• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Glenn Beck: Gay Marriage No Threat To Me, Or America

The political debate over same-sex marriage gets more interesting by the day as old ideological lines get blurred over what, only six years ago, was a hot button social issue that primarily benefited the Republican Party. As James noted this morning, conservative lawyer Ted Olson has raised many eyebrows by joining David Boies in the lawsuit to overturn Proposition 8. And, last night, even Glenn Beck made clear that same-sex marriage just isn’t something that bothers him:

O’REILLY: But let’s take the gay marriage deal. Big ruling in California. You really didn’t cover that much, right?

BECK: Nope.

O’REILLY: Why?

BECK: Because honestly I think we have bigger fish to fry. You can argue about abortion or gay marriage or whatever –

(…)

O’REILLY: Do you believe — do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?

BECK: A threat to the country?

O’REILLY: Yeah, it going to harm the country?

BECK: No, I don’t. Will the gays come and get us?

O’REILLY: OK. Is it going to harm the country in any way?

BECK: I believe — I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?

O’REILLY: OK, so you don’t. That’s interesting. Because I don’t think a lot of people understand that about you.

BECK: As long as we — 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 –

O’REILLY: Oppose it –

BECK: — we oppose it –

O’REILLY: Right.

BECK: — but we’re not trying to kill anybody or trying to –

O’REILLY: In Sweden they have that too. OK, so gay marriage to you, not a big a threat to the nation.

I never thought I’d actually say that I agree with Glenn Beck, but I agree with Glenn Beck. It may be the only time, and it’s not going to cause me to start watching his show but, it’s somewhat refreshing to see that conservatives like him aren’t jumping on this issue like they did back in 2004.

On a related note, Nate Silver notes this morning that public opinion on same-sex marriage seems to be changing far faster than anyone anticipated, and in support provides this chart showing polling trends on the same-sex marriage question going back to 1988:

The change over the past twenty-two years is rather dramatic and, if it’s true, it seems to indicate that we’ve reached a point where opposition to same-sex marriage will, before long, become the minority opinion. The lack of a sustained public reaction against Judge Walker’s opinion in the Prop 8 case seems to indicate that we’re almost there.

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Franklin says:

    I hope the blind squirrel enjoys his nuts.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. James Joyner says:

    Maybe he just means that there’s no chance a gay man would marry him.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. mike says:

    As much as I don’t like Beck, I agree with him on this. Really, is gay marriage really going to hurt anyone – if you say yes, how? has it hurt anyone in the states it is already legalized? I am not saying the judge was correct or not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Zach says:

    Beck is trying to get his advertisers back.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. jpe says:

    That graph sure looks like a penis.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  6. G.A.Phillips says:

    ***That graph sure looks like a penis.***lol, yes a sick one, like in the pictures from health class……..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  7. Nick Reynolds says:

    If gay couples want to get married, more power to them.
    They should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as
    all the married couples I know. Hasta la vista, maricons!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Mick Leonard says:

    I think that graph needs a shot of penicillin and maybe a cath! It’s the pox!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. mitch says:

    Mataconis – you are a liar and an idiot.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. ic says:

    Only fools would go thru marriage. Civil union gives them comparable privileges, why bother to get married and pay a hefty marriage penalty tax every year.

    Under Obama, you’re not rich if single, makes less than $200,000. But if you’re married and together make $250,000, you’re rich and would be soaked to pay your fair share to finance Michelle O’s $375,000 vacation, and their Paris date nights.

