Replies

He doesn't get it. If he wants the govt. to get completely out of regulating marriage, he'd have to change 10,000 laws and regs in 50 states and eliminate all marriage-based benefits, including those related to taxation, property, insurance, survivors' rights of all kinds, liability for debts, custody of/responsibility to children, etc.

He's not really proposing this. He's just making noises which ultimately boil down to: sanity must yield to insanity -- and then, oh, by the way, law, medicine and education will be bent to the agenda, dissenters will be hounded, marginalized and prosecuted, social organizations and human services will be queered, church-related institutions will be beaten down to the ground, out Kindergartners will be forbidden to assume that Family Day means Moms and Dads, and our 5th graders will be memorizing the key principles of dildo hygiene and safe sodomy.

"Other than that, of course, it doesn't affect a thing."

My respect for Glenn Beck just sank to a new low: not because he's wicked, but because he's stupid.

“My respect for Glenn Beck just sank to a new low: not because he’s wicked, but because he’s stupid.”

My take is the other way around, but we can agree he is in the wrong.

He doesn't get it. If he wants the govt. to get completely out of regulating marriage, he'd have to change 10,000 laws and regs in 50 states and eliminate all marriage-based benefits, including those related to taxation, property, insurance, survivors' rights of all kinds, liability for debts, custody of/responsibility to children, etc.

And of course you get it that you want a gigantic govt with fingers in everything just like liberals do, you just disagree with them as to the type of gigantic opressive govt?

He doesn't get it. If he wants the govt. to get completely out of regulating marriage, he'd have to change 10,000 laws and regs in 50 states and eliminate all marriage-based benefits, including those related to taxation, property, insurance, survivors' rights of all kinds, liability for debts, custody of/responsibility to children, etc.

Well, if Beck were being consistent here, he'd call for the govt to get 100% out of...
(a) Holding dead-beat dads accountable;
(b) Putting up safety nets, financial & otherwise, for broken homes

'CAUSE IF THE GOVT DIDN'T HAVE TO FUND THE AFTERMATH OF WHATEVER MARITAL MESSES MEN (& WOMEN) MAKE, THEN HE COULD AT LEAST CONSIDER BRINGING UP THE QUESTIONS HE'S MAKING.

But BECAUSE the govt is heavily financially invested in making marriage & family work, then, yes, it has a right to speak into how marriages work to benefit the family.

Experimental families = more broken families. Experimental "unions" = more broken covenants.

And families LOSE in the process.

So go ahead Beck. Go ahead FREEPER surfer. Be consistent. Start telling the govt to get out of holding dead-beat dads accountable; get out of the business of putting up safety nets for broken marriages & broken homes.

Divest yourself, Uncle Sam of these investments, and thereby rid yourself of practical considerations as to why it's important to you that marriages & families remain healthy.