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 ...
For us to achieve these goals and replace the socialists with a conservative majority fiscal conservatives are going to have to be educated why social issues are fiscal. For example, destruction of marriage with deviant marriages leads to a breakdown of marriage and birth rates. After all why should a young couple get married and start a family when marriage is just a political statement, or financial arrangement. Why not just have sex and if a baby is born the man can move on and let the state take care of it.
Abortion is a fiscal issue in that the reduced population creates a labor shortage that acts as a magnet for illegal immigrants. Until the fiscal conservatives, such as the Tea Party, embrace social issues we will remain a minority.
what to expect from an idiot who thinks martin luther king was a conservative and touts 1960s race legislation as progress
like most former liberals...Krauthammer comes to mind
You are right, the problems weren't as obvious in 1964 but the warning signs were there.
Nevertheless, Goldwater denounced social issues AFTER things heated up.
And it is a major factor in the strain on Social Security and Medicare.
Excellent post, wmfights.
Expanding on your idea a bit, homosexuality is a fiscal issue because it has the state giving benefits to "partners" for absolutely no reason important to the state. Natural marriage is potentially procreative, so it makes sense to support the households that will be the setting for the rearing of the next generation.
But why waste enormous resources on 2 guys or 2 gals doing a gay or lesbian thing? Because they like to get off with each other?
Like with Sandra Fluke, let them buy their own birth control and pay for the own sexual adventures.
They should be marked NO VALUE RETURNED ON INVESTMENT.
What straw points? I pointed out to you that abandoning the social issues on the Federal battlefield is surrendering all. Sure North Carolina can pass a law voiding Homosexual Marriages, but the fact is that ultimately unless Congress acts to protect North Carolina's law, it will be declared invalid or they will be forced under the Full Faith and Credit clause and the privileges and immunities clause to validate all homosexual marriages performed outside the state to residents of North Carolina. You didn't even bother to respond to that point, you just patted yourself on the back because North Carolina scored a "victory" and that should be the end of it. Well it isn't the end of it. And unless we can get traction on the Federal Battlefield state laws prohibiting deviant marriages will be voided and the victories in California and North Carolina will be Pyrrhic victories when the courts rule that deviant marriages in Vermont must be recognized in North Carolina or that the North Carolina law is just plain unconstitional.
And how in the hell are we going to fight for the right to life if we don't concentrate our efforts on the Federal battlefield? Any state law that prohibits or limits abortion on demand is always overturned by the FEDERAL judiciary? North Carolina can pass all the laws it wants limiting abortion and not one of them will valid.
And how do we take back our local schools without attacking that on a Federal Level since all the rules and regulations governing what is taught to our children either come from or are filtered through the FEDERAL bureaucracy.
Beck thinks that we should abandon all hope of getting any social issue resolved on the Federal level, but he, and apparently you, fail to realize that in this day and age everything we do is entwined in this massive unyeilding Federal leviathan that is, right now, governed by vile, immoral spiritually bankrupt rulers and the useless idiots who give them the power to rule us like slaves.
I never said drop issues that don’t have a snowballs chance, I said look for other ways to attack those same issues.
I posted four laws which I felt need to be enacted on a Federal level in order to reign in the leviathan, give power back to the states and restore American Values. You laughed it off and presented NO proposal of your own other than to pat yourself on the back for being a part of a North Carolina law that will ultimately have no effect unless the type of laws I proposed are enacted on the Federal level.
So, smart guy, what are your proposals and how do the States enact laws without those laws and the people who passed them getting eaten alive by the leviathan?
You really can’t read at all, can you. I mean seriously, you can’t comprehend two or three words in sequence and figure out what they mean when you get to the end.
You have not correctly identified my position in a single one of your posts. You have not acknowledged a single bit of common ground, even though I’ve pointed them out numerous times. You are more interested in a masturbative fight than you are a discussion. So go close your door, and do it with yourself.
You know, something with a snowball's chance in hell of being enacted or enforced?
Abortion is a fiscal issue, that cuts both ways. Many aborted babies would require government support. BUT - It still should be stopped anyway. Having said that, there is a fiscal component to social issues to be sure. I agree.
BUT BUT BUT
Fiscal issues are MORAL!!! When you steal my property by way of taxation or regulation, then you are stealing my time and talent. Yes you see, there is the sanctity of life OUTSIDE the womb as well as inside the womb. Besides, if all adults are stripped of their liberties, who the heck is going to put money in the offering plate or have time for the pro life rallies? Think about it, fiscal issues are not only MORAL, they practically impact our ability to influence the social issues.
