GOP Civil War: Huckabee Demands Republicans "Grow A Spine" And Oppose Marriage Equality

Blog ››› ››› ZACHARY PLEAT

Fox News host Mike Huckabee advised Republicans to "grow a spine" and oppose marriage equality, blasting court rulings overturning same-sex marriage bans as "the betrayal of our Constitution."

During an October 7 interview with the anti-gay American Family Association's radio program, Huckabee said that he's "utterly exasperation with Republicans ... who have abdicated on this issue," and warned that he might leave the Republican Party and become an independent if the GOP stops fighting marriage equality. The former governor of Arkansas is reportedly considering a run for president in 2016.

Huckabee reiterated his criticism in the opening monologue of his October 11 Fox News show. Huckabee denounced the court decisions that led to same-sex marriage becoming legal in several more states, emphasizing that judges overruled "the collective votes of the people themselves" in a "betrayal of our Constitution." He concluded that he is "utterly disgusted" with Republican governors and other officials that complied with the court orders overturning same-sex marriage bans, arguing that they should "[g]row a spine, show a modicum of knowledge about the way we govern ourselves, and lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way."

Watch:

HUCKABEE: I wonder sometimes, do we still teach civics in school? Are Americans, even elected officials, lawyers, and judges, utterly ignorant about the structure of our government and how it functions? Look, I assume that everyone knows that we've got three branches of government and each are equal to the other. The founders took extraordinary measures to prevent too much power being grabbed by one person or group. The system they created, sometimes cumbersome, but it's based on the longest-used constitution in human history. The Congress controls the purse, or the money, the executive branch controls the sword, and the judicial watches over and offers opinions as to the constitutional compliance of the other two.

My friend Matt Staver of the Liberty Counsel and dean at the Liberty University School of Law points out in his outstanding book called Judicial Tyranny -- and he says this, and I quote: "The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the liberties of the minority against the majority. However, our constitutional make-up does not give the minority veto rights over the majority. The major political and social questions of our day has by constitutional design been given to the majority through the legislative process. Continually taking away the right of the majority to shape their culture will ultimately result in rebellion. To take away the right of the people to debate the question leads to an oligarchy, or government of the few, and it results in tyranny," end quote.

Well this week the Supreme Court declined to take up cases from the court of appeals regarding same-sex marriage in a number of states where the people had already voted to affirm natural law marriage of a man and a woman. In these states, typically, a single robed judge decided that his opinion mattered more than the collective votes of the people themselves. The Supreme Court refused to hear these cases, despite confusion the exists due to its own Windsor decision last year which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.

Several governors and other elected officials reacted by saying, "Well, that's it. That's the final word." Horse apples. The Supreme Court is not the supreme being. Yes, it's the highest court within one of the three branches of government, but it isn't superior to the other two. In recent years, the doctrine of judicial supremacy has trampled both the Constitution and common sense. The Court can certainly rule on an issue, but unless the legislature passes enabling legislation and funds it, and unless the executive branch signs it and enforces it, it certainly is not the law of the land. That's often exclaimed with authority by voices that belong to people I wonder, did they pass ninth grade civics? The law of the land requires agreement of all three branches.

Now this is not just same-sex marriage which, frankly, I disagree with. I by the way hold the same view that President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden held just until two years ago, that it was inconsistent with nature and nature's law. But the biggest issue is the betrayal of our Constitution and the surrender to a small group of unelected black-robed jurists who can't make law, nor enforce it.

Now, if you believe that men should marry men and women should marry women, then get the people's representatives to vote for it, the chief executive to sign it, and then have the courts agree with it. I'm utterly disgusted with fellow Republicans who want to walk away from the issue of judicial supremacy just because it's politically volatile. Here is my advice: Grow a spine, show a modicum of knowledge about the way we govern ourselves, and lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way. 

Posted In
Diversity & Discrimination, LGBT, Government, The Judiciary
Network/Outlet
Fox News Channel
Person
Mike Huckabee
Show/Publication
Huckabee
We've changed our commenting system to Disqus.
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.