Mike Huckabee On Marriage And Submission Of Wives
January 11, 2008 17 Comments
17 Responses to Mike Huckabee On Marriage And Submission Of Wives
Leave a comment
Verse of The Day
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Cluster Map
Recent Comments
 | Festus K. Chea on A Few Quotes From Karen A… |
| Festus K. Chea on A Few Quotes From Karen A… |
| Alexandria Ocasio-Co… on Obama’s Plans Refuted In… | |
 | Gregg on Why Your Next Pastor Should Be… |
 | Reyid on A Few Quotes From Karen A… |
The Everyday Christian 
Pingback: Christ and Pop Culture | Mike Huckabee On Marriage And Submission Of Wives
damn if that isn’t the dumbest thing i’ve ever heard of submit me never its’ unconstitutional denys me my civil rights damn i love being a paralegal
LikeLike
Pennyg,
You miss the entire meaning of what it means for husbands and wives to submit to each other.
LikeLike
love it!! he is so honest and well-spoken and bold in his faith.
LikeLike
He’s a member of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations)… they promote one world gov’t and religion. And trust me, Christianity is NOT going to be the one world religion. Better ask Huckabee a little bit more about that.
LikeLike
Umm, yeah, that’s exactly what I tried to express the other day on my blog about Jack Holland’s amazing book. Check it out, it’s called Misogyny: the World’s Oldest Prejudice.
http://literaryaddict.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/misogyny-the-world’s-oldest-prejudice-by-jack-holland/
LikeLike
Huckabee’s actually gives a balanced Christian view of marriage.
http://samnunnally.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/submission-vs-coercion/
http://samnunnally.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/what-does-a-christian-family-look-like/
LikeLike
Pingback: Huckabee on Wives Submitting to Husbands « Unsaved
Equally disconcerting is Mitt Romney’s refusal to distance himself from the Mormon’s official policy with respect to the soul (Mormon teaching has the woman’s soul belonging to her husband; which means that if a woman divorces a real bugger, her soul remains with him in the ever-after). It’s the same way across the conservative board: women have no rights to their own beings, be it physical or spiritual.
Frankly, I cannot vote for people who follow those types of phoney and anti-Christian teachings.
LikeLike
The whole american election is embarrassing for the human race. What we should be discussing is ‘Is this person suitable to represent the most trigger happy country on this planet’. Being not from the United States (ask an american to name 2 countries that start with “U”‘) I find their whole election procedure disgusting and borderline illegal. To those that think it is democratic, I hope Darwin rains down evolution on you 🙂
LikeLike
That man is giving my God-given, Naz-lovin’ soul a bad case of the Creeps, and lately of the Willies and the Heebeegeebees as well. I would really appreciate the counsel of believers accustomed to facing down the strong-meaty demands of our faith, and would love it were secularists or non-Christian sectarians to offer their opinion also on what I’ll briefly list here as two “texts” bearing on this question of what kind of Christian Mike Huckabee in action is.
Mike Huckabee seems a perfect contemporary example of what Soren Kierkegaard called a “Statistical Christian”. Rather than elaborating on this, allow me please to recount in my own reportorial way two very public displays of Mr. Huckabee’s faith in action.
In the Florida GOP farrago we can call a “debate” only with quotation marks because of CNN’s ridiculous efforts to corrupt the process, CNN had a carefully chosen and exceedingly snide questioner ask Mr. Huckabee for his position on Biblical inerrancy. Mr. Huckabee used the opportunity to direct to himself a question not asked: What is the essence of the Christian creed? His inevitably practiced answer to his own question was: Helping the poor. CNN’s “coverage” of its own exceedingly tendentious and sophomoric efforts at electioneering, a program it billed as a “Republican Presidential Debate”, aired nationally and during family viewing hours.
