry same sex couples. It's just a lie that anti-gay propaganda uses. Churches refuse to marry heterosexual couples all the time due to divorce, a lack of church membership, a lack of proper pre-marriage training...Being legally able to get married has absolutely NOTHING to do with churches having to perform a ceremony. Nothing at all. It just a lie to demonize same sex marriage.
Secondly, "churches" do not refuse to marry same sex couples. SOME churches refuse to marry them, just as many allow it. Painting it as religious vs. secular creates an Us vs. Them dynamic, completely ignoring the many people that are religious, gay, and perfectly accepted by their churches. Churches have been marrying same sex couples for years. Some churches don't, they don't have to, but social conservatives do not have a monopoly on religion or churches. It's important people recognize this because denying a secular legal status to same-sex marriages on the basis of the practices of certain churches is in direct opposition to the Constitution.
That's why marriage bans lose in court. There is no legal leg to stand on and most judges acknowledge that. It does much better against the voting public because people don't bother to fact check propaganda.
Roni, you beat me to it! I was just preparing to comment on this and you said it much better than I would have. Thank you!
Thanks. Sadly I've had practice with this discussion many, many times.
That's why marriage bans lose in court. There is no legal leg to stand on and most judges acknowledge that. It does much better against the voting public because people don't bother to fact check propaganda.
That's a really good point. Thank you.
Actually, the church's entry into the world of marriage regulation is relatively recent in the historical sense. Prior to the 1600s, the church's role in marriage was merely recognizing the fact that two people intended to be married, rather than putting any sort of restrictions on obtaining the status as a couple. if you think about it, the state regulated marriage a lot more than the church did and a lot earlier - think Mary and Joseph in BC times having to go and register their marriage for the census.
This is also the argument I use when people say that no union performed outside a church should be "marriage" because "marriage" is strictly a religious institution, and every non-church union is just civil... another right-wing argument for homophobia that ticks me off.
Yeah, I was disappointed that Stewart didn't rebut Huckabee's "marriage is for procreation" argument; that, along with all of his other points, would have earned Stewart a hands-down victory.
As is pointed out here, "...one of Christianity’s major innovations was its insistence that a marriage remained valid even if the couple could not reproduce."
Huckabee tries to make the argument over and over again that the purpose of marriage is to produce and train the "replacement generation". However, there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that have not nor will they ever produce children. A question to pose to Huckabee then: Are those marriages therefore rendered invalid?
I was just waiting for Stewart to say that, or to make a joke about how having a child outside of marriage should then be a requirement for marriage, and was disappointed when he didn't even address the fact that many hetero marriages do not include breeding.
thanks for this Samhita! I had been hearing about this clip but hadn't seen it. Jon Stewart was really prepared for this one, its really impressive.
i love the quote "Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality." awesome!
it reminds me of the Onion-esque satirical clip Gay Scientists Discover Christian Gene. As a "recovering Catholic", i can appreciate such humor :) I'm appreciating the Catholic perspectives in this thread for sure tho!!
Oh my God. I wish I could calmly and eloquently articulate my opinions like Stewart did.
I decided while watching this episode of The Daily Show that the next time someone tries to tell me being gay is a choice, I'm going to respond thusly...
"Okay, then. Try it. Choose to be gay for a while. See how that works out for you."
"But I can't just DECIDE to be g-"
"AHA!"
...okay, I probably won't, but I like the idea.
Wow, they really talked about this in depth, for a talk show. I didn't like the comment about abortion, though. I'm not a big fan of the "safe, legal, and rare" mantra, let alone the suggestion that abortion should be done away with somehow. "Safe, legal, and none of your goddamn business" is a better motto.
Though I thought Jon Stewart made an excellent case in defending gay marriage, what he said (or didn't say) about abortion I found disturbing. By saying that abortions should be reduced he's forgetting that all sorts of factors lead to women getting abortions and not everyone has equal access to contraception in the first place.
And he "gets pro-life?" He gets a sexist arguement that states women can't have control over their bodies? Do the people at feministing still want to make-out with someone like him?
I'm sorry, but abortion rights are hanging by a thread and pro-choicers need to stand up to even the smallest attacks...
I understood it as he gets why some people are pro-choice, not that he *is* pro-choice. Like the people that honestly believe that abortion is murder. While I don't agree with them, I can see why they may feel that takes precedence. I can see their reasoning even if I think it's wrong.
The abortion thing sort of caught me off guard, but I don't really think it was so bad. Perhaps what Jon meant by abortions being reduced WAS taking into consideration contraception, equal access, financial reasons, etc etc and by addressing those inequalities, the amount of abortions would get reduced naturally.
It did catch me off guard when he said he "gets pro life" but I think it just means, he understands more people wanting to reduce abortions, but cant understand why people would want to reduce love, want to reduce marriage. Equality, Marriage and Love, are all devoid of anything bad...and yet republicans are against it.
