Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is rapidly becoming the new Orval Faubus, Ross Barnett, and George Wallace—a defiant Governor against the Supreme Court!
Faubus, Governor of Arkansas; Barnett, Governor Mississippi; and Wallace, Governor of Alabama—all vehemently opposed the Supreme Court decision on school integration of 1954 (Brown V. Board of Education), and refused to cooperate with integration, respectively, of the Little Rock, Arkansas high school; the University of Mississippi; and the University of Alabama—and mounted confrontations with the federal government, leading to Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy to send the National Guard into those states to enforce the edicts of the federal courts.
None of those three Governors look well in American history, rather are seen as law breakers and demagogues, for opposing the Supreme Court decision.
Now Mike Huckabee stands out as a religious fanatic, a man who does not understand separation of church and state, and as a bigot in his attitude toward gays and lesbians.
His idea that the Supreme Court in Obergefell V Hodges is acting in a lawless manner is totally preposterous, but notice he does not oppose the Court when it comes up with a decision that he agrees with, which demonstrates his total hypocrisy, and his own phoniness about the teachings of Jesus, who never referred to gays and marriage in the Old or New Testament.
Huckabee has become a right wing theocratic demagogue, who seems to think taking such a stand will advance his Republican Presidential candidacy, but even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who was against the majority opinion on gay marriage, says that no county clerk, such as Kim Davis, can use religious views to avoid her responsibility to do her job, as working for government is a civil job.
So either Kim Davis does her job without discrimination, or she needs to be forced out of office, or thrown in prison until she agrees to obey the federal courts, which DO have the final say on all constitutional matters.
Marriage is not something to be voted on, but rather a basic human right, and prejudice and bias and homophobia must not be allowed to interfere with the right of two adults to marry!
“The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the Constitution and created by the authority of the people to determine, expound and enforce the law. Hence, whoever resists the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal, aims a deadly blow to our whole Republican system of government-a blow, which if successful would place all our rights and liberties at the mercy of passion, anarchy and violence. I repeat, therefore, that if resistance to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in a matter like the points decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly within their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution, shall be forced upon the country as a political issue, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution-the friends and the enemies of the supremacy of the laws.†– Stephen Douglas. From you post I gather that if you would have been alive in the 1857, you would have stood with Douglas and not with Lincoln.
” We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it.
Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession. If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent.
But when, as it is true we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country.” – Abraham Lincoln 1857
Ariel, I do NOT like all Supreme Court decisions, but they are the final statement on the Constitution under our system, as otherwise, there is total chaos and anarchy, if we are to allow states to go their own way on constitutional matters.
For instance, I do not like the CItizens United decision, but the only way to overcome it is by constitutional amendment.
Lincoln was fighting slavery, a moral cause, which Douglas had no concern about, so Lincoln was right in this case.
BUT he did nothing against the Court except his rhetoric until he became President, and the South chose to leave the Union. Lincoln was not looking for conflict, was not calling for the end of slavery until it became a war measure, with the Emancipation Proclamation, and even that was not adequate to end slavery. Only the 13th Amendment, promoted by Lincoln in 1864-65, could actually end slavery, since the Court had legitimized it.
To compare the evil of slavery to the allowing of two adults to marry is a no brainer, as gay marriage harms no one, while slavery certainly does,
Kim Davis is simply a bigot, a religious fanatic trying to impose her will on others, a hypocrite in her own life and morals, and she will get what she will deserve in the after life, and it will not be pretty, I assure you!
