Mike Huckabee, Dan Quayle, marriage, and Natalie Portman as the new Murphy Brown
No, Mike Huckabee is not the father of Natalie Portman’s love child. Dancer/choreographer Benjamin Millepied is. The couple fell in love during the filming of the abominable “Black Swan” and are said to be engaged, with Portman’s pregnancy very much on sedate display at the recent Academy Awards show when she won the Best Actress award.
Huckabee is now getting a fair amount of publicity for “slamming” Portmans’ pregnancy (although if this mild rebuke constitutes a slam, language has gotten more hopelessly liberal-PC than I had thought). Huckabee has even been compared to Dan Quayle (quelle horreur!), who famously criticized the TV show “Murphy Brown” for showing Murphy as an unwed mother and thus undermining traditional values about marriage and the place of fathers.
Quayle was widely ridiculed for criticizing a fictional character, and his remarks were treated as though they were evidence that he did not know the difference between fantasy and reality. The same cannot be said against Huckabee, although that doesn’t stop people from mocking him for his remarks (just take a look at the comments section of the link I posted to the Huffington Post, or at virtually any other liberal outlet covering the story).
First up, let’s take a YouTube trip back in time and see what Quayle actually said:
Seems to me as though he fully grasped just who the fictional Murphy Brown was, and exactly what the significance of her TV pregnancy meant both as a reflection of the decline of marriage and the norming of it for viewers. The type of unwed pregnancy Portman has—in which the parents-to-be are still together, still seemingly happy, and still seemingly able to marry but choose not to right now—is so commonplace in Hollywood and elsewhere as to be almost de rigueur.
We’ve come a long way, baby, haven’t we—right to the point where it’s Huckabee who’s now seen as the dinosaur for defending marriage and fathers; or for saying that single mothers are usually not rich and famous like Portman, but poor and struggling. No wonder so many men and women are unhappily at sea about whether marriage has any function at all.
I’ve got some questions for Portman and her “fiance:” you’ve got the money, you’ve got the time, and you’ve got the baby coming. Why not get married before the delivery?
Ms. Portman, on accepting your Best Actress award at the Oscar ceremony the other night, you thanked Millepied for giving you “the greatest gift,” presumably the baby. Is it too much to ask that you both give the baby a great gift, parents who are a married couple?
And if it’s too much to ask, why? Are you so very narcissistically intent on proving to the world that you don’t need such formalities to be in love and committed to each other? If so, why call yourselves engaged, then? And if you really are engaged, why not speed up the wedding and have it performed before the birth? Is is simply a matter of the perfect caterer being all booked?
I agree that they should get married, as it is in their kid’s best interest to have the extra stability that a marriage commitment provides.
Also, Candice Bergen (in 2002) piped up and said that she agreed with Quayle: “I never have really said much about the whole episode, which was endless. But his speech was a perfectly intelligent speech about fathers not being dispensable and nobody agreed with that more than I did.”
But she didn’t say anything at the time – probably because it was much easier to let others mock him than admit that he was right (and that he did know Murphy Brown was a TV character).
The problem comes when glamorous, wealthy people set an example for ordinary people who do not have the resources to deal with single parenthood. Ms. Portman can have nannies nurses, and all manner of support. Very few girls and women are in that position. The stigma formerly associated with unmarried motherhood (bastard, son of a bitch) had very positive outcomes for society and children.
Is it too much to ask that you both give the baby a great gift, parents who are a married couple? And if it’s too much to ask, why?
Hate, I suspect. The hatred of “superior” beings who are dependent on their supposed inferiors. Hate sprouting from the greatest sin, Pride.
Are you so very narcissistically intent on proving to the world that you don’t need such formalities to be in love and committed to each other?
Exactly.
If so, why call yourselves engaged, then?
While facile answers come to mind, this question is above my pay grade. For the time being I’m voting ‘Present’.
******************
When bawds and whores do churches build
Then shall the realm of Albion
Come to great confusion.
What’s the difference between getting hitched 2 days before the baby is born and 2 months after? Do you think the baby will care?
