Mike Huckabee, a man who wants to take the presidential oath, swearing on a bible to defend the Constitution has declared that he "will not acquiesce to an imperial court." He was referring, of course to the Supreme Court's latest ruling that states can not deny marriage to anyone.
I'm not entirely sure what Huckabee means by that, but I think I get the general picture.
The word "imperial" refers to something or someone having the traits of an emperor or empire. He probably meant to say "imperious" which refers to someone who has a proud and unpleasant attitude and expects others to follow his orders.
Without question, there are a few members of the Supreme Court who have unpleasant attitudes, but those jurists are generally on the Huckabee (wrong) side of history. The Court does, however expect others to follow their orders. And constitutionally so.
As for Huckabee having to "acquiesce" with the ruling, that's just plain nonsense. He's not a governor anymore, so he has no official responsibilities to do anything. He won't even be doing his radio show after December.
It's possible that Huckabee has misinterpreted the Court's ruling and thinks that he is going to be forced to marry a man. Relax, Mike, I doubt that there's any self-respecting man out there for you.
Huckabee isn't always at odds with Supreme Court decisions. He expressed no moral outrage when the Court conferred personhood to money and corporations, allowing our political process to be sold to the highest bidder.
Mr. Huckabee took it in stride when when the Supreme Court struck down key elements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, starting a tsunami of voter suppression laws passed by Republican controlled state legislatures.
Not all Supreme Court rulings are too "imperial" for Mr. Huckabee.
Previously, Huckabee has said of the Supreme Court that it "can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the law of gravity,”
To me, that's a troubling, convoluted and specious argument. If it weren't for the Donald entering the presidential race last week, I would have to say that Huckabee is wearing the biggest clown nose of all the hopefuls.
First and foremost, no court, Supreme or otherwise can repeal a law. Only a legislature can do that. All laws are subject to judicial review, at which times the courts can issue injunctions or declare laws unconstitutional, but they can't repeal anything.
I think that's something a presidential wannabe should know.
The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 defined marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. President Clinton has since expressed his regrets over signing that bill, but it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2013.
Hardly the same as trying to repeal the Law of Gravity, which isn't a law in the legal sense, only in the scientific, physical sense. I'm sure Huckabee would be fine with the Court "repealing" the Law of Global Warming.
The real problem, though is this thing about "nature's God on marriage." Color me stupid, but I'm not sure what that means, either.
Even if a couple gets married in Chicago's historic Holy Name Cathedral, their divorce is going to wind up in a Cook County divorce court as a legal proceeding.
Your priest, rabbi or minister will always add to his credentials by mentioning his or her state-granted authority. Marriage in America is, in practicality a legal contract entered into by two (myopic) individuals.
One of Huckabee's major misconceptions is that two men (or women) getting married somehow stomps on his religious freedom. I really don't know where to go where that one, but the only time I ever heard anyone say something similar to that in both content and ridiculousness came from British Muslim extremist, Anjem Choudray.
Choudray has been charged in England with soliciting violence and for recruiting fighters for ISIS. While he denies the charges, he has said that he is being denied his religious freedom by the fact that England does not require all women to wear the hijab, or Muslim head covering.
I wish I was making that up.
Everyone is free to practice his or her religion as he or she sees fit. That would include abiding by the laws of his or her Creator, as interpreted by that religion, but the rest of us are free from those restrictions.
I don't think Mike Huckabee would be happy with a Jewish Attorney General prosecuting Christians for eating pork.
The rest of us live within the framework of laws enacted by our elected officials. While Supreme Court judges are not elected, they are appointed by an elected president.
The Constitution of the United States does not allow for a separate set of laws sent down from God or anywhere else. That kind of law is called Sharia and nobody likes to scare us about the dangers of Sharia like the Christian Right. The Tea Party. The American Taliban.
That's what you might call "A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma." Or you may just call it plain old hypocrisy.
The Republicans control both houses of our legislative branch. What Mike Huckabee is telling us is that if one of them takes over the Executive Branch, they're going to do everything they can to nullify the Judicial Branch.
I don't know if there's a Hell, but if there is, that's where the American Taliban wants to send our system of checks and balances, replacing it with the rule of religious law.
You know who else were vocal opponents to same sex marriage? Dennis Hastert and Josh Duggar, that's who. You always have to be wary of the super homophobes. They sometimes turn out to be the biggest cock suckers.