Ann Coulter has criticized Governor Huckabee in a column and several interviews this week. Her full column can be found here. We will post a snippet from that column, and we have also posted the video of one of her interviews below. First, the video.
Ann Coulter: Neil Cavuto Show (FoxNews)
Second, a snippet from the column:
...And yet, Huckabee has said he agrees with the Supreme Court's lunatic opinion that sodomy is a constitutional right.
Lawrence was promptly denounced not only by Republican governors and Christian groups across the nation, but also by anyone with sufficient reading comprehension skills to see that the Constitution says nothing about a right to sodomy. But when Huckabee was asked about this jaw-dropping ruling from the high court, he said the majority opinion "probably was appropriate."
Huckabee Response
Naturally, we are concerned whenever a potential presidential candidate explicitly suggests that a decision such as Lawrence was decided correctly. We have looked further into the issue, and have come across Governor Huckabee's response to the criticism. We have posted it in its entirety.
Ann Coulter's comments are based on a response I made during a radio call-in show in which a caller asked what I thought about the Supreme Court ruling on Lawrence v. Texas. At the time I had not read the ruling and was basing my opinion on the summary by the caller. After reading the decision I believe it is obvious that the ruling was wrongly decided. Lawrence v. Texas is an extreme example of judicial activism. It could, in fact, be inappropriately used to attack our marriage laws nationwide.
I am in agreement with the dissent by Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas:
[The ruling] dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ...what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution'?
Furthermore, As Justice Thomas said, we might disagree with the wisdom of a law, but that is the province of the Legislature, not unelected judges. No such activist Justices will be appointed as long as I am President.
I wish Ms. Coulter had contacted me or my campaign to discuss my position in detail before writing her column. I would have appreciated the opportunity to clarify this matter.
Bottom Line
Governor Huckabee's response indicates that he might agree with the policy of repealing anti-sodomy laws, but that he disagrees with the notion that the Supreme Court of the United States has the authority to do so. Rather, Governor Huckabee seems to believe that if anti-sodomy laws are to be repealed, then it is the legislatures of the individual states that are to do so, not the Federal Courts. This is precisely the position that is expressed by Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. We will not go as far as to say that Ann Coulter's criticism was unfair; but we will say that when all of the facts are known, her concern on this matter is unfounded.
Ms. Coulter also criticizes Huckabee on his position on evolution and school textbooks. We will address that particular criticism in a future post.