If they’re “engaged,” then assumedly they’re going to get married at some point. If they do it sometime in the next 3 years–i.e. before the child has any memories that will remain for the rest of his/her (do we know?) life–it doesn’t really even matter.
It’s just another sign of the deformation of marriage– I’ll bet cheerios to donuts that it will be a big, fancy production and that the bride will look lovely, slim, ect.
I place no bets on it lasting long enough for the child to have memories of both parents living in the same house.
It matters because of how it changes the parents and their relationship. Marriage is a commitment, and sometimes, putting things down as a matter of record is also important. It leaves less weasel-wiggle room.
Bryan: let’s see, where to begin?
I’ve known many couples who never bother to get married at all, and who remain “engaged” indefinitely, or till they split up. In fact, it’s quite common to see these “engagements” that last a decade and involve several children and a co-owned home. What does the word “engagement” mean in a context like that? Don’t know if Portman and Millepied will ever marry, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they don’t.
It’s about a state of mind, and about a message one gives, as celebrities (and, unfortunately, role models), to young people who still look up to you as some sort of ideal.
It devalues marriage, and when the child later grows up and discovers mom and dad’s anniversary date, the message is received loud and clear.
And if it’s a sort of “why not?” as to whether they get married before or after the birth, then why not before?
If the answer is, “because marriage no longer has meaning,” that’s a sad commentary and probably somewhat true, IMHO. Commitment no longer has much meaning for many people either, whether married, engaged, or just living together.
gs: I don’t see that hate has anything to do with it.
Ignorance, perhaps, and pride that one doesn’t need the things that society and religion used to consider important. It’s a bit puzzling, though, since I was under the impression that Portman has a strong Jewish identity and wants to raise her children in the Jewish religion. Traditional Judaism definitely is in favor of marriage, to say the least.
neo-neocon: I have great respect for the majority of what you write, but on this I simply don’t understand. How is having what amounts to a shotgun wedding (sans shotguns) weeks prior to her delivery date any better than having a marriage six months after the baby is born? Either the kid discovers one day “oh, my parents weren’t married when I was born,” or he discovers, “oh, my parents got married two weeks before I was born but weren’t married when I was conceived;” either way there’s not a lot of “respect for marriage” in the traditional sense going on.
I may have said this here before, but in case I haven’t: marriage, as currently practiced in the USofA is a rather bad deal for a man, as there is much downside and almost no upside for him.
Neo: Traditional Judaism definitely is in favor of marriage, to say the least.
Ah, yes, but as my good Catholic mother told me, the first child can come at any time, the second takes nine months. It’s a sly wink-wink nudge-nudge to the notion that sometimes people who get married are already expecting a child.
“Are you so narcissistically intent on proving… ?”
That’s a rhetorical question, but I’ll go ahead and vote yes.
I’m not someone who puts all of what we call traditional values on a pedestal. For example: I personally know queers who are in a loving, committed, and long term (25+ years) relationship. They are good and reliable neighbors. I would trust them to protect the lives of my children and grandchildren because I know their worth as individual human beings. IMO, they have the right to live their lives as they see fit because they cause no harm to others. They don’t insist that you accept their life style, all they ask for is tolerance.
Nonetheless, there are certain standards/traditions that are important. People who (conceive and) raise children together have obligations to themselves, the child, and society at large. Society has the right to expect that they take that responsibility seriously and make some sort of public commitment to each other and the child.
So the bottom line for me is results, not the trappings of ‘tradition’. I judge people by their actions, by how they live their lives. As MLK once wished, I judge individual people by the content of their character.
“you’ve got the money, you’ve got the time, and you’ve got the baby coming. Why not get married before the delivery?”
Because, deep down, it is now quite fashionable to have a little bastard.
To extend that just slightly. The more bastards you can create the fewer real families you have. The fewer families you have the greater the likelihood of individuals adopting the State as their “family.” Once this is accomplished you have the, well, NannyMammy State coming along quite nicely.
To do this efficiently make sure you can get the “taste makers” and “rich” and “celebrities” to go along with this. Role models. Think role models.
It’s also called “She protects her assets.” Why have a “pre-nup” when you can have a “no-nup?”
