Friday, August 13, 2010

Glenn Beck on Gay Marriage

Here's Glenn Beck, in a recent interview on gay marriage.  If Beck has figured it out, can the rest of America be far behind ?

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.
Here they're talking about Canadian ministers who get in trouble with their Human Rights Commissions for using "hate speech" in opposing gay/lesbian marriage.  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.

But that's not the best part.  Here's a chart showing approval/disapproval for same-sex marriage.  All of this is from the "Beyond The Beltway" blog, BTW:


Note the bulge in the otherwise smooth line as things come to a head around the 2004 elections, the wide, wide base in 1988, and of course, the tip where things come together in 2010. 
My, my, my, what a big long trendline on gay marriage.   

6 comments:

CenTexTim said...

Brings to mind Kinky Friedman's statement:

"I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us."

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

At what point in our historical development (and why?) did it become the business of the state to issue "licenses" permitting us to marry?

And don't get me started on "Arrogant O'Reilly" and his comment on a recent "Freedom Watch" interview on the Fox Business channel: "I don't care about the Constitution."

What a pompous jerk!

TarrantLibertyGuy said...

My porn blocker wouldn't my computer to display the chart...

Nick Rowe said...

I'm in favor of their right to marry, but Beck was wrong that this will not break his wallet.

Gay spouses will soon be eligible for health insurance without exclusions for pre-existing conditions, including HIV and hepatitis. This will raise health insurance premiums merely from increased demand alone, much less any greater likelihood of serious illness.

If gay marriage becomes a federally recognized right, it will drain Social Security at an even faster rate because spouses get death benefits.

I'm not saying either of those is a reason to deny their rights. I'm saying our entitlement programs will become an even greater burden on taxpayers.

Nick Rowe said...

Leonidas:

All contemporary marriage law is the bastardized evolution of medieval property rights and female dependence upon male support. Even in cases where a woman must pay alimony, it's just neutering a flawed legal concept. Men and women generally have equal capacity for education and self sufficiency. Unless one party made necessary sacrifices which unambiguously benefitted the other, there should be no alimony.

I agree that government was never empowered to grant or deny marriage. It was never empowered to grant or deny divorces.

It was, however, empowered to enforce contracts. Marriage is the formation of a package of contracts and divorce a breaking of such contracts, not always by mutual consent.

I support common law marriage and divorce, but government has a role to play in enforcement unless the parties agree to private arbitration.

I would like to see marriage with an expiration date and the contract must, periodically, be renewed by mutual consent. I would also require prenuptial agreements in every marriage - make them discuss important issues before they commit, not after.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

I don't know who is right and who is wrong on the issue of whether gay/lesbian marriage will "pick the pockets" of taxpayers.
I do know that when I put up thoughtful posts about liberty, free-market economics, and libertarianism, I get about 1,500 hits, and a few links.
When I post a chart that looks like a weiner, I get 4,000 hits in one day.