Thursday, January 17, 2008
|
|
Defending Huck
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
4:42 PM
|
UPDATE: The transcript of my debate with Professor Bainbridge is here.
I also think Professor B. ought to have published this excerpt from the Huckabee BeliefNet interview before he blasted Huck's Constitutional amendment remarks:
Do you think that on issues other than marriage and the life of the unborn that the Constitution should be brought into conformity with the Bible, which is what that quote seemed to suggest?
No, I was specifically talking about those two issues. Those were the only two issues I spoke about in the speech, and that was the point. I’m not suggesting that we say, “Okay, the Bible says you should tithe, so now in the Constitution we’re going to amend it to say everyone tithes.”
Those were the two issues that I felt like are talked about in the political realm. I support both the human rights amendment and a marriage amendment, and the reason that I do is because I think we need to codify in our Constitution that which has been acceptable and accepted view of what life and what marriage means. Frankly, if it weren’t being challenged, it wouldn’t be necessary. But it is being challenged. Now you have states that are passing same-sex marriage laws or civil union laws.
And you also have states that not only practice abortion, but if Roe v. Wade is overturned, we haven’t won the battle. All we’ve done is now we’ve created the logic of the Civil War, which says that the right to the human life is geographical, not moral. I think that’s very problematic. That’s why I think that people like Fred Thompson are dead wrong when he says just leave that up to the states. Well, that’s again the logic of the Civil War – that slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts. Obviously we’d today say, “Well, that’s nonsense. Slavery is wrong, period.” It can’t be right somewhere and wrong somewhere else. Same with abortion.
Original Post
That's right. Defending Huck. Me.
Because Stephen Bainbridge is off the rails, not Huck.
Huck called for amendments to the Constitution to protect life and traditional marriage. These are mainstream, conservative positions. He is not a "reconstructionist" Christian, as even a casual glance at his decade of governing in Arkansas shows. Professor B's tortured string of cites never delivers anything remotely connecting Huck to "reconstructionism," and implying otherwise is just imagination.
Disagree with Huck on economics, but his positions on life and marriage are mainstream GOP positions, repeatedly endorsed at the ballot box across the country.
|
|
|