Huckabee is a Loon

I'm not sure I'd bother writing a post about Mike Huckabee anymore, but for the strong possibility that he might become Vice President in November. With Obama and Clinton still at one another's throats, and the Democratic Party very likely finally to choose Obama on Tuesday, the political narrative is going to start getting hostile very quickly. Hillary's attack on Obama's inexperience will be nothing compared to McCain's and the Republican Party's. The Democratic Party's primary voters are idealists - a trait rarely found in the general electorate. I don't want McCain to win, but it's far from unlikely, and he'll need a VP who can carry the evangelical vote; the evangelicals currently hate him.



So although Huckabee has no chance of winning the Presidential nomination, McCain might well choose him as his running mate. And this is the point that all right minded people need to see this man for who he is. Dan Quayle was a buffoon who clearly wasn't up to the job (rather like the current White House incumbent), Dick Cheney had plenty of experience but it turned out he was a psychopath who has been and remains the power behind the throne. Neither though would have put their hand up to admit disbelieving evolution (how you can disbelieve in a cornerstone of the natural world is beyond me). Neither also believed in inhibiting gay rights or banning abortion. I'll grant you Dick Cheney was a delusionist of the highest order, in expecting American troops to be met with garlands of flowers upon liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein. But with a gay daughter, he would never have equated homosexuality with bestiality or paedophilia.

Huckabee insists he's not a homophobe, but his loony beliefs and public statements confirm otherwise. Bush may be an outright nut; does America really want another nut just a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

A Message From the Real President

Of course he makes some fundamental misunderstandings - as a stereotypical straight man (I mean look at Tipper) he probably can't really think outside of the sexual *ahem* box - marriage as the means of locking in fidelity, promiscuity is somehow fundamentally a 'problem' - but ultimately his point is entirely right and just. Loving your partner should be encouraged and celebrated, whoever they are. The statistics show worldwide, in countries which have embraced same sex marriage in its many models - full marriage as in Canada and Spain, through to Britain's civil partnerships - that it's something we're just as good at as straight people. In fact considering that marriage is in decline with them, we're doing it quite a bit better.

Speaking as an American citizen, who is also British, as a gay man who married his male partner in 2006, I feel proud to see the man who was voted for by the majority of Americans in 2000 to speak for them, speaking of my world, my ambitions and my love for my partner in this way. My marriage to Tom doesn't threaten anyone else's, and whilst we've made plenty of mistakes, even some disastrous ones, we remain driven by the entirely symbolic commitment. It's that symbolism which is important. I am someone whose worldview is entirely secular, yet I accept fully that all cultures and individuals have always been driven by belief in the metaphysical; it seems to be part of our nature. It may seem contradictory to some, but it's something I embrace. If only Obama and Clinton had the courage to talk in this way - this is at the heart of what real change is all about.