It's official: even Glenn Beck supports gay marriage, now

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Business Insider

Haha.

[Maxwell]

He's also argued against the Republicans on freedom of speech issues, so he's always been kind of a mixed bag on civil liberties.

[k-onmmunist]

beck has always been relatively libertarian, so this doesn't surprise me much.

[CountryRoads]

He's said this before, like in 2010, but no one seemed to care. I'm literally 100% in agreement with Glenn on this issue.

Marriage isn't a government issue, and we need to seriously reform the marriage system in this country.

[Svensson]

Well, he's always been a mixed bag of tinfoil-scented nuts, but at least he's fairly consistent along the line of civil liberties.

[k-onmmunist]

He's said this before, like in 2010, but no one seemed to care. I'm literally 100% in agreement with Glenn on this issue.

Marriage isn't a government issue, and we need to seriously reform the marriage system in this country.

i agree also - i've favoured marriage privatization over just simply legislating gay marriage for some time now.

[Brittain33]

He's said this before, like in 2010, but no one seemed to care. I'm literally 100% in agreement with Glenn on this issue.

Marriage isn't a government issue, and we need to seriously reform the marriage system in this country.

i agree also - i've favoured marriage privatization over just simply legislating gay marriage for some time now.

I've never been able to take this view seriously, because while it's coherent and consistent, there is no feasible political path to getting the large majority of married heterosexuals to concede their government recognition when they are happy with the status quo. Any solution intended to achieve equality for same-sex couples has to work with the system we have.

[k-onmmunist]

He's said this before, like in 2010, but no one seemed to care. I'm literally 100% in agreement with Glenn on this issue.

Marriage isn't a government issue, and we need to seriously reform the marriage system in this country.

i agree also - i've favoured marriage privatization over just simply legislating gay marriage for some time now.

I've never been able to take this view seriously, because while it's coherent and consistent, there is no feasible political path to getting the large majority of married heterosexuals to concede their government recognition when they are happy with the status quo. Any solution intended to achieve equality for same-sex couples has to work with the system we have.

surely marriage is about the symbolism of union though, right? people don't get married out of some towering respect for the state.

[DC Al Fine]

He's said this before, like in 2010, but no one seemed to care. I'm literally 100% in agreement with Glenn on this issue.

Marriage isn't a government issue, and we need to seriously reform the marriage system in this country.

i agree also - i've favoured marriage privatization over just simply legislating gay marriage for some time now.

[bedstuy]

He's said this before, like in 2010, but no one seemed to care. I'm literally 100% in agreement with Glenn on this issue.

Marriage isn't a government issue, and we need to seriously reform the marriage system in this country.

i agree also - i've favoured marriage privatization over just simply legislating gay marriage for some time now.

Marriage entitles people to benefits, public and private.  It effects inheritance, child custody, immigration and all these legal issues determined by the government.  Are you saying you would remove all of those legal benefits?

[Vosem]

He's right...

[The Mikado]

Marriage isn't a government issue, and we need to seriously reform the marriage system in this country.

Of course it is.  Marriage is a legal contract regarding the merger of assets, inheritance, taxing, and myriad other issues.  You can't make a contract like that not notarized by the government, it doesn't make sense.

EDIT:  My parents were married by a judge.  Are you saying that they aren't actually "married" because there was no clergy present?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

He's said this before, like in 2010, but no one seemed to care. I'm literally 100% in agreement with Glenn on this issue.

Marriage isn't a government issue, and we need to seriously reform the marriage system in this country.

i agree also - i've favoured marriage privatization over just simply legislating gay marriage for some time now.

Marriage entitles people to benefits, public and private.  It effects inheritance, child custody, immigration and all these legal issues determined by the government.  Are you saying you would remove all of those legal benefits?

Um... this is an example of a ideological position clashing with reality. The consequences of 'privatising' marriage are pretty fricking wide-ranging.

My view on marriage, especially marriage equality is this... the link between the state and religion should be completely broken. If you wish to have a religious service, it is up to the institution to determine whether to 'marry' you, but it should carry no legal weight, beyond basic common-law marriage. The state should provide either a civil union or marriage, with no exceptions for sexuality, only the civil marriage has any specific legal weight.

[memphis]

Don't feel like wikiing his age exactly, but he's young enough that he has to do this. In 10 years, people who were still anti gay marriage in 2012 are going to be so marginalized that nobody will take them seriously. Beck doesn't want those heavy chains around his neck down the road. It's just long term planning. It shows that he has no plans to retire and is not delusional. If people want to seperate civil marriage from religious marriage, it's going to be at the expense of the latter. Chew on that for a minute.

[badgate]

Should we nullify federal benefits for married couples? Should the federal government delegate the authority of those benefits to states?

[Holmes]

[Zioneer]

Wow, Glenn Beck said something I agree with! I guess even a conspiracynut clock is right twice a day and all that. Still don't like the Skousenite crank that Beck really is.

Though, since a significant portion of his continued viewership are socially conservative Mormons, I wonder how they'll react.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Don't feel like wikiing his age exactly, but he's young enough that he has to do this. In 10 years, people who were still anti gay marriage in 2012 are going to be so marginalized that nobody will take them seriously. Beck doesn't want those heavy chains around his neck down the road. It's just long term planning. It shows that he has no plans to retire and is not delusional. If people want to seperate civil marriage from religious marriage, it's going to be at the expense of the latter. Chew on that for a minute.

The south keeps losing the Civil War over and over again, so I really wish they'd stop fighting it.

[© tweed]

if you actually read the quote in the OP he doesn't at all say he is in favor of gay marriage, he is opposed to government involvement in defining marriage one way or another or at all.

[Simfan34]

What!? It's heartening to see more and more people take the sensible position. I've been saying that civil and religious marriages are two similar but different things, and it's high time that we, as Beck suggests, looked at the Constitution. Of course we cannot privatise it because, as the Mikado said, marriage comes with a whole slew of legal and financial ties that really should fall within the government's domain.

I'd repeat what I said before, but then Al would come in barking at me.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Didn't Jon Stewart re-title that "Timmy Has Two Daddies Who Are Both Batsh**t Insane" or something like that?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you folks concede that the South is right on this one? Or do you have to resort to dirty tricks and gay federal court judges (looking at you California) to overturn the will of the people.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Can you folks concede that the South is right on this one?

Why should we? It's not.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you folks concede that the South is right on this one? Or do you have to resort to dirty tricks and gay federal court judges (looking at you California) to overturn the will of the people.

STFU & DIAF.

No higher discourse of response would be appropriate, really.