Glenn Beck was on the O’Reilly Factor a couple of days ago discussing with Bill O’Reilly why he doesn’t focus on culture issues much on his Fox News show or on the radio.  You can watch the video below:

Partial Transcript:

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: Yes. Is it going to harm?

BECK: No. Are the gay — will the gays come and get us?

O’REILLY: OK. Is it going to harm the country in any way?

BECK: I believe that Thomas Jefferson said, “If it neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?”

His position on gay marriage, while disappointing isn’t surprising.  David Gibson at The Daily Caller points out however that this is a change in his position.

That’s actually a new position for Beck, who in the past has decried gay marriage as leading inevitably to polygamy and incest, and other things that would destroy American society.

This again doesn’t surprise me because he is a self-proclaimed libertarian, has been so for years and even though it’s a new position for him it’s mostly consistent with his political leanings.  I won’t say every libertarian takes this position, for instance local talk radio personality, Jan Mickelson at WHO Radio, who is also libertarian (qualifies that by saying Christian Libertarian) has said “you can’t have liberty without the law.”

You can see the primary principle that undergirds his position when he told O’Reilly, “I don’t think marriage, that the government actually has anything to do with (marriage).”  So he’s coming back to his libertarian default.

I have to say that I respect Beck a great deal, and appreciate his stance on the size of Government, government spending, and the harmful ideology that drives the policy making in this current administration.  With this, he is wrong.  So now I’ll have both libertarians and liberals mad at me.

Beck quotes Jefferson, but John Adams said in 1798 that “Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”  Beck is calling people back to God (which David Shedlock who contributes here has addressed here and here so I won’t get into that), but yet who ultimately passes down morals in this nation?  Government?  No, but families and churches.

Changing the definition of marriage is a threat to the institution, you damage the institution of marriage, and it becomes a threat to the American people.  As Adams wrote our Constitution is meant only for a religious and moral people… and we have seen time and time again the Constitution disregarded and reinterpreted by the secular left as though the original words and intentions mean nothing.

You have a runaway judiciary who makes up rights and making law and you have judicial tyrants who ignore state’s rights and the will of the people.  Beck’s ok with that?  Does he not think they won’t turn their attention to other matters?

I understand that Beck wants to focus on economic matters and that they are major issue.  But as a friend of mine, Tamara Scott, said during the last Iowa General Assembly “will only have good fiscal policy if you have good social policy.”

I also understand his position of government not being involved in marriage, but the simple fact of the matter is that it is, as Brian Myers, another contributor here, noted earlier discussing how Alan Dershowitz wanted to unlink “to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state.”  He said:

The problem with all this is that marriage is a civil union. And it is also a divine ordinance. It isn’t one or the other, it is both. Our Judeo-Christian heritage tells us that it is an institution that finds its origin in Genesis 2. This is why the Iowa Supreme Court’s view of this matter is a rather silly and futile attempt to make something that is inherently religious into something entirely secular. Dershowitz’s distinction isn’t particularly helpful either. His labeling mechanism robs marriage of its contractual aspects which, while they are civil in nature, are nonetheless vital to the religious understanding of the institution.

Marriage involves such matters as paternity and property. It is a contract, and it used to be spoken of in those terms. Evangelicals who wish to divorce (pun intended!) the institution of marriage from the state aren’t giving consideration to the fact that marriage is indeed largely civil in its nature. And maintaining that the state has no valid interest in marriage would, by necessity, land Evangelicals in Dershowitz’s camp, a place they would rather not be, because they would still have to secure a civil union in addition to their marriage, and the participants (both the gender and number) in these unions would now be determined by the state.

Even though Beck would desire the government not to be involved, they are.  Ignoring that means then the Government (or in most cases we’ve seen so far, unelected judges) can impose their definition of marriage on the populace.  Beck, quoting Jefferson, asked “what difference is it to me?”  That’s pretty narrow-minded, but ask a couple of counseling students what difference it made to them.  Ask a former college professor what difference it made to him.  What difference does it make in children raised in these families as they are allowed to adopt?  Does it matter that now we have begun to see the intolerance of “tolerance” in this society?

It may not make a difference to him, but what about the society we leave to our kids?  Now we are told churches will be left alone, but do you really think that in this current environment that religious liberty will be preserved if this issue is ignored?

