[marron]

I think Beck is looking for some kind of judo trick to resolve this problem, looking for a way to thread the needle. He isn’t alone in this, I think a lot of political people are since there are other things they’d rather fight about; they’d prefer to shift the battle to a field of their choosing.

But sometimes that simply isn’t possible. You have to simply draw the line and refuse to cross it. You have to fight the enemy where he has chosen to fight you.

[Ohioan]

You make distinctions that are valid. However, it is not necessary for us to focus on the evils of homosexual behavior, politically. That should be up to the individual. Beck could make a common cause with homosexual advocates on all other issues, and not compromise his Conservative principles by endorsing an oxymoron that has the practical effect of confusing the moral purpose of marriage. But in confusing the moral purpose of marriage, here, he creates a very unfortunate, very counter-productive ripple effect, that can only undermine the moral basis of a great many of America's traditional moral values.

Examples are many. Property rights, for one. If society can make a mockery of family formation, why not make a mockery of property rights to appease the Marxists. Property rights & marriage (family formation) have been virtually inextricably connected, virtually throughout Western History. Magna Carta, in recognizing immediate property rights, recognized the inheritability of those rights--that has to do with family, slice it as you will.

There is room for a big tent; there is no room for humoring every wacko idea, in order to try to do the impossible--i.e., make sure every dissident in that "big tent" is happy. Nothing is more clearly self-defeating; self-destructive.

William Flax

[C. Edmund Wright]

I think you’re right. I’m no Beck apologist, but I think he’s just trying to change the subject to issues he thinks are more important.

[Yardstick]

His position would be perfectly fine IF what were being debated is whether government should be in the marriage business. But that's not what's being debated. In the current debate, both sides accept as an undisputed premise that government should be in the marriage business. The question is only how government should define marriage. Given this, what Beck is doing isn't so much a judo move as a cop out. The ball is on our ten yard line and he's two counties over avoiding the point.