1. neo-neocon Says: gs: I don’t see that hate has anything to do with it.
I readily grant that I’m profiling on the basis of the venom in the Culture Wars, and on the basis of how Hollywood distills that venom. Iirc I’d seen the piece of Portman to which your response to me linked, and Portman apparently fits right into the Hollywood Left.
Accordingly, when Portman publicly deviates from traditional values, I am disinclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.
2. But note that I wrote that I suspect her motives are toxic. What are your answers to your questions?
3. I will tone down or withdraw my aspersion if Portman and Millepied marry before their child is born.
“the piece of Portman” -> “the piece on Portman”
This reminds me of Brangelina who won’t marry until gays can marry. At some point, you have to put your kids above political preening or calculating whether you will have regained your figure for your wedding photos. And people who have earned millions by being celebrities have a special responsibilty to be role models. They can undermine all the hard-working Walmart clerks, county roads workers, and small business operators who try to to instill basic values in their kids but aren’t cool enough to compete with the celebrity glamour. And they are influencing kids at ever younger ages. It’s disgusting.
Bryan: how about this way of looking at it—the kid either thinks, “My parents cared enough about me and about the institution of marriage to get hitched before I was born, when they found out they were expecting,” versus, “My parents were so casual (and/or perhaps uncommitted and/or perhaps undecided) about the whole marriage thing that, even though they knew I was on the way and they had plenty of time to have a wedding, they just couldn’t bring themselves to tie the knot before my arrival.”
If you don’t see the difference, I can’t help any further.
Plus, you are assuming they will indeed get married. Perhaps they will, but I certainly don’t assume it.
The greater lesson is how the media destroyed, after conspiring to destroy, Dan Quayle. And the beat goes on, and on, and on, and on.
I was far from being as politically hardened then, but thought, WTF is the matter with the media for jumping on a reasoned, rational and moral viewpoint? I know better now.
I live in a community where the overwhelming majority of children are born out of wedlock. Dads are pretty much non-existent here. Crime and other anti-social behavior are constants.
I believe that marriage is a fundamental building block for a community. I also believe it is the greatest social service institution ever invented. It is not perfect, but there is no government agency or program that can even approach its efficacy in rearing human beings capable of respecting themselves and others.
The entertainment industry has participated in the destruction of this phenomenal institution. I wish everyone would take the time to read Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s famous 1965 study on single parenting in the black community and his projection of what the future held if trends were not reversed.
These trends are spreading throughout American society and they should worry everyone.
There is nothing entertaining about single parent households and kids without Dads. Quayle was right on target.
The moment I heard what Gov. Huckabee said, I thought “He’s going to get pilloried just like Dan Quayle!”.
I doubt if they get married, Portman was probably just calling him her fiance during her Oscar campaign because it looked better than calling him her baby daddy. She’ll probably dump him soon. I’m with Huckabee, this sort of behavior is such a bad example, and lots of young women, (like my troublesome niece, who now wants a child, even though she has nothing to offer it) now think it’s okay and cool and glamorous to be a single mom. If you have 10 million bucks in the bank, maybe you could pull it off, although I think it’s still a bad idea. Kids need a mom and a dad, preferably under the same roof. At least start out with good intentions! That’s just how it is. But my niece and her dopey live in boyfriend, (who is finding himself and makes I think maybe minimum wage sometimes; many of you kindly read this sad tale a few posts ago) will now think for some reason, they get to have a baby too! It’s so cool! Maybe they’ll get a reality show! These poor little babies being born to such clueless narcissistic parents.
I’m with you, Neo. I always felt that women who bear children for men who can’t be Bothered to marry them are complete fools. Especially a young, beautiful woman like Portman, who, I should think, would be able to find a good man if she wanted to have children. And if she just thought it would be fun to hop in the sack and screw, then got a kid by accident, she’s showing her contempt for the baby’s need for a father.
And whenever I hear someone, usually a man, say, “We don’t think that piece of paper really matters,” I wonder why, then, do they go to such lengths to avoid signing it? Sounds like a load of garden fertilizer to me.
