crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
In an interview with the College of New Jersey newsmagazine The Perspective, Fox News host Mike Huckabee seems to go all out against the lgbt community, attacking not only same-sex marriage but also lgbt families:
“I think there's been a real level of being disingenuous on the part of the gay and lesbian community with their goal of civil unions,” he alleged, referring to LGBT activists who first claimed that their goal in several states was to enact civil unions, but subsequently launched efforts to implement full marriage rights.
Huckabee went on to draw parallels between homosexuality and other lifestyles that are considered by some to be morally aberrant. “You don't go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal,” he said of same-sex marriage. “That would be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs, so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want who use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, so we should accommodate them.”
If anyone is being disingenuous, it's Huckabee. Drug abuse is a crime because it damages the physical and mental state of those in ensnares. Now some on Huckabee's side of the argument have tried to make the same case about the lgbt orientation, but as it has been pointed out countless times, their attempts are grounded in an intentional distortion of research.
In addition, drug abuse and addiction lead to other crimes, i.e. drug abusers do sometimes steal in order to fund their habit and those behind the drug trade do sometimes engage in “turf wars” which have led to countless murders.
Following Huckabee's tangent to it's logical conclusion, I guess one could say that allowing same-sex marriages will lead to desperate gay men stealing television sets to fund their weddings and wedding planners shooting each other over “turf wars” regarding who gets the larger share of gay marriages.
Ridiculous isn't it? And the comment about incest and polygamy is ridiculous also. You simply cannot compare two adults wanting to share their lives together with a man molesting his daughter or another man creating a stable of wives like a farmer herds cattle.
But strangely enough, those like Huckabee who make such comparisons never think these things out. They tend to repeat a talking point which sounds good but really means nothing.
Now Huckabee's comment about lgbt families was way beyond the realm of good taste:
He also affirmed support for a law in Arkansas that prohibits same-sex couples from becoming adoptive or foster parents. “I think this is not about trying to create statements for people who want to change the basic fundamental definitions of family,” Huckabee said. “And always we should act in the best interest of the children, not in the seeming interest of the adults.”
“Children are not puppies,” he continued. “This is not a time to see if we can experiment and find out, how does this work?”
Allow me to inform Huckabee of a few facts:
According to a report by Gary Gates, Lee M.V. Badgett, Jennifer Ehrle Macomber, Kate Chambers of the Urban Institute:
* More than one in three lesbians have given birth and one in six gay men have fathered or adopted a child.* More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child.
* An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting.
* An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
* More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
* Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
* Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents.
* Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
* An estimated 14,100 foster children are living with lesbian or gay parents.
* Gay and lesbian parents are raising three percent of foster children in the United States.
* A national ban on GLB foster care could cost from $87 to $130 million.
* Costs to individual states could range from $100,000 to $27 million.
And even if these figures were not available, for Huckabee to make that statement demonstrates willful ignorance. I say willful because I am of the opinion that Huckabee isn't totally ignorant when it comes to lgbt families. He is a former governor of Arkansas as well as a former presidential contender. I'm sure he must have met at least one or two lgbt families during those times.
But despite all of that, he chooses to paint all lgbt families with a broad discriminatory brush. While Huckabee doesn't come out and say it, the nasty implication is clear – lgbt families are inferior because lgbts are incapable of giving love and support to children. Furthermore, lgbts don't really want the children. They just want to further their “agenda.”
Perhaps he should talk to the Gill family out of Florida – two gay men and their adopted children whom they have raised since 2004. They are just one of countless number of lgbt families who provide love and support to their children.
You see, Huckabee is right about one thing. Children aren't puppies but lgbt families aren't freaks and they certainly aren't out of the norm. And even if they were, should it matter? Anyone who has the means, the desire, and the heart to parent a child should be encouraged, not discouraged.
After all, that would be the Christian thing to do.
Huckabee should know better and the sad thing is that I think he does.
His attack on lgbt families is certainly something to remember should Huckabee choose to run for President again – something to remember and fear.
Anyone who attempts to create a caste system for American families has no place near the White House, even at the front gate.
Hat tip to Media Matters




39 Comments


Experiment?I’m always fascinated to hear anything related to LGBT people labeled an “experiment” by Rev. Huckabee and his ilk. Any experiment, such as it may have been, was concluded centuries ago. If gay people serving and leading in the armed forces was ever an experiment, the careers of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Frederick the Great (to name only three) resolved that experiment in our favor. Gay families–an experiment? Take a good look at the families of Oscar Wilde, James I and Akhenaten (again, to name only three) and you’ll have to conclude that that experiment, too, has been resolved, again in favor of us LGBT people.
