Did Glenn Beck just back gay marriage?

In a Dec. 6 video on Blaze TV Beck, a convert to Mormonism, spoke with magician and atheist author Penn Jillette for a discussion framed around their shared libertarianism. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#2 Dec 12, 2012
Glen Beck goes gay? NO way..LOL
WTF

Chicago, IL

#3 Dec 12, 2012
Brown Lipstick wrote:
It's all an experiment to draw the poofters praise for Glen from a group of people that have insulted Mr Beck insatiably for many years. It will just go to show how unfaithful and the lack of loyalty to their own inner spiritual being. Sellout!
"You ain't got no horns boy!"
This is more in-line with his Libertarian views.
What business is it of the government of who you love or marry?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#4 Dec 12, 2012
Ever since Glen Beck got shit canned, he's desperate for attention. Desperate morons do desperate things.
George Washington

Brooklyn, NY

#5 Dec 12, 2012
WTF wrote:
<quoted text>
This is more in-line with his Libertarian views.
What business is it of the government of who you love or marry?
It doesn't matter what Beck or anybody else believes.

According to our Constitution, marriage is a States' Right. Why would anybody in this day and age want to give the Federal government more power into making decisions about our lives? Leave it up to us at the state level ... No more top-down mandates. Washington is out-of-control.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#7 Dec 12, 2012
Beck repeats the same tired discredited arguments against legal same-sex marriage of course. Things like the red-herring "gays just want to take away my right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech!!1!1" and "gays will force religious groups to perform gay marriages!!1!1"

It's the same old freedom for me but not for thee crap that the right wing constantly pushes. I have a really hard time accepting that one group's "freedom" to push their bigotry on everyone else trumps the rights of minority groups to have their basic civil rights affirmed in the law.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#9 Dec 12, 2012
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
You are absolutely correct! Sadly our homofascist brothers and sisters are bitter and burn. Lust and vice can be overpowering and all consuming.
Honey, there's no one more bitter than you. Your posts have been proving it for years.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#10 Dec 12, 2012
George Washington wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter what Beck or anybody else believes.
According to our Constitution, marriage is a States' Right. Why would anybody in this day and age want to give the Federal government more power into making decisions about our lives? Leave it up to us at the state level ... No more top-down mandates. Washington is out-of-control.
I agree !

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#11 Dec 12, 2012
George Washington wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter what Beck or anybody else believes.
According to our Constitution, marriage is a States' Right. Why would anybody in this day and age want to give the Federal government more power into making decisions about our lives? Leave it up to us at the state level ... No more top-down mandates. Washington is out-of-control.
Maybe you should actually READ the Constitution. Start with Article 6, the Supremacy Clause.

BTW there's a small problem with the whole "States Rights" idea in Amendment 10.

"... or to the people"

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12 Dec 12, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, there's no one more bitter than you. Your posts have been proving it for years.
Can't you just picture this idiot as someone behind you at a checkout, mumbling to himself and them lecturing the rack of magazines, gum, and candy bars? LOL

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#13 Dec 12, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe you should actually READ the Constitution. Start with Article 6, the Supremacy Clause.
BTW there's a small problem with the whole "States Rights" idea in Amendment 10.
"... or to the people"
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Do you believe in the supremacy clause ?

If you do, then explain how this can be legal or constitutional: Nassau County is adjacent to Queens County on Long Island. Queens County is part of The City of New York. Now one can carry a gun legally in Nassau County. Now if one is carrying a gun legally in Nassau County, and you drive down the Long Island Expressway and cross the county line into Queens County, i.e. The City of New York, how can that gun suddenly be illegal in Queens if carrying a gun is a FEDERAL constitutional Right ? How can crossing a border into a city or state suddenly cause you to lose a federal constitutional RIGHT ?

If you publish a small newspaper in Nassau County, and distribute them in Nassau County and in Queens, could The City Of New York say: "Hey ! You need a city license to do that !" ? Isn't that restricting your FEDERAL First Amendemnt RIGHT ? If the city can't restrict your First Amendment FEDERL constitutional RIGHT, how can they do so restrict your FEDERAL Second Amendemt RIGHT ? Doesn't the supremacy clause mean The City Of New York cannot constitutionally do that ?

