Huckabee: "There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived"

I still don't understand the fuss in all honesty over the gay marriage debate. Marriage started as a state institution not a religious one, the 'blessing' of a marriage only came to be merged with the state institution around the 13th century. Even then, the conference of civil benefits is the state's right, and not the church's, if the big problem was that gay people couldn't be married 'under the eyes of God' then fine, but as it is it just seems certain religious believers just want to deny gay couples secular-state benefits that have no relation to the church what-so-ever.

Did not Jesus say to give unto Caesar what was Caesar's, and God what was God's?

If you want to accuse Huckabee for being melodramatic, you shouldn't hold him to something he didn't actually say. I'd let it slide that you could construe what he said in that article to saying it would end civilization, but since you're putting it in quotes as if that's what he said, you need to look in the mirror some.

Here is the actual quote from the seed;

I don't think the issue's about being against gay marriage. It's about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that's important. You have to have a basic family structure. There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it's one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that's their business. But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that's an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square. And if you look at states that have had it on the ballot—I know in our state it was a 70-percent-against issue. Most states are similar to that.

And since you were able to construe a different quote from that, you should have been able to construe that his reason for that thought would have been that he believes we need the traditional family structure in our society.

I'm not saying I agree with him on this, I'm just pointing this disparity out.

I concur with a3dmofo,
Huckabee is out there on a lot of things. I disagree with him on many issues including gay marriage, but as noted above he doesnt remotely say that gay marriage will lead to the end of civilization, at least not in this link.
I recommend changing the headline, unless I missed something.
As is it appears inaccurate, senstationalistic and refelcting more personal opinion.

4. Keep your headlines accurate and free of sensationalistic language.

Unfortunately it is exactly this kind of headline that gets attention on newsvine, as it does in a lot of the media.

Come on Killfile, it is quite obviously a sensationalistic title as Catch quoted. Hold the man to his words, not how it would sound more powerful for you and your headline.

As Catch noted, this is a rampant problem in our society today. If we, as consumers and citizen journalists, are going to follow the path of corporate media in distorted reporting, then we're running out of hope.

And what exactly do you mean by more honest than Huckabee was willing to be? I actually give Huckabee credit that he doesn't skit around questions as much as we've come to expect from politicians. I don't see where in his comments you're finding him to be a liar.

Chris, I'm with your detractors on this one. The article was about a lot of different issues and while you know I take exception with 90% of the man's worldview I feel that your headline is a bit sensationalistic. It's misleading.

Doh. I missed that sentence. One problem is the link to multiple page views.
"There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived."
Of course that all depends on you interpret it since the meaning of marriage in family has changed over time in this country as well as many others.
It used to be the case that marriage could only be between the same race. The definition of family has been changed overtime with divorce, custody disputes, change in the nuclear family, acceptance of interfaith marriage, civil vs. religious disputes.
Some thought letting people of different races marry would be the end of civilization. Some thought divorce was. This appears to be another in a long line.

Possible compromise: Gay Marriage Could will End Civilization ? (still ridiculous, but consistent with Huckabees less than affirmative statement).

Put it in context and read it again.

I'm putting it here for you as did ad3mofo, here it is in context again with some thought breaks to make it easier for you to discern other potential ways to read the comment.

I don't think the issue's about being against gay marriage. It's about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that's important.

You have to have a basic family structure.

There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it's one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that's their business.

But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that's an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square.

And if you look at states that have had it on the ballot—I know in our state it was a 70-percent-against issue. Most states are similar to that.

I agree with you that that was his insinuation - but that's not what this article is about. There's a whole big thing going on here and that's just one aspect of it. That's my beef with the headline, I guess.

I would agree with that assessment. I think it is reasonable to assume.

The assessment by Huckabee is based on mythology and romanticism of the past. Here is your traditional American family: One or more divorced parents, or a single parent, one or both of which have to work so much they never see their kids, at least 2 kids, and 3 or more stepbrothers/sisters. Come ON Mr. Huckabee. Not everyone lives in Arkansas and buys this dreck. It is common knowledge that 50% of those oh so important marriages end in divorce, often a bitter one. In many of those divorces, the kids are used as weapons against either partner for the sake of spite. I think Mr. Huckabee, it would be better if we didn't have to subject children to the horror of watching their parents go through a divorce.

Alistair Brown, you seem to think that our civilization is planted in stone, never to be disrupted, as if we are the future and the only possible one at that. You need to learn a little more about the history of civilization and the impact of radical thoughts on marriage and family values before you make this kind of statement. By the way, marriage is an age old practice that started long before the word "state" was introduced into language. Narrow minded presumptions, such as these, very well could be the illogical type of thinking that will ultimately tear our civilization apart, and its plausible to think that it has before. There is no offense to be taken here, I am simply stating a possible paradox in the way "civilized" humans think. Example: when there were no disputes over marriage and orthodox family construction, lets use the 1950's for a period in history known to have been more family oriented and, well, structured, then there was nothing to cause divide among people, at least not on this issue. There certainly have been at different periods in history all around the world, but at that time, there was nothing to challenge, and positions on the issue didn't exist not because the issue was nonexistent, it was simply a more civilized way of living, and people realized this. Integrating gay marriage and disrupting family traditions and customs is not necessarily any type of crime whatsoever, no one believes it is, it's just that it is historically proven that disputing these issues has never promoted progression in civilized living. That is what I mean by paradoxical thinking. Don't be stuck thinking unilaterally your whole life because you feel it represents who you are. Change and heavy, neutral thought and debate are the best tools we use as intelligent beings, and they have certainly taken us a long way in our evolution.

