Glenn Beck Defends Gay Marriage: Republicans Need To 'Expand Our Own Horizon'

Business Insider ^ | 12/11/2012 | Grace Wyler

[SeekAndFind]

Conservative firebrand Glenn Beck has joined a growing chorus of Republican commentators in defending gay marriage, laying out a strong case for ending government opposition to letting same-sex couples wed.

"Let me take the pro-gay marriage people and the religious people — I believe that there is a connecting dot there that nobody is looking at, and that's the Constitution," Beck said during a recent segment of his online talk show. "The question is not whether gay people should be married or not. The question is why is the government involved in our marriage?"

While Beck's defense of gay marriage may seem surprising, given his far-right political views and audience, it is actually not new. Earlier this year, Beck said that he has the "same opinion on gay marriage as President Barack Obama" and does not see same-sex unions as a "threat to America."

Still, Beck's public renewal of his support for gay marriage comes at a politically significant moment for the GOP, which is working to reshape its message to appeal to a changing electorate. A Gallup survey released last week found that 53 percent of Americans are in favor of legalizing gay marriage, a number that has been steadily growing for the past decade.

Moreover, by couching his support for gay marriage in a libertarian framework, Beck makes the case for the right to look past differences on social issues in order to broaden their coalition to include all limited government conservatives.

"What we need to do, I think, as people who believe in the Constitution, is to start looking for allies who believe in the Constitution and expand our own horizon," Beck said. "We would have the ultimate big tent."

[greene66]

I’d sensed several times before that Beck was pretty close to embracing fag marriage, when the topic arose. So it doesn’t entirely surprise me that he’s come out in favor of this degeneracy.

I’ve long been on the fence about Beck, who has always been a weird mix of positives and negatives. But this is enough for me to pretty much drop him for keeps. He can just go to Hell.

[ansel12]

In America, Islam and Mormonism counts as much as your religion, so if there is no legal definition of marriage, and everyone just decides for themselves, then the left wins.

[VanDeKoik]

Why stop there, Glenn?

Why not support two men and a women?

Five women together?

3 Men and 3 women all married to each other?

A 30 year old and a 10 year old?

Two babies?

A man married to two different women in different parts of the country at the same time?

What would be the legal or moral opposition to those?

Because they are too “weird” but two guys or two girls being married is “normal”?

[BwanaNdege]

Just wait until the "ANYTHING GOES!" crown throws bestiality into the mix.

When that happens, watch the fur fly between PETA and the deviants.

Throwing off restraints is like those coin funnels used for fundraising.

It all starts slow, but before you know it things are spinning out of control. I've read that these "hyperbolic" funnels mimic a Black Hole.

[angelcindy]

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

[publius911]

Et tu, Beck?

I would have thought that Glenn can see that the ongoing battle is NOT about letting gays do whatever they wish (that's legal,) but the insistence on calling it "marriage."

The gays, and their supporters, including legislators can call it "Nirvana," and imbue it with all the legal benefits of marriage, without the need to mock hundreds of years of tradition and legally insisting that is IS marriage.

Call me anything you wish, but I will never accept marriage as anything other than the union of one man and one woman ------ period.

[presently no screen name]

But then that's totally lost on all you "conservatives" isn't it.

What would YOU know about conservatives? Don't talk about what you don't know. Get back under your big tent where all the losers are! Watch out who you back into - they are a friendly all inclusive bunch.

[Dead Corpse]

Those are all State laws. You do know how this whole Federal Republic thing works right?

1st Amendment is Federal. It has a clause limiting it's scope to the FedGov under "Congress shall make no law"...

DOMA opened up a Federal can of worms and these are the fish you are catching.

[Ohioan]

You make distinctions that are valid. However, it is not necessary for us to focus on the evils of homosexual behavior, politically. That should be up to the individual. Beck could make a common cause with homosexual advocates on all other issues, and not compromise his Conservative principles by endorsing an oxymoron that has the practical effect of confusing the moral purpose of marriage. But in confusing the moral purpose of marriage, here, he creates a very unfortunate, very counter-productive ripple effect, that can only undermine the moral basis of a great many of America's traditional moral values.