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#14 Dec 12, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe in the supremacy clause ?
If you do, then explain how this can be legal or constitutional: Nassau County is adjacent to Queens County on Long Island. Queens County is part of The City of New York. Now one can carry a gun legally in Nassau County. Now if one is carrying a gun legally in Nassau County, and you drive down the Long Island Expressway and cross the county line into Queens County, i.e. The City of New York, how can that gun suddenly be illegal in Queens if carrying a gun is a FEDERAL constitutional Right ? How can crossing a border into a city or state suddenly cause you to lose a federal constitutional RIGHT ?
If you publish a small newspaper in Nassau County, and distribute them in Nassau County and in Queens, could The City Of New York say: "Hey ! You need a city license to do that !" ? Isn't that restricting your FEDERAL First Amendemnt RIGHT ? If the city can't restrict your First Amendment FEDERL constitutional RIGHT, how can they do so restrict your FEDERAL Second Amendemt RIGHT ? Doesn't the supremacy clause mean The City Of New York cannot constitutionally do that ?
I fail to see how a well regulated militia (which is what the Constitution refers to when speaking of owning guns) applies here.

If your want to get technical about what the Constitution says then I expect you to be consistent.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#15 Dec 12, 2012
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
This is one area where libertarians ARE wrong. The govt has taken sides on an issue totally abstract of any male and females' natural intentions or capabilities. SS parenting itself is physically imossible and should be avoided at all costs.
Buggery or any form of consensual relationship outside of a male and female is a deviation and or defect of natural law and your own parents and grandparents' original intentions which you abrogated. The family structure and how it was formed should be championed by all brothers and sisters without competition or degradation.
Mary please..Your false self righteous indignation should be more directed toward yourself. Please don't have any children and god help them if you do.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#17 Dec 12, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I fail to see how a well regulated militia (which is what the Constitution refers to when speaking of owning guns) applies here.
If your want to get technical about what the Constitution says then I expect you to be consistent.
A militia ha snothing do wnat I asked. As you well know, or SHOULD KNOW, SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN'S RIGHT to own and carry again.

In lighe of that, would you like to address the questions in my previous post ?

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#18 Dec 12, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
A militia ha snothing do wnat I asked. As you well know, or SHOULD KNOW, SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN'S RIGHT to own and carry again.
In lighe of that, would you like to address the questions in my previous post ?
Since SCOTUS has also upheld the right of individual communities to regulate that gun ownership there's no reason to discuss this further.

We're done on this topic.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#19 Dec 12, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Since SCOTUS has also upheld the right of individual communities to regulate that gun ownership there's no reason to discuss this further.
We're done on this topic.
So you're unable to answer.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#20 Dec 12, 2012
George Washington wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter what Beck or anybody else believes.
According to our Constitution, marriage is a States' Right. Why would anybody in this day and age want to give the Federal government more power into making decisions about our lives? Leave it up to us at the state level ... No more top-down mandates. Washington is out-of-control.
Pardon the interruption at a time you are expounding such enlightenment, but wasn't it the states that legislated against inter-racial marriage? And didn't the government, in the form of SCOTUS, rule the states couldn't do that? What's the difference between that and Marriage Equality today?

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#21 Dec 12, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're unable to answer.
sigh. OK if you want to go off topic (again!) let me point out I did answer you. You just didn't like the answer.

The Constitution specifically mentions a "well regulated militia" in regards to owning guns. Because of this SCOTUS has upheld gun regulations.

Now since you want to get off topic (no surprise there) maybe we should discuss the current unconstitutional military we have (the idea of no standing armies in times of peace).

Sorry folks, I know I should just let this drop.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#24 Dec 12, 2012
Glen Beck is correct on this issue. Same sex marriage opponents hate personal freedom and our Constitution.
USA Huh

Virginia Beach, VA

#25 Dec 12, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
Glen Beck is correct on this issue. Same sex marriage opponents hate personal freedom and our Constitution.
Bravo
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#26 Dec 13, 2012
NE Jade wrote:
<quoted text>Can't you just picture this idiot as someone behind you at a checkout, mumbling to himself and them lecturing the rack of magazines, gum, and candy bars? LOL
Thats when I bend over and "accidently" use my butt to push the shopping cart onto his heel.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories - Gay Marriage Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 1 hr Rick in Kansas 3,518
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 9 hr KiMerde 56,692
Zion church at center of gay marriage opposition (Mar '13) Mon member 3
SC seeks dismissal of gay marriage challenge Nov 14 Jonah1 36
What's stopping me from marrying a roommate? (Dec '13) Nov 11 Road Runner 3
Puerto Rico judge upholds gay marriage ban Nov 3 lides 105
Do gay marriage foes twist Bible? (Jun '11) Oct 31 mukesh 2,081

People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE