Huckabee Pledges to Ignore Marriage Ruling as President

Mike Huckabee is again pledging to defy the Supreme Court if they hand down a ruling in the next week legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. And he says that liberals should support him because the Supreme Court might someday do something they don’t like too (duh, of course they will).

“Until the Congress of the United States puts on my desk a bill that basically defies the laws of Nature and Nature’s God and defies the longstanding tradition of marriage, the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriage because there is no law that requires it and that would be true for the military and it would be true for all federal institutions,” Huckabee said. “If the Congress decides that they want to pass enabling legislation, they could put it on my desk and I would veto it, and they can attempt to override it. That’s the process.”

Huckabee said that even his detractors should sympathize with his anti-gay-marriage stance: “If liberals were subjected to a conservative court that forced them to tithe their income to scripture or forced them to go to church or forced them to believe something that they don’t want to believe, they would say, ‘We can’t do that, that would go against our conscience.’ And I would say, ‘You are exactly right and we can’t have such a ruling. This is why I find this very unsettling is because liberals will rue the day when the sword they use to enact their agenda is the sword of the court rather than to do it by way of the people’s elected representatives.”

Terrible argument. First of all, the president refusing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling is emphatically not the same thing as civil disobedience by individuals. That should be obvious enough that it should need no explanation. And of course the Supreme Court is going to hand down rulings liberals don’t like, but if a president refused to comply with them you know damn well that Huckabee would not say “well, I’m fine with that because they might do something I don’t like someday too.” He would say “OMG FASCISM HITLER STALIN SATAN ANTICHRIST DEMONS THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END.”

Let’s say the Supreme Court rules in the next few days that the subsidies for the federally-created health care exchanges are illegal and then Obama comes out and says that he will not comply with that ruling, he will continue to subsidize insurance policies secured in the federal marketplace. Is there anyone on the entire planet dumb enough to believe that Huckabee would take the same position he’s taking here? And why hasn’t a single person from the media asked him to answer that hypothetical?

""Dennis Moore, Dennis MooreRiding cross the swardDennis Moore, Dennis MooreAnd his horse Concord.Steals from the ..."

Moore’s Nutty Lawyer
"Hey Mark - does that mean a hurricane's gonna hit Western Sydney now they voted ..."

Taylor: The Illuminati Sent the Hurricanes ..."
"Next week's headline:Hannity backs down on back down from back down from back down from ..."

Surprise! Hannity Backed Off His Backing ..."
"The irony is her and people like her put children and everyone else in danger ..."

Crokin: God Will Reward My Crackpottery

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • StevoR

    Well, damn good thang that arsehole Huckster will never be POTUS then ain’t it!

  • D. C. Sessions

    Or couldn’t someone just ask the Huckster whether he’ll elide that part about “faithfully execute” from the Oath of Office?

  • RickR

    If liberals were subjected to a conservative court that forced them to tithe their income to scripture or forced them to go to church or forced them to believe something that they don’t want to believe

    And these “what ifs” apply to marriage equality not at all. People opposed to marriage equality aren’t being forced to do anything.

    As usual, the Huckster is lying. (I don’t believe for a second he’s stupid enough to not see how his hypotheticals are in any way comparable to marriage equality.)

  • Mr Ed

    because there is no law that requires it

    “If the Congress decides that they want to pass enabling legislation, they could put it on my desk and I would veto it, and they can attempt to override it. That’s the process.”

    You know how I know you didn’t read past article II…

  • John Pieret

    If liberals were subjected to a conservative court that forced them to tithe their income to scripture or forced them to go to church or forced them to believe something that they don’t want to believe, they would say, ‘We can’t do that, that would go against our conscience

    But that would be directly against the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court from finding that excluding an entire class of people from state and Federal rights, privileges and responsibilities is against the 14th Amendment. Nor would such a ruling force anyone to do anything (any compulsion of businesses to serve gays who want to get married comes from state and local laws).

    Ignorance of the law is, to Huckabee, apparently an excuse.

  • cptdoom

    There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court from finding that excluding an entire class of people from state and Federal rights, privileges and responsibilities is against the 14th Amendment. Nor would such a ruling force anyone to do anything (any compulsion of businesses to serve gays who want to get married comes from state and local laws).