But let’s look at another experiment, one that’s lasted two thousand years. Christianity claims to make the world a finer, more moral place. They’ve had two millennia to produce convincing results. I would say that all the vast amount of accumulated evidence shows clearly that that experiment has been a resounding bust. Huckabee and his cronies need to STFU and try examining their own “moral system” if they want to know about a failed experiment.
And the results of the experiment?Last I heard the “experiment” was pretty successful with virtually every survey showing GLBT people are on average better parents than straights. While that small margin is probably a result of a far higher percentage of intentional parenthood, it’s still a pretty bold and blunt refutation to moronic hatemongers like Mr. Huckabee.
Sould we be surprised by this?Big Smiley Face –like all Fundies.
Plus he plays the guitar.
Gee he’s swell, ain’t he?
Yeah, right.
The language of stigma continuesYou would think that in light of the evidence in the Olsen/Boies case (regardless of the eventual decision either in the current trial or at SCOTUS) that Huckabee and his ilk would stop using the language of stigma but they won’t.
Maybe they can’t
It’s gonna come back to bite them in the ass.
The HucksterWe really need to abandon political correctness and refer to Huckabee and Palin as what they are — cracker trash.
What scares meis that many of my liberal straight friends can’t see through that! Somehow Huckabee has built this non-threatening persona around his wingnutty fundiness such that liberals just don’t see it.
I’ve heard“Oh, at least he’s honest” or, “Well, he seems pretty compassionate” or “He’s not rigidly ideological” about him.
I want to throw up when I hear that.
“Children aren’t puppies”…… because, yes, only hetero people are allowed to use crotchfruit as status symbols they only wind up neglecting when they start getting less and less attention for having them, dammit!
He’s not? Tune in tomorrow for a good idea of the “friends of Mike Huckabee.”
Classic Christofascist babbleClassic Christofascist babble from the Faux News resident preacher. The farther he moves towards insignificance the louder he squeals. These loons won’t go quietly, but go they will.
TONIGHT ON PBS
Ken Burns goes Across America’s Waterways
On the Right: miles of mentally challenged pond scum.
On the Left: an intellectual POTUS/Party Leader DUCKing his promises to LGBTs.
He just screwed himself if he’s thinking of running in 2012…Not on his side, but on the other side. They’ll take this and run with it. He was seen as a non-threatening (we all know that’s crap-he’s just as eliminationist as Palin) alternative to Miss Kill A Moose from Alaska, but he’s not. In fact, he’s far MORE threatening.
I agreeI don’t believe Huckabee is electable. He’d win a few states in the south and midwest, but aside from that I think he is just too much for moderates to stomach. He’d do better than Palin though.
In fact, looking at the leaders of today’s GOP, I can’t see anybody who I’d consider to be electable. Maybe I put too much faith in this country…
Depends on what you mean by the MidwestI can’t see Huckabee winning ANY state in what I know of as the Midwest with the exception of Indiana and Missouri. Maybe, just maybe, Ohio.
Now if you’re talking about the Northern Plain states like Nebraska, the Dakotas, etc., then yeah…
It amuses me greatlyThat 30 years from now, when gay marriage is no longer an issue and polyamorists start clamoring for recognition of their marriages, certain gay-marriage activists will be at the forefront of the opposition. “Marriage has ALWAYS been between 2 people! We let the polygamists get married, people will want to marry beehives!” The more things change…
Oldie but goodie
The fact that none of the GOPs leaders could get electedis what scares me. If they have any smarts at all (which is problematic, I know), they’ll do what they do with Supreme Court nominees–find some unknown nonentity who looks nice, says the right things and has no paper trail, i.e. little or no unambiguous evidence of the extremism he espouses. And it wouldn’t hurt if he looked really good, too. Someone like Scott Brown. Not Brown himself–I think he has too much baggage and too few brains. But someone in his mold. (Dan Quayle’s son is running for congress in Arizona, I believe. He might make a good bet for them. And he can’t possibly be as dumb as his old man.)
What scare meis I find myself liking him in interviews. I have to actively remind myself he’s batshit crazy.
Well, they’re not “using it”it comes out of their mouths organically. Because sadly, they believe every word.
I don’t think so. this is very picayune stuff to affect his chances at securing POTUS. It’s a plus to securing the nomination, and nothing people are going to base their general vote on. Between the homophobes on the right who’ll see this as a plus and left that are offended, the vast majority are apathetic or ambivalent in the middle.
And way, way, way more issues will influence the vote. I doubt either party will want to bring LGBT issues to the fore in 2012, as close to parity as they are in public opinion polls, it’s not a winner for either party. GOP has to be recognizing the gas is running out on that. And the Dems will be anxious to NOT talk about all the things they haven’t done for us since 2008. The less they say, the fewer openings there will be for use to ask pointed questions.
