Government's involvement in marriage just a creepy threesome between you, your spouse, and the state

July 08, 2015

The Glenn Beck Program

To both sides of the marriage debate: now that the Supreme Court has settled things, lets change it all over again.

To both sides of the marriage debate: now that the Supreme Court has settled things, lets change it all over again. My view on marriage - here.
Posted by Stu Burguiere on Saturday, June 27, 2015

Every Saturday morning, I take my son, Zach, out for pancake time. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I just want to eat pancakes. We discuss the issues of the day, like the best techniques for tap-tap-tap-swing, which you see here. You probably know it as T-ball, but I mean, look at this blazing speed. I mean, this kid, look at this, all the way home. He’s going to score. I mean, I’m going to give it away, but look at that, perfect. That’s impressive.

I try to indoctrinate him in he being a Philadelphia Eagles fan, guaranteeing him a life of horrific disappointment. Sorry, kid. Oh, and we eat lots of lots of pancakes, lots of pancakes. That’s our tradition, and I’m all about upholding traditions, especially one like that that involves pancakes. In fact, I would say that our little tradition is more valid and way more meaningful than this one.

Yeah, there it is. Or how about this little tradition? Or even this little tradition? Ugh. Time to get antisocial on how we think about marriage. We’ve been in a nonstop, endless conversation about whether the government should recognize same-sex marriage, and I’m sick of it. I’m not saying that marriage isn’t important—quite the contrary. I’m just saying that none of the importance comes from an $80 piece of paper from the state. A marriage license? Seriously, a marriage license, your licensing my love life?

Think about your marriage for a second and break it up by percentage. Yes, I’m a true romantic. Where do you get the value in your marriage? What is important? Well, love, right? Obviously this is usually number one on the list, hopefully. Faith, recognition by your church, your faith is important to most but not everybody. Family, recognition by your family is of course important to some. Kids, having the most stable unit possible to raise a family is important to many, but how about government? Where does government fit in there?

Having faceless bureaucrats hang onto paperwork acknowledging you got married for one or more of those reasons, who is that important to? Who cares if the government recognizes your marriage? I’m not talking about same-sex marriage here. I’m talking about every marriage. I take nothing of value from the fact that the government acknowledges I’m married. I don’t care what they think about it.

I care about what my wife and my family and my kids and my church think about it. I don’t care what my selectmen thinks. That’s why I support marriage equality in its truest form. The government should have no say in it at all for anybody, outside of enforcing personal contracts. So, to be clear, I want the government out of my heterosexual marriage.

So, what are the problems with all of this? Some people will say Stu, what about all those tax breaks for marriage? To the extent that they actually exist, I don’t seem to notice them on April 15th that much. Look, that’s part of it here though. There is no reason to give tax breaks to couples for getting married. I realize that’s not popular probably, but my tax status should not be based on my dating ability. Not to mention if you are getting married to get tax breaks, you definitely should not be getting married.

But we’re told that conservatives are all about tradition. Maybe that’s a big point. I’m not going to be like the media and mock tradition. If the government blessing of your marriage is a time-honored tradition, well, there’s something to be said for that. The only problem is it’s really not that time-honored. As you might imagine, marriage has been going on for quite a long time, longer than the United States has even been a country.

Let’s start by going way back. For centuries, Christianity recognized marriage as simply if both people said they exchanged vows. It was essentially an agreement between two families. Only by the year 1215 did the church declare that a marriage must take place inside an actual church. In other words, marriage has been going on without government interference for a long time, but you might say okay, yeah, all right, that’s how it was in the 13th century, thanks, Stu, but it’s kind of important to maintain American tradition.

How’s this for traditional? George Washington was married without a marriage license. So was Abraham Lincoln. If arguably our two best presidents can get married without a license, why do you need one so badly? Marriage licenses didn’t become popular in America until the early 20th century. That’s not to say there wasn’t any government involvement, but the progressive era changed a lot of things. Like all other origins of government-issued licenses, this was about control. Conservatives know this.

The government doesn’t get involved in your life because they want to give you a pat on the back because you found someone you really like. For some reason, we’ve started considering marriage licenses like they’re wedding presents. To be clear, the government’s licensing of marriage is not a congratulations that you found love. The real reason the government started granting marriage licenses was to control love.

By the 1920s, 38 states had laws prohibiting whites from marrying blacks, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, you name it. If you want to figure out who you can love, just look at this handy-dandy chart. This is great. It’s going to really explain it for you. If you’re one-eighth black, you can get married in all these states. Of course, over here you’ve got to be a quarter.

Over time, marriage has really changed. Marriage licenses became less about enforcing racism and more about how to distribute wealth. The government relies on your marriage license to make all kinds of financial decisions—tax rates, Social Security, inheritance, but all this could be done with personal contracts between consenting adults. Then churches can decide if they approve of those unions or not.

In other words, your marriage license is a racist wealth distributor. Why are you supporting it? Why are conservatives really for this? Why are we fighting for something like this? Guys, come on. Let’s have a nice little ceremony here, because if you think about it, this state-mandated marriage between this lovely bride and groom is actually not really a state-mandated marriage. It’s kind of a threesome: man, woman, and state—the creepy, creepy state.

The day you say your vows, you’re also allowing the state into your marriage as long as you both or as long as you all shall live. Signing that piece of paper is just proof of your consummation with the state. That’s just as creepy as it gets. So, to review, marriage licenses have a racist past. I’m for true marriage equality. Get the government out of every marriage. And no one wants to think about a threesome with Jeffy—least of all, these two people.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep