Glenn Beck is OK with same-sex marriage? Who’s next? Ann Coulter?

by CynthiaYockey on August 13, 2010

OK, so I was browsing at Little Miss Attila, who linked Instapundit, who linked Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway, who reports Glenn Beck is OK with same-sex marriage.

I did NOT see that one coming.

Doug has the video clip — Beck was talking with Bill O’Reilly — and convenient transcription. He also notes:

I never thought I’d actually say that I agree with Glenn Beck, but I agree with Glenn Beck. It may be the only time, and it’s not going to cause me to start watching his show but, it’s somewhat refreshing to see that conservatives like him aren’t jumping on this issue like they did back in 2004.

On a related note, Nate Silver notes this morning that public opinion on same-sex marriage seems to be changing far faster than anyone anticipated, and in support provides this chart showing polling trends on the same-sex marriage question going back to 1988 (click the link above to see the chart).

The change over the past twenty-two years is rather dramatic and, if it’s true, it seems to indicate that we’ve reached a point where opposition to same-sex marriage will, before long, become the minority opinion. The lack of a sustained public reaction against Judge Walker’s opinion in the Prop 8 case seems to indicate that we’re almost there.

I made comments at Outside the Beltway, but my regular gentle readers will be familiar with my points, so I won’t repeat them here.

Follow conservativelez on Twitter

wormme August 13, 2010 at 3:25 am

Hi Cynthia.

We interchanged a few posts over at OutsideTheBeltway just a few minutes ago. I’ve run across links to you from at my .gov office, but it denies me because you’re a …I dunno…adult site?

Anyway. I take an oft contrarian position, and would prefer a quilt of state marriage laws over a single federal one. I didn’t know if that would bother you, so I wanted to assure you on your own site that I hold you in the highest regard.

CynthiaYockey August 13, 2010 at 3:32 am


That’s very kind of you and I appreciate your regard and courtesy more than I can say. Here’s the thing — equality just is not equality when it varies or does not exist depending on which state you’re in. Equality is unalienable, even for minorities. It must be federal — the GAO in its last study of the Defense of Marriage Act found 1,138 federal rights associated with marriage. It is entirely appropriate for the courts to require the majority to behave and not tyrannize over a minority. That is one of their jobs.



Another argument against the patchwork-of-states approach is that it is stagnating to the economy when people cannot travel and move freely to work. My late life partner and I did not move from Montgomery county to Harford county within Maryland when it would have been the best thing for us to do because she was disabled and I had to handle her care — in Montgomery county we were equal and in Harford county we were not, so we stayed in Montgomery county until we had state-wide civil rights protections. Seriously, the patchwork concept is un-American — it totally undermines the concept of unalienable rights. And it’s bad for the economy.

Janis August 13, 2010 at 12:44 pm

The word “inalienable” means something. The FF didn’t just throw it in because it sounded impressive. It means that within the entire United States, there are certain rights that cannot be taken away.

We tried the “patchwork” concept with civil rights before — slave and free states. We ended up in a very long, very disgusting and bloody civil war. What say we not go through that sort of mess again and learn from history instead of doing our best to recreate its mistakes.

Attmay August 14, 2010 at 3:43 pm

I don’t think we’re going to have another Civil War. At least about this issue.

I don’t even see it being used as a wedge issue in the future the way abortion is. Two people of the same sex building a home and a life together vs. ending a potential life. You can convince reasonable people to oppose abortion if you can persuade them that it constitutes taking a life. While I am pro-choice, I can understand why people would oppose abortion based on their revulsion at the idea of murder. Where the scare factor is concerned, there’s no “there” there for same sex marriage.

John F August 13, 2010 at 9:32 am

I tend to be more Libertarian than Conservative, so to me this is a no brainer. I’d prefer that the government call all marriages domestic partnerships and leave marriage to religious institutions. It is quit possible to be married in the eyes of the church but not in eyes of the state and vice versa. Churches can recognize any marriage they wish, according to their rules, the government should recognize ALL marriages (between two people, regardless of sex…I’m not ready to go down the polygamy road).