Too many understand less about the moral component of money than the atheist Ayn Rand. She understood that.
And another thing, for all of the Freepers who claim some combo of Reagan and Palin as their inspirations, many of them are downright hateful of those of us who actually agree with Reagan and Palin on how to fight these issues, how to priroritize these issues, and how to communicate these issues. Just sayin.....
I would only say that you can win with two of the three, as long as you are bold and courageous about those two. Actually, Mitt was technically resting on all three, but he was not bold on any, and some doubted one of the others.
The point being, the boldness is equally important as the philosophy to win elections. Of course, it takes all three to be philosophically consistent.
Well I would respectfully disagree with you on that, though I’ve enjoyed this exchange.
I think his Scalia pledge would have held - if for no other reason than it would get him off the hook. The courts are ultimately where the social issues are litigated, and while Rudy was a social liberal, he always concentrated on issues of law and order and economics as mayor. No reason to doubt him here. He was not a typical mesmerized NE politician, which you more or less admitted in an earlier post.
Again, I’m more concerned about a politician’s impact on my life than I am his or her deepest convictions. In many cases, the convictions can come back to haunt, but Rudy was never shown to be a liar.
.
I can’t write slow enough for you to keep up.
Bye.
Exactly right!
In reviewing your posts to me I don't really see any position that you have taken other than that you agree with Glenn Beck (I guess that means that you think Homosexual Marriage is not all that bad) and that you believe that social issues such as that are best resolved at the state level. You may correct me if I misunderstood your alleged position, but since you never really elaborated on your position and spent the last few posts just either laughing off my position or attempting to insult my intelligence, I can't really say that I know what your position is.
Ok, perhaps you think I can't comprehend what you say, but perhaps it is because your posts are so esoteric and above the intelligence of us common people that they are incomprehensible.
I pointed out that attacking the social issues on a State Level without also focusing the attack on the Federal Level is a losing proposition in that anything done on the State Level is doomed without a Federal law protecting the states from interference from other states or from the Federal Government itself. I proposed 4 specific laws which would accomplish that and you laughed them off. But without those laws, it is clear that no state law addressing social issues can be valid unless there is a waiver by congress of the Full Faith and Credit clause and the privileges and immunities clause (and a redefinition of the 14th Amendment). But you seem to think that because North Carolina passed some social legislation that this was somehow a victory for us all. But as with California's laws, it will be challenged and rendered impotent if not invalid.
So if you think I have misunderstood your position, then maybe you can enlighten us as to just what your position actually is (without all the esoteric bull$#!+) so that us common folks can understand it and not misconstrue it as some kind of veiled attempt to surrender the whole Federal Battlefield on the culture war.
The ball is in your court. So run with it or punt.
CEW, of course Marlowe used a state example to back up his contention that states can do what they want but the Fed will work to counter-act it.
His example was: California passed same sex marriage law AND the Fed then went and overturned it.
That was his point.
bttt
We don't disagree.
I approach these issues first through my faith. For example, abortion is wrong because it is destroying life and we are not supposed to kill. I oppose homosexual marriage because GOD finds it an abomination and those who support it are raising themselves up as equal to, or greater than, GOD.
Our discussion has moved beyond the religious and has concentrated more on the secular & fiscal reasons for opposing these things. As you are pointing out money is a representation of goods and services and when you take it from me with no compensation you are stealing. If we are ever going to get fiscal conservatives to see how important social issues are they are going to have to learn the fiscal impact of these issues.
I have tried to avoid denouncing Beck, because he seems to be trying to wake people up on some aspects of the war for heritage. But this latest bit of idiocy on his part, is very disturbing. Normal relations--and understanding the essential complement of nature--between the sexes are significant in any people's ongoing cultural heritage.
But with respect to Beck's idiotic Washington celebration of Martin Luther King, two years back, see Plastique In The Foundation--Honor & Martin Luther King. What is not clear to me, is whether Beck actually believes some of this silliness, or is merely cutting corners to broaden his own appeal. Of course, he destroys any real credibility in the process.
Cheers--to the extent that any true Conservative can find anything to be cheerful about, this December.
William Flax
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. :>)
Your writing and analysis on what is happening is brilliant, keep it up.
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.