    Be smart, civil union is the way to go.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  11. russ says:

    Looks like Obama’s approval/disapproval line.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. An Interested Party says:

    Leave it to a post like this to bring out all los pendejos…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. With Beck – and with Instapundit, who linked to this – it’s all about the Benjamins, isn’t it? And, it’s all about the tunnel vision libertarianism too. If they can’t see any direct harm to themselves, then it’s OK. They aren’t smart enough to think through the long-term, oftentimes-indirect impacts of their policies, nor do they much care about the impacts of those policies on others.
    Now, that doesn’t mean I oppose gay marriage, nor does it mean I support it. It does mean that social conservatives who are useful idiots for the teaparties, Beck, and libertarians in general should think twice about whether those groups are really on their side.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Agoraphobic Plumber says:

    I actually never really was against “gay marriage” per se…I’m just tired of people redefining words.  If you asked anybody in the entire country, including gays, in say 1970 to define marriage, they would have said it’s a union between a man and woman.  It was only since the mid 80s or so that they started to try to redefine the concept.
    It’s like how negroes became blacks and then Afro-Americans and then finally African-Americans, and now negro is a dirty word.  It wasn’t then.
    Indians became American Indians, and now Native Americans, and they get mad if you call them an Indian.
    What used to be liberals is now “progressives”, and in many quarters “liberal” is a dirty word.
    I hate when people twist the language around.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  15. [...] Glenn Beck: Gay Marriage No Threat To Me, Or America Quote: [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. An Interested Party says:

    “It does mean that social conservatives who are useful idiots for the teaparties, Beck, and libertarians in general should think twice about whether those groups are really on their side.”

    If social conservatives haven’t realized this by now, when will they ever realize it?  Those two legs of the GOP chair have been awfully sturdy for awhile, but when will social conservatives finally realize that they have been played for suckers…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Scottks says:

    Glenn Beck doesn’t care about gay marriage because he has larger fish to fry. If this country doesn’t turn around quick from the implosion we are headed for — gay marriage, abortion, health care, whatever the issue — it’s not really going to matter when people are trying to figure out where their next meal is going to come from, where they will sleep tonight, or whether we will live to see the sun shine in the morning. When the dollars is worthless, when jobs are non-existent, when cops can’t control our neighborhoods, let alone our nation’s borders . . . who cares about gay marriage?
    RULE 3: Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. RULE 9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) — Saul Alinsky

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  18. Bonsage says:

    Gay issues, including gay marriage, doesn’t rank high on my list of priority issues, but I think there is something important lost when we keep redefining words and the concepts underlying them, so I don’t like a union of two men or two women or multiples or combinations thereof described as a marriage and there are some perfectly valid reasons why heterosexual married couples have distinct rights, benefits and obligations as opposed to other associations of individuals.  Finally, the last thing we need is an enlargement of classes with special benefits (read government entitlements).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Simmer says:

    As your chart shows, public opinion will soon make it possible to change the definition marriage legislatively, instead of through judicial fiat. Many belief that if it is ruled on by judges against public opinion, then the issue will remain contentious for years to come.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. I can’t believe that with today’s economic problems and the US military scattered from here to kingdom come that this is that big of an issue right now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. Simmer says:

    It’s funny to hear liberals speak of conservatives as “useful idiots”. It was a term created for and applied to stupid American progressives.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. memomachine says:

    Hmmmm.
    It’s not about “gay marriage” at all.  It is about gay **weddings**.
    Read the legal opinion of Judge Walker.  It actually admits that Californias civil unions are absolutely the legal equivalent of marriage *except* that a marriage license gives gays a means of legally forcing churches to allow them to have a wedding there.  And note that there are plenty of Christian churches that would allow gay weddings with no problems but that isn’t the gold standard.  The gold standard of gay weddings is to have one in a church that absolutely refuses to allow it and thereby forcing that church to give up its tax exempt status among others.
    And that is the thing overall.  A lot of churches and Christian denominations do not allow gay weddings.  If gay marriage, and thus gay weddings, are now a Constitutional Right then anyone who uses their 1st Amendment Right of free association must then give up any benefits accrued from any government status or program at any level.  You no longer have federal tax exempt status.  You can no longer participate in any government run social programs.  You no longer have access to public facilities or lands.  You can no longer run festivities on public park land.  You can no longer use town or city pools for your church summer program for kids.  etc etc etc.
    Glenn Beck is  Mormon and the Mormons do not recognize gay marriage and actively opposed it by supporting Prop 8.  Glenn thinks this won’t “pick his pocket”?
    More fool him.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. Equality for lesbians and gays, including marriage equality, actually should reduce or end activism aimed at getting anti-gay religions to change their tenets. Since all of the anti-gay activism has originated from religious organizations, it was reasonable to address it directly by advocating that the religions change. With equality, there is no need for this approach. In addition, the Constitutional separation of church and state ensures religions against the state dictating they change their beliefs. For example, greater equality for women has not forced the Catholic Church to ordain female priests.
    Lesbians and gays do not have to force themselves upon religions that don’t want them, or to celebrate their marriages, because they already have a well-established church that will: the Metropolitan Community Church, founded on Oct. 6, 1968, by gay ordained Baptist minister Troy Perry. If we need additional religions, we’ll make more.
    However, it is correct that equality for lesbians and gays is going to be like radioactive dye exposing the vast rivers of cash and perks various religions have enjoyed thanks to enterprises they have founded for the purpose of getting tax dollars to fund their operating expenses and evangelical activities. These religions will be totally free to discriminate against lesbians and gays as much as they want on their own property and in any program that does not receive government money.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. [...] I now pronounce you…spousal units? Posted on August 13, 2010 by wormme Via Instapundit, news that Glenn Beck isn’t worried that gay marriage could destroy the country. [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. Allen says:

    For me, I got over the gay marriage issue as an issue pretty quick.  Instead I had a problem, and still have a problem, with the courts being the medium of choice for this argument.  To me as soon as civil unions were mentioned I thought it sounded like an alright deal to get the states out of he marriage business and move them to the civil unions job. Everyone that wants it recognized by civil authorities gets a civil union, everyone that wants and finds a church to do it gets a marriage (or whatever the church calls it).  On the other hand, what’s the courts doing in this argument? 

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. wormme says:

    Revisit the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  Get the freakin’ Feds out of the social contract business.  Let states permit, or ban, hetero, homo, or polyamorous unions as they choose.  Then FREE Americans can choose a congenial home. 

    A bit more detail is at my website.  But here’s a thought experiment for you:  if you demand that gay marriages become the law of the land in every state…are you going to force the Amish to accept gay marriage?

    And if you’re willing to exempt them…why not others? 

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. [...] August 13, 2010 I tend to agree. [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. It is the job of the courts to prevent the tyranny of the majority over minorities. The system is working. Majority votes cannot be used to destroy unalienable rights.
    The Metropolitan Community Church celebrates same-sex marriages, so marriage is not a word defined only by, and reserved only for, anti-gay religions.
    Also, almost every religion defines marriage differently. A Catholic marriage is not the same as a Methodist marriage. The Mormon Church, which is making the biggest fuss of all about same-sex marriage being an offensive re-definition of “traditional marriage,” has THREE definitions of marriage. One is polygamy, which Mormons prefer to call “plural marriage,” which their prophet may re-institute whenever or wherever he thinks they can get away with it — which is just one reason why you should think VERY carefully about tossing away the protection of the courts in favor of total majority rule. The second is “celestial marriage,” which can only be created between an opposite-sex Mormon couple in a Mormon temple — which means the couple and every single person attending must have a “temple recommend” awarded for being in total compliance with the directions of church leaders and up-to-date with their tithes. This is the only truly spiritual marriage. The third is what everyone else calls “traditional marriage,” which is spiritually dead because it isn’t “celestial marriage.” If you have accepted the idea that some marriages are more equal than others, you are well down the path of conversion to Mormonism. The National Organization for Marriage, in particular, has carefully framed all its objections to same-sex marriage equality in terms of Mormon doctrine, so that if you agree with them, you have accepted tenets of the Mormon religion without being aware of it. Rest assured that Mormon missionaries have matching talking points to take you the rest of the way.
    Lesbians and gays are an enormously self-reliant and enterprising minority and are not looking for any government entitlements.
    The goal of marriage is one of the most socializing goals society has. Children in high school don’t just daydream about their weddings. They imagine getting married and having children and they start to make the choices and do the work that will get them the education and career to create the life they want. Same-sex marriage equality is going to improve social stability and morality.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. No religion is going to be forced to perform gay marriages, due to the separation of church and state. ALL anti-gay-equality religions are exempt from performing gay marriages.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. wormme says:

    @Cynthia,

    Are we it for the night shift?  The lightweights are snoozin’.

