Last week, Glenn Beck made a statement which seems to contradict his social conservatism.
“The question is not whether gay people should be married or not, the question is why is the government involved in our marriage, Glenn said.
“That’s the huge insult to churches, it’s a huge insult to gays, it’s a huge insult to love,” Penn said. He explained that he was against all marriage because he did not want the state involved in his relationship and his family. He was married at a drive-through in Vegas for $300 only to make sure that he could maintain custody of his children if something tragic were to happen to his wife.
Glenn agreed with Penn, noting that gay marriage does not “pick my pocket nor break my leg” and he doesn’t feel like the government needed to be involved. He said that as long as the government doesn’t come into his church and say he or his church (or any church) need to change their belief system and their practices, he doesn’t care. But right now, people of faith who may not want gay marriage in their church are being shut out of the conversation by activists and progressives.
George Will seems to have a similar white flag attitude as well:
“On the other hand,” he continued, “they could say ‘it’s now safe to look at this because there is something like an emerging consensus.’ Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It’s all old people.”
So let me take some time here to play out the logic of Beck’s argument. His has a very libertarian viewpoint; one in which the government should have no say one way or the other on what two consenting people decide to do as an institution of personal union. Well, OK, but then if the government should not be involved in marriage then it should not have any law preventing polygamy, incest, bestiality, and so on and so forth. They are all personal choices for expression of love and union. If the government should not be involved in marriage then no government official or representative (like a judge) should be allowed to conduct a marriage. There also should be no marriage licenses and no extra or special benefits under law regarding taxation, health benefits and the like. In other words, we would be left with no regarded institution that has been the very cornerstone of civilization.
Beck misses the point that civilization cannot survive without family and family is meaningless without traditional marriage. Sociological studies show that children in households with a married mother (female) and father (male) do better in every way compared to those without. Studies have not shown that same sex unions with children do as well. Why is it so hard for people to defend normal?
As an aside let me mention that only about 2-3% of the entire population is not straight. And out of that small percentage is another small percentage who actually considers a union. Is it now acceptable that a fraction of a percent of the population can now transform the meaning of words (in this case “marriage”) in the English language?
A society has a vested interest in an institution that is best for the growth and continuance of the society. The governments of man have been involved in marriage from the beginning of human civilization. There is nothing wrong with a government (which in our case Beck seems to have forgotten is by the people) recognizing that a marriage between only two people of the opposite sex who are removed from each other genetically and of the same species are the best combination for the society to grow and thrive.
I am a reasonable person and respect individual liberty. I don’t (and shouldn’t have to) rearrange the definition of words to continue that tenet. I think conservatives could easily agree to an expansion of civil union laws to help bring the benefits regarding tax law and such to parity with marriage but to keep them separate when it comes to what is desirable for a strong family.
An article by Ken Blackwell at CNSnews has more about the importance of traditional marriage.
UPDATE:
To continue the healthy debate I am adding a bit about Justice Scalia’s view on government and marriage laws and even the idea of changing definitions:
Speaking at Princeton University, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.
“I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective,” Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.
…“It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd,’” Scalia told Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
As Scalia often does in public speaking, he cracked wise, taking aim mostly at those who view the Constitution as a “living document” that changes with the times.
“It isn’t a living document,” Scalia said. “It’s dead, dead, dead, dead.”
He said that people who see the Constitution as changing often argue they are taking the more flexible approach. But their true goal is to set policy permanently, he said.
“My Constitution is a very flexible one,” he said. “There’s nothing in there about abortion. It’s up to the citizens. … The same with the death penalty.”
Scalia said that interpreting laws requires adherence to the words used and to their meanings at the time they were written.
Back when I studied biology, around Four BC, mothers were, by definition, female, and fathers were male. I am not aware of any bioligical discoveries that would have altered that.
Further I reject the theory that all cultures and all social arrangements should be deemed as if they were normal,l beneficial and have some need to be encouraged
Yet we have nilhilists to attempt to deny biology. The seem to believe that your sex is merely a matter the position you asume to urinate. As an old fashioned, and old, guy, I bitterly cling to my belief that your sex, whether male or famale, is a trait endowed by your creator and is immutable by mere mortal men . Last time I checked it was still Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6
Destroying Culture, Civilization, Family. A revolution to destroy anything traditional, moral, rule of law, Constitutional.
I’ve had it with judicial activists manipulating and redefining language for social policies. Judges’ opinions becoming law that ignore the original intent of the Constitution and moral law should be defied and not enforced.