In the most recent debate we have Mr. Huckabee prefacing his remarks with the plaintive mock-protest that he is ever thrust into the category of “The Christian Candidate”, implying too many lies to list here. He then rightly places the question concerning the SBC’s plank on marriage into its Pauline context, only to offer the debate audience a gloss rather obviously calculated to go down easier with voters than would Paul’s original do in present American cultural circumstances. (I’m trying to be precise here without being ponderous.) Mr. Huckabee chose to let uncommitted voters in New Hampshire know that as far as he is concerned the Bible asks nothing of wives that it does not require in kind from husbands; so, no actual division of labor, so to speak. In short, a partnership greater than the sum of its two parts. OK. No problem. Got it. Lots of folks see it that way, or wish to. Nothing scary, nothing weird and ancient Middle Eastern woo-woo about that. Nothing challenging.
I ask any of you, whether secular or non-secular, is this what the Greek Scriptures say? Also, do the Gospels, or else the historical Christian faith tradition, inform us that the creed consists essentially and summatively in helping the poor?
LikeLike
Tim,
You said
This is laughable, “disgusting” and “ilegal”….are you serious. Why are you so hostile to the American political system? I notice that you do not mention what country you are from. Why is that? Are you concerned someone might see fit to point out flaws in the political system of your country?
LikeLike
Pingback: Huckabee’s Lies on Marriage and Submission « Fitness for the Occasion
pennyg on January 12 @ 8:44,
Unfortunately you demonstrate that a paralegal is to a lawyer as the paranormal is to the normal.
You declare that a woman has a constitutional, civil right not to submit to her husband. Nonsense. You do not know the first thing about the law, pennyg.
In this nation the first thing about the law is the federal Constitution. And the first thing to know about the U.S. Constitution is that it does not grant any rights, but only protects rights already in the possession of the People who, through their state governments, constituted a joint government, which constitution of a collective or federated government was memorialized in the document entitled “Constitution”, the summation of the things about which the federating states had come to agreement. Got this so far, pseudolegal?
The Constitution protects only those few rights specified, and marital rights of any kind do not make that list. Constitutional protections consist solely of limitations of governmental authority and action, and have nothing whatever to do with limiting the authority or actions of individuals, such as a husband’s authority over, or actions contrary to the will of, his wife.
Because of this, a person cannot violate the Constitution; only the government can do so.
And that, in a nutshell, is the first thing about American jurisprudence, the first thing about which you have shown that you know nothing, because you are only a paralegal who supposes that to work for lawyers is to be one.
I would advise you to refrain from practicing law without a license, as you are given to mistaking yourself for, and thereby impersonating, a licensed professional. For this transgression there are criminal, and not civil or constitutional, remedies.
And that is the second thing to know about U.S. law.
LikeLike
Yanno, Hughvic, your response to the paralegal chica is underhanded, mean and just flat-out wrong as to the Constitution.
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” If such pursuit means that a woman has a right (yes, I wrote “right”) to not submit to her husband. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but given your response to pennyg, I doubt you’d understand it. Especially since you yourself are not an attorney licensed to practice anywhere in this country.
LikeLike
Sauer Kraut,
No such “right” (to not submit to her husband) exists for a woman. The same is true for men as well…they have no “right” not to submit to their wives.
Why is this? First we must establish where rights come from. They do not come from the Constitution or from the government. They do not come society. They do not come from within the person themselves. So where do they come from? Good question. All the rights that we have are granted to us by our Creator. We have no more or no less than He has seen fit to bestow upon us.
Now that we have established where our rights come from we can see what God has given us in the area of submission. Ephesians 5:22-33 says
From this we can see that God has a plan and God has assigned roles for the man and the woman. He is the Creator…we are the creation. It is up to Him to decide how submission should be inside the institution of marriage. He was very clear. We have no right to complain. Our only option is to be obedient (and receive His blessings) or disobedient (and suffer His punishment).
LikeLike
Well, sauer kraut, you’re right about one thing: it’s mean. Know why it’s mean? Because of loved ones done wrong by people impersonating lawyers on the Internet. Please do not respond that that should have been emptors caveat, as that would add insult to injury, and I know that you wouldn’t want to be mean.
As to my knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, I am in fact a Constitutionalist, and have taught the subject — though I no longer do so — at the postgraduate level after studying it in four American universities. The great preponderance of American law school students take one two-semester course in Con Law.
