Media Matters and PajamaPundit are running a video clip of an interview with Mike Huckabee by Judge Napolitano with the following portion of the transcript highlighted:

Napolitano says, “Why should the state be involved [deciding who may, and may not get married]?”, to which Huckabee responds:

Well I think that it is an acknowledgement of the higher law that even the state operates under Judge. Which I believe is an important part of a civil society that states not only have civil law, but they acknowledge that they themselves are subject to the higher law of the natural, law of God.

Many in the Democratic Party, and some in the Republican Party love to label their opponents.  Mike Huckabee has been accused of being a theocrat on more than one occasion, and this clip is already being used to do it again.   Much of the pundit-world became apoplectic when Huckabee during the 2008 presidential campaign season dared suggest four facts, none of which would have been denied by Christians or most conservative pundits when taken separately, but are apparently a sign that Huckabee is a Jihadist when put together as he did (see below):

[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The four facts:

1. The Constitution Can Be Amended (Gasp!)

2. The Bible Cannot Be Amended (Another Gasp!)

3. The Bible affirms the pro-life, anti-abortion position, and the truth that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

4. The best way to defend these issues is to amend the Constitution*.

I believe Governor Huckabee at some time admitted the wording of his statement could have been better, but only a few have come to his defense.   But the recent flap over his comments to Judge Napolitano show that no amount of clarifying will help people bent on twisting your words and meaning.      Here were Martin Luther King, Jr’s  words about Natural Law in his Letter from Birmingham Jail:

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law….And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, unBiblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular….Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators”‘, but the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide. and gladiatorial contests.

Would any of these critics on the right or left suggest that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a theocrat?


*One could perhaps disagree on whether that is best strategic approach to these issues but it would not change the argument that Huckabee was making about the legitimacy of changing the Constitution.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
  1. Mike Huckabee was asked recently about that statement as a guest on a Foxnews show. He did state that he should have used different verbiage. But he stood by his premise and clarified his initial statement.

      1. Yes Shane, I read the article.

        I was looking for the video of Huckabee admitting that he should have worded it differently. I posted my comment hoping someone would have a link to that video. 🙂

  2. MLK advocated freedom. Huckabee advocates second class citizenship for LGBT Americans. Huckabee supported (and he reaffirmed that support in 2008 – and presumably still does) throwing 300,000 HIV positive Americans in jail camps. Huckabee advocates the legality of firing all Gay people from their jobs. Huckabee advocates the denial of health care to LGBT Americans. Huckabee advocates no common sense AIDS prevention methods. Huckabee advocates lower pay for equal work for LGBT Americans. Huckabee’s response to the issue of Gay promiscuity is to make Gay monogamy illegal. Huckabee opposes parental rights for LGBT parents (even blood parents). He is a theocrat and a dominionist. MLK didn’t advocate for discrimination, Huckabee does.

    1. LBT,

      You are making almost all of that up about Huckabee, but that is another post, another day (unless you can actually try to prove any of what you say). But you missed the point. Assuming that MLK advocated freedom, he did it supporting higher law theory, and according the Media Matters and PajamaPundit, that makes him a theocrat.

  3. Governor Huckabee has the SAME views on gay marriage as Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain and the majority of people in America. They believe marriage is between one man and one woman. I am a huge Huckabee supporter and I happen to believe government should not pick and choose who has the rights to marriage and who doesn’t. Not saying whether I believe homosexuality is morally wrong or not, just government should not decide. I DO support Governor Huckabee for president and truly believe he will be the best choice for ALL people because he will make the best decisions for ALL AMERICANS.

  4. I am only going to reply to the accusation that included a link. You have mischaracterized the entire article. First, Huckabee never called for quarantining those with HIV. Second, in spite of the fact that you call his later statements a failure to retract, here is what Huckabee actually said:

    Responding to an Associated Press questionnaire, Huckabee said steps should be taken to “isolate the carriers of this plague” during his failed run for a U.S. Senate seat from Arkansas 15 years ago.