Barry is allowing bestiality in the military also.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
I don’t care who has sex with whom. I really don’t. It has no bearing on my life. And I have good friends who are homosexual; I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it, just as I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the various bedroom escapades of my straight friends. And these are people in 20+ year, committed relationships. So, do I want them punished by denying them a union? No. Do I think that the Constitution itself answers the question of whether or not government (by the people) can democratically vote to deny fellow citizens certain things? No, I don’t–I think a rational Supreme Court decision will protect the idea of gay marriage. Now, having said all of that…. As a straight and single female, the passage of gay marriage means I’m not interested in marriage anymore. It does change what marriage means to me (sorry, gay friends–but I’m being perfectly honest). I waited until the age of 45 to pick “Mr. Right”; and I would love nothing more than to be his wife. But if my certificate will now read “Spouse A, Spouse B”…. I have no desire to be Spouse B. I have no desire to have a certificate, framed or in a drawer, that does not call us husband and wife. So this stampede to legitimize gay marriage (which is not about the legal status at all, you know, it’s about forcing the larger population to ACCEPT and APPROVE, not just tolerate)—all that’s done is change my thinking to one that says “fine, take it; and I think the straight population should lobby for something with a different name, then”. Should the happy day come, I won’t bother with a legal “marriage” and become Spouse B. I’ll opt for a religious “Covenant Ceremony”, make my promises, and become a Wife. I think the straight population would be better serve to give over the word “marriage” and define and preserve our relationships with a different word. Let them have the one that no longer has its original meaning.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
[...] words (in this case “marriage”) in the English language? … See the original post here: Glenn Beck's Error on Marriage | The Lonely Conservative ← Need Some Advice From the BS Here – Talk About [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
The idea that we, by protecting the idea of marriage, are denying rights is a bit mistaken. A gay man has every right to marry a woman as much as a straight man does and a gay female has every right to marry a man as much as a straight female does. One does not, however, ever have the right to change definitions and language to suit their purpose. If people do get that right, then nothing is safe from being redefined.
Like or Dislike:
3
Andy H, what are you even talking about? People have the right to change the definition of a word. Because people made the word in the first place, and gave it a definition. Language itself evolves to suit its current climate. You’d find that our language was far different a century ago then it is now.
Fact is, the people who are against same marriage use the same old, trite passages. “I’m not homophobic! Some of my closet friends are gay!” It eerily echoes what people use to frontload their racism.
Homosexuals want to be able to have a government issued contract that gives them privileges for a union, and ANY thing short of the EXACT same privilegs that ‘marriage’ gives reeks of homophobia.
I’m a gay republican. I get family values. I came from a traditional family. From my perspective, its the older republicans holdings on certain values that are causing us as a whole, to lose.
Not all traditions are good. Slavery has traditionally been around a HELL of a lot longer then marriage ever was. Yet, you don’t see many clamoring about how slavery was stamped out of America.
I’m also a consitutionalist. Seperation of church and state should be held, and there is NO other reason to deny homosexuals the right to fufill a governmently contracted union other than religious based homophobia.
Also, the studies that say children do better in traditional families? People live longer when they’re castrated. Its a well documented fact. So, lets castrate a large section of the population. We can kill two birds with one stone here! Lets castrate enough to equalize out population growth. Make it three: castrate the disabled, to weed out faulty genetics.
See, surveys can be used for any purpose. Just because you think your purpose isn’t down right nasty evil, doesn’t make it so. Really, what is the difference between my example and yours?
Mine actually solves three world problems. Yet, no sane person would support it. Yours solves and imaginary one.
Like or Dislike:
0
You have successfully annihilated the real meaning of homophobia thereby taking part in the new speak destruction of society. Apparently I’m homophobic because I think the definition of marriage should not be changed for a segment of the populace so they feel like the union they want to be in is the same as real marriage. Sorry, it doesn’t logically work and I like logic and will stick to it.
Trying to equate the evil of slavery to the rearranging of a traditional institution is sophomoric.
Call whatever it is you want to engage in anything you want to except marriage.
