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 ...
Your last comment makes no sense whatsoever in context of your previous comment, and my reply to that.
Bye.
Now this is funny, you say what is possible on the Federal level, and then use a state example to back it up. But to your points, I like all four of your ideas, would vote for each of them, yet none of them have a snowballs chance with this Senate and this President of ever happening.
In the meantime, the victory in NC, as imperfect as it is, stands. And THATS my point. And I think it may be Glenn’s point too, although that’s just a theory.
That probably depends on who the Atty General of NC is at the time frankly, and who is stiting on what Federal appeal courts. Again, you are trying to denigrate a state’s actions based on some future hypotheticals.
All of which leads me to the wisdom of keying on states to get these things passed, and then focusing on what kind of judges our national office holders will appoint instead of being so obsessed with the personal lives of those office holders, and so on. I think that’s the way to win this, and BTW, those are tenants I’ve long held to.
And you have just highlighted the problem with the current primary election process.
With GW Bush's judicial appointments, conservatism was near the end of a long few decades of shaping the SCOTUS in a conservative direction. (So, of course, Obama isn't voting for P-Marlowe's proposed laws.)
The time was ripe in 2008 for a hugely significant exit from the Scotus that would make possible a 5-4 majority with Kennedy a ringer that would occasionally make votes 6-3. That election was the culmination of decades of preparing the ground.
It was a totally fractured republican party that nominated John McCain, with McCain losing substantial portions of the base to Huckabee and Romney. In contrast with GWBush who had won nearly 2/3rd of the vote in 2000, and who had taken all states except one, we had in 2008 McCain getting roughly 48% of the base. (Romney this year got only 52%)
This says to me that Bush was a consensus while McCain and Romney were tainted by some great divisiveness (squishy moderates?).
2008 and 2012 were also similar in that they held promise of finally turning the Scotus in a 5-4 conservative direction.
What fractured the base? What led to consensus giving way to a 50/50 split? What made it possible for 2 of the potential Scotus seats to be filled between 2008-2012 with radical liberals? I'd say a large portion of the answer was that both McCain and Romney were perceived to be moderate-liberal. They both shied away from social issues, and they both were disengaged from actually fighting for a victory.
In other words, they turned off a large portion of the base.
Reflecting back over GW Bush's terms, there was a time when all of those things mentioned by Marlowe were within the realm of possibility. In 2004, the Republicans won 55 Senate Seats, and were only 5 seats away from a filibuster proof majority.
That final approach to a conservative majority was within reach, and then it was blown up. Was it intentional by the GOP-E, a group that would not want a conservative Scotus?
It's within the realm of possibility.
THX 118
Oh, then because most of the planks of the National Republican Party Platform have a snowball's chance in hell of ever being enacted, lets just drop them from the platform and only have things on the party platform that have a snowball's chance in hell of getting past Reid and Obama? Is that your strategy? Is that Glenn Becks strategy?
Lets just drop such silly ideas as a balanced budget, smaller government, states rights, fiscal responsibility along with such stupid things as the right to life and traditional american values and just have the same platform as the democrats. Why if the Republican platform just mirrored the Democrat platform, why we might win some national elections and even end this terrible gridlock we have in Congress. Why we could become like Denmark or Greece in less than a decade if we just stop trying to enact legislation that can't get past Reid and Obama.
In the meantime, the victory in NC, as imperfect as it is, stands.
LMAO!!!!
You call that a victory? What happens when the FEDERAL COURTS rule on it? You think you have a victory in NC? The battle hasn't even begun in NC and you want to surrender the entire Federal field to Obama and Reid and the principalities and powers and the rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places? Just give up because we don't have a snowball's chance in hell against them?
Yeah just surrender all Dorothy. America. It was a good idea, but it's time has come and gone. With Conservatives like Beck and you, it's pretty much over. Turn out the lights.
Oh, BTW, Judgment day is coming. Or maybe that was November 6.
I don’t think I agree with all your conclusions, but you are right about the flaws in the system. But of course, there are flaws in any system. There always have been, and always will be.
On a related topic, how’s this for a counter intuitive theory:
The candidate who would probably have GOVERNED the most conservatively in the past two cycles is one of the most PERSONALLY liberal Republican of all. That’s Rudy. He pledged over and over to use Scalia as his judicial model for appointees. He probably would have gotten his short list from Scalia. When you consider that Rudy was already very conservative on terror and also conservative on taxes and regulations, what forms is the picture of a man who would have GOVERNED in a net conservative manner. Another thing he would never do is back down to the liberals.
So the picture is this: a social liberal who would sub out the social agenda to Scalia types judges, while he fights hard on terror, taxes and regulations and never gives in to the liberal media or others.
Just some thought. He would have been on net far more to the right than weenies like Huckabee and probably Santorum, who live more conservatively but would not have governed that way. I like the way you think, so I thought I’d throw this at you...
Under those conditions --- marriage a no-exit proposition, no easy divorce, and no safety net --- I'm pretty sure man/man "couples" would want to have no part of it.
