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.

[little jeremiah]

I remember something about broiled grapefruit. I thought it ruined the grapefruit.

[DBeers]

You start with limited government. The rest is up to freedom loving citizens to exercise their God-given freedoms.

-and maybe practice their religion in public discourse?

The Founders had it right -limited government under God

One can not separate the two. Government is illegitimate without the underlying and foundational premise of unalienable rights endowed the people by the Creator -THIS, regardless the size of government. It is this notion that secured legitimate our revolt from the big government tyranny of the King. We did not found the country upon small government or for small government. The only reason to limit government is to limit the power of those who would usurp our unalienable rights -a check upon man against what God endowed...

I do not see an either or choice here -this IS fundamental -Freedom 101...

Big-government Christianity will fail, as it should.

Here you conflate the two -government and Christianity -why? Why not big government "homosexual marriage" -THAT is the issue...

Big government bad -big government perverting Christianity worse... Legitimate Christianity is quite good and as the founders did attest -a sound basis for not only legitimate change; e.g. revolution; but as well, legitimate government...

One can either support or not support homosexual marriage -that is their choice. Suggesting that Christians irrelevant -that they should shut up and or sit down on this issue as far as their perspective and political discourse -hmmm... -what is that all about?

[okiejag]

ping

[CitizenUSA]

Natufian: “Not strictly true, IMHO.”

Nearly all law is based on morality. I write “nearly” because I hold out the very remote possibility that some laws may be based entirely on objective fact. I can’t think of any.

When you write that most laws are based on real or perceived trampling of others rights, that doesn’t mean those laws themselves aren’t based on morality. The concept of equal rights is itself based on morality. I could just as easily believe the strongest, by virtue of their strength, should rule over the weak. However, most people probably wouldn’t agree with my “law of the jungle” morality. Therefore, it wouldn’t be codified in our laws.

My point is, it’s ridiculous to assert government shouldn’t legislate morality when in fact, that’s exactly what government does. Support for “gay marriage” is based on morality just as much as opposition to it. Take another look at the arguments used by the left. They state we should recognize “gay marriage” because it’s fair, it treats citizens equally, and it displays tolerance. These are ALL positions based on moral judgments.

[AnalogReigns]

IMO, eliminate unelected judges.

The elected judges we have in my state (NC) do just as much harm or more, than the unelected judges in a place like say VA. It's not election of judges that eliminate judicial activism, its having legislatures with the statesmen who will STAND UP to the courts and nullify the fundamentally unconstitutional notion of contemporary judicial review....

NOWHERE, did our Founding Fathers believe that judges, be they elected or appointed, would seize the power to declare overwhelmingly supported laws "unconstitutional," especially as they do now, on a whim.....

The idea of a final, nothing we can do about it, Judicial Review itself, must be repealed.

[MindBender26]

I agree totally that there should be no special privileges for ANY class of citizens, but there are.

For example, many do not realize it but there are special grants that provide extra money for patients with AIDS. “Ryan White Funds” are one example of this.

But be careful exactly what you ask for. The legal definition of sodomy precisely fits certain acts enjoyed greatly by adult heterosexuals.

Propositioning and/or engaging in sex acts with underage children of either sex is a problem, but don't fall into the trap of thinking the solution is the enforcement of laws against sodomy.

[MindBender26]

P.S.,

To give you an idea how ridiculous “Ryan White” is, it gives money to AIDS patients, most who contracted a totally preventable disease, but does not pay our wounded warriors, or cancer patients or heart disease patients, but the primarily gay AIDS patients.

[no dems]

I think this is going to hurt Glenn Beck's popularity and standing with Conservatives. (Who else watches him but Conservatives?) I know I'm not watching him anymore. Not taking a moral stand here is just as despicable as Obama refusing to take the moral stand on the Mosque at Ground Zero issue.

[no dems]

I think this is going to hurt Glenn Beck's popularity and standing with Conservatives. (Who else watches him but Conservatives?) I know I'm not watching him anymore. Not taking a moral stand here is just as despicable as Obama refusing to take the moral stand on the Mosque at Ground Zero issue.

[DesertRenegade]

“Homosexuals have decided religious or not that this part of their life is not amoral. They are wrong, but, that being said it doesn’t mean they are completely amoral.”

I disagree to the extent that I don’t know too many crack addicts who consider it a healthy lifestyle and celebrate that pride with parades. I don’t know too many heroin addicts who damand that drug addiction is a normal and productive lifestyle and they want to adopt children into a heroin den household. We excuse homosexuality as just another sin like cussing when you stub your toe. But there is a massive difference when these deeply perverted people actually claim that evil is good and celebrate it in the streets and the liberal activist courts. When people completely embrace evil and call it good, that is a sign that our society is coming to an end.

[CitizenUSA]

listenhillary: “Once a person says that government should enforce morality based on a religious beliefs, you will end up with government that reflects the majorities religious views.”

This is true, except that opposition to homosexuality isn’t necessarily based on religious beliefs. There are many unbelievers who oppose homosexuality. Homosexuality is dysfunctional per natural law which has nothing to do with religion. To be blunt, the parts don’t fit. That’s simple, undeniable fact, aka the truth. We can (falsely) claim homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, but natural law cannot be denied. It is what it is.

Secondly, you kid yourself if you think the “gay marriage” advocates aren’t trying to enforce morality, their morality, on everyone else. They believe homosexuality should be normalized, and they are ready to use the full weight of government against anyone who disagrees. Yes, that’s where this is leading.

So, this isn’t so much about not legislating morality as it is about deciding whose morality gets legislated.

[SaraJohnson]

Great response. The empty headed pc yessir folks want to dismiss oppostion to permitting homos to social engineer human sexuality, marriage and family as only a religious argument about marriage in the church.

Wait and hear them squeal when they see the carnage and sexual abuse homos bring to the US. Liberals are not very foresightful, as usual. If it feeeeeeeels good, do it, baby!

[knarf]

True, and America was founded/based/formed by men that had that Judeo-Christian mindset and worldview.

I just thought I could make an adverb out of America.

/8^)

[TheOldLady]

Here's a great site that you will like better for definitions:

The Free Dictionary

[listenhillary]

So, this isn’t so much about not legislating morality as it is about deciding whose morality gets legislated.

Once you remove the government's tentacles from every aspect of our lives and you return government to it's constitutional role of defense of the nation, groups will not be able to use the full weight of government against anyone who is causing no harm. What about AIDs? Answer,Why is government in health care? What about the children? If they are guilty of incest or having sex with minors, we have laws for that.

Secondly, you kid yourself if you think the “gay marriage” advocates aren’t trying to enforce morality, their morality, on everyone else. They believe homosexuality should be normalized,

I never said they weren't trying to push their morality. It exists in our federally financed government schools and colleges right now. I want to remove the government bludgeon from everyone's hand.

Homosexuality should never be encouraged it is against our long term survival as no procreation results. Nor should people be forced by governments to rent to them, force churches to marry them. Government has overstepped their rightful role in this. Remove the assumed powers our government has claimed to regulate this.

Originally this power to prevent "discrimination" was passed to prevent discrimination of blacks. There was still discrimination going on at the time, but we were already making huge progress in eliminating discrimination as a society without governments help. The belief that government can solve problems with ever more legislation took a big leap with the civil rights act in creating a protected group of people. How has that worked out for them? Most of the black families have been shattered and four generations have been taught to love slavery as long as the Democrats are the slave owners. If anything, the government has made race relations worse with their social tinkering.

Back to homosexuality. If anything, the fact that the bible story of Lot keeps popping up says that there will always be a certain percentage of our population practices this behavior. Unless we want to take radical steps to remove them from the our society, we must live with them to some extent. If anyone is in support of taking radical steps to rid them from society, I stand against you.

If you want to remove their undue influence in todays political world in promoting and normalizing their behavior, I'm in your corner.

Let god judge them.

[TheOldLady]

Oh, I forgot about Conservapedia.

I just checked them out again, and there is no entry for Free Republic.

Also, under the heading "Conservapedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia," I found this during my Bing search: "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki project written from an American conservative Christian viewpoint. It uses editorials and a wiki-based system to generate content."

[RFEngineer]

“One can either support or not support homosexual marriage -that is their choice. Suggesting that Christians irrelevant -that they should shut up and or sit down on this issue as far as their perspective and political discourse -hmmm... -what is that all about? “

You made the this strawman, so you tell me what you want people to think it means.

I responded to someone else’s comment that we needed a “Christian revival” - so your comment is better directed towards them.

You make the same mistake that others did in this thread. Whether you support one specific issue or not is irrelevant to the bigger picture, which is, we need to focus on limited government so that when, for instance, a majority of Californians say “no” to gay marriage, a federal judge does not even try to overturn their will.

[DJ MacWoW]

That's wikipedia's definition. I excerpted the page below from Conservapedia itself. There's more to read at the link.

Conservapedia

Conservapedia, launched on November 21, 2006, is a conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia. It was founded by teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly with the help of several students from his fall 2006 World History class. In May 2008, Schlafly and some of his homeschooled students appeared on the CBC news program The Hour.

When a student handed in her paper using the date-markers “BCE” and "CE” from Wikipedia, Schlafly realized that Wikipedia, despite its claim of neutrality, contained bias against the achievements of Christianity and conservatism. Other occasions of liberal bias, including the reversion of factual edits about the 2005 Kansas Evolution Hearings, led to the creation and launch of Conservapedia.

[RFEngineer]

“In order to maintain a system of self-government, you must have people who actually govern themselves. People who believe that God expects them to be honest, and to honor their commitments to their families and to each other. When that breaks down, more and more government is necessary to clean up the mess.”

More government is never “necessary”. We have ever more government not because of less God in our lives, but because we have the natural course of bureaucracy is to take more and more power until it is stopped and/or dismantled.

You make a reasonable point that people must be willing to govern themselves - but even in our founding days, we had laws, we had judges, crimes occurred and punishments exacted. There is a misconception that everyone was law-abiding, God-fearing and pious during revolutionary times. That simply isn’t true.

God will not limit our government, throw off tyrannical rules and taxes. We must do that ourselves.

We cannot legislate morality - prohibition is the object lesson for this.

Our founders created a system under which individuals, exercising their freedoms, could live freely and prosper despite the tendency toward immorality that is the base condition of man.

[RFEngineer]

“You don’t debate. You insult. I’ve “talked” to you before. I wasn’t impressed then either.”

Oh I remember you, too, but I don’t hold grudges.

I debate, and attempt to return to debate. You can review the thread and see that that of which you complain is really your own folly. I prefer a good honest intellectual debate - and engage in that with anyone who is willing and able.

You are not capable of informed debate as long as you use lazy thinking and have no creative or individual contribution. Maybe that’s the best you can do, but you can always strive for better. I hope next time you don’t jump on a losing argument and come into the fray better informed.