    There’s no “unalienable” right to ANY marriage at this time.  There’s no enumerated right for a hetero union.  There will be an Amendment, if man/womanunions were ever legally challenged, but for now no one has an “unalienable” right to marriage.

    Heck, I can’t even get a date.  So if I have a Constitutional right to marriage, then it’s high time the State coughed up my Mate.   

    (Funning aside, I’m very sympathetic to you.  But maximizing liberty requires considering how much control local communities should have over local behavior.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. [...] OK, so I was browsing at Little Miss Attila, who linked Instapundit, who linked Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway, who reports Glenn Beck is OK with same-sex marriage. [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. gb_in_tx says:

    The libertarian in me says — it’s none of my business.  The conservative in me says — I’m not really comfortable with the concept, but then again there are a whole lot more pressing matters on the table, let’s not squander our political capital on something like this.  In the long run, biology will assert itself and the subjects of the matter will end up heading down a dead end, no real harm done except to themselves.  Darwinism will take its course since practicing homosexuals (of whichever plumbing variety) don’t reproduce.

    Net result — I agree.  I must preach against it on a religious/moral ground and I cannot condone it in practice, but I will concede that it is none of my or the .gov’s business in the long run other than to warn about its spiritual consequences.  Separation of church and state.  A truly free society will allow such things.  It must allow them, as long as it hurts nobody other than the ones practicing such.  I draw the line at pedophilia/pederasty.  The sad thing is that adhering to conventional marriage does little to stave off those particular practices, hence the argument that limitation to conventional male/female marriage heads off those practices doesn’t hold water in real life.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. rosignol says:

    …um, no.
    There is no legal requirement for a church to perform a wedding for all comers- if I want to get married, there is no legal basis I could use to compel a Mosque or Synagogue to let the ceremony on their facility. A church is private property, and the owner can choose to make the facility available or not as they see fit.
    Someone is spreading extremely inaccurate misinformation about this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Shawn says:

    I hear a lot of talk in my party about Gov handouts. We don’t want to hand our hard earned money to government entitlement programs. And then they are concerned about churches losing they’re tax-exempt status (gov handout) and funding for they’re social programs (more handouts). I don’t see Christians running to synagogues to force them to marry them. And Jews running to a Mosque. I don’t believe in gay marriage, but I certainly don’t understand how it dilutes hetero marriage. Are straight men and women going to leave their spouses for members of the same sex? NO! Gays don’t dilute the sanctity of marriage, divorces and cheating spouses do. Good for Beck, gay marriage doesn’t effect or affect me and won’t. So why should I care? whatever happened to life, liberty and freedom for all Americans?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. DH says:

    I agree with Glenn Beck about a lot of things… and I am gay with a 15 year partner.  What needs to be clarified is the “state”, legal side of the argument, not the religious..  what is next ??  perhaps and unalienable right to pork rinds..gasp, what will the Jews and Muslims do?  A religious wedding alone is NOT legal and yet in some states that accept “common law” at 7 years you are considered to be married.