I held a different view when I was younger and dumber. It took my uncle dying to realize how wrong I was. If my mother were a different people she could have prevented my uncle’s partner of 20 years from inheriting his estate, or at least made it hard for him to do so. There is no justice in a country where a man who stood by my uncle for 20 years was able to take advantage of rights granted to everyone else only because he was fortunate enough to fall in love with a man who’s family accepted them for what they were: a loving committed couple. Had the situation been reversed, my uncle’s partner’s family that disowned him because of his sexuality, would have spent years in court trying to deny my uncle the rights that the rest of us take for granted.

CynthiaYockey August 14, 2010 at 1:49 am

John F,

This week I had a realization about why the churches — in particular, the Mormon Church, which is the most aggressive opponent of equality for gays — are trying to grab the power over marriage entirely away from government. I’ll discuss it in my book — it is absolutely horrifying.

I’m sorry for your loss. Your mother is rare and your uncle and his partner were fortunate to have someone like her to stand by them. By the time I’d met my late life partner in 1984, I had read so many horror stories of the surviving spouse of a same-sex couple losing their home and all their possessions to the families of their late spouse that I made sure to plan for her welfare as soon as I could. Yes, straight people really do take the right of marriage and their first-class citizenship for granted. We don’t have either, and we don’t.


wormme August 13, 2010 at 11:11 am

I agree that a patchwork approach isn’t really doable, but that’s due to to the outrageous infringements of liberty by the Fed. And the acceptance of this outrage by Americans. It’s not because states can infringe unalienable rights. I’ll gladly stake my life that no one on Earth values liberty more than me.

But there’s no unalienable right to gay marriage, there isn’t an unalienable right to hetero marriage. At least, not an enumerated one. You and I have more right to a firearm than we do to get married.

So if you’re willing to force people in other states to accept some non-enumerated practice of yours, they get to do the same thing to you.

CynthiaYockey August 14, 2010 at 1:52 am


Actually, the right to gay marriage IS enumerated with the same language as the right to straight marriage. I’m really surprised I’m the first one to see it. Stay tuned.


wormme August 13, 2010 at 11:17 am

Oh Cynthia,

You have a personal and emotional stake in this that I do not. Please forgive me for forgetting to offer regard for your lost loved one.

CynthiaYockey August 14, 2010 at 1:57 am


Thank you for your condolences.

The personal and emotional stakes of marriage touch every aspect of life. To bar a minority from marrying on the same basis as the majority — from love and attraction — doesn’t protect the majority’s marriages, but rather intentionally inflicts a death of a thousand cuts on the minority. Those are the stakes.


I R A Darth Aggie August 13, 2010 at 4:13 pm

The change over the past twenty-two years is rather dramatic and, if it’s true, it seems to indicate that we’ve reached a point where opposition to same-sex marriage will, before long, become the minority opinion. The lack of a sustained public reaction against Judge Walker’s opinion in the Prop 8 case seems to indicate that we’re almost there.

That’s good to hear. I was concerned that having a judge do the heavy lifting would not lead to a general concensus. Apparently, that was a misplaced concern.

CynthiaYockey August 14, 2010 at 2:07 am

I R A Darth Aggie,

Funny you should mention the shifting consensus — I just found a post at Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire that a CNN/Opinion Research poll that, for the first time, a majority of Americans now say gays should have the constitutional right to marry and have their marriages recognized by law.

Marriage is a noble goal. Same-sex marriage is going to make our society MORE moral. Perhaps more people are starting to see how that can be so.


Aine August 13, 2010 at 8:50 pm

Beck isn’t a conservative. What I mean is, he often says he has become more libertarian. It’s a technicality, I know.

Most conservatives I know believe the government doesn’t belong involved in the business of marriage at all. Seems like this should be common sense. Besides, all of us joined by judges or non-religious authorities are technically living in civil unions, are we not? I always believed marriage was a religious institution. Or is that hair-splitting?

But I agree with you, Cynthia, that rights are rights for all, without exception.

CynthiaYockey August 14, 2010 at 2:16 am


Please read my comments at Outside the Beltway at the post I linked for more, especially about the definition of marriage. The bottom line is that we have a religion that supports and performs same-sex marriages — the Metropolitan Community Church — and we can and will create more religions that recognize our marriages if that is what is required. The real reasons for trying to get government out of marriage are horrifying and anti-American, as I will explain in my book.

I do appreciate that you agree that rights are rights for all, without exception.


Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: