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 ...
Different individuals will indeed fdocus on those issues, however labelled, which most impact their individual sensibilities. The key to political success is combining a reasonable measure of acceptance of that fact--the fact that we have different priorities--with a sense of common overall purpose--the survival of a way of life, which in the American context once permitted us to out-achieve the rest of the world, in both material & spiritual achievement.
The crisis, today, is that we are running out of time to bring together enough of the rooted population; those who identify with fundamental American concepts & priorities, to head off drowning in an, artificially created, sea of an undifferentiated humanity. Beck is going off on one disruptive tangent to our quest. Rick Santorum is an example of a prominent Republican who went off in another disruptive tangent.
Without trying to actually purge either one of them from Republican ranks, Conservatives need to simply ignore their tangents, and develop spokesmen who understand that internal ideological consistency is essential to being able to convert those who have been confused by the Mass Media & Leftist Academics, into losing sight of America's Multi-Generational Purpose.
William Flax
that may be correct, but it doens’t change the fact that he has a serious comprehension deficiency, made worse by a paranoid streak, all made more obnoxious by a self righteous attitude.
I can’t deal with any of those, let alone all three, in one poster.
You know, like an idiot, I gave you one more chance. And sure enough, you couldn’t even finish your first sentence without incorrectly stating my position.
Go take some serious remedial reading lessons. And I’m now done with you til you can show me a certification of 8th grade comprehension or better.
I agree with you on that. I am certainly what one would call a Reagan - Limbaugh - Levin conservative, in belief and priority and tone. As such, there are times when I am attacked by both the social ONLY crowd, and the libertarian crowd.
Here are my observations, especially with respect to FR. The libertarian crowd will attack on issues of substantive disagreement, normally on issues of foreign policy or social issues. They rarely even bother to debate much on matters of degree, strategy, prorities. It gets nasty sometimes, but not often.
But the social ONLY crowd, repeat, social ONLY crowd, will attack even when the disagreement is on strategy or tactics or matter of degree or priority. And this crowd is almost always nasty, and almost always accuses me (us) of secretly being liberal, RINO, gay, pro abort, etc.
Now keep in mind that philsophicaly, I am more in line with the social ONLY crowd than the libertarian crowd, being a Reagan type conservative. And yet, the nastiest, most petulant, paranoid, infantile and just awful attacks come from this crowd.
Amazing.
If my first sentence doesn't correctly state your position (BTW I was quoting you word for word) then WTH is your position?
Go take some serious remedial reading lessons. And I’m now done with you til you can show me a certification of 8th grade comprehension or better.
Would a cum-laude Juris Doctorate be evidence enough for you?
No, you didn’t. Further, you put more words into my mouth to fit your paranoid self righteousness. Actually, I don’t even think you are trying any more.
Figures you’d be a lawyer. That entire profession is unable to read anything except through the obtuse world of left brained, type B, bureaucratic filters to the point that the gist is always missed. So I’ll amend 8th grade comp and change it to hyper literalism to the point of misconstruction and non sequential interpretation. When this mixes with your paranoia and your self righteouness, your fantasies include all kinds of evil subversive imaginations that have no root in reality.
Example. My agreement with Beck was only around the edges, on the strategy, and even that was circumspect. But the bureaucrat in you saw “agree with Beck” and went off the friggin deep end.
Actually, I did.
Further, you put more words into my mouth to fit your paranoid self righteousness.
No you said you agreed with Beck and I basically paraphrased Beck's position and indicated that to me your agreement with Beck meant that you agreed with his sentiment as expressed in the article. You never bothered to actually clarify what it was that Beck said that you agreed with, so I was left with the conclusion that you believed, like him that the GOP and conservatives need to embrace homosexual marriage rather than continue to fight against it.
Figures you’d be a lawyer. That entire profession is unable to read anything except through the obtuse world of left brained, type B, bureaucratic filters to the point that the gist is always missed.
The entire profession, huh? Pretty broad generalization there Chuck.
So I’ll amend 8th grade comp and change it to hyper literalism to the point of misconstruction and non sequential interpretation.
So it looks like the problem is not with my reading comprehension skills so it must lie somewhere else. Perhaps the reason you are misunderstood is not because us common folk freepers are having reading comprehension problems. Indeed we saw what you wrote and we comprehended EXACTLY what it was you said. But now you are complaining that we should not have taken your words so literally and instead we should have somehow been able to glean some unexpressed thoughts from your own words and to gather from the pneumbras of your explicit statement that "I agree with Beck" and come to some other conclusion other than that "you agreed with Beck." Perhaps the problem is not my reading comprehension skills, but it may lie instead in your deficient writing and composition skills. Perhaps if you took the time to tell us what it was that you meant when you said "I agree with Beck" that we might have been able to draw some other conclusion other than the logical conclusion that you must "Agree with Beck."
Example. My agreement with Beck was only around the edges, on the strategy, and even that was circumspect. But the bureaucrat in you saw “agree with Beck” and went off the friggin deep end.
That is what I am saying. I didn't know that when the brilliant wordsmith C. Edmund Wright, says "I agree with Beck" that us lowly uneducated dolts who hang around Free Republic and trade ideas should have the good sense to understand that what you REALLY meant was that this should be interpreted as being agreement "only around the edges, on the strategy" and that C. Edmund Wright should not be taken literally because everyone can tell that C. Edmund Wright was just being "circumspect."