    In the law it will interesting to see if it stipulates that you must be “gay” in order to marry – same sex.   What would keep 2 older co-workers from marrying in order to help support each other even though they don’t love or sleep together?  Of course you don’t have to be straight or even like the other person in order to have an opposite sex marriage so why not?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  36. [...] When those same-sex couples do hit the altars, Glenn Beck won't be upset. [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  37. [...] Not opposed to gay marriage. [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  38. LHog says:

    The problem with this “if it doesn’t hurt me I don’t care” position is that in our society we are forced to pay for others mistakes. If it was simply a matter of personal responsibility then i wouldn’t care either. But shared healthcare costs, underwriting failed companies and mortgages, among many many other social policies mean my tax dollars are used to repair the damage done by others irresponsibility. This means we must ‘care’ about others bad personal choices. Share the wealth means share the poverty as well.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. submandave says:

    DH raises a point I’ve asked before and noone has ever addressed: if SSM becomes a normal accepted practice throughout the countrt, then why can’t I marry my brother?  Is consumation of the marriage (yech!) to be required and verified?  If that’s OK, then why couldn’t I marry my mother if my father died?  Should a gay couple that has voluntarilly become celibate due to HIV infection of one member be excluded from the franchise because they don’t “do it”?

    My biggest problem with SSM has always been that despite what any judge wants to say, there is a fundamental biological difference between a male-female pairing and either a male-male or female-female: the logical expectation of projeny.  Many of the social changes to the common idea of marriage we have seen over the past 40-50 years has emphasized the interests of the people that enter into marriage at the expense fo the people that result from marriage. 

    Two people want to pool their resources and create a household I say good for you, but, IMHO, further blurring the societal connection between marriage and children isn’t an acceptable way to go about doing it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  40. submandave says:

    And before someone reflexively plays the IVO card, we aren’t living in the Brave New World, yet.  Traditional hetero activity is the source for well over 98% of all births, and many, if not most, IVO is still done for the benefit of traditional hetero couples.  Yes, gay couples can and do have children, but statistically I do not think this is of such a magnitude to deem the SS couple as societally equivalent to the hetero couple.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  41. memomachine says:

    Hmmmmm.
     
    @Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian
    “No religion is going to be forced to perform gay marriages, due to the separation of church and state. ALL anti-gay-equality religions are exempt from performing gay marriages.”
     
    If gay marriage is a Constitutional Right then any church that doesn’t allow it cannot participate in any government program in any way, shape or form.  Think about that for a moment.  The Catholic Church operates over 400+ hospitals and clinics across the country.  If the Catholic Church is no longer a tax exempt entity *and* is barred from participating in any government programs, such as MediCare, then those facilities are going to close.
     
    That is the reality.  You may wish it were otherwise, but that is the way it is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. memomachine says:

    Hmmm.
     
    *shrug*
    Google “united methodist church ocean grove lawsuit lesbian” since I’m not sure I can put links here.
     
    That’s just one simple example where UMD has had to forbid any and all marriage ceremonies in order to not allow even civil unions on church property.
     
    As for me personally I really couldn’t care less.  But what concerns me are the unintended consequences that result from this sort of judicial gerrymandering of social issues.
     
    And… is it just me or is the text editor kinda strange?  I prefer to avoid the “wall of text” but inserting paragraph breaks makes the text look a bit odd.  And it would certainly help if there was a preview.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  43. wr says:

    memomachine — Abortion is a constitutional right and many (all?) Catholic hospitals refuse to perform them, and they still get Federal money.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  44. LHog says:

    It’s about establishing a new right. Like Abortion and Privacy, it’s not specified in the Constitution so thay have to use the Courts to write a new Right.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    Do they have the Consent of the Governed? No, the Governed specifically voted in favor of an Amendment to their Constitution banning gay marriage. So the judge in California is ruling directly in defiance of the Governed is he not?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  45. [...] he goes and says something like this: O’REILLY: Do you believe — do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  46. SPQR says:

    I see multiple people claiming that gays can’t compel churches to perform weddings, but we’ve already started to see that some gay organizations do want to compel acceptance by force of law.   Such as the New Mexico photographer who was sued for refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding.
     

