Mike Huckabee was at it again last night, telling the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference that "Somebody's got to be willing to take on the institutions [read: the Supreme Court] that challenge and threaten our ability to believe as we believe, because when religious liberty is lost, all liberty is lost."
In Huckabee's demagogic formulations, Ted Cruz has a real competitor. Never has Huckabee even remotely explained how the constitutionality of same-sex marriage either challenges or threatens his ability to believe as he believes, or how it in any way offends or assaults the principle of religious liberty. Never. Not once. Yet he thumps his Scripture and rattles his tambourine and frightens the bejesus out of childlike audiences who seem incapable of understanding that betwixt A and C there must be a connecting B.
It has been observed many times, by many others, that same-sex marriage merely enhances the concept of, duh, marriage. Yet I wouldn't argue or emphasize that point with Huckabee, for he would only respond with formulaic, preprogrammed mumbo-jumbo about one man and one woman as the only sanctified union. And I've no problem with that, if that's what Huckabee really believes, which he obviously does, and of course has every right to believe. He might not have noticed, but religious liberty in America is alive and well, as he himself demonstrates daily with all his thumping and rattling and religious demagoguing.
The point I would love to take up with him, however, is why his religious beliefs in this secular society should trump the civil law of the U.S. Constitution. That no one religion should eclipse the rights and free beliefs of other religions is a principle I am reasonably sure Huckabee would agree with. Why, then, under a federal constitution that makes no reference (except for its "in the Year our Lord" dating) to a Christian God — let alone a Baptist, Methodist or Pentecostal one — should his religious beliefs be allowed to trump secular law? To reverse the question, why does Huckabee presume public law to be inherently inferior to his private religion?
Indeed this was the very reason the founders omitted anyone's God from the federal republic's founding words: permit any religion a superiority among equals, or any privileged status in governance, and either a theocracy or chaos will most assuredly ensue. In an honest, Socratic conversation, it wouldn't take long to lead Huckabee into agreement with the founders, whose wisdom he seems to presently deplore.