» News

Glenn Beck – Useful Idiot For Same Sex Marriage?

Home - by - December 13, 2012 - 13:45 America/New_York - 17 Comments

American Conservative

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.

“The agenda is to shut down my freedom of speech and my belief in – what you don’t believe in but I do deeply – The Bible. So I’m going to live my life the way I believe. That’s freedom of conscience,” Glenn said.

This is actually wrong, and misdirecting. Has no one explained to Beck that no one with more than a passing awareness of the issue believes that churches are going to be compelled to change their beliefs on homosexuality and marriage? His idea that churches (and Orthodox synagogues, and mosques) are going to be untouched by SSM is fantasy.



  1. Birdie Num Num

    December 13th, 2012

    This issue may be the signature issue of the total corruption of human society.

    It is the life force of man-woman joining and love based life creation versus the dead end ,selfish ,physically repulsive culture of the homosexual death cult that a morally bankrupt society foolishly and evilly adopts and promotes it.

    Noteworthy Comment Thumb up +11

  2. CrustyB

    December 13th, 2012

    Glenn Beck just needs to do a Charles Johnson and switch to the left where he belongs.

    Thumb up +7

  3. Maudie N Mandeville

    December 13th, 2012

    Marriage is only the beginning. Churches and their preaching will be next. Imagine a homosexual sitting in a pew listening to the preacher read from the Bible that fecal sex is an abomination. HATE SPEECH! OFFENDED! And that’s inside the walls. So much for Hillary Clinton’s temporary use of the term Freedom of Worship, not Religion. Soon, it will be Religion.

    And what about schools? Teaching that 2 mommies or 2 daddies is cool, hip, beneficial, even better. And to think otherwise is cause for REEDUCATION CAMP! OR SUSPENSION!

    I’m not fooled.

    Noteworthy Comment Thumb up +13

  4. KF

    December 13th, 2012

    Beck has fallen into the contraceptive mindset. Contraception is so prevalent that most people view sex as a recreational activity that has nothing to do with creating children. If sex is just recreation then what’s so bad about sodomy or bestiality? Gotta’ be “fair” these days after all.

    Aside from that he’s being very naive if he thinks this won’t be used against Christians.

    Thumb up +9

  5. even steven

    December 13th, 2012

    I know a gay couple, and they’re pretty nice, but their kid is just a turd.

    Noteworthy Comment Thumb up +20

  6. David

    December 13th, 2012

    Beck lost me years ago when he joked on his radio show about having a threeway with his wife. he’s a hack.

    Thumb up +4

  7. Reaganite Republican

    December 13th, 2012

    For a guy who makes a living pretending to have the left figured out, Beck often shows he doesn’t really understand them like he’d like us to think

    Thumb up +8

  8. Noodengr

    December 13th, 2012

    i am mixed on this one. on the surface, does two men marrying each other in any way effect a conventional marriage between a man and a woman?
    And if it would stop there, while you may not agree with it, it does not really effect you.
    BUT, we all know that the next steps will be to force any church or organization to accept the union, treat the same sex couple legally like a man / woman couple, in insurance matters etc. Then groups opposing would be forced to perform the ceremony. it is a slippery slope.

    Thumb up +5

  9. Chris

    December 13th, 2012

    I disagree with Beck because the issue is not “Love”, but contract law. Early state sanctioned marriages were used primarily to recognize family units and for the disbursements of property after the death of an individual to the next of kin. The states then set in various laws regulating who you could or could not marry, not only for this reason but social reasons such as (not marrying under a certain age and limiting it to relations of a certain distance i.e. sisters and cousins etc.
    The problem today is benefits. If you define marriage as love (the state does not care if you love someone) then you open the doors to polygamy, close relational marriages (two brothers, who says you have to have sex?) all for the sake of obtaining benefits for a spouse who they love. Are we to force employers (or is the government) to pay benefits to anyone just because they are “married”? How many spouses are allowed? Would if I love more than one person, don’t they get benefits? I love my brother or sister, can we get married and get the same benefits, after all, we love each other. The states, not the federal government regulates such contracts. If the federal government mandates it, the you have a huge gap for forcible benefit payments that were initially meant to take care of offspring, not the surviving spouse. Lastly, there is no right to marry. We need to teach the difference between rights and privileges again. A right is inherent to the individual and the individual alone and involves no one else. I have the right to speak, but not to make you listen as an example.

    Thumb up +9

  10. J Frank Parnell

    December 13th, 2012

    The man had a hemorrhoidectomy then went on camera to discuss suicide because the physicians gave him pain medication. Look it up.

    His emotional incontinence is the dead giveaway he is unstable.

    Is is imprudent to follow someone like that.

    Thumb up +4

  11. hockeytex

    December 13th, 2012

    These statements play a role in why we lost the election. Gay marriage isn’t an evil agenda, it is two people that love each other.

    Thumb up +2

  12. Chris

    December 13th, 2012

    hockeytex, I wish I could agree with you, but it is not about love. That is how it is sold to decrease the resistance. From a state standpoint it is about contract law. If it were about love then there are many churches that will “marry” gay couples. It is about benefits and changing the definition of a word to get those benefits. Just like CJ Roberts changed the definition of penalty to mean a tax in order to support Obamacare. Who decides what marriage is defined as? The age old definition, you, me, or someone else. If they wanted just the same legal protections then civil unions should have been just fine, but it is not about that either. It is about expanding a social agenda, but not equal rights. It is about much much more.

    Thumb up +7

  13. JustAl

    December 13th, 2012

    Get the church and state both out of it. . . outlaw all marriage I say!

    Thumb up +1

  14. Dr. Tar

    December 13th, 2012

    I suggest following the link to the orginal story and review the comments. Among them is a comment posted by Tabby that provides a link to what Gay Marraige has meant for MA.

    Here’s the link, review the material then get back to me on how its all about “love” between two adults.


    Thumb up +5

  15. Houston

    December 13th, 2012

    It is less of a slippery slope than a downward crash.

    I made the same mistake Beck did. Years ago I didn’t care what someone else did as long as it didn’t affect me. Sadly as THE WIFE pointed out it does affect me. Not only do you have to explain to your kids why Billy has two mommies, it is exactly right that churches will be squashed.

    FWIW, we used to be members of the Methodist church but left when a homosexual couple who were raising a kid were recognized by the church. They are already ignoring biblical principle. On the way out we lost many friends because we didn’t “Love” our sisters.

    Thumb up +9

  16. norman einstein

    December 13th, 2012

    Anything Beck says is of no interest to me.

    I wrote him off as a nut a couple of years ago, and he’s only gotten worse since.

    Thumb up +5

  17. Immortal Fish

    December 13th, 2012

    Back in the 60′s, didn’t we resolve racial inequality by calling all the black people ‘white people’?


    Then why should I want to call whatever a homosexual union is a ‘marriage’?

    Thumb up +3