Lincoln was not the only one who was against Dred Scott. So were all the abolitionist, Fredrick Douglas, and Jim Brown among them. They were not silent, they were defiant! Remember Harriet Tubman and the underground railroad? They all defied federal law and the Dred Scott ruling. Not to mention all the civil rights leaders that did not obey nor accept Plessy v Ferguson. Why Rosa Parks also defied the law and did not accept segregation no matter what the Supreme Court had “ruled” in Plessy. This woman, Davis, simply does not want her name in a same sex marriage certificate. When she ran for the job, the marriage law in Kentucky, which was voted by the people, as well as all the marriage laws all over the USA, was one thing, then the SCOTUS came down with a ruling, which you know technically only affects the partied involved, though it could have erga omnes effects when similar cases are brought before the judiciary. That said, according to Kentucky’s RIFRA the state must accommodate Davis if they do not find a compelling government reason not to. It’s a simple solution, simply do not put her name on the certificate. Doing that will not affect those same sex couples who want the state certificate and Davis religious conscious will also not be affected. Furthermore this isn’t comparable to the old Democrat South because in those instances it was the whole power of the state that simply wanted to continue segregation and left blacks with no option at all. Here same sex couple can still get there certificate with any county clerk office and even in Davis’s office if the just don’t put here name on the certificate and put the governor’s name. She was elected to the job, and cannot be fired unless there is a recall election called by the governor and she loses. But to put someone in jail simply because they do not want to participate in any way in an act that goes against their religious conscious is preposterous. Remember when Ali refused to fight in Vietnam because of his religious beliefs?
Ariel, you leave out the fact that Kim Davis forbid ANY marriages, including straight, and that she forbade her assistants to do it, and now it is said she will go back to the same policy, although one aide said he will defy her.
Face it, she is a mental case, a religious fanatic, who has committed terrible sins, and is trying to make up for them. She is a piece of trash, a disgrace, and cannot be compared to Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, Abraham Lincoln!
Do not waste time defending her, as she is simply not doing her job duties, and needs to be forced to resign or be impeached for refusal to do her duties!
The sequence of events that led to Mrs. Davis’s imprisonment was predictable and entirely avoidable. The Supreme Court’s decision to assume to itself the ability to redefine marriage circumvented the legislative process by which accommodations for conscientious objections could have been developed. By redefining the responsibilities of public officials such as Mrs. Davis without offering protections of conscience, the Court foreordained clashes such as this. States can and should find ways to accommodate public officials with religious objections to facilitating same-sex marriages. The United States has a long history of accommodating conscientious objectors, among them public officials. The coercive binary offer from Ms. Davis’s critics — that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or resign — is a false choice. Some states have already shown how a state can simultaneously give same-sex couples the benefits the Supreme Court has conferred on them and accommodate public officials who object to participating in that right. In North Carolina, officials — magistrates responsible for performing weddings, or registers of deeds responsible for issuing licenses to couples — who notify a superior of a conscience-based objection can recuse themselves in the case of same-sex marriages, and the state guarantees that another official will fulfill their responsibility. Hawaii has avoided problems by setting up an online system for issuing marriage licenses.
Such solutions are available to all states, including Kentucky. Similarly, Kentucky could simply amend its marriage licenses so that they no longer bear the name of the clerk from the issuing county. To accommodate the Supreme Court’s marriage edict, Kentucky has amended licenses to read “Party 1†and “Party 2†instead of “Bride†and “Groom.†Why not accommodate Mrs. Davis and others like her?
There is a simple solution available to secure both the judicially imposed right of same-sex couples to wed and the right of conscience of public officials. Common sense and a willingness to compromise can safeguard both the orderly administration of law and religious freedom.
Lol! Is that you, Huckabee?! 😉
Ha! Ha! Good one Rustbelt!
Mike Huckabee’s entire shtick reminds me of Jim Dale’s character in “Pete’s Dragon” (1977).
“. . . and she will get what she will deserve in the after life, and it will not be pretty, I assure you!”
Sorry to be commenting on an old entry. But with all due respect, based on what authority do you say this?
“. . . the teachings of Jesus, who never referred to gays and marriage in the Old or New Testament.”
He didn’t have to. Read what he says in Matthew 19:4-6; “Haven’t you read,†he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.â€
He seems to be affirming here that God has always intended and still intends for marriage to be between a “male and female” for life. To dislike what he teaches here and reject it and say he is wrong is one thing. But to argue that Jesus did not speak on the issue at all is equally as mistaken and may not be very intellectually honest.
I am not as interested in trying to argue for my political views as I am trying to clarify some things regarding Christ and his teachings. I imagine that you do not intend for this blog to be a religious dialogue and I respect that but I am only responding to things that have previously been said.