Former Arkansas Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee sent an email to his supporters regarding the Iowa Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

I wanted to get this news to you immediately. The Iowa Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, struck at the heart of the family in Iowa and indeed in the whole country. The ruling, which, will be viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement, should instead, be viewed as an attack on the traditional family as recognized in this country. It is a sad day for Iowa and for the country

Now, because of the ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court, gay couples can legally marry in Iowa beginning April 24. And Iowa, by the decision of the State Supreme Court, becomes the first mid-western state, and the third in the country, to allow same-sex marriages. I have long believed that marriage must be defined as a marriage between one man and one woman. To that end, we must pass a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I continue to believe that neither the federal government or any state government should recognize same sex marriages.

As the late Cardinal O’Connor said, a domestic partnership law is legislation that says "marriage doesn’t matter." The Cardinal was right. Marriage does matter. Our true strength as a nation comes from our families. We must continue to fight by every legal method available to us to preserve the importance of the family as a unit and to amend the Constitution of the United States to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

HT: Chris Maiorana

Also, be sure to check out HuckPac they just revamped their website.

22 comments
  1. If I like black beans in my burrito, but you prefer pinto beans, is my eating black beans an attack on the traditional burrito?

  2. You are wrong. Everyone should have the right to chose who we live our life with. There are issues so much more important in this country. This country was founded by people seeking freedom to live their life as they want to. It IS a sad day when those freedoms are taken away. No one has the right to do that.

  3. What freedoms did this ruling restore? Could gay couples not already choose who they live their lives with? I don't think they were denied that right. While I would not dispute prejuidice exist, I doubt very much this decision will address such problems or change the views people hold.

  4. You are right Malia, they should have the right, and currently homosexual people do.

    Exactly what freedom was taken away? The freedom to define marriage however you want?

    Could you find where the right to marry is in the Constitution anyway? I'm just curious where that is.

  5. Malia: I think your definition of freedom is a bit off. Freedom has never meant the ability to live life as you want…and have the government actively campaign for it.

    At any rate, you contradict yourself too when you suggest that people should have the “freedom to live life as you want,” but then you seek, by your own definition, to take away the freedom of those who dissent (i.e, “no one has a right to do that.”)

  6. I like Mike.. I think that he has been caught up in his celebrity.. that letter I got from him hawking a financial adviser was a disappointing one.

    I think that he is one of the many far right conservatives that have been using gay marriage as a wedge issue. From what you quoted in the posted he really had nothing new to say.. I mean really.. “a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman” is dead on arrival.. it will never get passed by the states.. it is the right wing version of the ERA amendment that cost tax payers a lot of time and money back in the seventies.

    If Mike wants to be a relevant player in Americana he must get past the Limbaugh/Coulter/Hannity Fox News persona and proffer realistic solutions for these types of situations.

    Sorry for the rant.. since Mike has taken the job at Fox News he has been a bit disappointing.. Palin looks a lot better then he does.

  7. Another thought about a constitutional amendment is the concern over giving the definition of marriage to the Feds.. may not want that.. look what they did to abortion which used to be a state issue.

  8. Myself, I think it's a waste of time and terribly bad practice to enact amendments while society is clearly in transition about the matter.

  9. I agree that taking a position with Fox News wasn't the best step if he seeks to run again in 2012.

    I also agree that Palin looks a lot better than Huckabee and provided something disastrous doesn't occur she should be in a better position in 2012.

  10. I personally think it is better as a state issue as well. Not that I'm opposed to an FMA, but state solutions on this matter is preferable.

    I would say FMA would have to be looked at is if Federal Courts strike down state laws and state constitutional amendments. Then what recourse do you have?

  11. I don't with the exception of California, the states that have passed same-sex marriage bans in the ballot box have done so overwhelmingly.

    I'll agree with you that there is more sympathy, but I don't see it translating into ballot victories with the exception of perhaps a couple of liberal states.

  12. The Vermont legislature just approved same sex marriage by an overwhelming margin. Massachusetts opted to drop its residency requirements for same sex couples and the drive to ban same sex marriage appears very unlikely to succeed. New York now accepts SSM licenses from other states. The entire country of Canda has had SSM since 2005. Other European nations are also on board. And many other states have accepted the dual-track of civil unions, which will likely convert into full-status marriages someday.

    Look, I'm as surprised as any at the speed with which things have changed but opinions are really shifting. If you look at the demographics, it appears the same sex marriage is gain further acceptance over the next decade or so. The sky has not fallen in any states where civil unions or SSM are permitted. Within Massachusetts it's not even an interesting conversation anymore;In part because it affected so very few people, it's just part of the landscape.

  13. Having measures pass by overwhelming margins within a state legislature does not nessessary mean the citizens of the state share the same view.

  14. Agreed. We live in a democratic republic. And sometimes our governing constitutions compel us to accept decisions that may make many uncomfortable.

    At one time soon after their approval by courts and legislatures, mixed race marriages weren't that popular among the general population either, nor was school desegregation.

  15. My comment is trivial because I honestly think this issue is, too.

    Certainly my parents chose to raise me differently than how you choose to raise yours. But I turned out alright.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

A Republic, If You Can Keep It: A Defense of the Electoral College

John Hendrickson: The Electoral College is fundamental to our constitutional system of limited government, federalism, equal representation, and separation of powers. 

Americans for Prosperity Launches Push Against Farm Bill

Americans for Prosperity launches a major effort to oppose the Farm Bill targeting Congressman Bruce Braley (D-IA) in Iowa’s 1st Congressional District.

A Letter From Senator Feinstein

I contacted Senator Feinstein about the Senate Health Care Bill and shared…

Latte Links (9/4/10)

Some miscellany from around the web on current events, culture and politics:…