    No, John Pieret, it would force those who think gays are inferior to daily see examples as to why they are wrong, and that is really what sticks in their collective craw.

  • Jared James

    Easy thing to pledge. I also promise, as President, I will never to raise an army of the dead and drive the living screaming into the sea, in the service of the Great Old Ones. I promise I will not hold a nationally-televised press conference where I repeat the words “penis vagina penis vagina penis vagina” for thirty-two minutes eighteen seconds. And I promise that, as President, I will never require all bumptious lickspittles who profess to value human life but refuse to acknowledge the value of good education, quality health care, and the freedom of economic opportunity and bodily autonomy to bow down and lick my hairy arse clean.

    Those are all promises you can hold me to.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ Jared James : I didn’t know you were running dude.

    Still that already puts ya ahead of most of them -not that I can vote anyhow. (Aussie here.)

  • StevoR

    @7. Jared James :

    I promise I will not hold a nationally-televised press conference where I repeat the words “penis vagina penis vagina penis vagina” for thirty-two minutes eighteen seconds.

    Pity. That’d be more intelligent, informative and entertaining than most of the press conferences the Klowns who are actually running seem to give!

  • dingojack

    Let me just echo what John Pieret said, in this way:

    If liberals were subjected to a conservative court that forced them to tithe their income to scripture or forced them to go to church or forced them to believe something that they don’t want to believe, they would say, ‘We can’t do that, that would go against our conscience.’

    THEN liberals would seek a hearing before the courts to overturn these unconstitutional laws.

    So Huckster – since you’re trying to show how the two situations are equivalent, how is marriage equality for both straight and gay couples unconstitutional, exactly?

  • Doug Little

    He would fail his naturalization interview with an attitude like that. Rule of law be damned.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    If liberals were subjected to a conservative court that … forced them to believe something that they don’t want to believe, they would say, ‘We can’t do that, that would go against our conscience.’ And I would say, ‘You are exactly right and we can’t have such a ruling.

    OK, so if, say conservatives said for-profit corporations have religious rights, liberals are free to disregard that, and President Huckabee would be fine that?

  • dingojack

    “Until the Congress of the United States puts on my desk a bill that basically defies the laws of Nature and Nature’s God and defies the longstanding tradition of marriage, the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriage because there is no law that requires it and that would be true for the military and it would be true for all federal institutions,” Huckabee said.

    So Huckster- it’ll be illegal until the Congress says that it is legal.

    But you’ll not recognise it as being legal in any case.

    But you’d need to:

    a) Show evidence that any sort of marriage is found in the natural world

    b) Show evidence that the aforesaid marriages are in defiance of “Nature’s God”

    [b1) show compelling evidence of any kind of god whatsoever]

    c) Show why “tradition” is a legally compelling reason for doing anything

    Also:

    If no law is required for same-sex marriage then that means it is already legal, in all Federal institutions! [So what are you threating to veto, again?]

    Dingo

  • 5Up Mushroom

    VERY GOOD TIMING. SCOTUS just released the decision on the Healthcare deal. Liberals should be very happy today. Maybe Huckabee will ignore this one too… once he’s president of course…

  • Artor

    Jared, you have my vote! Even if I know that last promise is just campaign rhetoric, and you’ll immediately backslide on it once you’re sitting in the Oval Office. Especially because of that part.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    This is why I find this very unsettling is because liberals will rue the day when the sword they use to enact their agenda is the sword of the court rather than to do it by way of the people’s elected representatives.

    Like Citizens United or striking down provisions in the Voting Rights Act?

  • busterggi

    Huck is a one-note candidate – it’s not as if he has any positions on international relations or the economy.

  • Jared James

    I base my campaign promises on the same rock-solid premise as the Huckster: I am at liberty to promise absolutely anything, since I will never be elected President. It’s strangely liberating.

  • Al Dente

    Jared James, he’s our man! If he can’t do it no one can. Rah! Rah! Rah!

    I’m setting up the Jared James SuperPAC. Please send your donations to get Jared on the ballot in all 57 states.

  • dogfightwithdogma

    Supreme Court might doing something in the future that liberals won’t like? Hell, they have already done that many times. Why just in the last year they’ve done it several times. But not once did we try this stupid ploy of Huckabee’s. This man is a moron.