Glenn Beck is a regular recipient of ridicule (hooray for alliterations!) at this blog. But every now and then I like to highlight something redeeming about an ideological foe. A couple of weeks ago, I attempted to humanize the Westboro Baptists. And today, I’ll attempt to humanize Glenn Beck.
On Fox News last night, Bill O’Reilly asked Beck why he wasn’t more of a “culture warrior”—why he doesn’t discuss issues like gay marriage and abortion. Beck explained that “the country is burning down” and that social issues are basically a distraction. “Honestly, I think we have bigger fish to fry,” he said.
O’Reilly then followed up with this question: “Do you believe gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?”
“A threat to the country? No, I don’t,” Beck responded. “Will the gays come and get us?” he asked mockingly. “I don’t think … the government actually has anything to do with [marriage] … that is a religious rite.”
Beck said that he isn’t concerned about gay marriage so long as it doesn’t infringe upon religious freedoms. He quoted Thomas Jefferson in saying, “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?”
That’s a pretty admirable position for Beck to take, considering that it not only puts him at odds with many of his coworkers at Fox News, but also with the members and leadership of his church (the LDS Church).
Now, Beck said a couple of things in his interview with O’Reilly that I disagreed with. And I still believe that Beck’s enormous influence is dangerous. Yet occasionally he surprises me and I realize that he, like everyone, shouldn’t be pigeonholed into my tidy preconceptions. More than that, I sometimes find myself even liking both Beck and O’Reilly.*
Liberal SHAFTers needn’t worry, though. We can still call out Beck when he makes bat-shit crazy remarks. All I ask is that we temper our criticisms of him (and others) with humanistic restraint—according people the basic respect they are due.
*I was a huge O’Reilly fan when I was younger. He’s one of the saner personalities at Fox (he supports a repeal of DADT, for example). Plus, who can hate the guy responsible for the funniest meltdown in television history?
I remember when Glenn was on Headline News. It was a couple years ago and if I remember correctly, he seemed to be quite a moderate. It was the first time I’ve ever heard of the guy so I actually liked him a lot. Though things have changed since then…
Since this is the SHAFT blog, how about doing away with civil marriage altogether? This was discussed as an option during France’s struggles over gay marriage, and openly espoused by Jacques Derrida and other leading thinkers. The argument is simple: marriage is an unwanted religious concept in the civil state striving for secularism. The state does away with the civil institution of marriage, and recognizes only civil unions (gay and straight), with equal privileges for any union. Religious groups may choose to perform marriages (and choose whom they are willing to marry), but those marriages receive legal recognition only as a civil union. Let theists preserve their archaic rites if they wish, but allow the state to extend equal privileges to all. Just a thought.
BECK! You’re not conforming enough to FOX news standards! Conform Beck! Conform!
Oh, Bill, I’m sure “traditional” life is what you want to uphold… like the early American 20th century right? Which would work terribly well for you, as a conservative, Christian, straight, white male…
Although I do not agree with everything Glenn said during his discussion with Bill, I did appreciate some of his comments, including the “oh, are gays coming to get us?” quip.
I can’t bring myself to watch that video. He grosses me out too much.
It is worth mentioning that he’s ranted vociferously against gays and gay marriage on his show before.
@Ben
There is no real difference between state-sponsored marriage and state-sponsored civil unions if they’re applied to all parties and if the state only offers one or the other. I oppose civil unions for gays and marriage for straights because it’s a form of separate but equal.
In theory I support the idea that the state offers only civil unions for all and “marriage” for none, but I don’t think it’s a likely thing to happen, and either way, you’re just changing the noun. It’d still be the exact same thing. What I most care about is civil and social equality. The labels applied to it aren’t as important.
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Publicity and Gay Rights Edition! | Main Street Plaza
Got to love that Thomas Jefferson quote. Exactly my views of politics lately.
Glenn Beck used to be hilarious pre-2008 Election when he just ranted about protecting his house and funny stuff on his radio talk show. The batshiat craziness was kind of there, but not so apparent making him listenable. I actually really liked him, and that’s strange to hear coming from an Independent.
He sold out though, which is sad. Now the craziness has gotten to his head completely.
Beck supported Gay Marriage a while back in an interview with Katie Couric almost a year ago. Here is a link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRohgYwzRMU
As far as my thoughts on Beck: He is better as an author than as a talk show host. All his shows have gotten progressively more and more radical, and little that he ever says makes sense. In what I have read of his books, though, his ideas and thoughts are much more coherent, and he usually backs it up with some research.
well didn’t he “used” to be gay im not sure if thats true but if it is i would hope he wouldnt oppose gay marriage the slightest