    He said he probably would not make the same statement today because of what is known about how HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is transmitted.

  5. Slight overly important correction to this post: For whatever issues the Bible defends and affirms, the truth of the matter is that the best way to defend these issues is not through an amendment to the Constitution. Why? Because the thing Jesus was doing was apolitical, or better put, did not worry about the reign of the government. To understand what I mean, do an indepth study of the passage where Jesus says, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar; give to God what belongs to God.” Jesus was about following God’s will with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might, not about forcing “God’s will” upon people with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. If God were about that, the forbidden fruit would never have been eaten, the flood never would have happened, and Israel would never have gone into exile.

    Being that I know that’s true, it’s factuality deconstructs your entire argument and makes it null and void.

    1. Well I suppose if you know it’s true, then it must be true. No, first of all, you are suggesting that Christian’s should never run for office, or that if they do, they must promote anarchy,

      You are argument seems to be that anything pertaining to law is off limits for Christians to have influence of make decisions. This is demonstrably unscriptural. For example, Romans 12 tells us that part of the purpose of the government is to bare the sword of Gods’ vengeance.

      1. Never suggesting Christians shouldn’t run for office. Not suggesting that Christians shouldn’t use their role in office to defend God’s love for God’s people and God’s creation. But am suggesting the Christians are about changing people’s hearts – repent, Jesus said – and defending the needs of the poor, the outcast, the widows, the orphans, the powerless (see Psalm 72 for an example), not about enforcing their legalistic views of the Bible upon the world – especially in a country that does not embrace one religion as the religion of the country.

        And my warning about the sword of God’s vengeance would be to recognize how God called Assyria to be that sword against Israel, but where the prophets ultimately condemned Assyria and Babylon, not because they had wielded the sword God gave them to enact justice, but because they had gone beyond God’s call for justice and had committed acts of atrocities instead. It is not a safe ground imagining you are called by God to wield the sword of justice and/or vengeance – that sword can be misused as easily by the powerful who do not respect God’s mercy.

      2. But I tell you what. You show that the primary goal (if you could prove secondary goal, I’d be impressed) of yourself, the writer of this blog, OR the politicians in support of HJR6 is to defend the causes, rights (like the right to life and thus the right not to starve to death, to have shelter, and to have illnesses treated – basic needs of life and the ability to continue living), and justice of the orphans, widows, the alien/immigrants of any legal status (for remember that you too were aliens in Egypt), the poor, the oppressed, the outcast, and the marginalized. These things are as traditional and Biblical as the time of the Exodus from Egypt. You show that and I will not argue with you on this issue.

        Also, I would like to point out that Romans 12 says that vengeance is God’s, and that rather if we want to somehow take part in God’s vengeance we only do it in the role of doing good: feeding the hungry, giving something to drink to the thirsty, overcoming evil with good, overcoming hate with love, earlier in the chapter blessing those who persecute you, living in harmony. Which only means you beg the same question of the government that I just asked you to prove. Does this government make it’s primary purpose to care for those who cannot, for whatever reason (notice there’s never a question of why poor people are poor in the Bible), care for themselves?

        I’m saying to you that when the goal of Christian politicians is to enact legalistic laws in defense of God’s will and to punish those who God’s vengeance “needs” to be enacted upon, yes, it promotes anarchy because it is taking God’s role into ones own hands.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

GAO Report: Obamacare Does Pay for Abortions

The Government Accountability Office issued a report that concludes that the Obamacare rules for abortion funding were ignored by the Obama administration.

Des Moines Tea Party

I attended the Des Moines Tax Day Tea Party today (you can…

Palin Interview Edits

I thought when I watched ABC’s Charles Gibson interview Alaska Governor and…

Obama’s 2nd SCOTUS Pick: Elena Kagan

I can’t say I know much about President Obama’s second nominee to…