Examples are many. Property rights, for one. If society can make a mockery of family formation, why not make a mockery of property rights to appease the Marxists. Property rights & marriage (family formation) have been virtually inextricably connected, virtually throughout Western History. Magna Carta, in recognizing immediate property rights, recognized the inheritability of those rights--that has to do with family, slice it as you will.

There is room for a big tent; there is no room for humoring every wacko idea, in order to try to do the impossible--i.e., make sure every dissident in that "big tent" is happy. Nothing is more clearly self-defeating; self-destructive.

William Flax

[prisoner6]

Absolutely! “Marriage” is the union of a man and woman....a male human and female human...in body and soul. Those two elements must be present. Whether the union produces offspring or not is irrelevant.

Bodily contact between two of the same sex for mutual gratification is not mating.

[ctdonath2]

I recall Rush once pulling a big “liberals are right, I’ve changed my mind” stunt long ago. It was a stunt. I hope this is too.

[Dead Corpse]

As has been stated, Gays are about 2% of the population. Absent stupid laws against it, I would never hire one nor knowingly associate with them. Nor would I invite them into my Faith unless I thought there was a good chance at converting them.

I don't have that option any more because someone thought giving government that level of power was a good idea. "Let's punish the sodomites! We'll ALWAYS be in control!"

Yeah... Not so much.

[angelcindy]

“And the great issue now of homosexuality in your country, that shall be on the balance that Michael holds. Unless this balance is evened by removing this evil from your country and bringing in just laws to prevent the spread of homosexuality, you cannot be saved; your country cannot be saved. Because I repeat again, as I have repeated in the past: When a country has given itself over to immorality and all pleasures of the flesh, and abominations of the flesh, then that country will fall! If you do not believe Me, My children, I say: You will read your history books, and you will find out that there was a Sodom and Gomorrha. And what did We do to that abominable city, Sodom? We destroyed it! And what did We do to Gomorrha? We destroyed it! And We destroyed all who did not follow the plan for their redemption.” - Jesus, November 1, 1985

[Nowhere Man]

I tend to be a libertarian myself, I think we are having too much of an emotional, knee-jerk reaction here. I see his position as more neutral, the Feds should not be involved in marriage at all, pro or con, they are there to do what is Constitutional. I do believe the answer our Founding Fathers would give is, leave it to the States if there is to be government involvement at all. The States reflect the temperment of the people who live there, you might have more "gay friendly States," other more "religiously friendly" and so on. I think we have much, much bigger problems than this like the economy, an unAmerican president, jobs, some mullah sending over an ICBM ruining our day and so on.

That said I do say the gay lobby goes a bit far at times and they shoot themselves in the leg. They need to learn to keep it in their homes like we all do, if they did that as we all should, there would not be much rancor.

Government should be out of marriage with the exception of determine who is responsible for who like for inheritance and medical consent. Let it up to the ministers and churches. Then they would have the power to tell them to either "go fly a kite" or marry them as their conscience seems fit. I know I get a lot of trouble taking my neutral position here but we have bigger fish to fry.

[ansel12]

How do you get government out of marriage, unless there is no such thing as marriage?

[Dead Corpse]

Well said...

[a fool in paradise]

From out of the closet into your classrooms. So much for “consenting ADULTS in PRIVATE”.

The culture is f***ed. These are the same perverts who push the Sex Positive Agenda (the homosexual agenda merely being the battering ram to society’s norms). Condoms in schools was not about ending teen pregnancy or disease (certainly didn’t work). It was about forever ending the argument over whether teen SHOULD be engaging and sex and shifting to WHEN.

Bang away on the foundation institutions of this country, Glenn.

And keep selling packrat supplies. You have little credibility this country with your morning drive time comedy schtick.

[SwankyC]

I’m sorry, you know me? Point proven. Critical thinker you ain’t.

[Dead Corpse]

Will you always adhere to your Faith? Is Marriage part of your religious tenets?

Then how could marriage not exist? For that, you would need GOVERNMENT interference.

[SwankyC]

Am I to take it from your post that you’re pro theocracy and anti 1st ammendment?