ACLU Spokesperson: Mike Huckabee a Nasty Boy
Posted on December 27, 2007
Heh! I couldn’t resist commenting on this. One of the few issues that I thought Mike Huckabee was clear on turns out to be a flip from his position in the past.
A comment he made in a meeting with Monitor editors in August 2006 has also drawn scrutiny. As Huckabee has risen from an asterisk to leading the polls in Iowa, the news media – and his opponents – have seized on his suggestion then that he supported state-level civil unions.
“I would tend to leave (the question of civil unions) to the state, as long as they wanted to not call it a marriage,†Huckabee said in 2006. “Now if they’d call it a marriage, then I’d have a problem with it.â€
When he returned to the Monitor this month, he was asked to clarify his position.
“I’ve never supported civil unions, and I don’t,†Huckabee said. “I don’t know, honestly, how I said what I said (in 2006) other than, ‘Hey, that’s something New Hampshire has to deal with.’ â€
Huckabee said civil unions are a “precursor to same-sex marriage.†In some ways, he said, they’re the same because to dissolve one, a couple would essentially divorce. Huckabee added he’s not familiar with the specifics of New Hampshire’s law, because he’s never “been interested in a civil union myself.â€
But wait! That isn’t the whole story. The funny part is what an ACLU spokesperson had to say about it all. Regardless of which position Mike really believes out of the above, its safe to say he is against special rights for the gay community. This is one issue we don’t question him on. However, it is funny how this ACLU representative views “nasty”.
As Rita Sklar of the ACLU says, “He is hardly ever outright nasty. But he is suggestively nasty.†Either way you cut it, though, Mike Huckabee’s a nasty boy.
Interesting. According to Rita, either way you cut it being against special treatment for those that indulge in filthy gay sodomy is “nasty”. My, how definitions have changed.
» Filed Under ACLU, Homosexual Agenda, News
Trackback URL
Comments
6 Responses to “ACLU Spokesperson: Mike Huckabee a Nasty Boy”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
“Filthy, gay sodomy.” You have to worship these conserves with their “smaller govt, more freedom” routine. If anything, they are consistently inconsistent.
And utterly without shame.
You hate Huckabee so much that you’re willing to quote an ACLU official to attack him? Kind of defeats the whole purpose of the website, doesn’t it?
Huckabee does have some liberal tendencies. That being stated, he is, by far, the candidate that will stand up against attempts by the ACLU to attack religious freedom in this country.
It seems in your zeal to promote conservatism, you have taken you eye off the main objective, supposedly, of this website.
I frankly find your attacks on Huckabee disgusting and counterproductive.
Kirk –
The Huckster bring upon his own level of distaste in Conservative circles. But you are showing your ignorance of this site. We criticize the ACLU by using mostly their own words. That is the best way to combat them since most of what they do they do in the ignorance of humanoids like you.
We don’t “hate” Huckster. We don’t believe that he is cut from enough thread to be the leader of the free world. Why do you like him?
And oh… do you have your own blog or do you just like to troll other people’s and drop your troll droppings?
Technically he was not supporting civil unions. He was instead saying it was a state issue. Even then he objected to calling them gay marriage. He would be more willing to suffer them if they were not called marriage. That last statement has its own problem(legal mumbo jumbo) but it is not voicing support for gay marriages.
Kerwin, I agree. Perhaps he was clarifying his beliefs.
Kirk, I was actually DEFENDING Huckabee against the ACLU smear. I did point out his inconsistencies on the topic, but DEFENDED him against the ACLU idiot. Thanks, Jay
I know I shouldn’t feed the libtard troll, but I couldn’t resist.
And utterly without shame.
Yet, you’re the horndog who wants to stick your little pecker into anything that moves.
Ooooookay…
I can’t remember who said this, but someone once noticed that the libtards’ idea of freedom is that of a toddler: the “right” to say dirty words, the “right” to the other kids’ toys, the “right” to put anything in their mouths. Wiki here just verified it for us.
You have to worship these libtards with their “free speech for me (to broadcast who I’m sleeping with, not covered by the First Amendment) but none for thee (practising religion publically, actually covered by the First Amendment)” routine. If anything, they are consistently inconsistent.
Utterly without shame about making their kink everyone’s business.