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  47. [...] [via Outside the Beltway] [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  48. An Interested Party says:

    “My biggest problem with SSM has always been that despite what any judge wants to say, there is a fundamental biological difference between a male-female pairing and either a male-male or female-female: the logical expectation of projeny [sic].” 

    Ohh, so heterosexual couples that can’t produce children should also not be allowed to marry, as progeny is not a logical expectation for them…

    “Do they have the Consent of the Governed? No, the Governed specifically voted in favor of an Amendment to their Constitution banning gay marriage. So the judge in California is ruling directly in defiance of the Governed is he not?”

    So the Supreme Court in the 60s was wrong to outlaw segregation?  Surely a majority of the people in the South where it was most actively enforced believed in segregation…the Supreme Court in this circumstance was ruling directly in defiance of the Governed… 

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  49. tom p says:

    Wow lhog…  I had no idea the Declaration of Independence was written only for straight men. (I already new it wasn’t written for women, or blacks, or asians or hispanics, or the landless, etc etc)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  50. sam says:

    @Hog
    “Do they have the Consent of the Governed? No, the Governed specifically voted in favor of an Amendment to their Constitution banning gay marriage. So the judge in California is ruling directly in defiance of the Governed is he not?”
     
    Why is this principle so hard for some people to grasp?. It is the principle behind the Bill of Rights: Where fundamental liberties are concerned, the will of the majority cannot abrogate those liberties. The question before the courts concerns the fundamental liberty interest of folks of the same sex marrying. The will of the majority, in denying or affirming that liberty interest, is in no way binding on the question. Questions of fundamental liberty are not determinable by plebiscite.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  51. mantis says:

    I see multiple people claiming that gays can’t compel churches to perform weddings
    And they’re correct.  Anyone who claims otherwise is lying through their teeth.
    but we’ve already started to see that some gay organizations do want to compel acceptance by force of law.
    No, we haven’t.
    Such as the New Mexico photographer who was sued for refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding.
    A photographer is not a church or religious organization.  Business are required to comply with anti-discrimination laws in many states.  Professional photography is a business.  Churches are not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  52. Michael Reynolds says:

    This thread demonstrates the truth of the judge’s finding which said, if I may paraphrase:  people who oppose gay marriage are f–king idiots who cannot muster a single rational argument to support their position.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  53. [...] whole article I’m quoting is here, but that’s the gist of it. The only other thing I have to say that’s worth mentioning [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  54. Ertdfg says:

    I’ve voted for Gay Marriage every time it’s been on the ballot; but the Judge’s ruling in CA is just wrong.
    I don’t care what the ruling is, a Judge doesn’t get to decide that he doesn’t like the vote from the people; overrule it by his own whim, declare new meaning to the constitution to cover his decision, and declare that the party he rules against now has no standing to appeal.
    Yeah, its’ a constitutional issue.  Not state constitution (as that was being amended and the new amendment would overrule the existing text0 but I guess the Federal Constitution.  Can anyone find the me the amendment that clearly shows that the current marriage rules for 45 states is “UnConstitutional” and has been since the founding of the country?   Anyone?  Of course not, because this “right” didn’t exist until now.  Did the Federal Constitutuion get amended to add this “right”?  Nope, it just magically grew there… or something.
    I don’t think that’s a good precedent to set.  Maybe you’d like a  (what is the word for Dictatorship controlled by Judges) but it seems like a bad plan to me.  Sadly nobody listens.
    Well I guess I’ll welcome our new Black-Robe wearing Overlords!  Here comes the Judge, don’t look directly at him, he’ll have you thrown in jail for that.  Whatever he says goes, you only have the rights he decides you have, and he can change the rules by his whim.. for he is all powerful.
    One question, can I be a Judge before we finish this switch and allow Judges to be all powerful and overrule all other government entities, the will of the people; to pass legislature through fiat, and deny people the right of appeal?  I suspect I’d be pretty good that that job.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  55. FxConde says:

