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 ...
Saying that it should be up to the states to decide if something is legal or not is closely akin to advocating it.
There are people here that still believe the GOP actually holds these values as important. Unfortunately the actions of the GOP clearly do not demonstrate that.
The fact is that the GOP has been overrun by RINOs and libertarians.
We are in a position where the federal government is gone for conservatives. So we can keep trying to fight there and 100% for sure lose and end up with no options or we can pick a smarter path to wage the battle.
Again, this sounds just like the Whig talking points of the early 19th Century. They too wanted to make conservative issues a "states right" deal, look where it got them.
It was xzins who took this down the rabbit hole not me. I only responded.
You are all over this thread advocating that the states be allowed to decide how they define marriage and you have yet to address any of the federal consequences of it.
The Dems have this down to a fine art!
Once again, you are blowing over what you said and what I responded to.
Stay on topic.
12/11/12
Glenn Beck appeared on Penn Jillette’s talk show to talk about the Republican Party and same-sex marriage.
Said Beck:
“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...The question is not whether gay people should be married or not. The question is why is the government involved in our marriage?”
He added: “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...We would have the ultimate big tent.”
Actually, I defined the unnatural as deadly. The same as alcoholics engage in unnatural (against nature) behavior, gays engage in unnatural behavior. That behavior is deadly. That makes the person deadly, and that makes them a candidate for control.
That is why in most places and in most eras, homosexuality is forbidden.
Do you wonder why the NAZI regimes of Australia and New Zealand have restrictions on the entry of HIV+ visitors?
Your hallucination of "gigantic" government which you imagine to be desired by social conservatives might be justified if any of us were seeking the arrest, conviction, fining and incarceration of those engaged in what homosexuals somehow imagine to be sex (namely the entry of the male reproductive organ into the nether end of the digestive system of a complementary disordered male who is somehow thrilled to be so entered). Most states have "legalized" such perversions or their lesbian equivalents long since on the basis that most Americans don't really need to have government running a bedroom police operation. If you know of any significant facts proving this paragraph wrong, please specify the details and facts.
Likewise, the laws as to men (pitchers) anally entering women as homosexual men enter homosexual men (catchers).
There may still be laws against "sex" with household pets, barnyard animals, space aliens arriving by flying saucer, twelvesomes, polygamous "marriages" and what not. If so, there seems little enthusiasm for expending public resources on such misbehavior.
So much for "gigantic" government as to such issues!
OTOH, the simulation of male on male anal "sex" on flatbed trailers as they pass St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York or similar venues, public sexual intercourse (actual or faux as practiced by perverts), public nudity, laws requiring acceptance of the rampaging delusions of "gay activists" as though those delusions were marriage together with all the benefits attendant thereto and a load of taxpayer money for medical and pension benefits for pervert "significant others" of whatever species or shackups of whatever species is a genuine threat of gigantic and growing government at the expense of the 98% of taxpayers who are normal. If your response has something to do with "equality" then you are resorting to the primary driving force and propaganda device for the development of "gigantic" government favorably as your excuse. Neverminding the moral issues, you would be favoring a substantial increase in government spending in subsidy of faggotry. What kind of liberal does that make you?
How about gummint skewels training innocent young children to believe that there is nothing particularly wrong or disordered about faggotry? Or training them in "fisting?" My answer to such problems is to abolish PS 666 and save taxpayers a terrific amount of money, defund the NEA and AFT and their Demonrat patrons and cut local government on average by about 50% and save substantial spending on a state and national level as well. To say nothing of the entertainment provided by outraged liberals at the closing of the leftist training academies and their separation from our tax dollars.
What about dog lovers?
Listen, you can certainly critique the GoP and Bush for being "paper tigers" on much of its pro-life rhetoric and platforms...
What you CANNOT do...without either being wrong...or lying...is to claim that the GoP & Bush were 100% paper tigers on pro-life policies.
Reagan put into place the pro-life Mexico City policy...which kept monies out of the hands of the international abortion industry.
Clinton removed it. Bush put the policy back into place.
On the Mexico City policy alone, you are dead wrong. And need to back off on your absolute claims.
Bingo
We have a winner on discernment...
