Jon Stewart's 9 December interview with Mike Huckabee

For anyone who missed the 9 December Jon Stewart show, here is a link to an interesting interview he did with Mike Huckabee:

http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/12/10/mike-huckabee-will-not-marry-jon-under-any-circumstances/

If you are pressed for time and don't want to watch both parts of the interview, at least be sure to listen to the 2nd segment, where Jon grills Mike over his views on gay marriage.

JON STEWART IS BRILLIANT!!!!   

I  Jon Stewart, too.  The Daily Show has become DH's favourite show, which makes me smile.   

So Mike. When did you decide to be straight?

Exactly!

What really got me was this line:

Mike:  "Let's face it, the basic purpose of a marriage is not just to create the next generation but to train our replacements and it's in the context of 23 chromosomes coming together at the point of conception to create the next human life."

Oh, sorry I wasn't aware of that, or I would have been "ineligible" (under Mike's rules) to marry my husband nearly two years ago, when I had NO intention of ever having children (a fact which he knew, and accepted, before marrying me).

Also, what about my father's 2nd and 3rd marriages, which he undertook after having had a vasectomy?

In one of the comments written by someone in the link I originally posted, it was pointed out that marriage used to be a religious rite which was only allowed to take place between two fertile opposite sex people because at one time it was for the express purpose of procreation, but of course that has long since changed.  Thank goodness for me, a child-free by choice, happily married atheist!

I do love Jon Stewart.

Exactly!

What really got me was this line:

Oh, sorry I wasn't aware of that, or I would have been "ineligible" (under Mike's rules) to marry my husband nearly two years ago, when I had NO intention of ever having children (a fact which he knew, and accepted, before marrying me).

Also, what about my father's 2nd and 3rd marriages, which he undertook after having had a vasectomy?

In one of the comments written by someone in the link I originally posted, it was pointed out that marriage used to be a religious rite which was only allowed to take place between two fertile opposite sex people because at one time it was for the express purpose of procreation, but of course that has long since changed.  Thank goodness for me, a child-free by choice, happily married atheist!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

To paraphrase the great Inigo Montoya "I don't think the Bible says what Mike thinks it says."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

To paraphrase the great Inigo Montoya "I don't think the Bible says what Mike thinks it says."

Thanks, Mort - that was a very interesting article I wouldn't otherwise have found and read.

I was very interested in the bit about how conveniently the Christian right in the US, half of whom get divorced, don't debate so heavily the Bible's edict against divorce.  Yes, there is a lot of selective quoting of whatever is convenient, regardless of how illogical it all is when weighed against the wider body of evidence.

The bit at the end (second to the last paragraph) leaned heavily towards religious reasons for getting married, and marriage making one closer to God.  I substitute the concept of God for the idea of becoming more aware of what is around me, as well as self-awareness, in terms of the deeper meaning that marriage has given to my life and my relationship with my husband.

To me, marriage is a meaningful institution, and one that I am glad has evolved as it has done (including my right to be married as a child-free and atheist person).  I will continue to support the evolution of the concept of marriage, including the right for all people to enjoy being married to the person they love and wish to share their life's journey with, including all the trials and tribulations that any married person (whether they married for religious reasons or not) has signed up for.

I missed these; but along the same lines, loved the finale of Boston Legal  :\\\'(
(I won't spoil it just in case, but I thought it addressed gay marriage brilliantly)

I am reading "The Truth with Jokes" by Al Franken.  It is a fascinating book.  In one chapter he addresses how the Republicans have manipulated the Gay Marriage issue.

Franken suggests the following to defend the sanctity of marriage:

I also said that the biggest threat to marriage was divorce, and that there should be a three-strikes-you're-out rule.  Rush Limbagh shouldn't be allowed to marry again.  Newt Gingrich?  Sorry.  You're stuck with the congressional stafer that you chose as your third and, if I had my way, final wife.

I have also read the Newsweek link in Mort's thread.  It is a great analysis of marriage from a biblical context.  But, (and I say this as a Christian) we need to separate marriage from the biblical context.  Gay people are not asking for religious marriage.  They are asking for their rights and responsibilities for a civil marriage.  Biblical/religious context does not, and should not, be part of the argument.  When you take the biblical context out of the argument, there is no logical reason that civil marriage should be withheld from gay couples.

Thanks, Mort - that was a very interesting article I wouldn't otherwise have found and read.

I was very interested in the bit about how conveniently the Christian right in the US, half of whom get divorced, don't debate so heavily the Bible's edict against divorce.  Yes, there is a lot of selective quoting of whatever is convenient, regardless of how illogical it all is when weighed against the wider body of evidence.

The bit at the end (second to the last paragraph) leaned heavily towards religious reasons for getting married, and marriage making one closer to God.  I substitute the concept of God for the idea of becoming more aware of what is around me, as well as self-awareness, in terms of the deeper meaning that marriage has given to my life and my relationship with my husband.

To me, marriage is a meaningful institution, and one that I am glad has evolved as it has done (including my right to be married as a child-free and atheist person).  I will continue to support the evolution of the concept of marriage, including the right for all people to enjoy being married to the person they love and wish to share their life's journey with, including all the trials and tribulations that any married person (whether they married for religious reasons or not) has signed up for.

Well put!!!!!   

I am reading "The Truth with Jokes" by Al Franken.  It is a fascinating book.  In one chapter he addresses how the Republicans have manipulated the Gay Marriage issue.

Franken suggests the following to defend the sanctity of marriage:

I have also read the Newsweek link in Mort's thread.  It is a great analysis of marriage from a biblical context.  But, (and I say this as a Christian) we need to separate marriage from the biblical context.  Gay people are not asking for religious marriage.  They are asking for their rights and responsibilities for a civil marriage.  Biblical/religious context does not, and should not, be part of the argrument.  When you take the biblical context out of the argument, there is no logical reason that civil marriage should be withheld from gay couples.

I could not agree more with you, Karrit. While the debate of what the bible says and doesn't say about marriage is interesting, in my view, it is purely academic. There's certainly no SECULAR reason why gay people should need to jump through all kinds of hoops to get the same legal protections and benefits that straight people can get just via civil marriage. Chruches, synagogues, and any other religious institutions can offer religious ceremonies to whomever they choose, but the government can't reasonably deny it.

I  Jon Stewart, too.  The Daily Show has become DH's favourite show, which makes me smile.   

I really meant to add that I must have had this episode hidden in the Sky box. 

We finally watched it this weekend.  I thought Jon's argument about how marriage has been redefined since the old "Bible days" when polygamy was the trend was right on target.  Huckabee had no argument to back up his views other than religion and tradition, which just don't offer a secular argument as to why gay people shouldn't be able to marry.  Great episode!!

ali, if you would like to "outreach" on the site, please consider going through Leah.