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.

[Outlaw Woman]

IE8 scripts are allowed. Windows XP

[darkwing104]

Just when I think I’m gaining access to the inner-sanctum

An inner-sanctum for the Viking Kitties? that news to me.

[50mm]

I just tried it with IE8 on XP and it works. It is a video and does take time to load sometimes.

[RFEngineer]

“I did ask, you replied with coy games, and that’s enough for me.”

Go back and read your question. You were being a dick. I returned the favor.

[grey_whiskers]

The point to me is to limit government, not Christianity, or even homosexuality.

Nothing good is possible without limited government.

Is that (to your thinking) an "absolute" good or a tactical goal?

What do you mean limit government?

Cut its size (how many people are in it, number of cabinet posts?

Cut its scope (number of Government bureaucracies?)

Cut its funding ( so we can remove the Deputy Understudy to the Vice Superintendent of Redundancy Department)?

Cut the number of areas of our life over which it has authority?

And if the latter, which areas do we remove from governments' purview?

Food safety, marriage, rape, affirmative action, drug use, drug dealing, sodomy, prostitution?

And if pluralities of the population differ on which areas to cut, how is it to be decided which group's preferences will prevail?

Please elucidate.

Cheers!

[LS]

Knowing Glenn somewhat, this really troubles me. As a historian, I ask, where have we seen it before. John C. Calhoun raised the issue of speech and press when it came to slavery, saying (and I’m too lazy to go get the quotation right now), “If we are entitled to have slaves, then we are entitled to have them in peace,” and he went on to explain that this meant free from criticism or comments in papers or from abolitionists. In other words, Calhoun not only wanted perpetual slavery, but he wanted an absolute gag on ANYONE criticising it in any way. Does this sound familiar when it comes to homosexuality?

[RFEngineer]

“I used the word “wanker” because your method of discussion is a form of playing with yourself, at the expense of others.”

Quit whining. If you want to discuss the topic of the thread, fine, if you want to talk about your little jeremiah, then do it with someone else.

[50mm]

...inner-sanctum...

Maybe this?

[DesertRenegade]

If I’m not mistaken, Thomas Jefferson believed in the death penalty for sodomites.

[grey_whiskers]

I can be a dick, too, and apparently I’m much better at it than you.

How ironic to use that choice of words on a pro-homosexuality thread.

Cheers!

[Irish Eyes]

Not looking too good for JD at the moment, is it.

No...unless the voters can give us a miracle.

[Outlaw Woman]

All I got was ‘internet cannot display’ message. Maybe it is my system; Lord knows I’ve been having problems with it.

Thanks for checking though 50mm.

[50mm]

It could have been better, but some potential ZOT targets scurried away after JimRob’s arrival.

[Outlaw Woman]

That’s it. LOL (I stealz that cool picture btw)

[RFEngineer]

“Please elucidate.”

Cut the size and scope of the federal government. All of the things you mentioned will do.

In this way, and in this way only will it be possible to limit the influence of those who seek to use the power of government against what is right and what is moral successfully.

The size of government, it’s cost, it’s restriction of freedoms, and it’s impeding of the pursuit of happiness is the fundamental immorality at play here.

If government is small(er) then it’s impact on those who wish to live a life of traditional, biblical morals will be much smaller.

If we Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s - while making sure Caesar has little influence and control over the rest, we’re at a good spot.

It is a foundation that we can use to rebuild the moral government that I think all freedom-loving people want.

[eyedigress]

You just reminded me, I need to go weed eat the yard.

[darkwing104]

Is that what it is? I thought it was the line waiting to use the kitty litter box...

[50mm]

LOL

[RFEngineer]

“No, just tired and disgusted from several decades of fighting a culture war against morally insane atheist libtards and liberturdians....”

And during those several decades government has grown ever larger, and ever more encompassing and limiting of individual rights and freedom.

This is what every conservative can agree on. But the answer, in my opinion, is to make government smaller before making it more moral.

The opportunity to do make it so may come sooner rather than later - as we are broke. We can and should reduce even popular programs/functions of government as drastically as we can.

That’s the thing about being broke. You worry about things like eating before you worry about who can marry whom.

[DesertRenegade]

In California, the militant homosexuals were allowed to cherry-pick an avowed sodomite judge in order to get their preferred verdict. What next? ... are we going to allow proud pedophile judges to preside over NAMBLA cases? This is pure insanity.