The HuffPo article is right on the mark. They're trying to conjure up hate and disdain for Obama so they can continue their terrorist acts. This is a form of recruitment but they're just grasping at straws resorting to calling Obama a "house negro". Oh fiddlesticks, I'm so very offended! They've already begun to underestimate our President-elect.

Anyone who believes that gays haven't been the victims of "enough" violence is intentionally ignorant of history. Why is Huckabee allowed out by himself?

It doesn't seem to me that Huckabee said anything about a 'violence threshold'. The linked article uses quotes from other people to put words into his mouth. In this interview he does not say that there is a difference between civil rights for blacks and civil rights for gays, he simply says that there are a different set of rights in question.

This article is an entirely unfair characterization of the interview. I think the worst we can accuse him of here (although I certainly disagree with his stance on gay marriage) is babbling on without a real point to make, or a real counter to Joy's argument.

I agree with Mich on this one and aside from a few of his view such as his view on Gay Marriage I kind of like Huckabee. He was a very good Governor of Arkansas when I was there.

I watched the video and unless I missed something, he didn't say gays don't meet a civil rights requirement. He said that gay rights is a different set of rights and that gays should have every rights in terms of their civil rights, to be employed and to do anything they want. And he said violence is wrong, it doesn't matter who is behind it.

"Well, segregation was an institution, too, in a way. it was right there on the books.
HUCKABEE: But here is the difference. Bull Connor was hosing people down in the streets of Alabama. John Lewis got his skull cracked on the Selma bridge."

He's not saying there's a different set of rights - he says HERE IS the difference then references hosing people and cracked skulls. That's violence.

Ugh...I think Al Qaeda is getting to that point where their words will become irrelevant even to their followers - sort of like jump the shark for terrorist spokesmen.

"Huckabee’s lame violence threshold is nothing more than a shoddy attempt to conceal his deep and fundamental homophobia."

I guess the people at "Think Progress" are mind readers and could very well see into a man's soul.

Steph, how can you say "He's not saying there's a different set of rights"? He clearly says "It’s a different set of rights. People who are homosexuals should have every right in terms of their civil rights, to be employed, to do anything they want. But that’s not really the issue."

What he does not say is "Here is the difference". He says there IS a difference, but I think his problem was that he couldn't explain what it was.

"HUCKABEE: It’s a different set of rights. People who are homosexuals should have every right in terms of their civil rights, to be employed, to do anything they want. But that’s not really the issue. I know you talked about it and I think you got into it a little bit early on. But when we’re talking about a redefinition of an institution, that’s different than individual civil rights.

BEHAR: Well, segregation was an institution, too, in a way. It was right there on the books.

HUCKABEE: But here is the difference. Bull Connor was hosing people down in the streets of Alabama. John Lewis got his skull cracked on the Selma bridge."

He starts with IT'S A DIFFERENT SET OF RIGHTS, but when he says HERE IS the difference, he's clearly not talking about a set of rights - unless I missed gay marches for the right to be hosed and have their skulls cracked.

From your interpretation of it, what is the point of mentioning the hosing and skull cracking? Why should they factor in at all?

And the link to the O'Reilly documentary about SF, what the heck is that? Its a link that tells you nothing really and then tells click on the link to get the real story. And of course the link is the Huff Post. How about just link to Huff Post and save us some time.

wow, right on huckabee... and I think it is funny how the view's ladies are so civil now.

lol piper... I think it is funny that rag may now be considered a legitimate news source!

Ah, I misread it, for some reason I read "there is a difference". Sorry, I really need to find my glasses.

But anyway, I still don't see a "violence threshold" in what he said. It sounded more like stalling until he could find a difference between the institution of marriage and the institution of segregation. Perhaps he was saying that the violence against blacks (as in the two instances he mentioned) was done by the state in order to prevent them from having civil rights. Although there is plenty of violence against homosexuals, it is not typically perpetrated by the state.

All in all, I don't think Huckabee had a real point to make. He sounded confused. He does not say that there is a 'violence threshold', though. That is the work of 'Think Progress'. What I wonder, though, is what would a 'violence threshold' entail? Does that mean that once enough violence is done to gays, they'll have a case for marriage rights? That doesn't make sense, and it certainly isn't something Huckabee would say. So what do you think Huckabee meant if he did indeed suggest a 'violence threshold'?

I think on some level Huckabee express some of the views that some African American's who voted yes on prop 8 feel so the fact that he mentioned :

"But here is the difference. Bull Connor was hosing people down in the streets of Alabama. John Lewis got his skull cracked on the Selma bridge."

Is what have some African Americans so gung ho about Prop 8.... they don't want their struggle to be compared to ever other civil rights stuggle that occurs.

Even Dan Savage eluded to the fact that African Americans had "The Civil Rights Struggle" and that Gay Marriage is "A Civil Rights Struggle"

http://www.zimbio.com/DL+Hughley+Breaks+the+News/articles/15/Dan+Savage+...

HUCKABEE: But here is the difference. Bull Connor was hosing people down in the streets of Alabama. John Lewis got his skull cracked on the Selma bridge.

Wait is he trying to imply there isn't physical violence against gays? Cause I could clog this thread full on incidents were politicians, artists, and teenagers in school have been killed for being openly gay.

This raises a whole new set of issues for me. If we as America say it is ok for someone else's religious beliefs to dictate the legal benefits of others, then what else are we inadvertently giving belief license to do, in the minds of those who are extreme. Outside of my general anger, I don't think this is a very good example to set.

Jessie I agree but I think Mich kind of speaks to what you are saying

" Perhaps he was saying that the violence against blacks (as in the two instances he mentioned) was done by the state in order to prevent them from having civil rights. Although there is plenty of violence against homosexuals, it is not typically perpetrated by the state."

Although there is an insane amount of violence against homosexuals it has never been something that Firefighters/Police Officers ( in uniform), and Public officials have planned and participated in.

Not two civil rights movements are the same. One could even make the argument that women's civil rights and the civil rights of gays and lesbians are bigger movements because they permeate time and culture. Sodomy and buggery used to be illegal in this country and is punishable by death in many cultures. Many cultures still see unfair and horrific (ie female circumcision) treatment of women and girls.

African American civil rights are unique because they are specific to America, but unique doesn't mean greater to or lesser than.

Sorry, so in conclusion I don't think that is a valid argument.

What is the difference between sodomy and buggery? Never mind, I'll look it up.

Your right but if we where talking about the entire world which I didn't think we where until you mention it. You would be surprised how many similar life experiences people of African Decent face in regard to civil rights of African Decent face in "European" Countries. Anyway I agree that Gays should be able to get married...I don't give a crap what people do in their romantic relationships it's just not my business.

Oops Not = No

Its hard to say that bastylefilegirl, homosexual acts, especially between men has bee so frowned upon and unacknowledged as a prejudice it hard to say what the police and government did and didn't participate in and condone.

There isn't a clear distinction Piper. I think Sodomy refers to a specific sexual act described the Bible and Buggery was a European term coined to encompass any questionable act between same sex individuals so that gentlemen of the court didn't have to speak in detail.

Jessie, certainly 'African American' civil rights are unique to American, but black civil rights (or civil rights based on any color) are not unique to America, or any time and culture. Certainly every civil rights movement will have it's own unique aspects, but I do think the level of oppression changes the significance of the fight. And certainly the oppressors make a difference in the way the battle must be fought. Anyway, I think Huckabee is correct when he says there is a different set of rights at issue here, but I disagree with his ultimate conclusion.

But I still want somebody to explain to me what exactly a "violence threshold" would entail. We can't exactly argue that Huckabee says there is or isn't one if we're not really sure what it is.

Yes bastylefilegirl, there are many other acts of racial or ethnic based slavery. African American slavery is to slavery what the Holocaust is to genocide. There is a horror that in a country that stated all men are created and spoke of unalienable rights some were being denied. It cultivated ideas that Black were lesser then human. The Holocaust was particularly horrific because Jews weren't foreign people or even especially discriminated groups. The majority of the country was simply convinced to turn against their neighbors who their children went to school with.

Mich,
I think you would have to contact the people who used the "violence threshold" terminolgy to discribe what Huckabee is saying to get an answer to that.

I think he was, in a half-assed way, saying that gay rights haven't reached the importance of the civil rights movement because of a lack of violence that he's seen against gays. As Bastyle says, others have brought this up, from what I've heard in equally half-assed ways - there's something fundamentally wrong if you think you need to bring up violence when discussing whether or not people have rights.

So lets remove violence. The fact is some people are ignorant to what being homosexual is and as a part of that ignorance being homosexual is viewed as an act and/or choice while being Black, Asian, etc is something you have no control over which would in their logic make the "struggles" and rights totally different.

It still doesn't make sense to me. Huckabee is saying that there needs to be more violence towards gays in order to validate their desires to get married? Or in order to validate concern over those rights being violated? I don't see any logic there. I think he was just protesting the comparison between black civil rights and gay marriage rights, but not in a very intelligent manner.

