Vanity - Fox News just aired a "Marriage Equality" Commercial

Fox News

[HawkHogan]

By chance, did anyone else just the commercial on Fox News promoting homosexual marriage? I had to check the channel to make sure I was watching Fox News.

I know Fox News have been moving to the left, but selling ad time to organizations promoting homosexual marriage?

I may stop watching Fox News all together and stick to purely online discussions.

[mnehring]

It all depends on where the ad purchase came from, which we don’t know.

1. The purchase could have been made directly through News Corp (Fox News’ parent company). In which case they could have influence over its airing. Of course, then you get into a lot of legal issues if you deny it so you have a whole mess of lawyers involved.

1a. You then have another issue which is if the ad was purchased directly from this PAC or was it purchased through an agency thus, potentially masking who it was actually supporting. (yes, the network would still see it before it ran but by that time, the contract would be in place.)

2. The purchase could have been made through the cable or satellite provide for national airing. Example, they could have gone through Comcast or Direct TV and purchased the ad time for national broadcast over the time allotted for national purchases through them.

3. The purchase could have been made through the cable or satellite provide for the local commercial allotment. These are like how you would see your local car dealers or other businesses purchase.

Most likely it isn’t 3. It could be one or two.

This is why I’m not crazy about boycotts over indirect advertising. You don’t know who or how the purchase was made so you could be targeting the wrong group.

Better to promote what you believe and fund the PACs that run ads supporting your positions.

[MichaelCorleone]

“After all, Beck is pro-queer marriage.”

Are you sure? I thought GB was a church-going man.

[vette6387]

“I may stop watching Fox News all together and stick to purely online discussions.”

I “swore off Fox” the day after the November elections and use FR and other sources on-line myself to keep informed. Now, I have my evenings free to do productive stuff and I think I am calmer because I no longer have the “sis boom bah” of the FNC bumper music coursing through my head and I don’t have to ever suffer the Alan Colmes “listening to an Idiot RAT syndrome.”

[mnehring]

Beck leans Libertarian on a lot of these issues and wants the government out of it. (which I disagree with of course, marriage is a legal term that must be clearly defined due to existing contracts).

[vette6387]

“Are you sure? I thought GB was a church-going man.”

Beck is a practicing Mormon! The Mormon Church ( coupled with the Catholics, how’s that for the odd couple?) provided the money and the organization to pass Prop 8 (which was subsequently found “unconstitutional” by a fag Federal Judge by the name of Vaughn Walker) here in California.

[Viennacon]

Ever since a sit-down with Penn Jillette, Beck couldn’t care less if you married your sister and a dog.

[CSM]

Luckily, during my last cable provider quoting process, I picked Dish. They have the blaze and I am very happy to not have to watch the morons on Fox.

If you can, I’d recommend the switch to Dish. I’m very happy overall with their service. However, I do have to admit that during the last ice storm I did lose reception for at least a day. However, I get 400 hrs of DVR time for free, so I had plenty to watch....

[jboot]

Not a surprise. Anybody can buy ad time, and few networks really care who they sell to. Fox isn’t really conservative, anyway. They are just slightly right of center, sort of like John McCain when he is on his meds.

[CSM]

“After all, Beck is pro-queer marriage.”

Not true. He IS anti-federal government involvement in marriage.

[Responsibility2nd]

“After all, Beck is pro-queer marriage.”

Not true. He IS anti-federal government involvement in marriage.

 

That's just as bad. But still... “After all, Beck is pro-queer marriage.”

And read this.

Glenn Beck Defends Gay Marriage: Republicans Need To 'Expand Our Own Horizon'

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:48:27 AM · by SeekAndFind · 634 replies

Business Insider ^ | 12/11/2012 | Grace Wyler

Conservative firebrand Glenn Beck has joined a growing chorus of Republican commentators in defending gay marriage, laying out a strong case for ending government opposition to letting same-sex couples wed. "Let me take the pro-gay marriage people and the religious people — I believe that there is a connecting dot there that nobody is looking at, and that's the Constitution," Beck said during a recent segment of his online talk show. "The question is not whether gay people should be married or not. The question is why is the government involved in our marriage?" While Beck's defense of gay marriage...

 

“After all, Beck is pro-queer marriage.”

Not true. He IS anti-federal government involvement in marriage.

 

That's just as bad. But still... “After all, Beck is pro-queer marriage.”

And read this.

Glenn Beck Defends Gay Marriage: Republicans Need To 'Expand Our Own Horizon'

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:48:27 AM · by SeekAndFind · 634 replies

Business Insider ^ | 12/11/2012 | Grace Wyler

Conservative firebrand Glenn Beck has joined a growing chorus of Republican commentators in defending gay marriage, laying out a strong case for ending government opposition to letting same-sex couples wed. "Let me take the pro-gay marriage people and the religious people — I believe that there is a connecting dot there that nobody is looking at, and that's the Constitution," Beck said during a recent segment of his online talk show. "The question is not whether gay people should be married or not. The question is why is the government involved in our marriage?" While Beck's defense of gay marriage...

[CSM]

The title of your article and the intro is a twisting of the words that they do carry later on.

He said, “The question is not whether gay people should be married or not. The question is why is the government involved in our marriage?”

Which is true. The question as currently is being discussed is invalid on its face. The constitutional question is where is the Federal Gov’t authorized by the constitution to address the issue.

