O'Reilly asked Beck, "Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?" Beck replied, "No, I don't," adding sarcastically, "Will the gays come and get us?" ... "I believe -- I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?" ...Earlier this week it was announced that conservative pundit Ann Coulter would headline a fundraiser for the homosexual activist group within the Republican Party, GOProud. And on July 29, although his position had been revealed before, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh again came out in favor of homosexual civil unions, while being opposed to same-sex 'marriage.' To be fair, it must be pointed out that Beck said he was looking at the 'big picture' and promoting faith, the answer to all such things. Moreover, he added that he was okay with gay 'marriage' with a caveat. "As long as we are not going down the road of Canada, where it now is a problem for churches to have free speech. If they can still say, hey, we oppose it," he said.
Beck seems to think he has taken a libertarian position on it, but he is wrong. The libertarian position is that the government should play no role in determining how individuals define marriage, which means that it shouldn’t be in the marriage licensing business at all.
Instead his position is statist (since it does leave the government to license marriage and de facto define what it means), and furthermore it is confused (since it allows the other side to prevail with a false civil rights analogy and a false interpretation of the 14th amendment).
I am moderately bothered by the idea of gay marriage, but what really pisses me off is seeing the left prevail with its false and deceptive arguments.
Knowing Glenn somewhat, this really troubles me. As a historian, I ask, where have we seen it before. John C. Calhoun raised the issue of speech and press when it came to slavery, saying (and I’m too lazy to go get the quotation right now), “If we are entitled to have slaves, then we are entitled to have them in peace,” and he went on to explain that this meant free from criticism or comments in papers or from abolitionists. In other words, Calhoun not only wanted perpetual slavery, but he wanted an absolute gag on ANYONE criticising it in any way. Does this sound familiar when it comes to homosexuality?