Huckabee’s Pathetic Attempt To Troll CA Lt. Gov. Newsom Met With Facts And Mockery (TWEETS)

Mike Huckabee (R-LalaLand) has grown so desperate in his attempts to defend Kim Davis that he has taken to Twitter to wage war against all things gay. His Twitter hashtag campaign has attracted the usual suspects: Todd Starnes, Ted Cruz, churches… and some trollers.

He has gone on TV and radio spouting his twisted interpretation of the Constitution and U.S. law. When actually confronted with his hypocrisy, he either stonewalls or changes the subject.

He defends Kim Davis but he is happy to attack others when he thinks they have broken the law. He did that on Sunday when he attacked California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsome for something he did when he was the Mayor of San Francisco:

“You’ve got Democrats who ignored the law when it was the law to have traditional marriage. Gavin Newsom in San Francisco as major, performed same-sex weddings even though it was illegal. Did he ever get put in jail?”

The Daily Caller gleefully Tweeted this out Sunday evening:

This Tweet was joined with one from Huckabee, sharing the link to his interview with The Daily Caller, which came not long after Huckabee had made the same comment on This Week With George Stephanopoulos. Talking point, much? Lt. Gov. Newsom was not going to let this stand. Over three Tweets, Newsom responded to Huckabee’s false narrative:

Huckabee took to quoting the San Francisco Chronicle and Newsweek at Newsom, with dates but no links. So it’s possible that the quotes came from op-eds or letters to the editor. Mr. Huckabee needs to learn about citing sources correctly if he wants them to be taken seriously.

Newsom pushed back at Huckabee, trying to get him to speak to the point:

This was met with more newspaper quotes:

And a question that shows a stunning misunderstanding of the entire situation:

The California Family Code says no such thing. Here is what is does say concerning married persons:

A reference to “husband” and “wife,” “spouses,” or “married persons,” or a comparable term, includes persons who are lawfully married to each other and persons who were previously lawfully married to each other, as is appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case.

Section 300-310: Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.

The only references to religion in The Family Code is to state that clergy can solemnize the contract. Nothing in here saying marriage is “between a man ana woman.” Fail, Mr. Huckabee.

The responses from “bystanders” indicate a much better understanding of the issue than Huckabee. One person Tweeted this:

Other responses:

And the nail in the coffin of Huckabee’s position, as far as I’m concerned:

That is the point, here. Mike Huckabee’s “religious freedom” doesn’t include anyone but Christians. And only ones who believe as he does, to boot. My religion isn’t included in his definition; he’d burn me at the stake, given the chance. Islam isn’t included in his definition. Nor Buddhism, Baha’i, Shinto, Hinduism, Sikh or any other “foreign” religion. Atheists? Forget it. You’ll be next to me at the auto de fe.

Kim Davis broke the law. That is the only relevant fact here. Huckabee’s clinging defense of her marks him as a zealot. This man is not fit to be president of anything but his local church group.

With all due respect, Mr. Huckabee (after all you do play a mean bass), please stop. You’re on the wrong side of this issue and, frankly, you look stupid.

 

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr