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

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

The question is why is the government involved in our marriage?

That's right up there with Craig Nelson's "I was on welfare! Nobody ever gave me nothin'!" The government is involved in your marriage because marriage is a legal institution you fuckwit.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

You mean a pension rights, healthcare, and inheritance sort of legal institution that gay folk have been going on about for years? Surely not.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Marriage as a legal institution is nothing more than a variant of contract law and has no bearing on the spiritual and religious aspects of marriage. It would be better to just rename what the law does in that capacity to more accurately reflect what the real function it performs, is.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Contracts between you and me do not grant me legal rights from the government, like lower taxes, probate rights, or the like. This urge to oversimplify marriage to a contract between A and B, when it's really an agreement between A, B, and the government in which all of them gain privileges, doesn't help things.

I understand the urge to have civil unions be separated from marriage, but I feel like it's unnecessary. Words sometimes have different meanings in different contexts; marriage is one of those.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Contracts between you and me do not grant me legal rights from the government

Shouldn't they? That to me seems to be the crux of the whole argument.

If I want to sign a contract that makes someone not related to me by blood my "next of kin" shouldn't I be allowed to do so, and shouldn't society honor that contract? Likewise if the Government want to reward people who live in nuclear family units with lower taxes that's their perogative. I just don't see what "Marriage" as a social or religious construct has to do with it.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Marriages just don't behave like any other contractual relationship, because they're not contracts. Let's do very basic 1L brass tacks stuff.

What, precisely, is the consideration (that is, the thing of value being bargained for) offered by either side? Monogamy? Lifelong devotion? OK, well now let's presume that contract was broken, that monogamy was not delivered. What are the money-value damages for the difference between a monogamous marriage and a non-monogamous one? What are the damages in the event of one partner seeking a divorce while the other wishes to remain married (that is, unilateral breach of the contract)? Why can the state, as a full party to the contract, not get the right to terminate unilaterally, provided it is willing to pay relevant damages for its breach?

None of these questions make any sense whatsoever, because marriages are not contracts. Period.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

lots of people care. a lot.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

But we are talking about a legal construct not a social one.

The social import comes from the exchange of vows and the feelings shared it has nothing to do with the government what so ever.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

None of these questions make any sense whatsoever, because marriages are not contracts. Period.

No.

The reason those questions don't make any sense is that they appear to be based on numerous assumptions not in evidence.

You eiether do not know what the word contract means or must have an odd concept of marriage because I am at a loss to think of any circumstances under which a marriage would not constitute a formal or legally binding agreement (http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+contract&qpvt=contract+definition&FORM=DTPDIA)

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

No, no, I mean this type of contract (http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=337).

The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance, if the contract is "unilateral".

[dwer.livejournal.com]

no.

[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?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

the word IS PART of the substance.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The substance after all, is what matters, presumably?

Apparently not.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

care to elaborate on that reply?

[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.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

That's pretty much how I see it as well.

[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

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Your position seems like a variation of "that's the way the world is", an argument often brought up as an excuse to ignore problems and delay progress without providing any evidence in favour of the status quo. If you favour the traditional definition of marriage, good for you, but as society evolves, there is no reason that legal institutions can't evolve as well.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

While I agree that if government is going to be involved in marriage it's biased to say you can't be married to this person but you can be married to this other person.

I don't think we need to give special privileges to married people though. The whole idea was to give incentives to what we considered the 'ideal family unit' but does that necessarily apply? And do financial incentives make it so?

There are a few legal things you can't really do away with. Visitation rights, inheritance of property, etc. But why do people need to be married to have that, why not just consent? You can have your cake and eat it too. People can get married and as part of getting married, give legal consent to the various governmental capita fusions and fusions that occur.

Marriage isn't necessarily strictly a religious institution, but it is definitely a cultural one, and varies a lot among a lot of cultures.