If puppies were children…Then that child Huckabee’s wonderful, perfect heterosexual family raised would have gotten the chair for, you know, hanging one. Disgusting that this man should be allowed to cast judgment on anyone’s family when he’s clearly done a completely lousy job of raising his own.
I think Obama’s safeone-term presidents are rare, and Obama (aside from OUR issues) hasn’t done anything to earn a “throw the bum out” vote.
But that said, it will all turn on whether the economy rebounds by 2012. If things are looking brighter, he’ll win easily. If they aren’t he could be in for a fight. The problem is none of the GOP alternatives, we’ve seen thus far, are especially good. They’re all fatally flawed
Romney (probably can’t win the nom, Beck just called him a socialist. Plus, he’s Mormon.
Sarah: Moron. People don’t like her polls say, her negatives are huge.
Huckabee: crazy
YeahI guess I should have said the plains. I agree he would probably end up losing most midwestern states. Definitely Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota for instance.
Seeing the current state of the Republican party though, I would NOT be shocked if he won the GOP nomination.
Obama’s pissed off most if not all of his core constituencies.It ain’t just us lil’ ol’ gay folks.
He has lost the environmental lobby by approving more mountaintop clearance, approving the building of nuclear plants, and just last week offshore drilling (something not even Bush did).
Lots of women’s groups are enraged that he signed that executive order Stupak demanded.
Progressives are unhappy at the Wall St. bailout, the health care bill and the expansion of the war in Afghanistan.
And as near as I can tell, everyone who supported him is pissed at the way he’s caved to the GOP and the Blue Dogs time and again, and the way he’s cheerfully reneged on most of his campaign promises. This is the president who promised he wouldn’t sign a health care bill that didn’t include a public option. Who attacked McCain’s advocacy of offshore drilling as wrongheaded and bad for the environment. Etc., etc. If the Republicans can come up with a candidate who looks presentable, Obama will have a real fight on his hands.
This is trueI know I personally am pissed off at him for more reasons than LGBT issues alone.
If LGBT issues are not a winner for either partyThen I hope the Democrats can win without any gay person who is sane. Or, more accurately, after they get spanked to Alabama and back, I hope they start to live up to their platform.
…For anyone doing a little research, “presentable” won’t be enough (it won’t take much looking to reveal their true colors given how obvious Republicans have been). The problem will ultimately be that the alternative (a Republican) will almost certainly espouse as ideals the things that we most hate about Obama.
Progressives are opposed to expansions of off-shore drilling (i.e., pro-environment); pro-abortion/choice; want a more liberal health care bill (e.g., a public option/single-payer); and are anti-war or want fiscal responsibility (which still means no war since we can’t afford it).
All of those positions are anathema to the Republican base. About the only thing that we might agree on at this point is bailouts since Republicans have seemingly turned against them. (Then again, they practice double-speak and we can’t forget that the bailouts were originally proposed by a Republican…)
The only chance to get rid of Obama is in the primary, through a really popular third party candidate, or if the Republicans decide radically shift their platform and move to the left of the Democrats on, at least, some issues. I’m not seeing any of those things happening.
Children Are Not Puppies
I don’t think that is what Huckabee is saying at all. I think he is saying that maybe love and support aren’t enough, that maybe even being wanted isn’t enough. And though the puppy remark is hurtful and terribly thoughtless, I don’t think it is directed towards the LGBT community so much as towards all Americans, even all human beings.
Perhaps he is saying that children are too important to experiment with and then look back in 30, 50, 70 years and say, ‘We made a mistake, children do best with their biological mother and father who are married to each other and if they are not available, then being adopted or fostered by another married man and woman is really the only other option.’
Perhaps he’s also saying that children (who are actually boys and girls) need to learn how to be men and women and a traditional family is the best context for them to learn that. We don’t learn from being told what it is to be a man or a woman. We can’t read about it. We really learn by watching and emmulating on a day-to-day, moment to moment basis. We learn by immersion in our families.