What you are citing is not Constitutional; it is the Declaration of Independence. You are citing Mr. Jefferson, who was neither the author nor co-author of the Constitution. The Declaration we all love, and which continues to speak for us as it did for our forebears, is not the charter of the federal government; it is a declaration of war. The Constitution and its amendments constitute our only charter, and they alone protect our enumerated rights at the federal level, while the protection of any and all other rights is reserved to the states. The elder Mr. Adams chose the word “reserved” to emphasize that the limited rights placed under the protection of the federal authorities then forming had been remanded to the joint governing structure by the states who were then chartering that structure and deciding which functions were best handled by them collectively, through the collective governmental umbrella they were then constituting. Everything else, they held unto themselves, including the right at any time to dissolve their federation, their federal government, either by withdrawing from the federation — which is tantamount to its dissolution — or by revoking its chartertered duties enumerated by its very constitution. The memo headed “Constitution”, which I think you’d agree is the greatest memorandum in history, also specifies the procedures for such a dissolution, and the later failure of the Southern states to meet those criteria, after more than a decade of effort, caused them to turn to violent alternatives. They were violently angry precisely because they felt that, having chartered the governing structure of the states united in the first place, it was their “right” to dissolve that charter by means of the first of the two processes summarized here. Mr. Lincoln disagreed with their construction, their Constitutional interpretation. A war was fought. Lincoln prevailed, and therefore so has his interpretation prevailed to the present moment.
sauer kraut, I have been a law professor and lawmaker, but I have never practiced law nor pretended to practice law, nor mistaken myself for the attorneys who have hired me to teach them. That is another reason why I rather angrily urged pennyg not to do so. Notwithstanding your implications to the contrary, it has nothing to do with legal practice being impressive to me, as it is no more impressive to me than it is to any American who knows lawyers to be in the main selfish persons formally trained in the techniques of prevarication and “strategic misrepresentation” — otherwise known as lying. Indeed, of the very most distinguished Constitutionalists in the American professoriat, the majority has neither practiced law nor even attended law school. They are typically political scientists, political theorists, and historians.
Finally, on your point and pennyg’s, regarding a woman’s “right” not to submit to her husband, I was hoping to nip pennyg’s ludicrous line of legalistic argument in the bud, as first of all the word “submit” in this context is extralegal, and hopelessly vague and overbroad in any event. It’s perfectly legitimate to do a legal analysis of the Pauline admonitions to this effect, not least because St. Paul was himself a retired prosecuting attorney with a lifelong gift of and predilection for jurisprudential reasoning. But a legalistic exegesis of this sort would not here be very beneficial, and frankly could, like Mike Huckabee, only do more harm than good, as it would be, like Huckabee’s presidential run, a farfetched and hypothetical exercise.
In the United States marriages are licensed by governments, and not by God alone. I personally regret this fact, but my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. The licenses are of course contracts, entered into, as are all binding contracts, voluntarily by the parties. The Constitution does not contemplate contracts except in terms of property rights, which I hope we agree do not pertain to a husband’s relationship to his wife, though they were accepted, in other days, for application to a white man’s relationship to his Negro chattel.
All of which is to say that I think that Mr. Huckabee, and pennyg, and you and I and the others are on firmest ground when we stick to St. Paul, and to what he said was the will of God on the subject of the right relationship of wife and husband, one to the other. I note that you did not take up my earlier question as to whether Rev. Huckabee is right in saying that a husband’s spousal duties are the same as a wive’s. My objection to Mr. Huckabee that he deviated from Paul’s teachings — as indeed he is given to doing publicly — and offered instead a self-styled interpretation more ready for Prime Time in a campaign season.
In Prime Time, children are watching. They are innocent, of course. The littlest of these therefore can be led astray. Mr. Huckabee would lead us astray of St. Paul on marriage. The Lord says that it would be better for such people as the Rev. Huckabee were they to be tied about the neck to a millstone and cast into the sea.
Now, what was “underhanded” about my all too forthright response to pennyg?
LikeLike