Mike Huckabee channels Man-On-Dog Santorum

by: RadicalRuss

Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 14:08:11 PM EST

In an interview with Beliefnet.com, a religion Web site, Huck has just clarified his view that the Constitution should be amended to be brought in line with God's will -- and he directly equated homosexuality with bestiality.

Huck, in elaborating on his views that the Constitution should be subjected to Biblical standards, had just wrapped up a discussion of the fact that marriage has meant "a man and a woman in a relationship for life." With this context firmly established, this exchange followed:

QUESTIONER: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

HUCKABEE: Well, I don't think that's a radical view to say we're going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what's been historic.

(More on this issue after the jump...)

His theory is that "the door is open to change it again"; unless these definitions are set in stone, the worst possible definitions will come to bear.  It's interesting, since the definition of marriage has hardly been set in stone throughout its history.  Huckabee's favorite book tells many stories of men marrying many wives, men marrying underaged girls, and men marrying women they are related to.  

Does Huckabee know that somebody went and changed God's definition of marriage from polygamy to monogamy, and why, pray tell, did that not leave the door "open to change it again"?  (Hmm... perhaps it did... perhaps going from "one man many women" to "one man one woman" is what opened the door for all of this talk of "one man one man" and "one woman one woman".  Better become a vocal supporter of the original, Biblically-sanctified "one man many women"... but then people might confuse him for Romney.)

And even the definition of "one man one woman" has changed over relatively recent times.  Marriage used to be "one man one woman picked for you by your parents", "one man one woman paid for in dowry by her parents", "one man one woman the same religion as you", and even up until one year before my birth (1967) "one man one woman the same race as you".

I've made this argument before, but since Huckabee brought up bringing the Constitution into agreement with God's law, I wonder when he will be proposing these constitutional amendments:

• Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
• Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
• A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
• Marriage between a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
• Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
• If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)