Gay Marriage - Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee debate

Another interesting thing that occurred on the Daily Show, when Mike Huckabee appeared is the conversation covering gay marriage. Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee debated the conservative and liberal view on this controversial topic. And it was very clear than neither man would ever budge from the position they held.



From the Huckabee perspective is a view that I do agree with. Marriage is a union for the primary purpose of procreation and the growth of a family. That has been it's constant purpose in all recorded time. Thus any union that does not match this purpose is not a marriage, though it can be a union, loving, and positive.

From the Stewart perspective is the thought that to deny gay marriage is akin to promoting segregation. That a union of any 2 people must be recognized by the name of marriage. And in that perspective is the subtle thought that in not receiving this title other privileges of marriage are also not conferred.

Note the difference. There is an inference that is never stated. And it is not valid, since the Huckabee view does not preclude or block unions receiving the same privileges as marriage. The stumbling block is the word. Many liberals demand this word, and in doing so want to rewrite laws such that there is no limit.

Under the Liberal view (perhaps the most liberal) unions between polygamists must be recognized as legal marriages too. And underage marriages. And any other form of union that today is excluded by law. Because each of these can be described by the same loving union descriptor used to justify gay marriage.

Now Stewart uses the argument used by many liberals, this is the same as segregation or the ban on interracial marriage. Which is both a lie and using racial injustice as a crutch. And it annoys me when I hear such comments.

Racially based bias and unjust laws are focused on the color of skin of a person. There is no changing, no hiding, no misunderstanding of what color skin you have. When you walk down a street and glance at people passing you cannot tell if they are gay or straight, Jewish or Muslim or Christian, a Harvard graduate or a high school dropout - unless that person makes a clear and distinctive decision to make such apparent. But at that exact same time and moment you can always know if they are Asian, Black, or White.

In addition, an interracial marriage between a man and woman is exactly the same as a marriage of any man and woman. It will result in the same ultimate outcome (the potential progeny of the human race). So the bias on that was unjust as it had no basis other than skin color. Gay marriage by definition cannot say the same thing and therefore such an argument for it falls flat.

But really the shame of all this is a word. One word that is causing a problem. And in that quest of one word the ability of people on any side to understand the other becomes akin to crossing a chasm.

Is there a difference between gay marriage and a civil union? No. The function is the same, the ceremony is the same. The meaning and purpose is not the same though. Yet legally, to my knowledge, they are the same.

And if I am incorrect shouldn't all this energy, money, and time be better spent ensuring the equality of a civil union rather than gaining a word? Because if an inequality exists under the law, a new name will not remove that imbalance.

And that is why 30 States have failed to pass a gay marriage law. That is why 68% of the nation is against gay marriage. Not out of a hate of gays, nor a discrimination, but a meaning and an ultimate purpose of that meaning. Jokes, jibes, and smooth talking cannot change that. Not even when pointing at the obvious failure of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline. Even for Jon Stewart.

And before everyone starts screaming about the fundamental right of marriage, let's get this straight. It is a privilege. It is not a right. You have the right to live with whom you wish in this nation. Marriage, or civil unions, are separate of that.

As Huckabee stated

"There is a difference between the equality of each individual and the equality of what we do and the sameness of what we do."

There is nothing wrong with that thought. There is no hidden evil in it. And there is none in a civil union. So before a Liberal bashes me for stating something I believe, on my own blog, in a nation that gives me the right to say such things without retribution, I remind them to think about that quote and the importance of 1 word whose meaning and purpose cannot be attained.

Mike Huckabee v. Jon Stewart - fiscal policy that's not funny

So I saw an interesting thing the other day on the Jon Stewart . It was a discussion between Stewart and Mike Huckabee. As you might imagine it was confrontational, but not to the degree of say Bill O'Reilly and Rep. Barney Frank.



The crux of the first part of the conversation was on their differences on fiscal conservatism versus liberal policies. Stewart advocates larger Government. By that he means larger influence of Government in the daily affairs of the citizenry. He wants a Government that mandates what cars are made, what profits are allowed and who is lent to. He wants a Government that spends more to provide a mandated healthcare and smaller military.

Huckabee is the opposite of all these things.

But Stewart makes good points in his argument, tinged with sarcasm and humor. Which is great for a parody, but fails to deal with the issues at hand on a more serious level.

Take what Huckabee points out. This Democrat-led Congress failed on every level, and in each Party, to deal with the mortgage crisis which led to the credit crunch. In fact several members of this Congress either lied or have no idea what the hell is going on when they stated the economy was fine. That major financial institutions were secure - which was said at several points in the year - just prior to several major meltdowns. How can we expect a Congress that inept to resolve issues in the stock market, or anywhere for that matter.

And Stewart makes a common misconception as well. He makes the assumption that regulation prevents bad policy. The 2 are not the same.

It was bad policy decisions that made the U.S. auto industry focus on SUV's when hybrid and smaller cars were more logical decisions. Regulation would not change that. And it was the bad regulations, mandating unqualified lenders get home loans, that caused the mortgage crisis in the first place. And bad regulation practices let lead-coated toys into the nation. And it was lack of action by these same oversight groups that failed to prevent or even anticipate the meltdown of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as examples.

And one thing I want to directly point out that Jon Stewart said.

"Conservatives would say 'I want a big military'. Well that's Government... The fact that you would trust the Government with tanks and nuclear weapons but not to pass out cheese to poor people. You know, you've got to figure, so...I don't get it!"

Get this. In New Orleans the Government with some 15 agencies failed to provide water to people in the Dome for 3 days during Hurricane Katrina. But there has never been a nuclear weapon that has gone off accidentally or been lost. Nor has a tank been lost. The Government has proven in multiple actions that it is quite good at protecting this nation, when allowed to do so, and engaging in war or military actions.

But in terms of helping the citizenry it is far less efficient. Part of the reason why is the fact that the Government is so big concerning domestic issues that its right hand does not know where is or what is being done by the left. Big Government hurts the people, smaller Government does so less.

Liberals seem to want a Government that is involved with all aspects of daily life. They want Government to make decisions for them, or to assist in that decision process. Yet we see that the more Government there is, the less that is done or done efficiently. So why do Liberals expect that a Government-run healthcare system will be more efficient or helpful than FEMA or the VA or the Post Office, as an example.

And that is no joke at all.

When a laugh becomes creepy - 9.27.2007.1

While most would agree that Jon Stewart is a liberal guy, and his Comedy Channel television program - The Daily Show - is equally of a liberal or left bent, he is not above pointing out humor in Democrats.

In this case the wooden and cold demeanor of Sen. Hillary Clinton is where she hoists her petard. Nothing is more obvious of trying to capture votes on the cheap than perhaps the exact same response 5x in one day, calculated by pollsters and advisors as the latest 'thing to do'.

Remember, this false emotion belies something. If it's not figured out what that is before the Democratic primaries, she will be one of the candidates for President. If she were to win, and her true emotions (and possibly motivations) are still only percieved as this same kind of response... who knows what could happen.

Well if nothing else it's worth a laugh.