It’s awful for me to make such statements and will probably result in many angry responses but I write as an orphan who is also the survivor of a horribly abusive, single parent/multi-child foster family. My foster-father was not gay but he was part of an experiment to allow single people to foster and adopt children. He neither showed me how to be a woman nor about relationships with men. I am so grateful for the first 5 years I had w/ my mother & father and the hazy memories I have of them. They make me want to work everyday to simply desire relationships w/ others and to build and maintain a healthy self-image. And I don’t just mean sexual relationships but all relationships. But at least I know to work at it, my adult foster-siblings don’t even know to struggle. The experiment went very wrong. But here’s the thing, I work with, live with, encounter so many others like me who are the adult product of ’70s, ’80s and 90s experiments. Mostly, they weren’t abused but are the products of single parenting through divorce or failure to marry, or step parenting or another of the family possibilities we’ve created over the past 30 – 40 years; it’s a bleak landscape. But when we meet children who grew up in traditional families, we’re overwhelmed at the quality of and expectations for the relationships in their own lives. I’m fortunate to have several such friends and they are finally teaching me to be a woman and I’m hoping to learn from fathers and husbands too.
Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz in “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?”, American Sociological Review, 162-63 (2001), who support same-sex parenting and believe that homophobia has hindered research into the affect of same-sex parenting say that “[when] researchers downplay the significance of any findings of differences, they forfeit a unique opportunity to take full advantage of the ‘natural laboratory’ that the advent of lesbi-gay parent families provides for exploring the affects of gender and sexual identity, ideology, and behavior.” (Bold added.) At this point, same-sex families are an experiment and we might not know how it turns out for another 50 years or more. Mike Huckabee is terribly insensitive but he’s also correct in saying that children are too important for us to look back and say, ‘Oops! We got it wrong.’ The American College of Pediatricians, citing Stacey and many others of her calibre as well as the experience of many, many pediatricians, concludes that children fare best “when reared by their two biological parents in a loving low conflict marriage.” So again, Huckabee is correct to tell us that “always we should act in the best interest of the children, not in the seeming interest of the adults” which, in the case of same-sex parenting, is the longing of same-sex couples to become parents.
Of course people want to have children. The longing is part of what it means to be human. But having a mother and a father who are married to each other predates the state. Even where polygamy was practiced, the relationship of a mother married to a father also existed, the father, depending on his wealth, was simply marrted to more than one woman. Perhaps, our natural human inclinations exist for a reason, the procreation of children who grow up and marry and have more children – the continuance of the human race. And perhaps children are too precious for us to experiment with even if some of us will live with unfulfilled longings.
* I am not gay but I am unmarried and unable to have children. I would love to adopt. Instead, I mentor and give of my resources to encourage heterosexual couples to adopt and foster. The longing is profound but I’d rather live without and help children find homes where they will fare the best.
ACP is anti-gay front orgHi! Delurking for my first (late) comment here.
I just want to point out that the “American College of Pediatricians” is not a legitimate medical organization. They are very small group (with connections to other groups like NARTH) pushing anti-gay propaganda.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yb8…
OTOH, the American Academy Of Pediatrics (which is long-established, and AFAIK, is well-respected) has this to say about gay parenting:
“The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.”
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2hqnd
I think we’re long past the point where gay couples raising children constitutes any type of “experiment”.
Children are not puppies.
You can sell puppies for a tidy profit.
Tyr that with your kids and see what you get. : )
With all due respect – u r wrongStacey has gone on record countless times countless times complaining about the distortion of her research, none the studies you mention ever looked at same sex households, and the ACP is a phony shell group which i have written about countless times.
it is your choice not to adopt but the research refutes Huckabee – lgbt parenting is not a social experiment and children thrive in lgbt households. read my post again.
Marriage before the state?It’s a pretty broad and unsupported claim that monogamous “marriage” predates the state. It’s a relatively common hypothesis, for instance, that marriage first emerged at the same time as the (patriarchal) state as a way of controlling women. Prior to the emergence of a state based on possession and control, there isn’t much to suggest a “two biological parents raise their children” model as opposed to a group-based collective child-raising situation.
You also make the choice (quite popular among heterosexual-supremacists) of dividing families between “two-parent married heterosexuals and their biological children” and “every other possible family arrangement”. I understand why it’s popular — it’s just about the only division which can make families led by same-sex couples look bad in the comparison. The “experiment” rhetoric serves to conceal the fact that studies have been done — and children raised by same-sex couples are effectively indistinguishable from those raised by heterosexual couples, with the exception of a reduction in homophobia.
The “only the best possible situation must be allowed” mindset is not particularly defensible, and wouldn’t be even if the supposed heterosexual advantage existed as anything other than a product of heterosexual-supremacist discrimination. There will always be children who are raised in family situations other than “two married heterosexual biological parents” — some heterosexual relationships are best ended (abusive ones in particular — because a single parent doesn’t look so bad when compared to an abusive parent), some people are unable to raise children for any number of reasons, and some parents die. Insisting that only the “two married heterosexual biological parents” model is conceivable as a nurturing environment writes off all the children who don’t have access to that environment. There’s definitely research to be done as to what circumstances will be best for the children in these cases — but claiming heterosexual supremacy in raising children is a misrepresentation of the research that has been done.
