Posted on 12/11/2012 9:48:27 AM PST by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
You are correct of course. All polities -do- define marriage within family law; they just do it well or poorly. The early Bolsheviks tried to make marriage a legal nullity, just as the severe goofytarians are arguing for in this thread. Even a brief experiment with that brought them around to define marriage in the manner that Rome, the Vatican, and pre-Romney America would have recognized as legitimate.
I'm not judging him. He just seems that way.
You cannot put a gun in someones face and expect them to suddenly convert to your beliefs. They will follow out of fear and hate you when the barrel of your gun is pointed at someone else. Given a chance to be the one behind the trigger, why wouldn't they point it right back at those who pointed it at them first?
Personal responsibility needs to come back into play. You aren't going to have that with a government that is bent on setting up every safety net possible to excuse bad behavior.
You know I don’t really know what to say on this, RC.
I agree with Glenn in as much as government has no business in marriage at all. I agree with conservatives that gay marriage is not only wrong...it is an abomination. I’m not a religious sort of guy either, but it is plain to me that homosexuality is not what God or nature intended, and I am not ever going to celebrate it or recognize it or acknowledge it in any way.
Where I have come to in my life for a good amount of time now is that I do not want to listen to or be governed by any other man ever for any reason.
I am going to do what I believe is right. I am going to believe what my parents taught me. I am going to worship and understand the Lord the way I worship and understand the Lord. Mankind, for the most part, is utterly corrupt, and I do not really want any part of his society any more.
This does not apply to every single person on this earth, but it applies to most.
You know I guess these attitudes make me crazy, I just don’t know. I know that I don’t really fit in to this place and I’m not sure that I want to.
Rather than relying on any and all religious definitons, we should rely on Natural Law (in this case the natural obligation of parents toward their children) which would yield a rational basis for public policy on marriage.
Really? Then why did such a large portion of the base vote for another anti-gun, pro-homo, pro-abortion mormon that favors giving Al-Qa'ida in Syria weapons?
I think plenty of sheep that believe themselves part of "the base" will go right along with the rest of the heard because whoever the Stupid Party nominates will be "their guy," "the lesser of two evils," "not a dem," "electable," "held to the fire by 'conservatives' in congress," and "the best chance".........it helps them sleep at night and justify their vote, but they are no less part of the herd.
True too.
“My theory on the hatred of women/mommies comes from their truly noxious terms and ideas about women’s sex organs. Truly disgusting.”
I’ve been around a lot of them. What you say is true, but I think it is rooted in bitter envy that they are not so equipped. Nasty topic, nasty subculture.
His question - a valid one - is whether government should be involved in marriage. The same point has been brought up by traditional marriage defenders.
Unfortunately, he is forgetting the whole “perpetuation of the society” aspect.
He should ask bishop Romney.
Wait a minute, we already know bishop Romney's opinion of queer marriage don't we?
The BIBLE is pretty plain and simple in it explanation of this and the resulting punishment....
Oh give me a break. Our state has validated the correct version of marriage, with a vote from every member of my family of voting age! In fact, the NC Amendment is what brought Joe Biden out of the closet on this issue, and almost drove a wedge between him and Obama.
I think the NC model is the way to go. It’s not perfect, but it’s progress.
The Obamanation has had me in a perpetually cranky mood for sure.
For the record, we all voted for the marriage amendment in NC in our family, all 3 of voting age. And we won in NC - and that victory unhinged the entire Democrat Party.
For the life of me, why some folks think someone would be pro gay by simply thinking the state route is the best way to go is beyond me.
I think anyone obsessed with any single issue is mentally unstable. I think anyone who thinks they have the only way to fight an issue is arrogantly naive. I think when your state does what mine has done for this cause, get back to me.
bump
Well...now we know why he called his new network “The Blaze”...flaming
Suspected Beck was not conservative when he started supporting Obama on the Eligibility issue, and attacked the “Birthers”
>> Moreover, by couching his support for gay marriage in a libertarian framework,
What a crock. The homosexual “marriage” bullshit is about making law that requires everyone to support significant aspects of homosexual behavior. This is NOT libertarianism, THIS IS LEFTISM!!! GFY, Beck.
Well I’m sure not obsessed with gay marriage so that is silly right off the bat, and as far as your tendency towards social liberalism, that was evident in the removed post 204, where you really laid it on social conservatism.
Most of us here disagree with Glenn Beck and his liberalism, and his desire to stop fighting for social conservatism.
You anger indicates that you are more obsessed with it than me, I just have a different view of the homosexual agenda than you, that’s all, personally, I’m against it.
Not obsessed? Check your tag line.
The only thing that angers me is a combination of ignorance, arrogance, and self righteousness. Not righteousness mind you, but SELF righteousness. This ticks me off regardless of the underlying issue.
Another thing is poor reading comprehension, which you also have, if you think I laid it to social conservatism. I did no such thing.
And yes, you are guilty of all four problems that irritate me.
It strikes to the very heart of the ultimate reason for having government.....defense against enemies both foreign and domestic.
Homosexuality is unnatural behavior. Homosexual "licensure" (marriage?) is unnatural marriage and unnatural community endorsement.
Is it unnatural because I don't like it?
Nope. It's is dangerous and/or death promoting behavior, and that is what has identified it as unnatural, against nature. And it has been disapproved in the vast number of societies in human history. Those which did not disapprove then became test cases proving the vast majority correct in their assessments.
The following is an article that appeared today on CNN. It is intended to be a diatribe against the Neanderthals who would think of banning HIV+ tourist/immigrants. Interestingly, Australia and New Zealand are on that list (and the US was until recently). Also, there are many middle eastern countries.
Interestingly, when cross-referenced with nations rate of HIV, those nations banning immigrant/visitor HIV+ are among the lowest in the world or on their continent.
Currently, 45 countries have laws or policies in place that deport, detain or deny entry to people who are HIV positive, according to UNAIDS, the United Nation's program on HIV/AIDS. HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.Five countries in the Middle East bar people living with HIV from entering. Another five, including Singapore, Egypt and the Turks and Caicos, require that people who want to stay in their countries for longer than five days have to show they do not have HIV.
Until recently, the U.S. too had regulations that barred HIV-infected foreign nationals from receiving a visa to enter the country. President Obama lifted them in January 2010.
The American restrictions were introduced in 1987, when Congress directed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to add HIV to its list of diseases of public health significance. Foreign nationals were tested for the immunodeficiency virus during medical screening by U.S. immigration. http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/11/news/companies/ceos-hiv-travel-restrictions-ceos/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_business
The bottom line is "The Unnatural Kills". The Unnatural should be disapproved.
There is absolutely NOTHING big government about defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.