This article is rather campy, but the original quotes are brilliant.
Mike Huckabee posted on his Facebook page:
“I may be lonely, I may be the only one, but I’m going to stand absolutely faithful to the issue of marriage not because it’s a politically expedient thing to do because it isn’t. I’m going to do it because I believe it’s the right position, it’s the biblical position, it’s the historical position.”
And here was the answer:
“There is no one biblical position on marriage, there are many and they include situations in which a soldier could take a POW as a wife, where a rapist was forced to marry his victim after paying her father 50 shekels (but only if he was caught) and polygamy. Does your support for biblical marriage mean you do not recognize interfaith marriages? Do you think marriages should be arranged and that women should be subservient to their husbands? Is there an upper limit on the number of wives and concubines or are you in the “As many as you can afford” camp? Do you think brides who cannot prove their virginity should be stoned to death?
I’m guessing it’s a big “Yes sir!” on the subservient thing because treating women as equals, doing right by them and working towards consensus is harder than reminding your partner that the Bible says she is a sandwich maker.
Historically speaking marriages could be dissolved if there were no offspring produced. Are you in favor of this pre-Christian convention? I’m not. I believe in love and I think the Christians got it right on that one. Speaking of Christians and the historical position: You people don’t always get it right. Same sex marriages were performed in ancient Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia, Africa, Asia and across the western hemisphere in the pre-Columbian era and, as John Boswell noted in his ‘Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe’ same-sex marriages were pretty normal up until the Christians took over in Europe.
So you can drop the “not because it’s a politically expedient thing to do” crap.”