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

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

[SeekAndFind]

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 may seem surprising, given his far-right political views and audience, it is actually not new. Earlier this year, Beck said that he has the "same opinion on gay marriage as President Barack Obama" and does not see same-sex unions as a "threat to America."

Still, Beck's public renewal of his support for gay marriage comes at a politically significant moment for the GOP, which is working to reshape its message to appeal to a changing electorate. A Gallup survey released last week found that 53 percent of Americans are in favor of legalizing gay marriage, a number that has been steadily growing for the past decade.

Moreover, by couching his support for gay marriage in a libertarian framework, Beck makes the case for the right to look past differences on social issues in order to broaden their coalition to include all limited government conservatives.

"What we need to do, I think, as people who believe in the Constitution, is to start looking for allies who believe in the Constitution and expand our own horizon," Beck said. "We would have the ultimate big tent."

[stuartcr]

??? I imagine it’s for legal puposes. I don’t really care about the gay marriage issue, as I was commenting on Beck.

[svcw]

I am sure he will come out for polygamy very soon.

[ansel12]

Evidently you want to discuss theology, not the subject of this thread.

[svcw]

Churches should define marriage.

[kabar]

Get the Gov’t out of many social issues: gay marriage, reproduction, drugs. The Constitution does not address these issues, so leave them to the States or individuals.

So the federal government should rely on whatever definition of marriage the states have when it comes to providing federal benefits like SS, Medicare, federal pensions, survivorship benefits, etc.? If so, then someone in MA will be treated differently than someone in AL.

[Resolute Conservative]

I equate libertarianism to standing on top a fence pole with a strong wind blowing. It must be exhausting to never take a stand for anything that comes by and always try and be in the middle. Unless of course it is criticizing conservatives for standing for something.

[ansel12]

Will you translate that into English? What is your point?

[Nowhere Man]

Until gave the power to define it to government.

True. I'm sure all of us here don't like the tyranny of the left but we don't want tyranny from the right either. I really don't want an American version of the Taliban either or as Robert A. Heinlein, science fiction writer put it, "American Ayatolla's." Leave these these things up to the States, or preferably, the people themselves.

My own take is I favor traditional marriage but government getting involved does not work. We are in a population decline. European governments tried to reverse that by encouraging marriage and having kids by even giving our "Kindergeld" (Child Money in German) but that backfired. The only thing the feds can do is to restrict immigration, lower taxes and regulations so it is easier for families to have the resources to raise children. Also, marriage is in trouble, many of the people themselves screwed it up and no government can fix that, it has to come from us, the people to make it work. My only nitpick is we did make no-fault divorce too easy, you can dump your commitments easier, which is wrong. Yes, divorce is necessary at times, but you should not drop it at a whim.

Let the feds worry about the big picture. Also, as you put it, id you get government involved, they can change the definition at their will.

I favor God and the traditional things like most here but it isn't the place of government beyond basic Mosiac Law like "do not murder," "do not libel/slander," "do not steal," etc.

[Responsibility2nd]

“I concur with Beck on this one. There is real common ground with many libertarians on these issues. Get the Gov’t out of many social issues: gay marriage, reproduction, drugs. The Constitution does not address these issues, so leave them to the States or individuals.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And there ya have it.

Libertarians support Gay Marriages.

[svcw]

Why the sarc>, what you said is correct.

[ansel12]

Fine, Mormons define it as polygamy.

[kabar]

Now you are being silly. These programs are not going away nor are federal pensions. There are suvivorship issues that involve taxpayer money. The federal government needs a definition of marriage to administer its programs, laws, and regulations. Spousal rights exist across an entire spectrum of federal laws and regulations. It is a practical matter that DOMA tried to address. SCOTUS will get involved regardless.

[Karliner]

Everyone defending homosexuals should experience the decadence, experience first hand “pitching” and “catching.” Then have the ability to change their idiotic vote.

[Nowhere Man]

I do believe Jamie Foxx has already glorified killing whites in his SNL appearance and his new movie. White Christians are already targets for the Federal Government, so what else is new.

Yet, he gets a ho-hum from the press. Let's say for an experiment, I did a movie where I dressed up as George Lincoln Rockwell and said, "kill all blacks." That would kick them in gear and overdrive. I'd have to move to the Phillipines and hide out. B-( We have a double standard.

Anyways, ever since SNL took off the Coneheads and Mr. Bill, it has becomes less than nothing to me.

[Responsibility2nd]

Churches should define marriage.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So should the State. It’s been proven for several millennium that tradional marriages and families benefit the welfare and economy of a government.

What America is doing is not just moral suicide. It’s political, cultural and economic suicide as well.

[svcw]

Homosexuals can not be married, the best they can hope for is a civil union.
Marriage is a spiritual ceremony, that is open to one man and one woman - period!
Marriage needs to be separated from the civil union part.

[Psalm 144]

C. Edmund Wright ain’t been hissef for a while now.

His many essays for several years have typically been calm, reasoned and erudite but I think the Obamanation has made him a bit cranky and unbalanced of late, as it has many good people. I am sure he will return to civility at some point, (and hope he gets some blood sugar tests run). Personal insults were not his style prior to the the election.

[Fightin Whitey]

I’ve always found that gay men inevitably have huge daddy issues.

That doesn’t contradict your point, that they may hate mommy too (maybe because she didn’t help them with daddy).

I haven’t encountered (worked with etc.) as many declared lesbians but the obverse seems to hold true with them: they hate their mommies or at least have some ugly conflicts with them.

My working theory anyhow, could be I’m way off...

[miss marmelstein]

Yes, mommy didn’t defend them against big, mean daddy. That’s generally how it plays out.

My theory on the hatred of women/mommies comes from their truly noxious terms and ideas about women’s sex organs. Truly disgusting.

[ansel12]

Libertarianism is based on fantasy, their follow up is usually a child like, “Oh! Well it will work because we will eliminate welfare after opening the borders and firing the Border Patrol and INS., and then only the world’s best people will want to come! It’s all so simple.

About half of it is just the left with new language, and a new strategy to attain the same ends.