So he's "evolving" too, now?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Glenn Beck Defends Gay Marriage: Republicans Need To 'Expand Our Own Horizon'
http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-beck-defends-gay-marriage-video-2012-12#ixzz2Em5wKk7K

"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?""
...
""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.""

Amazing, right? Mr Beck has started coming around to positions traditionally held by authentic libertarians for a long time - and not for the "gay rights" reason mind you, but for a constitutional reason. A moment of sanity/consistency/sincerity perhaps? Or simply a realization that you can't win hearts and minds (and elections) by remaining stuck in a 19th century mindset (and respectively, acknowledging the need to pander to wider segments of the electorate)? But shut up, cynical me! I'm sure he's speaking out of pure principle, being the true libertarian that he is. Yes, it must be that!

Somehow reminds me of Hannity and Rand Paul and all the rest of that circus who suddenly gradually "evolved" on immigration in the aftermath of the election. Because, you see, the GOP has no problem with the dynamically shifting demographics in America, noooo. No way it can have that problem. The election defeat was simply a result from bad campaign management, and failure to bring the messages to the public. Right? That's what I'm being told. What... why are you shaking your head? Oh well...

But it's not like Glenn hasn't displayed some consistency on this issue. Remember an interview at O'Reilly's place a couple of years ago, when Glenn revealed himself as the socialist commie Marxist Alinsky-ite that he is, saying that "gay marriage doesn't harm anything"?

Don't know if that was a genuine moment of sanity from Glenn, but O'Reilly must've looked at him in dismay and blinked a couple of times with bewilderment. How come such a staunch conservative mouthpiece had suddenly budged on this issue? Wasn't Jesus supposed to be hatin' on f**s anyway? YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!

It was nearly fascinating to watch how, referring to gay marriage, Beck quoted Jefferson's famous phrase "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". Well, HELLO! Took you a while to realize that, eh? Better late than never.

But the backlash has been even more hilarious.

Citation from the latter link:

"There you have it. Beck doesn't care about one of the most blatant and despicable examples of judicial tyranny in the history of our country. He doesn't care about the institution of marriage and its 5,000-year history. He doesn't care that the Bible says God created marriage way back in Genesis and that Jesus affirmed that. He doesn't care that the family is the building block of a society and that smarter men have explained how you simply can't have freedom and self-governance without it. He also doesn't seem to care about what might become of children adopted into such unions."

Well, good thing he doesn't have to care. Cuz all those arguments are either irrelevant (laws aren't based on the Bible, and neither should they be), or outright idiotic (yeah, "gay marriage will destroy Teh Family, OMGZ! Cats sleeping with dogs, and all that!").

Either way, Beck has shown such a tremendous (for a conservative, anyway) ability to evolve on issues, he'd make Darwin proud. Like his worship of MLK, Mandela, F Douglass and Lincoln. At this evolution rate, he might actually run as the Democratic presidential nominee in 4 years! ;-)

Comments

[dwer.livejournal.com]

yes, and it talks about there being no state religion. The bible is the book of a particular (set of) religion(s). Therefore, it does not apply.

[texasskier.livejournal.com]

I suppose lesbian marriage should be legalized. Especially for you.
Gay marriage should be forbidden. Especially for me))))

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

No.

Hetro sexual.

Don't judge me by the gender of my loved one.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Fine. Then let's come up with a new name for the same thing. The English language has gotten good at such things over time.

The name of the legal paper that forms the substance of that function isn't the hill anyone should want to die for, frankly.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

It simplify the debate a lot to have 'the legal institution of marriage' renamed as civil union and leave the 'definition of marriage' down to individual opinion. It's in keeping with the spirit of freedom of belief and fundamentalists couldn't complain about government 'redefining marriage' any more.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

To reiterate what I said above:

The name of the legal paper that forms the substance of that function isn't the hill anyone should want to die for, frankly. The substance after all, is what matters, presumably?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

The name carries a lot of normalizing power. The legal substance is only part of the social import of marriage.

[texasskier.livejournal.com]

Nothing personal, just question? Do you have experience with a penis in your ass? If yes, what did you feel, I mean, what did you feel mentally?

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I don't know of anyone who would particularly care. Nor am I persuaded to think that changing a name while keeping the substance will somehow destabilize western civilization. This sounds more like adding more import than can be logically supported by reality.

[texasskier.livejournal.com]

Please read carefully the first paragraph.

like a penis in eyeball, there is no desire to put a penis inside my anus.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Nor the curiosity to try either one.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Beck makes comments to bolster his belief that someone gives a shit what he thinks.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Romans 1:26-7. So technically speaking Jews can be Lesbians and there's no contradiction with the text, Christians cannot. OTOH Muslims are allowed to wank if they will be kept from greater sin by so doing, so they're probably the least weird of the three religions about *that.* It is really weird how detailed the information on the Internet about these topics is.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

People actually PAY to listen to this jerk?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This is the preamble (what you mean by the first paragraph):

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There is not even a wishy-washy reference to Providence here. And yes, I have read the Constitution and own an annotated and an un-annotated copy. I also have a copy of the Confederate constitution due to.....family heritage.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

I read his statement as the groundwork for a States Rights argument about whether or not gay marriage should be recognized across state lines...

I see it not as understanding but as damage control on his part

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This is where the Constitution mentions religion. This is Article VI, Clause III:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

And this is the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere does the Constitutions name God, even as Providence, or make more than a general reference to 'religion' unspecified.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

There is; there is a lot of tension in this country at least between the environmentalists and labour. To the point that we have two left wing parties.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

seconded :)

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

That's where I was going; it's ok for me to bonk a bloke if we're both high?

[texasskier.livejournal.com]

For me people who do it are mentally sick. People who defend them are trolls. Politics who play these games are swindlers.
Who are you?

I am RICK DAY

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

what part of texas y'all from?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

*Starts counting*

1, 2, ...ahhh fuck

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I know I'd have to be pretty stoned out of my gourde to consider it.

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

I guess you've never had a fundamentalist point to the end of the Constitution where it says: "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven"

SEE IT SAYS OUR LORD