You seem to forget that there weren't enough liberals to create a new "Democratic lite" RINO party for 2012.
'Twasn't the conservatives who lost the POTUS race (the conservatives running for the House WON).
'Twas the RINOs who lost.
Now...you want to start a new Democratic Lite party @ social issues level.
What are you...some RINO troll?
Under Islam, an Islamic man may be married to 5 women simultaneously. Suppose he married all five in Saudi Arabia where it was legal. Which, if any, of these wives gets the Social Security survivor’s benefit if he dies still “married” to all 5 wives. First wife? Last wife? Each and every wife? If, though an utterly innocent man, he is killed by a federal employee mistakenly carrying out his federal job description. Which wife (wives) get to make claims under the Federal Torts Claims Act for Islamohubby’s wrongful death? The government CANNOT avoid dealing with such questions and there are plenty more where those came from.
That you say so does not make it so.
Acceptance of perversion posing as marriage for benefits purposes is using the fedgov for so-called "progressive" purposes. "Progressive" like untreated pancreatic cancer.
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. (kabar)
Exactly...
And then you figure in Surfer's big push to likewise leave the definition of the marriage "to the states."
Then all we need is the Socialist Republic of Vermont, or polygamous-haven Utah, to define whether two, three or more partners is acceptable.
And then all polygamous (& growing) unions rush to that state or those states to get married...and then what, Kgrif? Then what Surfer?
Whose definition of marriage gets honored then???
Flaming relativists is what we have here...disguised as "conservatives"...
No backbone. No conviction to stand for anything worth standin' for...
Great analogy!
What do you do when your state of North Carolina upholds traditional marriage as it has but Romney’s Massachusetts via its Supreme Judicial Court welcomes perversion posing as “marriage?” The fedgov and its constitution require North Carolina to give “full faith and credit” to the acts of Massachusetts. Tiny Tim and his hubby Big Bubba marry in Massachusetts and move to North Carolina. Access to your divorce courts? Benefits as a “married couple” under North Carolina laws? Equal treatment as to adoption of innocent children??? So long as the Full Faith and Credit clause in the US Constitution remains, it cannot just be a state issue, can it? If you disagree, explain in detail.
I can’t stand Beck. His Moron olympics thing really shows how far from the bible he is.
A jabber mouth MORMON and a tricky atheist walked into a bar....
And you get two people defending homosexual marriage!
There must be a Federal element to this issue no matter how you slice it. The Feds control the Military (are we going to countenance same sex marriage withing the ranks of the military?)
What about the territories, Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands Puerto Rico?
What about overseas military bases?
Finally what do we do about the Full Faith and Credit Clause and all the Federal Judges creating rights for homosexuals out of thin air?
North Carolina exericised their prerogative not to recognize same sex marriages within their state borders. But without Federal intervention those same sex marriages in Vermont will be legal in all 50 states including North Carolina. So all a North Carolina homosexual resident couple needs to do is to book a bed and breakfast in Vermont and a week later return home with all the privileges of a heterosexual married couple would have in North Carolina, including but not limited to adoption rights and spousal dependent benefits. Additionally military pensions would be awarded unless congress agreed that they would not allow same sex couples to get spousal military death and dependency benefits.
So it is a Federal issue. The whole problem has been created by Federal Judges overturning laws which prohibit same sex marriage or refuse to recognize them because they supposedly violate the 14th amendment.
No my FRiend, it is a BIG Federal issue we need to deal with the Federal issue even before we deal with it on the state level, because most of the time when a State tries to define marriage, it is the Federal Judiciary which rules that they can't.
Glenn Beck is a fool. An idiot. Don't follow his lead.
I eventually got around to saying homosexuality is dangerous (as anything unnatural is) and that's why it's been prohibited by most societies for thousands of years.
You eventually got around to calling me a Nazi for believing that.
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
In the above quote we have Nazis in 1987, The Reagan Administration, deciding that HIV (at the time, "The Gay Plague") should require individual testing for HIV before entering our country. You can see that lasted all the way up to 2 years ago, when it was lifted by pro-homosexual marriage, Barack Obama.
Now, as I see it:
I am siding with Reagan.
And you are siding with Obama.
You get to decide for yourself which one is the socialist (National Socialist?)
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.