Mike Huckabee to "Imperial Court:" Go F*** Yourselves

Well, this could get interesting.

You go, Huck!

"The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.

"This ruling is not about marriage equality, it's about marriage redefinition. This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court’s most disastrous decisions, and they have had many. The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny."

"The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity. Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court. If accepted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment."

You can imagine how I, an agnostic, feel about that bit about "the laws of nature and nature's God." I disapprove.

But I do approve of the rest of it -- We did not agree to be ruled like subjects.

Our agreement, constructive as it was, is that we shall abide by the laws of a government assuming we have a say in the laws of that government.

The Overclass which rules us has torn up that part of the agreement.

I am not anti-gay. My snarky but truthful answer to all this is that I am more in favor of gay sex than gay marriage.

I do not dispute that gay people should be able to love whom they want. My dispute is this: there is no compelling state interest in recognizing Love. Love is not eternal. Love is not even terribly uncommon. I've been in love a dozen times. Sometimes I've fallen in love in five minutes.

Love is a wonderful feeling, but it is in fact so wonderful the product does not need to be sold. Hollywood makes billions of dollars on stories about love -- they put love stories into shoot-'em-up action movies -- because love itself is such a desirous thing that people will pay actual money to watch other people merely pretending to fall in love.

What the state actually has an interest in -- what is transcendent -- what is eternal, or at least connects one to the cycle of the eternal -- is, get this, childbirth.

It is the bearing and raising of children that actually propagates the species, propagates all species, and has done so now for, checking my watch, about 100,000 years for humans and about 100 million years for animals.

Promoting a stable environment in which children can be cared for and raised to adulthood -- a very time- and money- intensive proposition -- is something the state has a huge interest in. Not only is there that whole Survival of the Species consideration in play, but there are also grubbier concerns like ensuring that there are enough productive citizens in the next generation to cover the massive debts and massive retirement costs of the previous ones.

Tell me-- what interest does the state have in recognizing "Love" absent the expectation that that love will result in children?

I've been in love most of my life. I've had many relationships. None have produced children -- I avoided it.

Why does the State not have a compelling interest in recognizing my past loves and current ones?

Simple: Marriage is not about love, and the state interest in marriage has nothing to do with love.

Love is a lovely thing, and something I wouldn't deny to anyone.

But the idea that it there is no conceivable non-bigoted grounds to say that loves which, per the rules of biology, simply cannot produce anything other than some (usually transient) pleasure for two people is simply not a compelling interest of the state, and hence does not need to be supported or encouraged by marriage laws?

That idea is false.

Only an idiot, frankly, can think that his or her "love" is of any especial interest to anyone else in the world.

The state's only interest in love is frankly the same interest it has in any of us: In taxpayer units.

So, sorry. I respect gay people and don't mind their relationships at all. I do not believe their relationships to be sinful or "in revolt against God" or even all that weird. (Though, being a straight guy with 100,000 years of evolutionary instinct in me: I find gay male relationships a little weird. But I know this is a personal thing and not something I should impose into the code of the law.)

But what they are not, and will never be, is transcendent in the way I mean it, connecting one generation to the next, propagating the species, filling the earth with human life.

And thus there is no state interest in "gay marriage," and thus it cannot be the case that the Constitution demands that which the state has no compelling interest in.

I'm Listening:

This tweet has since been deleted. I assume Spierling simply made a typo -- though an amusing one that I'd like to see discussed more.

posted by Ace at 12:01 PM

| Access Comments