Beck’s Delusions on Marriage Equality


This is an absolutely surreal clip from Glenn Beck, where he starts out by saying that he doesn’t care about gay marriage, he’s fine with letting them get married as long as you “just don’t destroy my marriage, don’t destroy my church.” Great! Since no gay person wants to do anything at all to his marriage or force his church to perform gay weddings, that should be the end of that, right? Nope. Because Beck seems to think that his marriage and his church are somehow threatened by gay marriage. He says:

However, try to find somebody who will stand up for my..I’ll stand up for your right, you wanna…I have gay friends, we have gay employees, it doesn’t matter to me…you wanna stand up, I’ll defend you. You defend me. Will you defend my belief? That’s the problem.

At this point, his co-host interjected, “The answer to that is no.” But that’s bullshit. In every single state where there is a law allowing gay marriage, there is an explicit exemption for churches (and it’s not even necessary; the ministerial exception would lead to the same result anyway). No church will ever have to perform a gay wedding, ever, ever, ever. No gay person in the world, as far as I or anyone else knows, thinks that churches should have to perform a gay wedding. And there isn’t even the most minimally conceivable means why allowing gay people to marry will destroy, or have any effect at all, on Beck’s marriage, or anyone else’s. As usual, Beck is full of shit.

Comments

  1. Reginald Selkirk says

    And there isn’t even the most minimally conceivable means why allowing gay people to marry will destroy, or have any effect at all, on Beck’s marriage

    Unless he or his spouse is a closeted homosexual, and gay marriage would entice them to come out of the closet. This may or may not be true (Hey, I’m just asking questions!) but it certainly meets the standard of ‘minimally conceivable.’

  2. iknklast says

    Churches don’t even have to perform straight weddings. My husband’s church refused to marry us because I am divorced, unless I went through a meaningless ritual to ask them to give me a piece of paper declaring my marriage annulled (which apparently wouldn’t be a problem, even though I have a child from my first marriage – church rules have certainly loosened up a lot on that!). They didn’t have to perform our marriage, and I was actually glad of that, because I didn’t want them to.

    If they don’t have to marry straight people they don’t want to marry, why should they have to marry gay people? Oh, wait, it’s the Gay Agenda, whose sole purpose is to destroy the marriages of heterosexual couples. I almost forgot. Right.

  3. didgen says

    I need to make a note of the date. Glen Beck has finally made a statement I believe, that his wife doesn’t want to be in his bedroom. Other than that, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

  4. whheydt says

    The big threat to Beck’s religion over marriage was when the Feds told them to get rid of polygamy if they ever wanted the area where they lived to be a state.

  5. Nomad says

    I just want to take note of the slight of hand Beck attempted to pull here. He goes from saying he’s okay with gay people having the right to marry to demanding that those gay people defend his beliefs in return. He tries to equate rights with beliefs, laying his beliefs on the same level as other people’s basic rights.

    Glenn, I’m under no obligation to defend your beliefs. You can’t even defend them adequately, what makes you think I should or even can do that? What I can do is defend your right to possess them, although I think you and I both know that that is not under any threat at all.

  6. imthegenieicandoanything says

    Beck’s one of the empty inflated human skins that lead the wingnut zombie army of the night. He is NOT “full of shit” since not even shit would be willing to do the job of giving him his apparent human-like form. What exactly IS inside him? Hydrogen? A Vacuum? A black hole leading to a wingnut-ruler Mirrorverse, where the bad guys are have goatees?

  7. frog says

    imthegenieicandoanything @ 6

    Indeed. At least shit can nourish life. We may not appreciate all of those forms of life, but I’m kinda fine with using shit as fertilizer, or dried shit as fuel. There are lots of uses for shit.

    I’m going with “vacuum” in answer to your question, since nothing can live in it.

  8. Michael Heath says

    Ed writes:

    No church will ever have to perform a gay wedding, ever, ever, ever. No gay person in the world, as far as I or anyone else knows, thinks that churches should have to perform a gay wedding.

    I can see a day where churches will lose their tax exempt status if they discriminate against protected classes, where gays will eventually become a federally protected class. As the number of ‘nones’ increases, we’ll see increasing pressure to end government subsidizing bigotry demonstrated throughout most of Christianity and other bigoted non-profits. I think the bigotry long demonstrated by most Christians won’t come to a head over gays, but instead towards females.

  9. Michael Heath says

    Nomad observes:

    I just want to take note of the slight of hand Beck attempted to pull here. He goes from saying he’s okay with gay people having the right to marry to demanding that those gay people defend his beliefs in return. He tries to equate rights with beliefs, laying his beliefs on the same level as other people’s basic rights.

    “Sleight of hand” suggests Glen Beck was disingenuous. I’m still betting on idiocy where some of his behavior could have come from disingenuous if he were smarter, but he’s not, so it’s a coincidence.

  10. richenry says

    “No gay person in the world, as far as I or anyone else knows, thinks that churches should have to perform a gay wedding.”

    While I’m not gay, I do have one specific exception I can think of and there are probably many similar cases. In the UK the Prime Minister is attempting to get gay marriage enacted (hooray!), but his party, the Tories (boo, hiss) are our version of the right wing, in-bred, jobs for the boys and to hell with the plebs that you get with the republicans. To apease the bigots of his party he’s proposing to make it law that no religious institution should be forced to conduct a marriage ceremony, with the exception of the churches of England and Wales who would be completely banned from conducting gay marriages. (Ignore Scotland and NI, I think their devolved governments would have to implement their own independent policies to legalise it.)

    Whilst I think it is right that independent religious bodies should have the freedom to wed whoever they chose (and so not wed whoever they don’t chose), I think he’s got it arse about face with the churches of England and Wales. The CoE is is the official state religion of England, and while it is not funded by the government, it maintains the privellege of holding 26 seats in the House of Lords.

    In my view, as the officially established religious institutions of England and Wales I think they should have to adhere to the same rules as all national bodies do – meaning equality in sex, sexuality, disability etc. – and so I consider them the only religious bodies for whom it should be mandatory that they perform gay marriages. Currently civil registrars are duty bound to conduct civil ceremonies to gay couples, and they can’t use their “conscience” as a way to get out of it (one person tried some years ago and got laughed out of court).

    Of course I’d change my mind in an instant were they to disestablish the churches, but that’s about as likely as there being women bishops in the CoE.

  11. tomh says

    Michael Heath wrote:
    I can see a day where churches will lose their tax exempt status if they discriminate against protected classes, where gays will eventually become a federally protected class.

    I don’t see why. Churches can discriminate against protected classes now and I don’t see any signs of that changing. Many churches choose who they decide to marry and who they hire, among other things, on the basis of religion. Why would discriminating against gays (assuming they were a protected class) be any different?

  12. gridironmonger says

    I don’t believe that when push came to shove that Beck would actually defend gay marriage. So what should we call his statement that he would defend gay marriage if gay marriers defended his beliefs/positions: a false premise, a self-strawman, a lie?

Leave a Reply