Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly challenged Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for saying he wouldn’t bend to legalized gay marriage nationwide, despite the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Friday.
Huckabee issued a statement evoking the Revolution in the wake of the ruling vowing: “I will not acquiesce to an imperial court…We must resist and reject judicial tyranny.”
“What does that mean?” Kelly asked Huckabee. “You have to accept this ruling, right? I mean, are you planning on not accepting this ruling in a way?”
“How do we accept something that is – on its face – unconstitutional? Has the Congress yet acted?” Huckabee responded.
But Kelly was undeterred, laying into the GOPer: “It’s the Supreme Court’s job to interpret the Constitution and tell us what it means. And like it or not, they get the final say unless the people decide to pass a constitutional amendment.”
“Glad you brought that up, that’s the whole point, the people do have a right to say, and in over thirty states they did say, and they said very clearly that they want to affirm the laws of nature, and the laws of nature’s god, words from the Declaration of Independence, and keep marriage what it’s always been,” Huckabee said.
The candidate then compared the decision to the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott ruling, which ruled African Americans were not citizens, to the same-sex marriage decision.
Watch the full video below:
How does marriage equality impact Governor Huckabee’s own marriage or the marriages of anyone elses?
Lavender is Mike’s color…
There is nothing more natural than being gay. It is evident throughout the animal kingdom.
The premise that the only “natural” relationship is heterosexual because of reproduction and the configuration of genitalia is ludicrous and flies in the face of everything we know about behavior, human and animal alike (as if there is a difference, which I do not concede.)
But being an ignorant fascist overwhelmed by superstition, it’s just far too much to ask for you and your similar-minded bigot pals to accept that reality. Science? That’s something for atheists with a political agenda.
I think it comes down to a basic belief that his happiness depends on the unhappiness of others. If “those people” are also allowed to enjoy the benefits of being married, then those benefits are devalued for him. That seems to be the basic psychology that is operating here–a deeply selfish, us against them view of reality.
Which type of Biblical marriage are you defending, Hucky?