I think I get it now.
I'd ask you what you mean by "only around the edges, on the strategy" but seeing as how I only have a Juris Doctorate degree I'm sure I would not be able to properly interpret the esoteric circumspection that would accompany any simple answer and I might actually commit the sin of literally taking you at your word.
Merry Christmas.
Marlowe
But the social ONLY crowd, repeat, social ONLY crowd,
Social "only"? And who would you be referring to, pray tell? I don't know any freepers that could be described thusly.
I don't really expect a response from you, since I'm a knuckle dragging gap toothed high school dropout, not versed in sophistry, word jugglery and fancy twistations of the English language. I think you might win the prize of the freeper with the least actual content and most bombast and insult in his comments.
Well, glad you took offense at something not even aimed at you. It takes a real sour puss to do so.
By social only, I mean folks who are only interested in the social issues, which in their minds, are the only issues that are moral, and the only issues that matter.
There are a handful of especially hateful ones on FR. I did not count you in that number.
This would be in contrast to fiscal only conservatives, who care not at all about the social issues, or in fact may be social liberals. There are some of those on FR.
And then there’s another group, the “Reagan conservatives” - which is just the best way to describe them. They believe in strong national defense, liberty, economic growth through freedom, and they are socially conservative. Many in this camp on FR get attacked by those in the first group. Which is ridiculous.
not reading your crap, don’t waste your time, and dont’ junk up my in box please.
I didn’t personally take any offense.
Just have noticed (although I almost always skip over your spewings of insult and falsity) your “debate” with P-Marlowe was really one sided. Pretty funny, actually. His comments were rational, reasonable, and he cogently addressed your comments.
Yours, as usual, were contentless and mere vehicles for your vanity and bile.
Good day!
Ah ha. I take it that you must have a reading comprehension problem, eh?
Sorry, I thought that since you so freely accused others of having less than an 8th grade reading comprehension level that you must have possessed such a qualification yourself. My bad. Sorry I must have mistakenly taken you for some kind of conservative intellectual. It seems instead that you are just a pseudo intellectual bully.
And BTW if you don't want me or any of us other social conservatives to junk up your in box, maybe you should just stop junking up the threads with your asinine opinions. You post some nonsense here, you need to expect people to respond. You insult people here and you need to be expected to be called on the carpet.
I’m sorta enjoying this food fight, so you boys go at it.
Who needs Pacquiao/Martinez!!
If this is a 12 rounder, ringside has Marlowe at 3 rounds to 1! Both fighters in their corners getting advice from their managers. Wright is bleeding under his left eye.
Marlowe keeps scoring with a right cross.
:)
I think it’s more like a vivisection. With Eddie as the animal.
Left Brain
Right Cross
N3
{!}
The Knights that say Neener Rides Agains!
We haven’t had a good Neener hijacking in a long time. I think we’ve all just been too busy.
But since the thread turned into a denigration of my beloved profession perhaps we could send out a call for lawyer jokes.
Since we don’t have a list, how do we inform the troops that we have a thread piracy going on?
I shall ping a few neeners from memory. If you have a better memory than I do, perhaps you can ping them as well.
Shields up.
Let the thread be hijacked!
The Lord Protector of the Fraternal Order of The Knights of the Eternal Time Table and Grand Advocate the High Council of the Order of the Eternal Exclamation Point (With and without Asterisk) has spoken.
Let it be done.
****
I stole this joke from Blue Duncan:
At a trial in a small North Carolina town, the prosecuting attorney called his first witness to the stand. She was sworn in, on the Bible, and was asked if she would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help her God. The witness was a proper, well-dressed, elderly lady; the grandmotherly type well spoken and poised.
The prosecuting attorney approached the woman and asked, “Mrs. Jones, do you know me?” She responded, “Why, yes I do know you, Mr. Williams. I’ve known you since you were a young boy and frankly you’ve been a big disappointment to me. You lie, cheat on your lovely wife, manipulate people, and talk badly about them behind their backs. You think you are a rising big shot when you haven’t the sense to realize you will never amount to anything more than a two-bit, paper-pushing shyster Yes, I know you quite well.” The lawyer was stunned. He couldn’t even think for a few minutes.
Then, slowly backing away, fearing the looks on the judge and the jurors’ faces, not to mention the court reporter who documented every word, and not knowing what else to do, he pointed at the defense attorney across the room and asked, “Mrs. Jones, do you know the attorney for the defense?” She again replied, “Why, yes I do. I’ve known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He’s lazy, bigoted, and has a terrible drinking problem. The man can’t build or keep a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he has cheated on his wife with three different women. Yes, I know him.” The defense attorney nearly fainted and sat slumped in his chair, looking at the floor. Laughter, mixed with gasps, thundered throughout the courtroom and the place was on the verge of chaos.
At this point, the judge brought the courtroom to order and called both counselors to approach the bench, and in a very quiet voice said, “If either of you crooked bastards asks her if she knows me, you will go to jail for contempt of court.”
ROTFLOL!
Good one. I’d call it a judge joke, though.
I can tell I’ve stumbled into a butt boy parade. By boys. Call off your dogs now.
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.