Like or Dislike:
3
I consider myself a conservative “Constitutionalist”, and I believe the Constitution will protect anyone’s right to marry (although it does cause grievance for those who desire a polygamous relationship, but that’s for another day and other religions to fight over). I truly do–because we are NOT a “democracy”. So we don’t get to out-vote the gay population by sheer number. Whether I like it or not, or Andy likes it or not, individuals have a right to marry and no government, no group of fellow citizens, has a right to step in and tell them who they may or may not love, who they may or may not marry. I would have preferred a different word—some beautiful word, existing or made up–to mean ‘gay marriage’, other words that mean ‘gay spouse’; but two things are inevitable: that gay marriage itself is inevitable, and that a strict interpretation of the Constitution will uphold that right. This is the problem with a huge and powerful government getting in our business—government does not have the right to tell me who I may and may not marry. Sometimes that falls in line with my own vision for the country and sometimes it does not—but it’s still the most perfect form of government around (or WAS, anyway). I, as a person offended that the meaning of MY union is now different, will choose a different word. Something was, truly, taken away from me in order to give to someone else and that, in any form, will always stick for me. Because I live my life in a TRULY tolerant way, I have never had an issue with a union granting everything that marriage does; but no, I don’t like losing in the deal. If gay friends say “but you didn’t lose, it’s just a word…” then why does the gay community not choose a different word, then? This is a complicated issue. And why I look to the Consititution for a civil answer. Society is constantly morphing, yes, and it’s usually painful. I’ll just change what I call my union and my Spouse A and move on.
Like or Dislike:
3
Now you have gotten to the heart of the problem Liberty5-3000, and that is the redefining of the word “right”. There is no right of marriage in the Constitution. Too many things have been erroneously defined as a “right” by the progressives. There is no right to marry as there is no right to healthcare or food or transportation.
Gay “marriage” is not inevitable because it is not marriage. Government is not telling homosexuals they can’t engage in deviant sex. Government is not telling homosexuals they can’t live with one another. Government is not telling homosexuals they can’t work or engage in commerce. So 97-98% of the population is not telling homosexuals they can’t be homosexuals. As that is the case, the 2-3% should not be able to tell the 97-98% that they must accept a deviant life style as normal and that it is OK to usurp a tradition so they can feel better.
Like or Dislike:
2
I disagree, Andy. That’s a disingenuous argument. The Constitution details what government may NOT do to us–not what they will or should do for us. It does not list every conceivable right, as you know, it lists the major areas of existence in a free country: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Many smaller “rights” are contained in those three. In that framework, the government may NOT tell me who I have a right to marry and do not have a right to marry—it is the CHOICE that is my right, in the pursuit of my life’s happiness. I cannot make a Constitutional argument against allowing other people to marry because there is some facet of their lives I do not understand, or of which I disapprove. I believe heterosexual Progressives to be much more “deviant” and dangerous to the country than a couple of decent homosexuals just living their lives next door, spending a lifetime together, not bothering anyone. It is the word they want to claim that I have a disagreement with—that word, because it has always defined a particular union (man and woman) with certain satellite terms (husband, wife) “belongs” to a certain segment of the population. I still want those words to define my union. I still object to losing the words, yes. But Constitutionally, I do not believe that the right to marry can be denied based on sexuality any more than it can be denied by a Government based on differing races or religions. We diverge in our opinions on this one. I have no desire for a giant, uncontrollable, omnipresent Government to determine who I can make a commitment to. It’s none of their business.
Like or Dislike:
0
Liberty, you most certainly do not have the right to marry and the government can tell you who you can’t marry (i.e. obtain a marriage licence). The government will not issue a marriage license for a marriage between you and your first cousin. The government will not issue a marriage license for you to marry two or more partners. The government will not issue a marriage license for you to marry a partner and two goats.
If the people within a relationship don’t fall within the legal framework for a marriage license and can’t be happy without the license then perhaps the relationship is not the fountain of what their happiness really is.
You can decide to live and carry on a relationship with all the above mentioned but the government will not recognize it as legal marriage. Government recognition does not give the union merit to those in it. Those in it obtain the merit through their commitment. The government is not withholding the right of the pursuit of happiness by not granting a license of marriage because the happiness resides within the relationship, not in a government stamp of approval. The government is just not choosing to recognize the above conditions but that does not mean the individual can’t on their own.
Like or Dislike:
2
‘kay. You don’t like the idea of gay marriage. Got that with your first post. I still disagree. But won’t waste time nitpicking the argument with you, Andy. Ta.
Like or Dislike:
1
I thank you for the healthy debate.
Like or Dislike:
3
Actually, Terry, the entire country has already been ‘castrated’, for a long, long time now. It’s the law of the land.
But seriously (even though I was deadly serious about the castration), if you were a true constitutionalist then you would understand that the whole concept of separation of church and state is a bogus argument. The true meaning of that clause that is prefaced by Congress shall make no law is quite clear that it is not a federal power. The state governments at the time were deeply entwined with religious men, and they feared an all-powerful central government intruding, which it obviously has despite first amendment assurances because the damn courts keep changing definitions of words in the Constitution to suit their fancy and lust for power.