Someone needs to get Jon the memo that it's the NEED for abortion we need to reduce, not the number. And, this idea that somehow, someway we'll ever get rid of abortion is ludicrous and infuriating. Contraception and comprehensive sex ed will get us far...economic justice and an end to profound sexism in society will also drastically help reduce the need. But the pro-choicers need to stop perpetuating this end-game idea that abortion can be eradicated entirely. It can't. There will always be some women who get pregnant when they don't want to be for whom giving birth is not an option or not the best choice. And there will be intended/wanted pregnancies that need to end for various reasons. Those opening comments were so frustrating, that it made it hard to listen to Jon from then on out... Can someone get him some new talking points? :)
You know why I love Jon Stewart? I love Jon Stewart because he's freaking smart and he comes to the table knowing his shit.
"Marriage wasn't even a sacrament until the 1200s."
I cheered. About goddamn time someone in the media actually acknowledged the history of Christian marriage. Next someone needs to point out the frequency of homosexual relationships (or at least activity--I'm not sure how to define it) in monasteries and nunneries.
Oh, but that's Catholicism. You know those Catholics aren't REAL Christians (tm). They don't count, those dirty Goddess worshippers.
/sarcasm
I find Mike Huckabee very intriguing as a political figure. . .because while I disagree with 99.9999999% of what he says. . .there's usually a small grain of truth somewhere.
While a good number of people against gay "marriage" are the type to quote the Bible to support their views, there are a lot of people who aren't Bible-thumpers that are made uncomfortable by the term. . .which is a problem in itself.
That said--Jon Stewart is freaking brilliant.
And I think it has to be people like him and like Keith Olbermann who make these types of statements because if Rachel Maddow starts to make statements like this its easier for the opposition to brush them off as a personal agenda.
Can someone please find me a Jon Stewart type to make out with?
I'm available, but I must warn you: I HAVE to have the cool side of the pillow. MWAH!
I was wondering what people thought of Huckabee's comment that "religious people can't burn people at the stake". I know he was saying it in the context of 'religion is a protected choice, but that doesn't mean religious folks can do whatever they want - so people who "choose" non-hetero sexualities can't either'. But...really? They can't just get married willy-nilly, just like we can't burn people to death?
I'm sure he's not lamenting that fact. Just seemed like a pretty awful choice for an example.
that's what i was going to comment on. religious people can't burn people at the stake, they can't do everything they wish.
of course i'm just paraphrasing but that sentence definitely freaked me out a bit.
i was really hoping huckabee would have an amazing epiphany and understand john's arguement. wishful thinking for sure.
I couldn't work out whether he was suggesting that he would indeed find it desirable to burn people at the stake if he *could* do whatever he liked...
Why is it that nobody ever counters the "If you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize...." argument with:
"Then you must be for banning all firearms. Because if handguns and hunting rifles are legal then people should be allowed to own nukes."
or
"So what? We have laws in place to cover child molestation and kidnapping. If five people want to marry one another and it's already legal for them to fuck one another why is it your job to prevent them from entering in to a legal contract just like any company with multiple owners does?"
or
"Why can't a dude marry a cow? Yeah he's going to fuck the cow. You think the cow cares? Ever see a milking machine or animal insemination? You think a little dick is really going to bug the cow that much? How is fucking the cow more cruel than shooting it in the brain with a piston-gun ala the guy in 'No Country For Old Men'?"
oh, btw: I'm pro-gun (not nukes, mind you). But I'm even more logical argument.
I do not think I could remain calm while talking to Huckabee. The validations surrounding anti-gay sentiments horrify and anger me beyond comprehension. Thank goddess there are people like Stewart who are able to restrain themselves from punching Huckabee (and the like) in the face.
Huckabee makes me ILL.
Huckabee makes me ILL.
I think this video gave me hope for humanity. Finally, people are starting to sit down and actually talk to each other! My favorite part was when Jon Stewart said that the dialogue was constructive because it got to "the crux of the matter." I feel like people are always just yelling at each other and no one can ever understand why we all have such different opinions. But if we can understand the motivations behind our different views, we can start to communicate with each other and actually look at whether or not evidence supports our motivations. Yay for respecting each other!
I think of all the candidates that the GOP has produced in the last few election cycles, Huckabee is one of the least despicable. He is much more honest, less well-funded, and prevented Romney (who probably would have had a much better chance at beating Obama than McCain) from winning the nomination back in February. So I am at least thankful to him for that. I strongly disagree with his (and anyone else's) explanation/justification for opposing gay marriage, but there many other people who deserve far greater contempt than Huckabee.
I completely agree. In fact after the interview, I turned to my partner and said, "You know, if we have to have a Republican in the White House, why can't it be one like that?" I've heard and read interviews with Huckabee previously, and I have to admit that the guy is smart, funny, and seems genuinely interested in having these kinds of debates and open to his beliefs changing. I think this was demonstrated during this interview when he conceded that gay marriage will be made legal once enough Americans change their opinions on the matter. Now, I agree with what Stewart said (that we shouldn't have to make our case in order to have equal rights), but I also know that the reality is that we DO have to make this case, that equality will not just be magically bestowed upon us.
Oooh, I see my comment was removed for dissenting. Or was it the fuckwords? Do you guys have a list of your pet projects in censorship or something?
Oh shit, wrong Stewart article. Feel free to delete or ignore!
Although I disagree with almost all of what Huckabee says (in this interview and in the public), I actually don't mind the guy. He seems pretty genuine.