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 ...
How about marriage between brother and sister? Or one man and four women? Or a woman who wants to ‘marry’ 500 potential ‘immigrants’ from 3rd world countries? She doesn’t charge them beyond the $10,000 diamond ring...
They all ready have the right to marry, but have chosen to reject marriage in favor of something else.
I do!
I missed the pay per view and I'm hoping it's on before the Donaire v. Arce fight sat.
Yes. I suspect some are literally in the closet dreaming of the day that will never come -the day when sick perversion is acceptable to normal society.
The movie, Brokeback Titanic will never come just as sure as the day when manning the lifeboats first will NEVER be women, children, AND "committed loving monogamous" homosexual sex practitioners! Homosexual sex is a self destructive disorder with at best a detrimental impact upon society. Surely, homosexual sex is nothing to be promoted and given privilege to REGARDLESS those who choose to engage in it are allowed to participate in the sickness in privacy.
Homosexual sex promoting conservatives -what the hell is that if not the description of a mentally disordered group of people?
If you continue to allow him to “score” when he does so on the basis of his poor reading comprehension regarding what I say, and allow him to then construct straw positions that I do not have, then I continue to be disappinted at your apparent loss of your own logical abilities, which I thought until yesterday were significant.
I am sorry to have over estimated you.
(I am the manager on duty for a well-known high-end jewelry store during the weekend.)
Employee: “You have to come out and see this customer now.”
Me:“What’s the matter?”
Employee:“She is becoming belligerent because I told her we have to send her watch to be fixed. She’s causing a scene and other customers are complaining. She is insistent that she needs it now.”
(I go out to talk to the customer.)
Me: “Hello, my name is [name]. What seems to be the issue?”
Customer:“I have been waiting a f***ing hour! Your stupid representative told me that my watch isn’t working any more; it was working when I walked in!”
Me: “Let me have a look at it, please.”
(I proceed to touch her beat down and heavily abused watch and begin winding the crown.)
Customer: “Do you even know how to work a watch?!”
Me: “Ma’am, I have been with (company) for several years. I assure you I can work a crown and pin mechanism on a quartz watch.”
Customer:“I wasn’t trying to be condescending!”
Me: “That’s fine.”
(We proceed to go back and forth for a few minutes. I decide to refund her money and send her on her way. By now, her mood has changed from angry to happy.)
Customer: “Oh, you’re just so wonderful! You are the absolute best! I am going to write a recommendation letter to your director and put my ‘ESQ’ after my name.” *smugly* “I’m a lawyer, you know.”
Me:“Oh, I’ve got my own lawyer, thanks. My husband works for [huge NYC law firm].”
Customer: *stunned* “Uh…I also work for [same firm]. Who is your husband?”
Me:“He’s in Litigation. His name is [husband's name].”
(Suddenly, the customer’s jaw drops and all color leaves her face.)
Customer: “He’s your husband? Um…he supervises all my work.”
Me: “Does he now? Well, well, what a small world!”
Customer: “I…uh…am a temp attorney and am trying to get a permanent job at the firm. He is…wow…he’s really smart and brilliant and…um…you are so beautiful and intelligent…you make such an elegant couple!”
Me:“Thank you. Anyway, here’s my business card should you need to follow up regarding your watch.”
Customer: “Oh, I know I have a business card somewhere, too.”
Me: “Oh, don’t you worry; I will most definitely remember your name. I’ll make sure to let my husband know you send your regards.”
Customer: *turns bright red and slinks away*
I thought you threw in the towel. And here you are again insulting everyone's intelligence. And yet you never once responded to my challenges to first explain what the heck you meant when you said you "agree with Beck" and secondly what your strategy is for fighting the culture wars if, as we have to conclude from your posts, that you think the Federal battlefield should be abandoned and the fight (such as it is) should be taken to the states.
Apparently your response to challenges to your position is to just go on the attack and insult the intelligence of everyone who challenges you. Rather than taking the time to explain your position so that those of us with lesser education and intelligence can understand what you are saying, you accuse everyone of having a problem with "reading comprehension".