I honestly don't mean to sound rude here, just brusque, but I really couldn't care about any impact on family values. Family values are a mythology, propagated for what reason I don't know, but through the entire history of civilisation there has never been any standard set of values that all families adhere to, or would want to adhere to. It's not narrow-minded to be open to alternative lifestyles, nor narrow-minded to believe alternative lifestyles wo'n't destroy civilization. Gay people, single parents, abusive fathers, childless couples, and other groups that don't fit the 'family values' mould didn't just arrive on a bus overnight in the 20th century, they've always existed and thus far civilization is still here.

Ignoring gay marriage for the moment though, the idea of marriage has been challenged and changed in innumerable ways over the years, in ancient Rome the emperors were consistently changing the restrictions on who could marry whom because they fancied their cousins a fair bit. Then their successor would come along and change it back, or make marrying even closer with-in the family possible etc. There was uproar in Rome when Claudius married his niece Agrippina, but Roman civilization didn't end because marriage had altered to allow incestual coupling, nor did it end when Justinian made the terms and conditions even more strict.

As for what we term 'marriage' today in the western world existing before the state, it didn't. Marriage as a sacrament and a contract (which is what Huckabee believes) is a result of the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Prior to that marriage was a state contract, separate from a church blessing which you could choose to receive as well.

Family values are a mythology, propagated for what reason I don't know

Because "masses, we are going to control you" is slightly less palatable.

Alistar Brown
"As for what we term 'marriage' today in the western world existing before the state, it didn't. Marriage as a sacrament and a contract (which is what Huckabee believes) is a result of the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Prior to that marriage was a state contract, separate from a church blessing which you could choose to receive as well."
(which is what Huckabee believes)
Do you not consider crime, and frankly disease, in minority neighborhoods related to poor family values ie. poor parenting? If not, what would you attribute to the repetition of generational depredation on youth development that is so common of these areas. I lived in a poor part of Los Angeles in my youth, I saw this happening on a daily basis, and I know this because I've been extremely fortunate to break through this with my family, and frankly, to come to appreciate a lifestyle that doesn't always feel fair, but has undoubtedly created opportunities that that didn't exist whilst my parents were divorced. That's my example of what Huckabee implies when talking about the importance of family and marriage and its meaning in our western way of life. We can debate definitions about marriage and family ties forever, but the real motion we need to take is on the grounds of the impact that a lack of strong family and familiar marriage traditions can have on a civilization thats is in serious trouble at the moment. I value what my western ancestors have given me, and it feels very irresponsible and immature to act as if these things are better left untouched because it might 'offend' some people. Some people like a non-traditional way of life, but when it affects the lives of those who just want a simple traditional life, it only feeds the beast that is violence and frankly, the continuing depredation of upbringing from one generation to the next. I know I sound boring, but point out the flaws in my thinking. I look foreword to it, or if you feel similarly, we can develop the issue to mean more, expand on to more specific issues that impact healthy happy living. Just to put it out there, I don't discriminate gays and straights, just as I don't discriminate black from white, or any other creed or religion or color. I find patterns, and I find different connections that explain flaws in civilized living. Again, ignoring a pattern like this is not mean or racist or prejudice, its similar to being mad that 2+2 always equals 4. Just do the math.

Killfile, please read what I've written if you haven't already and comment. I feel your a bit one-sided on this to be considered the neutral ground, and being that your sharing this post, and for the good-reputation of the media, some might find it a bit stereo-typical that you purposely take a side on an issue as big as this right now without even questioning or leaving room for question to your own beliefs. Like a good poster, you are trying to debate, not brainwash and debacle, right?

I agree with you on that, but I also think it's important to clarify that I'm not opposed to gay relationships, but only because as a species we are smart enough to avoid the problems that can arise from same sex relationships. You usually don't see this type of structure anywhere in nature, not functional anyway.

You have to remember though that gay marriage can create a very uneasy situation, especially since it is still causing controversy in our day and age. Like your example, proper parenting is obviously the important factor, but let us examine our place in nature and in society. Forcing democracy, or imperialism, or religious beliefs upon a culture is dangerous business, and it often hurts people happy in their place within that culture. I happen to love the changes that our culture has offered each and every new day, but when asked who I respect to lead our country, I have to look at all their beliefs, not just one. Moral character is extremely important, and because of this, I like Huckabee. No one is perfect, and this may very well be his flaw, but ranging from education to views on the economy, and his stance on our place in the world, I can't help but feel that other issues just seems to be a bit more important right now than someone not being given the right to enter wedlock.

We can honestly go on with our own perspectives about this forever, each thinking our own make more logical sense, and why not, we have different things important to us in life. I happen to be straight, and even though I have gay friends, I know I'll truly never understand the issue, but on that note, neither will they understand mine, and the process goes in circles. What I can say is we need a more progressive president for a more progressive time, and the democratic candidates that can actually make a good impact on society are not exactly 'frontrunners'. Or do you differ?