What Mike Says the Bible Says (and What the Consitution Should Say)

This was an old post I was able to retrieve and I thought still relevant in light of Huck's win yesterday.

Mike Huckabee gets it wrong on so many levels. The fact that he's a minister with a degree in Theology makes his gaffe that much more annoying. In an interview on Beliefnet that has been sited in several places online (The Huffington Post and Americablog, for example)Huckabee equates homosexuality with bestiality,child molestation and polygamy. When asked about his intention to bring the Constitution in line with Biblical conformity, Huckabee responds:

"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."

As Greg Sargent of TPM, wrote:

"it's worth pointing out that Huck's quote above doesn't even use the tried-and-true 'slippery slope' argument to couch his view that homosexuality is akin to bestiality. It's a direct equivalence."

Huckabee's understanding of the fixity of the Bible is also way off. He tells Beliefnet:

"the Constitution was created as a document that could be changed. That’s the genius of it. The Bible, however, was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture."

He at least understands that what makes the Consitution work is that it can be amended (at least it works when that possibility is not being distorted or abused). However, someone might want to remind Reverend Huckabee that there is an Old Testament and a New Testament; that in the New Testament Christ changes many things about Old Testament law.

In fact, it's always been interesting to me when Christians use the quote about how marriage is a man and a woman, "what God joined together, let no man put assunder," as Christ's pronouncement on marriage. It is and it isn't-- Christ was being asked about divorce: The Disciples said: Moses allowed divorce, what do you say? Christ prefaces his answer with the "a man and a woman," then answers the question about divorce, saying the times and the law have changed. And if the laws have changed with the times then they can change and can change again.

And that's not even to mention all the text that are excluded from one denomination to the other,and the changes in language and translation from one historical period to another (as in the King James version).

Huckabee seems to have a grip on his undertsanding of Consitutional amendment. He reiterates for Beliefrnet:

"The Bible was not written to be amended. The Constitution was. Without amendments to the Constitution, women couldn’t vote, African-Americans wouldn’t be considered people. We have had to historically go back and to clarify, because there’ve been injustices made because the Constitution wasn’t as clear as it needed to be, and that’s the point."

The same process-- and for the same reason, that being the sake of clarity-- can and has been done with the Bible. The King James version, for example, was commisioned to clarify controversial issues over mistranslations in the Bible that were commonly used (particularly the Geneva Bible) and they were merely attempting to esdtablish a standard edition.

It is ironic that while Huckbee values the Consitution for its flexibility that has enabled social change to occur, he is now attempting to stop social change and civil rights injustice in regard to same-sex marriage from occuring in part due to his strict interpretation of the Bible, and he fails to understand that part of the beauty of the Bible is its openness to intrepretation, at least when it's not being abused or distorted.

However, when Huckabee is asked about intrpretation, he insists:

"Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?"

Again, he's wrong. The heterosexual, monogamous marriage till death is clearly not the only model for conjugal bliss. No need to go into any in depth historio-cultural analysis here. Huckabee need only consult his own Bible-- part of which is at least intended as a history-- hence, the geneologies. One of my favorite examples is King David: he had 3 wives, one of whom he married after she became pregnant by David while she was married to someone else (David's son with Bathsheba is the Bible's King Solomon). And, of course, there's the possibility of his love for Jonathan. Lots of room for interpretation there-- if you're willing. And then there's David's great-grandmother, Ruth, and her friendship with Naomi. Again, lots of room for interpretation. Each story foreshadows the New Testament command to "love your neighbor as yourself," and illustrates the principle beautifully. Ruth arranged a marriage for Naomi and Naomi in turn provided Ruth a home. David adopted Jonathan's son after Jonathan's death. And each story has a hint of homoeroticism and same-sex love. Ruth and Naomi less so, perhaps, but still it's open to intrepretation. At any rate each demonstrates, if nothing else, that marriage as Mike imagines it has not always, nor is it now the way Mike imagines it.

Nor should it be.

Don't be so sure that the Lord truly gave you wisdom there, Huck.