I agree with him that we need to “get back to God,” however I recognize that this means something completely different to me.  I also understand that in order to see transformation in our culture we need to see hearts transformed and that can only happen through the Gospel of Christ.  So a political solution by itself will never work if not coupled to a spiritual awakening.

Again, Beck’s position doesn’t surprise me, but his influence does make me concerned.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
  1. I am really confused to why people think that being gay is unnatural and immoral. It happens all throughout nature in almost all animals. Most theologians (especially the ones with history majors/minors) believe that the section of the bible that condemns homosexuality as immoral is talking about pagan rituals that would involve the acts of sex with both women and men in a ritualized ceremony in order to reach communion with their gods and in the one other section it is mentioned they believe that it condemns sodomy in rape. here are other things from the bible!!!!!!! If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
    If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death. Deuteronomy 22:22
    Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced. Mark 10:1-12
    The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.Leviticus 18:19
    If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir. Mark 12:18-27
    If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her. Deuteronomy 25:11-12
    Marriage can happen in a court house with no religion involved. I just want to be equal in economy and law. If civil unions offered the same things as marriage there would be no problem, but they don’t. tell me how people think it can lead to “incest” or “polygamy”. Incest is between family members. Ewwww, but in most states anything after first cousins is legal. Polygamy is between many people. Sorry I have a mantra: Once a cheater always a cheater; once a beater always a beater and I don’t accept either. The only damage to marriage is divorce, but it is a necessary evil because there are wife beaters, drug users, and child beaters. Why don’t people go attack them!! Aren’t child and wife beaters immoral? I think so! Why doesn’t all the money spent on banning gay rights go to stopping people who actually hurt people? Is it because you all don’t understand why God made us differently? I’ve known I am gay since I was eight years old. I care so much about people and want to become a nurse in order to save people. Who I am attracted to has nothing to do with my level of goodness or my morality. Everyone has a purpose, some people are born gay, and why should people cast judgement on us. I think that is a sin… yes?

    1. I disagree with your original premise, people are not born gay. People however are born with a sinful nature.

      If you were aware of your sexuality at 8-years-of-age that makes me wonder what your home environment was like.

      Having a sexual attraction that young, especially being male (at least I’m assuming that you are male based on your name) is not the norm… I say this with 18-years of experience working with children and youth.

  2. i have to say i found beck’s comments shocking- definitely a turn around on gay marriage
    going to NOM’s rally in D.C tomorrow…
    my kids (all six, well, the baby TRIED to help) helped me make a sign about Christian family values…
    i’m not taking them- you know how marriage foes can get- UGLY

    they all grabbed the markers

    kids suggested words like… love, acceptance, EQUALITY

    cant wait…
    yes truly, there is a change of heart
    in this country…

    quite beautiful

  3. Marriage is always a good thing. Many same-sex couples have children and, for their benefit, their parents should be allowed to marry. There is no threat to heterosexual couples. I mean, will heterosexual couples cease to marry and procreate if gay people are allowed to? I think that its sad that the church usually always takes the wrong side on issues like this (slavery, civil rights movement) and then apologizes later.

    1. “the church usually always takes the wrong side on issues like this (slavery, civil rights movement)”

      That is so blatantly false is borders on the ridiculous. Evangelicals in particular and the Church in general were on the front lines of the abolitionist and civil rights movements. I know you probably the victim of revisionist history so I’ll cut you some slack.

      The Bible is quite clear about the sinfulness of homosexuality. Those few who used the Bible to defend slavery and racism were distorting scripture, but I’ll emphasize that they were the minority.

      Let’s also be clear on this homosexuality is a behavior. Race is not.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Seccession Is Not The Answer

To heal a divided nation we need to practice civility, encourage federalism, and recognize that politics won’t restore our culture, only the Gospel can.

What Does Women’s History Have to Do With Defense?

CWA has learned that Congress is considering including the National Women’s History Museum (NWHM) in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Obama’s Picking and Choosing What Laws He’ll Defend and Ron Paul’s Defense of DOMA

Just some additional thoughts related to President Barack Obama’s decision to no…

Day 7 – Webathon to Retire Palin’s Legal Debt

After six days, $109,620 has been raised.  This was primarily done through…