How well man-woman couples would accept it --- real marriage --- is a different subject :o|
You've got to admit, CEW, Marlowe has a point. If we're going to drop everything "that doesn't have a snowball's chance of passing", then we will have to also drop balanced budget, smaller government, states rights, fiscal responsibility, and spending limits along with pro-life, pro-natural family, pro-traditional families, etc.
There's not a snowball's chance that the libs are going to go for any of the above.
What the libertarians are always hesitant to say is that they WANT to drop social issues like abortion and opposition to the homosexual agenda from the platform.
They despise the fact that these are discussed, yet seem to ignore the fact that conservatism only flourishes when they ARE discussed.
There is a faction of the GOP that idolizes Barry Goldwater and wants to return to conservatism as defined by Goldwater (e.g. fiscal conservatism and strong national defense); however, what they don't realize is that Goldwater's conservatism was an utter FAILURE (as a presidential candidate, he was the GOP's McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis all rolled into one). It took Ronald Reagan to realize that conservatism was a three-legged stool and only worked when fiscal, defense AND social matters were all given attention.
Well golly gee, why are there benefits for marriage? It’s not me that’s the progressive.
.
There were some things about Rudy that I liked. First, he came across as a fighter. Second, he is the best public speaker that the republicans currently have. He’s gifted in that area.
As always, though, his east coast cred has been built on liberal policy positions he’s taken. And he was hurt by his gay pride pictures.
One thing I like about Rudy is that he hasn’t backpedaled on his liberal positions just to curry favor. He’s sincerely wrong about them, but at least he’s sincere.
I pray some day he’ll have an epiphany. Not that he’s any longer a viable candidate, but that it would align him more with his Catholic faith, and that would align him more with his God.
My opinion, but what an awesome public speaker. Too bad he wasn’t a conservative.
I find it interesting the people defending Beck on the homosexual marriage thing and the MSM has taken what he said and run with it.
Is the MSM always truthful of course not (in this case there is video), however the LIV will take what he said and celebrate........
his words are already resonating with the general populace.........
look a conservative embraces homosexual marriage!
Oh yes, Marlowe does have a point, which I think I acknowledged. And I am not saying “drop” it - I am saying the state avenue, which has been done in NC, is often the quicker way to at least make headway. This has been my only point all along. And I think - not sure, but think - that’s Becks’ point.
It’s too bad that way too many Freepers start throwing around accusations when someone simply suggests another avenue. There is one select group of Freeprs who are always doing that too, and their absurd accusations are always the same too. Very very tiring.
FTR, you’ve never done that in my memory.
Okay, we agree on his strengths. He is the best at defending what we believe, where he and we agree. Now, one more question for you: what do you think about the theory that he might have actually ended up governing more conservatively than Bush, or than McCain or Huckabee or Thompson would have, in the end - given his Scalia pledge and terror stance?
I agree with you. There are fiscal, defense, and social conservatives. When one of those 3 prongs is missing, the election is a loser.
However, we social conservatives are a bit of a problem. Why? Many of us were Reagan democrats, rejecting Jimmy Carter because he hadn’t delivered on the social issues and had seriously messed up the economy and foreign policy.
Reagan democrats tended to be middle class working stiffs who were also religious, whether Catholic, Baptist, or some other form of theologically conservative Christian. So, while they could appreciate fiscal sanity, they were sold out on social issues and were also red/white/blue patriots.
Each time they’ve been given a clear social issues choice, they’ve sided with the social conservative. However, since they are also middle class working stiffs, they aren’t especially impressed with social liberals/moderates who give off “upper management” airs.
They would just as soon not vote for a republican social liberal as for a democrat social liberal. Most tend to avoid the election rather than go against their social principles. And some will vote against a republican social mod/lib perceived as an elitist and for a democrat social mod/lib who is perceived as one of the people. (I think Clinton got that kind of support.)
In defense of poor old Barry Goldwater, he was before the heating up of the social issues wars.
Bottom line, though, is that social conservatives are not a RELIABLE vote for the republican party. Their principles trump their party. The same can’t be said for fiscal conservatives, nor for many defense conservatives. It hacks the fiscal guys off that they’ll vote for a social conservative candidate, but that social conservatives won’t necessarily support a fiscal conservative who isn’t also socially conservative.
It’s almost as if they serve different masters. :>)
You make some good points, but I would simply say that agreeing SOMETIMES with libertarian strategy does not mean one agrees with libertarian always - nor agreeing with libertairan principles always.
In other words, not everyone who thinks a states right / judicial avenue is the way to go on this is a libertarian. And even libertarians come in different flavors. Your brush was broad here.
I think all northeast politicians are mesmerized by the media in whose back yard they grew up, politically speaking. Rudy would have succumbed.
Let me try and help you out with your obvious problem with reading comprehension. And you have a big problem with that, because you are making arguments against straw points, I assume to make you feel better about yourself.
I never said drop issues that don’t have a snowballs chance, I said look for other ways to attack those same issues. And the platform? Please. No one pays attnetnion to that ever.
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.