    When it gets really right down to it, it’s a states right issue. If a state says ok then it’s ok in that state. On the other hand if a state says no then it’s no. At some level the community has rights, as well, to set standards to reflect what they consider beneficial.
    If you don’t like the direction your state has taken you can move to a state that reflects your values. Minority tyranny is just as bad a majority tyranny!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  56. mantis says:

    I don’t care what the ruling is, a Judge doesn’t get to decide that he doesn’t like the vote from the people.
    You’re right.  Good thing the judge made the decision based on the Constitution, and not whether he “liked” Prop 8 or not.
    overrule it by his own whim, declare new meaning to the constitution to cover his decision
    What “new meaning” to the Constitution did he declare, exactly?  Which parts of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment did he redefine?  Please be sure to cite Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut in your answer.
    and declare that the party he rules against now has no standing to appeal.
    Well, the 9th Circuit really gets to decide whether they have standing, but the judge does have a point, and it is relevant to his decision of whether or not to lift the stay.  The Prop 8 proponents claim a “a cloud of uncertainty” would surround same-sex marriages granted before an appeal.  Since none of them plan on getting married to a partner of the same sex, they don’t really have standing in court, as any such uncertainly will not affect them.
    Yeah, its’ a constitutional issue.
    Yeah
    Can anyone find the me the amendment that clearly shows that the current marriage rules for 45 states is “UnConstitutional” and has been since the founding of the country?
    The Constitution doesn’t reference the specific laws of specific states.  However, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are the basis of the court’s conclusion.  Perhaps you can <a href=”http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/California-Prop-8-Ruling-Augusst-2010″>read the decision</a>, as it explains in detail why Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
    Of course not, because this “right” didn’t exist until now.  Did the Federal Constitutuion get amended to add this “right”?  Nope, it just magically grew there… or something.
    You know what else just “magically grew there” where it didn’t exist before, thanks to the courts?  The ability of people of different races to marry each other in states that previously outlawed the practice.  The right of black children to attend schools with white children.  Protection from being involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution by the state if you aren’t a danger to yourself or others.  And many more.  None of those are specifically addressed in the Constitution, but the courts decided them anyway.  That’s part of what a judiciary is for.
    I don’t think that’s a good precedent to set.  Maybe you’d like a  (what is the word for Dictatorship controlled by Judges) but it seems like a bad plan to me.  Sadly nobody listens.
    Maybe nobody listens because you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about?  Worth considering.
     
     
     
     

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  57. G.A.Phillips says:

    ***This thread demonstrates the truth of the judge’s finding which said, if I may paraphrase:  people who oppose gay marriage are f–king idiots who cannot muster a single rational argument to support their position.***

    lol, how about the term gay marriage and how stupid it is to even consider it’s meaning as a rational term that has meaning?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  58. sam says:

    “lol, how about the term gay marriage and how stupid it is to even consider it’s meaning as a rational term that has meaning?”
    I’m surprised you’re posting, GA, I’d have thought with Beck saying gay marriage didn’t pose a threat to America, pieces of your head would have been scattered all over Wisconsin.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  59. Alan Kellogg says:

    In the words of Linus van Pelf: Twenty years from now who’s going to know?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  60. An Interested Party says:

    “Twenty years from now who’s going to know?”

    The same people who know that 40+ years ago, there were all kinds of folks screaming about the alleged evil of miscegenation…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  61. [...] Don’t like Glenn Beck? Prepare to have your mind blown. This entry was posted in Middle East, Politics and tagged al qaeda, christianity, cordoba, [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  62. [...] Quote of the Day: Glenn Beck “I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?” — Glenn Beck [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  63. [...] I do cringe a little inside when I hear him use the word “libertarian.” But he actually managed to impress me this time. O’REILLY: But let’s take the gay marriage deal. Big ruling in California. You really didn’t [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  64. [...] I do cringe a little inside when I hear him use the word “libertarian.” But he actually managed to impress me this time.O’REILLY: But let’s take the gay marriage deal. Big ruling in California. You really didn’t [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0