First Rush, then Coulter, and Now Glenn Beck ... What’s Happening?

Life Site News ^ | NEW YORK, August 12, 2010 | Commentary by John-Henry Westen

[GonzoII]

Friday August 13, 2010

---

First Rush, then Coulter, and Now Glenn Beck ... What’s Happening?

Commentary by John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, August 12, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Appearing on The O’Reilly Factor yesterday, famed conservative Fox News host Glenn Beck may have shocked many Americans by noting that he was not very concerned about homosexual 'marriage.'

O’Reilly asked Beck, “Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?” Beck replied, “No, I don't,” adding sarcastically, “Will the gays come and get us?” 

After being pressed again on the question, Beck said, “I believe -- I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?”  Showing his own surprise, O’Reilly remarked, “Okay, so you don't. That's interesting. Because I don't think a lot of people understand that about you.”

The Glenn Beck revelation comes on the heels of two other startling announcements by conservative celebrity pundits in the last couple of weeks.  Earlier this week it was announced that conservative pundit Ann Coulter would headline a fundraiser for the homosexual activist group within the Republican Party, GOProud.  And on July 29, although his position had been revealed before, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh again came out in favor of homosexual civil unions, while being opposed to same-sex ‘marriage.’

To be fair, it must be pointed out that Beck said he was looking at the ‘big picture’ and promoting faith, the answer to all such things.  Moreover, he added that he was okay with gay ‘marriage’ with a caveat.  “As long as we are not going down the road of Canada, where it now is a problem for churches to have free speech. If they can still say, hey, we oppose it,” he said.

But even to have suggested, as strongly as he did, that he was not opposed to gay ‘marriage’ is detrimental and demonstrates a ‘small picture’ approach.

Beck seems like a good guy. He’s thoughtful.  He’s right on many matters in the culture war.  For instance, when O’Reilly followed up and asked if Beck thought abortion threatened the United States, Beck replied dramatically in the affirmative.  “Abortion is killing, it’s killing, you’re killing someone,” he said.

So I thought it’d be worth it to calmly and persuasively share concerns with Beck on his approach.  He may not read my email, but I’m sure if enough pro-family folks were to get the message to him, he’d reconsider his outlook.

Here’s Beck’s email:

And here’s the gist of what I wrote:

Laws teach people what is right and wrong and thus homosexual acts will implicitly be given the stamp of approval where such legal recognition is granted.  The young will be given the false impression that this behavior is safe and acceptable, or even good.

Society has a duty to legally recognize and support married couples since they are, through procreation, the source for the continuation of human life and thus society itself.  Homosexual couples cannot properly procreate and thus have no such claim to societal recognition.

The question is not so much about marriage, but about homosexual acts.  The acts are harmful to the individuals who engage in them. They are harmful physically, emotionally and spiritually. 

With regard to persons engaged in such behavior or identifying with it, there must never be unjust discrimination.  All gay bashing, name-calling and the like should be condemned.  However, there must be discrimination on this front, a just discrimination, to preserve societal recognition for marriage between one man and one woman. 

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081315.html

---

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

[mnehring]

That isn’t semantics, that is equal application of the law, period. This has nothing to do with Biblical rules, this is a legal definition of a contract. This same contractual definition crosses all cultural and religious lines. This same contractual definition applies in Atheist, Communist China, Buddhist/Shinto Japan, in most Shamanistic cultures in the Amazon and Africa, Muslim Morocco, etc, etc.

The funny thing is I came to see it this way from a gay friend. I have many, many gay friends (probably more than most freepers) and most don’t see this as discrimination against them. (albeit, most are libertarian leaning). In a recent conversation, most were disgusted with the activists types and the ‘straight’ liberals putting words in their mouth about this. A very close friend of the family is a famous ‘Bon Vivant’ homosexual in Dallas who has been with his partner for over 30 years and they are extremely vocal against gay marriage. They do want civil unions but they have come out many times in the Dallas Morning News against changing these basic definitions in society. (..and don’t even get me started as to what they think about all the ‘drama queens’ in California.)

[Darksheare]

God loving individuals *cough*

[Darksheare]

Yes, the sick part was when he started espousing the need for elevated rights, special rights, protected status etc.
Which is what this is all really about.
It isn’t about opressing them, it’s about elevating them to a protected class and the rest of us to second class citizenry.

[Global2010]

Good post.

I got enough on my plate to take care of without being a busy body.

Now as a chaste single woman I would care if some younger attractive males came buzzing around and tempted me.

I could fall off into a cavern of sins.
Then I would be very concerned. LOL

[InternetTuffGuy]

I have no problem with bigamy, either. If you’re dumb enough not to have learned your lesson from marrying your first wife, and go ahead and marry a second or third, then you deserve that living hell.

It’s not my business.

Control the borders, keep the courts, post office and highways in proper working order, mint the money, float a navy, and kick enemy ass from time to time - I don’t need the government to do much more than that.

[Darksheare]

You have no problem with this stuff?

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[DJ MacWoW]

All of that. And to stop the church from preaching against the sin of homosexuality. They don’t want to be told they are in sin. They want to force everyone to “approve” of their hedonism.

[mnehring]

Here is another way to look at this if you are so compassionate.

Why do you want Big Brother to keep lists of who is gay?

[Global2010]

Amen!

[InternetTuffGuy]

If I weren’t already older than dirt, I might just come a buzzin’.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

I have never followed any pundit. They get paid to be conservative. I’m conservative because I know it works.

---

I wish I could say that...I did follow some of the pundits in the past. Good that you have followed your own thoughts and beliefs always....and good that I am doing so now

[Darksheare]

Now that we have the pro-gay-marriage trolls all together..
mind standing right there by that big red “X” for a moment?

[Darksheare]

Government enforced approval.
Enforced approval via law.

[DJ MacWoW]

FR does not and will not support the gay agenda. People pushing the agenda on FR are being zotted by the boss.

Habibi zot

MIlle zot

[DJ MacWoW]

We aren’t influenced by the “movers and shakers” or the elites. Pundits want to keep their jobs. We want to keep America. You and I have a very different motivation than the pundits do.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

I have no problem with the FReepers who disagree with me because I support Prop 8 and the courts overturning an election....my problem is with people like Beck, Coulter, and Rush...who have spent a lifetime pitching to conservatives....yet are not really conservative....and have dumped conservatism based on what (I believe) people at MS Fox News and the GOP have told them to do

---

That should read...”I support Prop 8 and do not support the courts overturning an election”....I need to proofread better

[stockpirate]

They are all nothing but hacks for the GOP. If you think otherwise you are only fooling yourselves.

Just ask why none of them have covered the Birth cert issue in any meaningful manner.

That goes for all conservative talking bobbleheads.

When all is said and done we can only depend on “We the People”.

[DJ MacWoW]

Government enforced approval.
Enforced approval via law.

That's how the left does it. By government force.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

[Darksheare]

Typo virus, I’m in thread.
Typos will increase while I’m here.
It’s almost a scientifically proven fact.