Heck, wars were fought between citizens to run the Mormons out of western New York and through many other states to send them packing to Utah. Then the federalistas didn’t like that they had control of the state so they imposed laws prohibiting certain religious practices by them. The states have all since effectively allowed Congress to establish laws with regards to establishment of religion and prohibiting the free exercise thereof in all the states by the state governments themselves. Thus we’re a nation of castrated eunuchs, doing the bidding of the almighty centralized power elite.
For those who clamor to have the state (federal, state, or local) involved in personal contracts such as marriage between two people, they should consider that it is state laws that have decimated all marriage through laws that make any marriage a risky proposition or incentivize single parent households in some way. The vast majority of people now depend on the state for their welfare rather than trusting their spouse.
Like or Dislike:
1
Andy H says, “There is no right of marriage in the Constitution.”
Really? There’s no right identified for individuals to pick their own vocation either and no right to pick your nose. And why would that be? Do you really want them to document an all-inclusive list of things that are rights? Is that not all that covered under the job of the more perfect union being formed to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity or at least the 9th and 10th amendments? How would a same sex couple having a right to marry affect your liberty or any of your other rights that are written in the bill of rights?
If you really thought hard about it, that little piece of paper denoting recognition of a union by a state is used primarily to impose tax laws upon us to influence certain behaviors and ensure fair distribution of a person’s assets upon death. Prohibition of gay marriage affects you much more in additional costs required by states to contest probate of those estates of those gay couples who do not have that little piece of paper determining where a decedent’s assets should go. The government has also killed traditional marriage by having people depend on the state for welfare rather than their spouse, resulting in the explosion of single parent households and you want to give those geniuses more power to say what we can or cannot do? Prohibiting marriage to some also increases costs of that welfare state upon you.
There are also a fair number of states where marriage between first cousins is not prohibited. There are probably a fair number of brother/sister marriages out there under the common law definition of ‘traditional’ marriage, it’s just that they’re not recognized by any state as a ‘legal’ union. And if anyone truly believes there is no polygamy out there just because the glorious state forbids it… hah!!!
Like or Dislike:
0
Frank – one does have the right to aspire to a vocation but one does not have the right to a chosen vocation. Just because someone wants to be a doctor or a lawyer or a chef or a train engineer does not mean that person is going to meet the standards required to practice said vocation.
Your last paragraph starts to hit on the point. The government may not legally recognize the union as marriage and that is OK because the individuals can still have the relationship. My point is we don’t need to recognize these alternative life choices as marriage in the same way a person who wants to be called doctor doesn’t get handed a license to practice just because the person wants one.
Thanks to everyone for such a good debate.
Like or Dislike:
2
Andy: Beck is expanding on this as I write. If you’re online you might want to tune in.
Like or Dislike:
1
Ah, but who makes the standards? Licensing laws are a collusion between established practitioners and government to impede competition in the market place by making the cost of entry into the market higher.
Michael Reynolds is a highly successful architect designing ‘earthships’ that are zero carbon emitting self-contained housing. He had his engineering license revoked by New Mexico for constructing experimental houses out of garbage and used tires that didn’t follow prescribed building codes.
Stanislaw Burzynski, who developed cancer therapies that appear to have some success for patients given up on by the traditional medical community as hopeless has been fighting state licensing agencies for years to keep his medical license and continue to practice.
Street vendors in Los Angeles can’t wrap a hot dog in bacon unless they have a $40k vehicle.
Interior designers need to be licensed in more and more places because telling customers what kind of products Home Depot sells that look good together may be hazardous to customers.
Kids can’t sell lemonade on the street anymore without licenses that cost more than they’ll ever make. Thirsty? Go to 7-Eleven. Don’t want to cut into their market share.
Welcome to Amerika, home of the ‘free’.
Anytime you ask government to restrict or deny anyone else their rights, you empower them to limit your own.
Like or Dislike:
1
Frank – you’ve taken the argument to the absurd. I’m not saying all regulatory licensing laws are good or beneficial but I am saying that the institution of traditional marriage is good and beneficial for the function of society and our civilization and therefore I am advocating for its preservation.
The argument had been by Beck that the government should have no say and I think it can, especially since our government is by the people. As Justice Scalia points out, the people can choose to pass laws regarding moral limits. Those moral limits can change but I am fighting to keep the traditional idea of family and marriage because I think they are best and the studies agree with me.
Like or Dislike:
2