Comments

  1. Patric says

    I believe the headline is misleading. While the increased acceptance by those on the right that they are fighting a losing battle is surely a welcome development, asking “why is the government involved in our marriage” is not the same as “express[ing] support for gay marriage.”

  2. Rafael says

    Wow so finally they realize that kicking out their son or daughter for being gay would reduce their political reach? this is just sad . White Evangelicals are willfully becoming the minority.

  3. Joe says

    No, no. He’s more anti-gay marriage than ever. What he is promoting is the removal of government from marriage. What remains when you take the civil element out of civil marriage? RELIGION. And we all know how popular same sex marriage is with the churches!

  4. bambinoitaliano says

    He still need to go away! The world can’t wait for dinosaurs to catch up on evolution. If they can’t catch up, they extinct! Such is the nature of the world we live in.

  5. Mike in the Tundra says

    I couldn’t watch the whole thing, but I certainly didn’t feel that Beck was offering support.

    Could we stop saying gay marriage and same sex marriage and say marriage equality?

  6. Shelly says

    Joe, if I understand this line of reasoning, if you “take the government out of marriage,” then it’s equal civil unions for everybody, gay and straight alike, and you’re free to have whatever ceremony you want wherever you want or none at all cuz the government no longer cares if you’re “married” or not.

    Personally, I’ve got no problem with that. My interest is in equality, not in what words the government uses in recognizing kinship relationships in general, and that sounds like a decent separation of church and state to me.

  7. says

    and then he told his followers to stock up on guns and buy farms because Obama won a second term.

    because he’s clearly sane.

    and he didnt’ really endorse gay marriage, here. when you support and endorse it there’s very specific language that you use. clarity. this is that typical evasive speak his kind likes to toss around.

  8. woodroad34 says

    Oh, look…the wind is changing in the west. Must be time to etch-a-sketch a new position. Wait, I still hate gays, so let me put on some lipstick and rouge up my position a little more. The scorpion stings it’s savior because that’s it’s nature–I trust Glenn Beck as far as I can throw him and his weepy face.

  9. AKChris says

    @Patric,

    You say stating that asking the question about why is government involved in our marriage is actually a powerful statement of support for gay marriage, in that it presumes that gay marriage exists and are equal to any other marriage.

    While I really never agree with Beck, this is a fairly radical statement.

  10. EchtKultig says

    “Oh, look…the wind is changing in the west. Must be time to etch-a-sketch a new position.”
    Yes, and…
    “A chameleon doesn’t change its appearance to be trendy or popular; it’s a survival behavior. That lizard senses danger.”
    Yes.
    Believe me, these cretins hate us as much as ever. In fact they probably hate us more than ever, since the gay marriage wedge issue isn’t the secret sauce it was in prior elections.

  11. Caliban says

    That suggestion comes up frequently, “We ought to get the government out of marriage, Civil Unions for everybody!”

    Uh-huh. Good luck with that. The Right, through groups like NOM, the AFA and FOTF has gone ON and ON about “redefining marriage” when the Marriage Equality movement is nothing of the kind. It merely seeks to increase the number of people to whom marriage is available, without changing the rights and responsibilities of the institution at all.

    But to suddenly literally redefine civil marriages as “civil unions”? Oh yeah, THAT ought to go over big with voters! (<-sarcasm) Further, it doesn’t really change a single thing. It presumes that preforming “marriages” is limited to churches, that God is up on a fluffy white cloud nodding His approval at THOSE unions, but it also assumes that NO religions would marry same-sex couples when that is far from the truth. There are many churches who do solemnize the unions between same-sex couples, so how would it change the debate?

  12. Alexander says

    ya know i agree and i disagree with GB’s point but as far as a comment about churches and marriage. Gay marriage is as much a religious right as any and plenty of houses of worship whatever the faith do perform same sex marriages.

  13. Gast says

    The way to reconcile same sex marriage with conservatives is for them to drop their absurd interpretation of the Bible and for them to love us as God made us. But I wont hold my breath on that one.

  14. gregory brown says

    Why is Glenn Beck trying to wear such a butch-looking shirt?

    Is he finally reconciling the fact that marriage equality is neither the cause of the end of Western Civ nor the torch that will scorch genuinely conservative values? Real Conservatives should embrace marriage equality as a great thing.

  15. Randy says

    I lost mountains of respect for Penn today. If he’s stooped to this, the magic and speaking business must not be paying well any more. He surely knows that Beck is not a libertarian, by any definition. Beck is just trying to use Penn to get skeptical credibility.

  16. Bernie says

    I don’t trust anything Glenn Beck would say that makes sense and as far as the big tent….the only big tent Glenn Beck would be involved with would be filled with similar narrow minded folks

  17. says

    I don’t care what Glenn Beck has to say about anything, but this idea of taking government out of marriage, just as gay couples are moving towards being included in civil marriage, is both common and perplexing. (Look at any “gay marriage” comments page and you’ll find it several times, never mind that we have no federal marriage rights.)

    Since the government isn’t involved in the marriages of same-sex couples–beyond not seeing them at all–then it’s not really a gay issue, at least not yet. All those who want the government out of marriage need to start convincing straight people that those 1000+ rights and protections they take for granted are disposable. And what about those already married? In other words, this is a radical proposal and big deal to those it currently affects, straight couples, much bigger than opening up marriage to a minority–us.

    As for CUs for all, again, convince all the straight people this is an acceptable idea, then get back to us. Though, since churches are already free to sanction whichever marriages they choose and sanction marriages the federal government doesn’t recognize (ours), then I’m not sure what purpose this serves? It’s not like those most opposed to marriage equality, the anti-gay religious, would be on board with civil unions for themselves.

    As Caliban said: “Good luck with that!”

    Why all the twisted acrobatics around this civil rights issue when simply including gay couples in civil marriage is a perfectly rational, Constitutional solution.

  18. says

    Interesting conversation. But, at 3:15.. Yeah… Funny that Conservatives didn’t have a problem getting Government handouts and benefits as long as marriage was assured to be between a man and a women. Now that it could be between a man and a man… Oh, government needs to get out of the marriage business.

    I lost mountains of respect for Penn today.

    Why? Do you not know his positions on things?

  19. says

    Interesting conversation. But, at 3:15.. Yeah… Funny that Conservatives didn’t have a problem getting Government handouts and benefits as long as marriage was assured to be between a man and a women. Now that it could be between a man and a man… Oh, government needs to get out of the marriage business.

    I lost mountains of respect for Penn today.

    Why? Do you not know his positions on things?

Leave A Reply