The way that this article twists his words, and you are advancing, is equivelant to the lefts twisting of a constitutional stance against the Dept of Ed. If you want the Feds to stop meddling in the local schools, then you must be promoting sharia schools. After all, some localities might be supportive of such schools, so by espousing the removal of federal oversight, then you must de facto support sharia schools.

It is ridiculous....

[Responsibility2nd]

The way that this article twists his words...

 

I hear this same blah, blah, blah evertime I link that article to someone claiming Beck is not pro-queer marriage. Hell, I don't keep score or anything, so it may be only YOU that denies this charge. I don't know. But I do know Beck is a libertarian, a Mormon and is frequently on the wrong side of conservative issues. You say that article twisted his words?

Whatever.

If it walks like a duck.....

[MamaB]

I have not watched any network news since the 80’s. I get mine online from many sites. I get most from FR and FB.

[kearnyirish2]

“Faux News just pays lip service to conservatives in a cynical ploy to try to get them to tune in, but they really are pretty much as left as all the others. Plus they suck as a news organization.”

You’re absolutely right; they seem to look where CNN/MSNBC are on issues, then just move to the slightest bit to the right. I haven’t watched since I saw Al Sharpton on there, being addressed as “reverend”.

[kearnyirish2]

“There is no conservative network. Just go to Freerepublic and Drudge for news.”

You read my mind; also keep one local website on hand for traffic/weather...

The media industry has no idea how to cope with the fact that the right in this country can ignore them in the same manner the uninformed left does (those that can’t read or write); they’ve lost a slew of viewers to sell to advertisers.

[CSM]

“If it walks like a duck.....”

By the same token, I can accuse you of being a supporter of Federal Government intrusion into State’s rights. I doubt that is truly the case, but hey, it walks like a duck.

[Intolerant in NJ]

They’ve been running them - supposedly by some former military type who wants to be best man at his gay brother’s wedding - the full-court press is on.....

[Amendment10]

I may stop watching Fox News all together and stick to purely online discussions.

I still occasionally watch Obama guard dog Fx News when the dog eats the National Enquirer. /s

You'll probably never hear the following from Fx News, an analysis of politically correct gay marriage versus federal and state equal protections clauses, previously posted in related FR threads in conjunction with misguided patriots who are petitioning the Supreme Court to give its blessing to gay marriage in California.

If both patriots and Obama would just take a few minutes to examine relevant amendments to the Constitution which were added after the 14th Amendment (14A) was ratified, then there would be no question that lawless Obama has once again not done his homework regarding how federal and state constitutons should be interpreted, so-called gay marriage rights the issue in this case. (Again, sometimes I think that many patriots interpret the Constitution's "pursuit of happiness" clause as a license to spend all their time merely complaining about tyrants like Obama; the Founding States arguably wasted their time writing everything following the pursuit clause.)

To begin with, the Equal Protection Clause of California's constitution is expressly based on the Equal Protection Clause of the federal 14th Amendment as the link below will show.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 7.

And since 14A's equal protection clause is now in the picture, what Constitution flunky Obama is wrongly doing with the equal protection clauses of both federal and state constitutions for political gain is this. He has put on his "magic glasses of self-deception" in order to read into these clauses the indefensible generalization that the states cannot make laws which discriminate against people. But examples of perfectly legal discriminatory laws are plentiful as evidenced by age requirements for purchasing things like alcoholic beverages and cigarettes, driving privileges, and gender distinctions as evidenced by men's and women's restrooms, etc..

The problem with Obama's PC fantasy concerning equal protections and gay marriage is that it ignores the following sequence of events. After the Civil War had ended, regardless that the brand new 14th Amendment's equal protection clause was undoubtly still very fresh in the minds of federal and state lawmakers, evidenced by California's inclusion of much of the language of 14A into its own constitution, note that some states continued to enforce voting laws which prohibited people from voting on the basis of race, sex, owed taxes and age as evidenced by the post 14A ratification of the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments respectively, 26A actually making prohibition of voting by age uniform among the states.

In other words, the equal protections clauses of federal and state constitutions require the states to make discrimination laws which discriminate equally. If only white males were legally eligible to vote in a given before the 19A was ratified, for example, then voting officials in that state couldn't find an excuse to prohibit Irish-Catholic men from voting.

At this point, Obama's equal protection idea concerning gay marriage is trashed imo. This is evidenced by states, including California until 1911, which continued to prohibit otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of sex until 19A was ratified in 1920, regardless of 14A's Equal Protection Clause. So Obama's mischievous cherry-picking of California's equal protection clause to defend gay marriage doesn't hold water imo.

But let's also consider the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, decided after 14A was ratified.

Minor v. Happersett, 1874

In this case justices decided that, regardless if a woman is a natural born citizen (ahem), being an nbc did not imply a constitutional right to vote if a state had a voting law which prohibited women from voting.

But more importantly, note that justices referenced the 14th Amendment in the Minor opinion. This is glaring evidence that the 14A's Equal Protection Clause did not trump state power to make laws which discriminated on the basis of sex.

Again, since California's equal protection clause is expressly based on 14A's Equal Protection Clause, the Constitution's history shows that Obama doesn't know what he's talking about concerning, among other things, equal protection clauses and so-called gay marriage rights.

[Vision]

It's not “Marriage Equality” it's “Redefining Marriage.”

[Catechuman]

Saw the commercial tonight. Sad. Although I do like FOXNEWS I still barely trust them more than the standard liberal biased media.