Mike Signorile talks with Rachel Maddow about her Huckabee interview

I empathize with both sides. Maddow needs to be an independent reporter, and relationships with guests, subject matter, should be hers, even when she's ignoring an issue. But Signorile is absolutely right to point out how Huckabee's likeability doesn't excuse his homophobia. He got emotional about it towards the middle, which, unlike Huckabee with Maddow, may make Maddow think twice about coming back on his show.

There's a Daily show video going around now of Stewart and Huckabee, in which Huckabee says being against gay marriage isn't homophobic. Stewart wonderfully says his concern over protecting a word is semantics. Again, as with the other interview, people who disagree are extremely respectful, which is great. Or at least quiet enough to allow viewers to weigh either side of the argument.

But he also doesn't openly call Huckabee homophobic, he backs up, saying he never meant to imply that he was. This arguably legitimizes Huckabee's views.

To whom? My opinion on the matter doesn't necessarily hinge on what Jon Stewart says, and I doubt anyone else's does either. Huckabee's position is as wrong as it was before he was interviewed. And since it's certain to be based on his religion, it is illegitimate.

But I really liked the smackdowny way Stewart said two people who want to get married don't have to justify themselves to anyone. And of course, he nicely illustrated the hypocrisy of the American Christian position on equal rights by pointing out that marriage can and does change, often.

Re the Daily Show interview with Huckabee.

I thought Stewart took Gov. Huckabee to the mat, and forced him to answer some tough questions; specifically, when Stewart pointed out that he was shocked and saddened that a man as empathetic as Huckabee couldn't see that he's protecting semantics at the expense of the the equality of human beings. I thought that was as strong an argument as I've ever heard on the subject. I also loved that Stewart brought up the fact that religion is the true lifestyle choice, not sexuality. He kept emphasizing that point, and asked Huckabee when he chose to be straight. Obviously, Huckabee kept dodging the question and answering with jokes and platitudes.

Stewart did pull his punches with the homophobe remark, however. I think that not calling a spade a spade in this instance does a disservice to the cause. I agree with you that it almost legitimizes Huckabee's position and makes it seem like something on which reasonable people can differ, which it certainly isn't.

To the impressionable. To young people, to people who for whatever reason use what they watch on TV to inform their opinions. And to those who already agree with Huckabee.

Really, the question is, discussing gay marriage has been successfully framed as a religious issue, so what's the best way in debate to reframe it so it starts out as an equal rights issue? Do you shut the person down before religion or do you tease out their argument, then poke holes in it?

Here's the best argument I've heard:

If it's the word that is the problem with the churchers, then you have to go to every legal document in the nation as a whole, in every state, county, city, corporation, healthcare company, hospital, etc etc, and change the legal verbiage to "civil union," or some facsimile that encompasses what the Christers define as "marriage" and whatever they want to call gay marriage. That would be the only fair way for them to preserve "marriage" by this selective definition that happens to be in vogue this century.

I loved Jon Stewart's argument, but I always feel with TDS that he's preaching to the choir. And Huckabee will go back to his people and they'll see it his way. I don't think the Christers have any plans to give up this crusade to be the official definers of a malleable word, and as long as they hold sway in this country, then an alternative solution will have to be found.

In my opinion, having civil unions and marriages exist as two distinct legal entities isn't the answer as it promotes a separate but equal status. Even if all the rights associated with a civil union are exactly equal to those guaranteed by a marriage, calling it something different ultimately lessens its value and the value of the two people entering into the agreement.

Felt Pelt was right two posts up. Rather than using semantics to create a separate but equal agreement for gay marriage we need to start shifting the focus away from religion and make human rights the most important aspect.

You shut them down first. We're discussing legal contracts between consenting adults. That some religions use the same word to describe a ceremony they perform amongst themselves is irrelevant, even if one accepts their arguments for refusing to perform their ceremonies for certain people.

That's the generic you. I, personally, don't accept religious arguments because they appeal to an authority that does not exist. Might as well argue against gay marriage on the grounds that the Vorlon do not approve as far as I'm concerned.

Obviously it's a human rights issue, but since that argument isn't moving the Christers who have declared war on gay marriage, I think the way to point out that it's a human rights issue is to point out exactly where the discrimination would be. I have a Christian co-worker who is otherwise completely rational and normal but who won't budge on calling gay marriage "marriage." This is the wedge issue. They're sticking on the semantics. Therefore, the best way to combat that (imho) is to show them the vast amount of paperwork that will have to happen before their fantasy of gay marriage being called "civil unions" or whatever, can be in any way semi-equal.

ps. I'm not talking about calling straight marriage "marriage" and gay marriage "civil unions": I'm talking about calling ALL marriages "civil unions" - or whatever term it ends up being - and then changing the language on all legal documents in the nation/state/county/city/institutions, etc. to this term.