And good on Huckabee for saying something about it. I bet most folks agree with him.
Pingback:"Mike Huckabee Speaks Out on Natalie Portman Slam" and related posts | ItsStillAmerica.com
Why assume it’s the man who can’t be “bothered” to take the marriage step? I know at least as many women as men who are happy–even proud–to say that they “don’t think that piece of paper really matters.” Feminists have been saying exactly that for years now–and men are portrayed as stupid into the bargain. Fish, including those with spawn, don’t need bicycles, if you know what I mean.
There is something here that I have never understood about the glorification of movie stars. These are people who act, and if any of the recent movies are any indication not very well, and play someone other than themselves. Occasionally they might even play someone of real substance.
What have these people done except create a fantasy world that does not exist in most cases?
I wonder how many of us get a “do over” when doing our jobs? It is no wonder that many actors and actresses hate this country. When you think about the mentality that would make these people role models.
The simple fact is that marriage civilizes men. Unattached males are a threat to any society. A neighborhood where nearly all houses are occupied by married couples is a safe, low crime neighborhood. An area (neighborhood is too strong a word) where few people are married and most families are female headed is likely to be dangerous or at least high crime.
Society has an interest in promoting and supporting marriages.
Miss Portman desperately needs a grandmother like i had. Mine gave me the most dissapointing and shame inducing looks that i’ll never forget upon finding out i merely moved in with a girl at 19.
We need more parents and grandparents with the ability to just roll their eyes at the young and dumb, instantly letting them know just how ignorant they really are about the world and life in general.
Being married does make it just a little easier when the time comes when nothing will do but scooping up a black African infant.
“And if you really are engaged, why not speed up the wedding and have it performed before the birth? Is is simply a matter of the perfect caterer being all booked?”
neo,
Vera Wang gowns are expensive.
Besides, think about the magazine photo exclusives!
Natalie will have to hit the Bridal Boot Camp as soon as she’s out of the hospital… The poor baby will be watched by nannies in the meantime…
“The simple fact is that marriage civilizes men.”
In general this is true, but it doesn’t seem to be less effective in some societies. Like places where there are wall to wall mosques and nary a naked feminine ankle in sight.
Denise Says:
March 4th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
I live in a community where the overwhelming majority of children are born out of wedlock. Dads are pretty much non-existent here. Crime and other anti-social behavior are constants.
Something to make you stay up at nights:
I went to a school with a lot of higher class folks; out of 400 in the jr/sr high, there were six whose genetic parents were married when all the children were born, and who didn’t have half siblings. (no widows/widowers, either)
Three of those kids were my family, two were another family– that has since separated– and I didn’t know the other kid well enough to keep up with what happened there in the last ten years. Let’s assume they stayed together.
Two fully intact families, total, in a school largely populated by those with enough money to leave the city when they wanted to raise their kids.
Marriage is the foundation of family, family is the foundation of culture; we’re in trouble, and it’s even worse than the out-of-wedlock birth rate suggests.
Parker-
we’d have to check how the married vs unmarried act; I’d say there’s also a major difference between “two become one” marriage and “you’re one of many commodities I can afford” marriage.
When looking at test score performance of schools, one of the best predictors of good scores is a high percentage of children who have two parents at home.
Neo,
You make great points (and ask good questions), but based on your responses to comments, I suspect you already know your answers: the brilliant Miss Portman (and she *is* brilliant) may make fawned speeches about “gifts” but ultimately all she cares about is Number One. Children are a modern accessory — especially to celebs — to be shown off and handed off to nannies. The reason she won’t marry is an extension of why her “fiancé” won’t marry *her*: what’s the point? She’s already knocked up and there’s no point. From his perspective anything else is superfluous; she’s already said as much.
First wedding I went to was a Catholic High Mass.
I got the impression that this was a Really Big Deal and the ceremony was, in part, to emphasize that a lot of things were not going to be as they had been and society accepted and required the new regime.
Casually living together isn’t the same, not at all.
My niece wanted to have her children first so they could be in the wedding pictures. She got married when they were 3(best man) , and nine months, carried down the aisle fast asleep by maid of honor.