Sorry that you had a miserable childhoodThat’s unfortunate.
Letting go of your pain and trauma, and working on becoming the person you want to be, would be a healthy use of your energy.
Suggesting that over 1 million American kids are being raised by the same incompetent, abusive asshole who raised you alone? Not so much.
You are one data point, and we set public policy based on groups and outcomes. The outcomes for same-sex couples raising children we chose are better than the outcomes for any other demographic group. That’s not debatable. There are questions about what it means.
Despite your having built a peer group made of like-minded people who are spending their adult lives whining about how miserable their childhoods felt based on their parents’ choices about marriage, the opinions you share with them are not a solid basis for determining how my kid should be raised.
Better luck next time, though. Sounds like you have a lot of work to do!
Direct Action itemWe all should send stuffed animal puppies and/or greeting cards with puppies on them and FLOOD Huckebee’s office with puppy cards and objects…make him at least “taste” his words since there’s no chance in hell that he retract them or swallow them. Puppies galore indeed.
The problem is that American elections aren’t really about issues.All the various varieties of progressives will be hard pressed to vote for Obama again, which will make his reelection campaign a lot harder for him. But the great mass of American voters don’t vote on issues; they vote on image. Remember all those polls in ’04 that showed that most people who voted for Bush did so because they thought he’d be more fun to have a beer with than Kerry? Polls in the ’50s showed that most voters wouldn’t support Stevenson because he was an intellectual, which is just another way of saying “no fun to have a beer with.”
And if you want to go into it in more depth, you can make a strong case that US elections have been like that at least as far back as the early 19th century. It was Andrew Jackson’s favorite boast, for instance, that he was elected president in 1828 without ever taking a stand on any given public issue. (He saw that as a plus, since he was committed to no one course of action.) The people who managed his campaign worked on his image. They built him up as the hero of New Orleans, the common man made good, etc. And so he got elected without telling the voters where he stood on anything.
Issues be damned. If the Republicans can come up another genial, harmless-seeming fratboy, preferably one with not much of a record to check and who isn’t obviously mentally ill, Obama will have one hell of a time getting reelected.
children are too important for us to look back and say, ‘Oops! We got it wrong.’Hetero couples ‘get it wrong’ (sometimes very, VERY wrong) on a constant basis. So should we make it a point to no longer allow straight couples to have kids because of people like Jeffrey Dahmer?
So you had a bad experience. That’s a shame. But that doesn’t mean that every single-parent adoption is going to wind up like yours did. And just because Mr. and Mrs. Dahmer raised one of the most notorious and disturbed serial killers in US history doesn’t mean that every two-parent het family is going to wind up raising someone like him.
As one of the doctors testified at the Prop 8 trial: the sex of the parents doesn’t particularly matter, so long as the couple are happy and stable, which in turn helps the child feel more secure. Saying that only men can teach a boy how to fish or only a woman can teach a girl how to bake a cake is absolute bollocks and it’s nothing more than tired gender norm rubbish that has no more of a place in 2010 than does a horse-drawn cart would.
You’re romanticizing the time you had with your parents because the adopted parent you got was a piece of shit and so the mom/dad model is bound to seem better, in HINDSIGHT mind you, than the other. That doesn’t make single-parent adoptions bad and it doesn’t make het couples the only ones who can raise children. It just makes you someone who had a bad experience with single-parent adoption. I’m positive you’re not the only one. BUT that doesn’t mean that the man/woman model is the only way. It means that parenting – of any type – is going to be difficult and it can go any number of ways, depending on the people involved. THE PEOPLE. Not the gender of those people.
You could say that opposite-sex families/adoptions are an ‘experiment’, too – they’ve just had a longer trial run. If people like Jeffrey Dahmer, Mike Huckabee, Gary Randall and Maggie Gallagher are the end-results of hetero families, then… yeah, I’d say we should call THAT experiment OFF.
Now do you see how ridiculous your post sounds?
Uh, no.I wouldn’t waste a single cent of my hard-earned on that human skidmark.
That IS true
But I see legions of apologists over at Daily Kos, who subscribe to IOKIYAO. (It’s Ok if you are Obama.)
Suddenly they love the idea off off-shore drilling, because Obama’s now for it.
They couldn’t say enough about what a stupid policy it was when Sarah said “Drill, baby, drill!”
And Kos is supposed to be the hellfire of progressive action. (But it really isn’t but… it is definitely left of center.)
All this “only two biological parents can provide proper home” is offensive to adoptees - not to mention children raised by widows or widowers.