Unfortunately, the christers are never going to go for any reasonable solution, be it calling all marriages "civil unions" or allowing gays to marry. The only feasible solution is to outnumber them at the polls next time the issue comes up by demonstrating to people ( people who were either to apathetic to vote or chose not to vote) that it's an issue that can't be ignored. In AZ for example I saw a multitude of billboards, TV and radio ads and personally received calls pushing prop 102, while there was almost zero visibility for the other side. This, combined with the fact that the "yes on 102" campaign raised 17% more than the opposition, is what led to the passing of 102 (even though a similar measure was defeated just a couple of years ago).

I know. I'm not a proponent of civil unions. I think the whole "marriage is between a man and a woman" is ridiculous, unfair and bizarre.

My point isn't that civil unions are the answer. I'm commenting on the argument itself in terms of what might penetrate the skulls of the kinds of Christians that unfortunately still hold sway in this country and are not budging on the semantics. My posts are about an argument[, about what might be the most effective way of communicating with them. That's all.

Please, as if I haven't written enough angry posts on Prop 8 - I live in California!

So when Stewart and Maddow don't shut them down, are they guilty of being morally wrong somehow for allowing a forum for the religious argument to air? I know that's not what you're saying (I completely agree, religious definitions have nothing to do with legal contracts), but Signorile was. And I guess he's wrong, it's their style of discussion, and for discourse to be open you can't proscribe it.

If you listen to his interview, you can hear how he puts a lot of what he expects Maddow to be into what he's saying, and ultimately she's not going to be the type of crusader he wants. She has other goals.

The same thing happens with Stewart, and probably will more as he has to criticize Obama more and more. A few years ago there was a segment where he made fun of college kids who disrupted a Minutemen speech at a college campus. I thought he would go after the Minutemen, but instead he ridiculed the students for not allowing someone's views to be heard. Which seemed like a weird and arbitrary decision on his part. But it follows with his main point, which is that discourse should be unlike Crossfire.

Exactly, the counter-campaign is going to have to come up with some powerful framing. I watched the Yes on 8 crowd blow in and take over. They were on tv, on the airwaves, on every street corner, in every church, everywhere. They were organized, well-funded and not afraid to lie and distort the facts. The counter-campaign was too little, too late, disorganized, under-funded. And 8 passed in CA. Just a warning from someone who has lived through it.

ps. Huge chunks of money for this prop came from rich out-of-state Christers with an agenda. And in the Mormon Church it became a duty to tithe to this campaign. With this kind of funding and organization, it's going to be tough to beat everywhere.

I hear ya'. I just don't think any argument exists that is capable of penetrating their skulls that will result in a meaningful/acceptable resolution for both sides. The argument needs to be addressed to the people who are on the fence or those who think the issue doesn't effect them.

eta: or exactly what you said above!

I think you guys are missing a key point here, about the gay marriage problem. At least 50%, most likely a lot more then 50%, of the people voting No on it are not religious.

That's quite a list. I knew some of that, but I guess I'm one of those people. The argument on Signorile's show was just in terms of his anti-gay marriage position... Of course someone expousing those views, with followers and Presidential ambitions, should be called on them. But still, Stewart's strengths are best served by drawing Huckabee out as he did.

The very fact that you guys have to weigh up the considerations of a bunch of spaghetti-sky-monster self-deluders when it comes to an issue that is so fundamentally about human and civil rights in the supposed greatest democratic republic on earth, well and truely puts paid to the lie that you have any kind of seperation of church and state.

Rational minds are beholden to the whims of the flat-earth crew.

Fucking heart-breaking.

You can let someone have their say then rip them a new one, being entirely civil the whole time; Crossfire was probably worth watching at one point. I'm sure Maddow gave an entirely fair interview without much fluff, so I don't think Signorile has much of a leg to stand on when he complains that she didn't conduct the interview he wanted her to conduct.

As for winning the debate, yeah, I think the key is to take religion off the table before it can be used as the basis for the opposing argument. But interviewing Mike Huckabee for a few minutes isn't really debating the issue. No one is going to convince anyone of anything in one three-minute interview.

Tell me about it.

I went back and looked up the Think Progress post and I'm listening to the Spaulding interview right now.