I mean, if he thought a lack of violence indicated a lack of a problem, wouldn't he also believe women's suffrage was an unimportant civil rights issue?

I think it's very difficult to make heads or tails of what Huckabee said (like I said earlier, I'm not sure he had a point), but I just don't see where a violence threshold comes into play.

"what he was doing comparison between black civil rights and gay marriage rights, but not in a very intelligent manner."

That's exactly what he was doing and some of that bad logic was used by some people when they voted

"How about just link to Huff Post and save us some time."

Because people get their panties in a wad about Huff Po.

I think huckabee has a point. in california, same sex couples have all the same rights as married straight couples. So are there really any civil "rights" being taken away from them. There arent gay drinking fountains// gay bathrooms etc. I think what he was trying to say about "institutions" is that government encouraged "rights" to be taken away from african americans. And seeing as no "rights" have been taken away from gays... I don't see how there could even be a comparison. Secondly, many in the African American community voted yes on 8 because of this simple fact... they cannot change the color of their skin, but gays can choose not to participate in homosexual acts. I may be attracted to bad guys and I cannot control who I am attracted to, but I have the ability to CHOOSE not to date them. I was so ANTI prop 8 until I realized they have all of the "rights and obligations" of a traditionally married couple. Then I couldn't find it in me to fight for a segment of society that was being selfish in trying to take a word that has a deep and profound meaning to so many people.

I also had some initial confusion to what Huckabee said but I think you clarified it best in your last post, Michelin. That's really a very sad thing for a politician to say...

ugh mich.. those were not HIS words... he said it was different as in the GOVERNMENT was the one perpetuating the violence. You cannot control individuals, even after the "rights" are given. There are still issues of violence against blacks.... but it isn't the government perpetuating them, and the government isnt perpetuating violence against gays, therefore in his minds, they are no where near the same!!

"I think huckabee has a point. in california, same sex couples have all the same rights as married straight couples."

I'm not sure what state you live in but in California where I live civil unions do not have the same legal rights as marriage.

in california, same sex couples have all the same rights as married straight couples.

NO THEY DON'T

The quotes weren't his words?
Huckabee should just shut up, he's not helping anyone.

"I think huckabee has a point. in california, same sex couples have all the same rights as married straight couples."

Not in the California on Planet Earth.

And seeing as no "rights" have been taken away from gays

Yes they have

Hainan, I know those are not his words. I don't think he believes in a violence threshold at all. That's what I've been saying in my comments. However, in order to illustrate why I don't think he buys into that concept, I'm saying what it would entail to believe in a 'violence threshold'.

I think he was just trying to argue with Joy's comparison of black civil rights and gay marriage rights, but didn't do a good job of it.

I know I'm just repeating myself, but I think my other posts have been a little disorganized. The whole thing is sort of confusing.

And, actually, Hainan, you're wrong. 'Civil union' couples are still missing some of the same rights granted to 'married' couples.
http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civilmarriage.htm

Then I couldn't find it in me to fight for a segment of society that was being selfish in trying to take a word that has a deep and profound meaning to so many people.

Oh for f*ck's sake

Actually CA doesn't even technically have civil unions but domestic partnerships and since prop 8 has passed there will be changes made to this so the right of Gays are being challanged.

Everybody watch out, TS is about to start writing frustration haikus.

A civil union
Not the same rights as marriage
So sick of the lies

I you, TS!

Mich, when you have to try and reinterpret what the guy is saying, there's a problem. You can read the words. He chose them and he put them together the way they're put together.

Steph, the way they're put together doesn't make sense. It doesn't say "violence threshold", but it doesn't explicitly say what I think he's saying, either. Because the man couldn't put together a coherent thought, both you and I have to read something into it in order to get any meaning out of it.

The California supreme court is the one that said they have all the same rights, I posted the link in a previous comment about the theater guy that stepped down.... Whether or not the federal government recognizes those rights is completely different, and even if gays were allowed to "MARRY" the federal government still does not have to recognize them on a federal level. Look up DOMA....
and TS. what has you so mad, that I feel the gay community is arguing over a word??? a
and on your source that you listed... they say tax relief for married couples... hahaha LMFAO... trust me, they call it a marriage penalty for a reason!!!a
and Child/Spousal Support: * Marriage: In case of divorce, individuals may have a legally-binding financial obligation to spouses and children.
They act as if someone would not have to support a child they legally adopted???? wtf and many states women have received "spousal" support and were never even married to the person. You can sue ANYONE (there was a movie about that I believe)
You get mad at me but you don't even know half the facts!!

wtf and omg and omg and wtf and YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS LOOK IT UP LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!