[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....