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.

[DJ MacWoW]

I see more of “Don’t look here! Look over there!”. They haven’t learned yet that it doesn’t work.

[little jeremiah]

Two more points that already been made but here they are for your consideration:

1. Why should the government be giving any legal recognition to anyone solely because of their psychologically disturbed sex life?

2. Any legal stuff given by civil unions other than health benefits can be done with other contracts or legal stuff.

[little jeremiah]

Your irrational attack on DJ is way out in left field.

Maybe you need to take a nice warm tub soak with a bit of lavender oil or something.

[DJ MacWoW]

Your irrational attack on DJ is way out in left field.

I honestly thought Almondjoys posts were pretty funny as they had absolutely nothing to do with anything that I said. I sat here laughing.

[little jeremiah]

In my code of morals (yes I do have one that I don’t expect others to follow and don’t require enactment of any laws!) insults or personal attacks on myself I should ignore, but the same on others, it is my duty to defend against.

If people attack me personally (calling me names etc) no big deal, but if they attack my reasoning, POV or the like, then I will fight back with truth.

If they call me ugly or stupid, I laugh. So who isn’t, compared to the beauty and wisdom of God! And yet He loves us still.

[DJ MacWoW]

Insulting my person or opinion because one disagrees is over the top and, yeah, I get annoyed. But yakking about opinions that I never gave is pretty funny. LOL

And yet He loves us still.

Yes He does. Amazing but HE does.

[Eva]

Yes, there is, in reality, very little need for civil unions. They serve very little purpose to society or the potential participants. That is the very reason that I said that the interest would dissipate after a period of time. Gay marriage is designed as a wedge issue. Civil unions take away the wedge and the issue at the same time.

[DJ MacWoW]

Don’t be naive. They won’t stop at civil unions. Anyone who has done any reading on it knows this. Do some research. Please!

[little jeremiah]

The whole purpose of civil unions is to usher in same sex marriage, and their ultimate purpose is to change the very fabric of society (their words, not mine).

[jasonnfree]

I have to agree with you. I work at not being judgemental toward others.

[Almondjoy]

You are aruging my points for me.

I never said they weren’t as a community trying to force stuff onto us. Your morality arguments are way off base and that’s why you answer to my comments.

[Almondjoy]

Call it what you want... you are placing judgement on a group of people based on nothing but emotion.

Your ex-husband sounds like someone who is far more in touch with the amoral culture than homosexuals.

The point is you can’t have sodomy laws on the books and not have divorce and adultry laws on the books. The Conservatives that feel that way are hypocrities and should be shown as such.

There are too many so called Conservatives that attacking this from the immoral standpoint and should be focused on the legal standpoint of these issues.

If you would go back to my original posts you will find that I said the will of the people should be treated as absoulte and I think the use of the Right to Privacy and Equal Protection Clause should not be used to get rid of abortion and to allow gay marriage. While there are laws that are truely incompatible with the Constitution these are two issues that are not.

What I was saying though is that it’s hypocrticial to pick and choose which sins you want to make against the law and which ones you do not. If you want to follow Biblical law to enforce homosexuality laws that you have to follow Biblical law for all of it. I sure think it would be fun to round up everyone who bears false witness though don’t you think?

[DBeers]

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.

I make no mistake. You do; however, by implying morality/Christianity has no seat at the table. You get a little closer though by changing your 'focus' argument from smaller government to limited government.

The question is -what exactly limits government? We can agree that limited government is the answer and do.

Where does this limited government come from -thin air?

If not for Christianity --the legitimate basis for limited government; e.g. unalienable rights endowed the people from the Creator; would be irrelevant.

Like I stated before, you are missing part of the equation here. A people devoid of morality can not legitimately govern whether the government of the people is large or small; limited or unlimited...

[Almondjoy]

And my point is that you should a right to vote in a law that says sodomy is illegal. The Judge is making up the rules as he goes along with this Equal Protection nonsense.

However, my further point to you, is that you are hypocrite to say sodomy laws should be on the books but adultry shouldn’t be. Or am I wrong and you want the Christian version of places like Iran and Saudi Arabia here too and you think every sin should be against the law?

[Almondjoy]

One more thing about special rights to deviants.

Are you in favor for allowing marriage to porn stars? Do you think we should have a law that makes it illegal for porn stars to get married? They are deviants too you know.

[DJ MacWoW]

Quote my morality arguments. Specifically.

[RFEngineer]

“I make no mistake. You do; however, by implying morality/Christianity has no seat at the table.”

Ok, let’s play it out your way:

Where was Christianity’s seat at the table for the California ruling that overturned he peoples will?

If it didn’t have one, why not?

If you want Christianity to have a seat, how does it get it?

I make no distinction, at this point between smaller and limited government - I’ll take either or both.

At some point the limits of government (or limited government, if you prefer) come from the 10th Amendment being re-discovered.

“If not for Christianity —the legitimate basis for limited government; e.g. unalienable rights endowed the people from the Creator; would be irrelevant. “

If you haven’t noticed Christianity is already irrelevant to the growth of government. If you advocate a “Christian Revival” as the source of limiting government, you’ll fail - because it’s already failed to limit government.

Eliminate the tyrant, and then let freedom of religion be practiced unimpeded by government - then you can roll up your sleeves and get your Christian Revival, if that is what you want. Let it impact the political process, let it affect judicial nominations, let it go wherever a free and prosperous Christian people want it to go - so long as we remain tolerant of other religions, as directed by our founding fathers.

[DJ MacWoW]

However, my further point to you, is that you are hypocrite to say sodomy laws should be on the books

Quote where I said that. Post number included.

Or am I wrong and you want the Christian version of places like Iran and Saudi Arabia here too and you think every sin should be against the law?

That the last person that pulled that on one of these threads got a Zot.

[Eva]

Well civil unions were intended to usher in gay marriage, but it didn’t work out that way. There is no objective reason to move from civil unions to marriage. Civil unions eliminated all legal excuses to move the law further. That’s the reason that California went directly for Gay marriage. Like I said, Gay marriage is simply a wedge issue. If being legally tied to another person is the goal, a civil union does the job.

[DJ MacWoW]

Are you in favor for allowing marriage to porn stars? Do you think we should have a law that makes it illegal for porn stars to get married? They are deviants too you know.

Changing the subject to try to justify allowing homosexual deviancy doesn't work on FR. Porn stars aren't pushing for special rights or having their particular deviancy taught in schools as normal.

Try sticking to the subject at hand instead of trying to focus attention away from it.