Mike Huckabee, former two-term governor of Arkansas and current conservative talking head for FoxNews, came to Conway last week to help raise money for the University of Central Arkansas’ Business School, but he also had some time to speak about several topics that have had local and national effects.
Log Cabin Democrat: Let’s talk little bit about the oil spill. As governor, would you have handled it differently?
Mike Huckabee: You know, I don’t know enough about what’s been done and how its been handled. I certainly wouldn’t offer any criticism or even an evaluation of it because I am not that familiar. I just know that anytime that you have something that is a disaster, whether its a natural disaster or whether its some type of industrial accident, the first thing you is you try to make sure you put the focus on the people who are displaced and the people whose lives are being turned upside down. And everything else can wait. Everything else is something you need to take very slowly and rationally to get to the bottom of it. But the first thing is to take care of the people.
LCD: There have been some bills passed recently by Arkansas legislature, one particularly by Sen. Jason Rapert of Conway, and there have been threats from the (American Civil Liberties Union) and different organizations to sue Arkansas. Can you speak a little bit about those things and how they were handled?
MH: I’m very proud that Arkansas Legislature has taken this position that the life of every person has life and value. There is no such thing as a disposable person, no such thing as a kid who is expendable. I think we ought to be grateful. The ACLU thinks that’s not a good thing to value every life. They’ll have to defend that. They’ll have to go and explain that. I think to value every person regardless of how old, how young, how white, how black, um, you know is a good thing. That we should really see life as the founders did that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights starting with life. So, I would hope that people would recognize that the legislature was courageous and they were also right. It’s always right to try to protect life. I can’t imagine why anybody wouldn’t want to do that.
LCD: You just said that about everyone has any unalienable sort of rights. What about marriage equality? Can you speak maybe about that?
MH: You know marriage is not a fundamental or constitutional right. It’s a privilege. You get a license for it, so therefore it is a privilege. Anything you have to get a license for is not a right. You have a right to free speech. You don’t have to get a license for it. You have a right to worship, don’t have to have a license for it, but to get a marriage license or to drive, you get a license.
That means the government determines what the parameters are, so it shouldn’t be a big shock to people that the government has decided historically through not just American history but through thousands of years of human history, not just in the Christian faith, but in the Jewish and Muslim faith and virtually every faith I am aware of, that marriage means man and woman, and there are people who wish to change that and certainly they have the right to come to the market place and attempt to do it.
But I think also people have a right to recognize that the compelling argument is for there to be preservation of marriage to mean what it has always meant. I think Justice (Anthony) Kennedy’s ... arguments on the defense of marriage made an excellent point. He said, you’re essentially trying to upend thousands of years of history on a trend that’s very, very young, maybe five years old in terms of a real push for it. That ought to cause people to slow down and ask ourselves if we make a change to accommodate people who want a particular different definition, are we willing to make a change on everyone’s definition of marriage?
We’ve long outlawed polygamy in this country, and people say that’s not the same. Of course it’s the same. Once you change the definition to accommodate someone’s particular viewpoint, why aren’t you going to accommodate everybody’s viewpoint? Then you’re talking inequality. So, I think those that push for same sex marriage are going to have to answer the question: are you for true marriage equality, which means any definition that people wish to be accommodated in?