The Iowa caucus winner weighed in on the state's perennial debate over displaying the Confederate flag Thursday, expressing sympathy with those who believe the rebel banner should be flown.

He has reiterated his support for constitutional amendments to ban abortion and same-sex marriage -- which he told the Web site Beliefnet.com could open the door to polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality.

"Once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again," he said.

Huckabee also told a Michigan audience ahead of that state's Tuesday primary that, "What we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."

And he has toughened his stance on illegal immigration, signing a pledge Wednesday to oppose "amnesty" for illegal immigrants if elected.

liberal republicans like McCain and Huckabee

But your constitution has nothing to do with God. There's this nice thing called separation of Church and State. The idea being that no religion pushes itself on anyone else. If marriage is an institution with responsibilities and benefits conferred upon it by the state, then the state ought not to discriminate against it's own citizens because of one religion's rules on how to use your p<genki>s. If gay people can live happily together for years and adopt and raise a child even, why deny them the help that heterosexual couples get? Or are you concerned that this will interfere with the sacred right for marriage to be between two drunk people who don't know each other and get married for $20 in a chapel in Vegas?

And you can't expand the sex argument to cover sex with non-consenting partners.

Marriage is inherently religious, though. Civil marriages are a relatively recent phenomenon. It isn't that God would be specifically brought into the constitution, it's that he is saying, in my opinion, that the constitution should reflect the values most people have which are religious in basis.

I don't think marriage is something the government should regulate or give perks based on.

Marriage is a religious institution. I think the government should honor separation of church and state and stay the hell away from it. If one denomination believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman, fine. If another denomination believes same-sex is acceptable, fine.

I don't think marriage is something the government should regulate or give perks based on.

There also is nothing truly controversial about the same sex argument. If you broaden the definition, every group practicing a particular sexual lifestyle can use the same argument.

Marriage is a religious institution. I think the government should honor separation of church and state and stay the hell away from it.

Guess what, Marriage carries more than religious connotations now. It matters in cases of end of life situations, where a parent, who may have completely removed the man on the deathbed from their lives, who then gets to choose whether the person lives or dies, rather than the man who has steadfastly stood by him for 20 or 30 years!

Anyone who wants to bar a loving person from deciding these decisions for their mate is just insane. They have no perception of right and wrong, and are only a mouthpiece for a religious ideology that has no place in law.

Marriage may be inherently religious but it is not solely religious anymore. The government needs to either step out or give the same rights to everyone. It does not matter if marriage is defined as "a union between a man and a woman." That's semantic bull**** that bigoted *******s use to justify their narrow minded beliefs, and nothing more.

Yes. Sorry, I wasn't clear, I didn't disagree with you, I was only commenting along side what you wrote.

Anyone who wants to bar a loving person from deciding these decisions for their mate is just insane. They have no perception of right and wrong, and are only a mouthpiece for a religious ideology that has no place in law.

The basis of our legal system is religion.

And if the people of a state want to ban gay marriage then shame on the government for ramming it down their throats.

This is where the miseducation of people is so obvious. The basis of our legal system is religion. And if the people of a state want to ban gay marriage then shame on the government for ramming it down their throats. And if a super majority of states want to pass a constitutional amendment banning it federally then that would negate the argument, anyway.

As it is, it is just bigoted to call someone insane and that they have no perception of right and wrong because you disagree with them about letting gays marry.

1. Thou shall have no other Gods before me.

Blatantly unconstitutional. The free exercise clause of the first amendment guarantees that we each have the right to follow any God and any religious belief system we wish.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

Also unconstitutional on free exercise grounds. Americans can make any graven image they wish to make, and bow down to whatever god or idol they wish.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain

Unconstitutional on both freedom of religion and free speech grounds.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy

Again, unconstitutional on free exercise grounds.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother

A good idea, in most cases, but a law requiring it would be unconstitutional and outside the purview of government. You can't legally enforce an individual's feelings toward their parents.

6. Thou shalt not kill

This one is obviously constitutional, and is a part of our legal system. But it's also found in EVERY legal system, even those that have nothing to do with the bible or Christianity. No society can condone murder of each other and survive, so this is simply a survival imperative.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery

Another one that is a good idea, but not constitutional if legally enforced. Adultery is a moral wrong, but it's a private matter between individuals.

8. Thou shalt not steal

This is the second one that is obviously constitutional, but also found in every legal system regardless of the religious system that may have initially spawned it. A universal imperative that would be part of the law even if the bible never existed.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour

Some have interpreted this to be analagous to our perjury laws, but nothing in the text indicates that. It's talking about lying in general, not in a legal sense during court proceedings. And while lying may be wrong, it's not legally wrong except in specific circumstances - perjury and libel/slander. Under our system, most instances of lying would be covered by the first amendment free speech clause.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's

Not only unconstitutional, it would require the ability to read minds. If coveting what your neighbor has was against the law in the US, there would be no "keeping up with the Joneses". You cannot, under our system, legislate against thoughts or feelings.

The basis of our legal system is religion.

And yes, anyone who sees a slippery slope from homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality is insane.

I'm sorry, but what is so inherently religious about marriage? I don't recall any marriage happening in the bible. I mean sure, there were married people in the bible, but there were also polygamists (which is now bad?) and murderers. Marriage should be no more religious than circumsicion, which is mentioned in the bible a whole heck of a lot more.

Marriage may be inherently religious but it is not solely religious anymore. The government needs to either step out or give the same rights to everyone. It does not matter if marriage is defined as "a union between a man and a woman." That's semantic bull**** that bigoted *******s use to justify their narrow minded beliefs, and nothing more.

Actually, let me say that I'm not defending Huckabee. He has obviously been pandering to the religious. Despite his liberal record I could vote for him because of his support for the Fair Tax. The Bush tax cuts were okay but by further shifting the tax burden to the wealthiest tax payers he has created a mentality in many Americans that they could care less if taxes are raised on the rich because most people aren't paying much if any federal income tax now.

Most of the founding fathers hated religion. They were deists at best. Thomas Paine wrote one of the most vicious attacks on Christianity of the time in The Age of Reason.

It's ALL semantic bull. The ONLY reason any marriages need to have a legal aspect to them, is for the protection of the kids that marriages usually result in. Anything else is just a relic from the days when gender roles were a lot more defined and stereotyped. It really doesn't matter at all. There's no reason a gay couple couldn't go out right now and get an unofficial marriage. If the government right now stopped recognizing marriage, people would still get married. The whole issue is just a bunch of garbage where both sides are trying to use the legal system to thumb their noses at the other side. It really does not matter to me one way or another, but I really, really don't want anyone screwing around with the constitution.

Fair Tax would only work if they first dramatically cut spending. In order for them to get the same currently insufficient amount of revenue, everyone with incomes between 30,000 and 200,000 would see their taxes go way up.

Actually, you're wholly and perfectly wrong. The entire brujah is about a lot of tax laws that only married couples get access to. Taxation and benefits and credit all work a LOT differently when you're married as opposed to just a civil union.