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.

[Darksheare]

They have the same rights as I do.
Nobody is denying them rights.
But what they are doing is in NO WAY normal.
Thank you for admitting that you will not look at anything that runs counter to your IDEOLOGY.
You refused to click the link, didn't you.

[TalBlack]

“It does not even occur to you that you and Beck may simply disagree on a few issues..”

When I use the word ‘dislike’ in this case it is meant in the vein of ‘don’t trust’. Hell, Rush says plenty with which I disagree but I “like” him. Sometimes he annoys me enough to shut off the radio but I still can say I like the guy.

There is something a little creepy about Beck that I hope is a failure in my perception rather than a material thing.

[Darksheare]

FOLSOM STREET FAIR CLICK IT.
Tell me that is normal.
Tell me that it is wholesome good clean fun.

[Sandy01]

Sinning is no way normal. Murdering is not normal. Adultry is not normal. Idolatry is not normal. Let us refuse marriage rights to those people.

[shattered]

So are you saying that there should be no opposing opinions, discussion or debate on this thread? I’m very conservative but can take some discourse or debate on the issues without running to a mod or admin!

[UCFRoadWarrior]

I can’t figure these people out. First they say they’re for “Faith, Hope & Charity”. Particularly, they embrace “Faith” and align themselves with the “Framers” who also embraced “Faith” and a belief in decency and morality. Now, they say homosexuality is OK. I just have to shake my head and wonder what planet these people were born. Just because one of the “famous framers” said “if it don’t try to kill me or pick my pocket” it doesn’t make it “Gospel”. You can’t take the Gospel and make a buffet out of it, Accepting and rejecting what ever “pleases” you. Remember what our Lord said, “I’d rather that one was hot or cold. If one is luke warm I’ll spew you out of my mouth”. Either you follow the Gospel and EVERYTHING that it stands for or one might as well hop the fence and take the road to perdition along with Satan and the rest of the liberal progressives.

---

Never trust anyone....who yaks up “Founding Fathers” or “Constitution”....yet attacks Birthers. If there is anything more of a Constitutional issue and a besmirching of our Founding Fathers....is that the current Presient may not be legally in office.

So-called “conservative” talk radio is no longer conservative. There is obviously a reason why the British have banned Michael Savage...and none of the others....

[Sandy01]

FR is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-military, pro-traditional American conservatism and it is a privilege to post here.

Make sure you e mail Coulter, Rush and Beck in case they ever want to post here. They need to know they are not welcome. No free speech here

[DJ MacWoW]

That post was by Jim Robinson’s. I simply reposted it. You have a bone to pick with his view, ping him.

[Darksheare]

But you say that they're being oppressed, oppressed by whom?
By people like YOU who want to keep them in bondage to their lifestyle choice.

[Yardstick]

Beck seems to think he has taken a libertarian position on it, but he is wrong. The libertarian position is that the government should play no role in determining how individuals define marriage, which means that it shouldn’t be in the marriage licensing business at all.

Instead his position is statist (since it does leave the government to license marriage and de facto define what it means), and furthermore it is confused (since it allows the other side to prevail with a false civil rights analogy and a false interpretation of the 14th amendment).

I am moderately bothered by the idea of gay marriage, but what really pisses me off is seeing the left prevail with its false and deceptive arguments.

[DJ MacWoW]

I quoted the boss. FR does not support the homosexual agenda. He has also said this is not a liberal debating forum. Want the link?

[DJ MacWoW]

No free speech here

This is a conservative activist site. FR supports conservative ideals.

[Darksheare]

FR is privately owned.
Idiot liberals don’t understand that.
You cannot go onto someone else’s property and cuss them out, or purposefully bait them.
If you did, you would deserve tasting your nose as it goes down your throat.
That’s private property.
FR is private property, it is privately owned.
The homosexual agenda is not welcome here.
Take that to where it is embraced..
DemUn or KOS.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

After Ronald Reagan left office, the Good Old Pimps thumbed their nose at the Moral Majority and sold their soul in the global market place. These frauds will ALWAYS kowtow to Wall Street and cave on issues of abortion, gay “rights”, illegal immigration. They have abandoned Christian Conservatism for hedonistic “free market” libertarianism.

---

Good points.....very apparent that, as the GOP adopted more Liberal Free Trade, higher income taxes, higher gov’t spending... also went weak on social issues....after Reagan left office

And too many, posting here on FR, think that GW Bush was a “conservative”....

For conservatives to take back the country and the GOP....conservatives will have to get rid of the Liberal RINOs and moderates first.

[Sandy01]

Opps....lol
Sorry DJ
Not so much ....Jim

LOL

[Darksheare]

If marriage is redefined to include homosexuality, then by logical extension it must include bigamy, beastiality, polygamy, pedarasty, necrophilia.. etc etc etc.
After all, you’re oppressing the rights of a mentally diseased individual who chose to have sex with horses to marry her horse.

[Sandy01]

I never cursed anyone out. I merely stated a different christian perspective. Yes, I believe mine is the right christian perspective. Are you an owner? Do you realize that many, many conservatives don’t care about or want this fight?
Can you post me the link to rules that say opposing christian beliefs on the homosexual union argument are not allowed here?