Did you ever stop to think that the reason why people misunderstand what you are saying is because you just don't have the skill set to communicate your message to hard headed dolts like xzins and me?
Now since you've returned to the threads to insult me and xzins and apparently everyone else on this thread, does this mean you are ready to go a couple more rounds?
Or are you going to say No Mas and slink back under the ropes and go back to your ivory tower?
That will work. Welcome to the thread hijack. It’s Friday. It’s official.
It’s good to be here. Sorry for being scarce. Job + ministry + new baby = busy Bugg.
Obviously, CEW is campaigning for the title of "FReeper of the Year".
What. Are. The Calvin wars?
Sounds like something I'm glad I missed........
FWIW, sometimes it’s a good idea to just walk away before insulting posters you agree with over 90% of the time. I don’t believe we have any obama supporters here so we should at least remain allies until that piece of garbage is gone and all the socialist rodents with him.
Let there be Peace on earth, and let it begin with me
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! ... to all Social Conservatives.
While your taste for long-winded (albeit grammatically correct) sentences obviously resonates from some adolescent inferiority complex, you seem reluctant to state what you actually believe. So, why don't we make it simple and see how you respond to a couple of YES or NO questions? (I learned a long time ago that the surest sign of a troll on FR was their unwillingness to answer such questions.)
1. Should it be up to the individual states to decide if same-sex marriage is legal or not? YES or NO
2. If a state does allow same-sex marriage, must other states and the federal government recognize it under the equal protection clause? YES or NO
*Prepares for flame war*
:-)
That was intentional. Because I absolutely believe ALL conservatives are Social Conservatives. And that includes my fellow FReeper C.Edmund.
There are just disagreements on strategy and tactics sometimes. And what is meant isn't always fully communicated in a post.
1. Should it be up to the individual states to decide if same-sex marriage is legal or not? YES or NO
2. If a state does allow same-sex marriage, must other states and the federal government recognize it under the equal protection clause? YES or NO
Actually, the assumption that every question can be sufficiently answered Yes or No is an infantile shallow opinion. Some can of course, but a lot of issues are simply not that way. So your entire premise is flawed. Actually both of your foundational premises above are flawed.
As to question 1, I don't know if it "should" be up to the individual states, because that was NOT the issue here. The issue here was whether or not the state route was the best way to uphold traditional marriage. And my answer is it probably is. Just probably. I never said 100%, and I don't say that now. And I think that was Beck's point.
As to question 2, you can ask 100 lawyers and get 100 different answers probably. I prefer to deal in the real and practical, and not always get in the weeds of the legal and the hypothetical. All I can say is, the last time I checked, there was no huge migration of gay couples from other states into a state where gay marriage is not allowed. My suggestion to you is to look at it this way: having such an amendment passed will likely discourage gay couples from moving in. This is another reason why the answer to question 1 is, as I said, probably.
I’ve seen very few posters who have labored so persistently to ensure that their beliefs are incapable of being discerned. Is that your intent?
Got it, you are taking the "one must examine all of the nuances" route so favored by pseudo-intellectuals.
As to question 1, I don't know if it "should" be up to the individual states, because that was NOT the issue here. The issue here was whether or not the state route was the best way to uphold traditional marriage. And my answer is it probably is. Just probably. I never said 100%, and I don't say that now. And I think that was Beck's point.
I'll take that as a YES.
As to question 2, you can ask 100 lawyers and get 100 different answers probably. I prefer to deal in the real and practical, and not always get in the weeds of the legal and the hypothetical. All I can say is, the last time I checked, there was no huge migration of gay couples from other states into a state where gay marriage is not allowed.
Have you got an actual SOURCE that you are prepared to cite? Or is this just speculation?
People move all the time, to suggest that homosexual don't is absurd. This is far from hypothetical.
My suggestion to you is to look at it this way: having such an amendment passed will likely discourage gay couples from moving in. This is another reason why the answer to question 1 is, as I said, probably.
So, in your hypothetical universe, you believe SCOTUS will uphold amendments to state constitutions that discourage homosexuals from relocating?
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.