Rush Limbaugh on gay marriage: “This issue is lost”

posted at 8:01 pm on March 28, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite and MoFoPolitics, a noteworthy admission if, like me, you think this issue will be very much alive for social conservatives during the 2016 GOP primaries. If the issue’s lost, what do they do now? What do Republican candidates do? Huckabee’s kidding himself if he thinks evangelicals will walk away as a bloc over SSM (they’re not single-issue voters), but some will walk and Republicans can’t afford that. How do they push policies promoting traditional marriage when the biggest name in conservative media has already declared, three years out from the election, that defeat on this issue is inevitable?

Rush claims the battle was lost when conservatives started modifying the word “marriage” (“traditional marriage,” “straight marriage”) to describe the institution rather than insisting that the word itself necessarily refers to traditional/straight relationships and therefore doesn’t require modification. How would you have enforced that message discipline against the left, though? Their 40 percent of the country would have been calling it “gay marriage” no matter what. If in fact phraseology is influencing opinion, then theirs was bound to influence undecideds too. Things might have changed more slowly, but they still would have changed. The real reason gay marriage has gone mainstream so quickly, I think, is because gays have become so much more visible in the culture over the past 25 years. When Pew asked people who have changed their minds about SSM why they did so, the answer most frequently given was that they found out someone they know is gay. The more people come out of the closet, the more those numbers increase. In fact, and to his credit, Rush has occasionally played his own small part to increase mainstream acceptance of gays. When he needed someone to play his wedding, he asked the famously gay Elton John to do the honors, then spoke warmly of him on his first show back after the honeymoon. According to his biographer, Zev Chafets, Rush “has no problem with gay civil unions” either. When Americans hear, from both the left and some on the right, that gays deserve the same substantive rights as married couples (if perhaps under a different name) and that out-and-proud homosexuality’s no bar to friendship or an invitation to your wedding, it’s no surprise that undecideds might not end up as sticklers on whether gay partnerships can/should be described as “marriages” too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

This issue was lost the moment in our history we allowed “religionists” to require governmental sanction of marriage. Why Christians EVER wanted government sanction of marriage is beyond me – maybe they don’t think God’s sanctification is enough or they have little faith in him … who knows?

Every time you use the government to “sanctify” a practice like marriage – you open the door to it “sanctifying” marriages you don’t like.

Every time you use government to keep a marijuana joint out of someone’s hands – you opent the door to Bloomberg keeping a Big Gulp soda out of YOURS.

Why Conservatives never learn this basic truth – is beyond me. Conservatives apparently believe that government should be empowered to “shape” and “mold” a stable society. Okay well – don’t be surprised then that the government “shapes” and “molds” something you can’t stand!

HondaV65 on March 30, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Perhaps it’s a winning argument for the whole two seconds before someone points out that for every child raised by gay couple, you have fifty being raised by single mothers. We are actively encouraging single motherhood between the Democrat socialism and Republican pro-lifeism.

thuja on March 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Just because I prefer single-motherhood to murder doesn’t mean that I’m encouraging single motherhood. It means I’m choosing the lesser of two evils.

RationalIcthus on March 30, 2013 at 7:07 PM

We lost the battle when society began condoning divorce and remarriage in the United States. That’s no more or less a sin than sodomy, but somehow even evangelicals have drawn a distinction between the two.

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

RationalIcthus on March 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Thirty-one states have constitutional amendments defending marriage between one man and one woman. If Republicans think they have “lost” on this issue, they can’t count.

gocatholic on March 30, 2013 at 8:25 PM

defending marriage between one man and one woman

gocatholic on March 30, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Redundant. You should just say “defending marriage.” There’s no other kind.

“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
- Abraham Lincoln

CanofSand on March 31, 2013 at 1:02 AM

Not lost, temporarily forgotten.

Relatively few gays will marry. Those that do will divorce in a large proportion.

Gay-(non)marriage is a stick that leftists are beating republicans with right now, but the pendulum will swing.

virgo on March 31, 2013 at 5:16 AM

This issue was lost the moment in our history we allowed “religionists” to require governmental sanction of marriage. Why Christians EVER wanted government sanction of marriage is beyond me

Religionist? Seriously? You just can’t help yourself with your attempts at insulting the faithful. Get over yourself. You aren’t special. You bigots are a dime a dozen. We didn’t demand recognition of our marriages. Government recognition was a natural outgrowth of a natural act. Unlike homosexual unions. What you’re trying to do is change the meaning of language.

You’re no different than Big Brother.

njrob on March 31, 2013 at 8:46 AM

We lost the battle when society began condoning divorce and remarriage in the United States. That’s no more or less a sin than sodomy, but somehow even evangelicals have drawn a distinction between the two.

RationalIcthus on March 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM

No we don’t. You don’t speak for us either. Thanks for playing.

It’s your leftist, government worshiping mentality that encouraged and pushed such behavior.

njrob on March 31, 2013 at 8:47 AM

njrob on March 31, 2013 at 8:46 AM

According to someone, I think it was Virginia instituted the first state licensing of marriage in order to prevent any couple from applying for and gaining 2 plots of land as individuals.

astonerii on March 31, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Religious Unions – Marriage

Nonreligious Unions – Civil Unions

=======> Therefore atheist heterosexual couples would have civil unions and not marriage.

scruplesrx on March 31, 2013 at 1:42 PM

No we don’t. You don’t speak for us either. Thanks for playing.

It’s your leftist, government worshiping mentality that encouraged and pushed such behavior.

njrob on March 31, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Wow, I’m 37 years old, have never voted anything but a straight Republican ticket, am a born-and-raised socially-conservative and lifelong evangelical, am married to one woman, have four children, own two guns and wish for more (just have to convince the wife). I teach Sunday School, sing in the church choir and am considered conservative to the extreme by even my socially-conservative peers.

I think I’m as far from a leftist, government-worshiping anything as you can get. In fact, you might call me a proud and bitter clinger!

I have watched the church slowly slide off the rails since the 80′s on the issue of divorce and remarriage. My point was to say (simply) that it’s tough for the “church” (the corporate entity of all believers) to argue for the sanctity of marriage when so many “believers” have conveniently ignored the beam in our own collective eye.

As individuals (myself included) we may be rock-ribbed and consistently pro-family (pro-life, against divorce & remarriage, against SSM) but you can’t possibly argue that the worldwide church is consistent in supporting the Biblical model of marriage and family that God intended.

RationalIcthus on March 31, 2013 at 8:06 PM

I have watched the church slowly slide off the rails since the 80′s on the issue of divorce and remarriage. My point was to say (simply) that it’s tough for the “church” (the corporate entity of all believers) to argue for the sanctity of marriage when so many “believers” have conveniently ignored the beam in our own collective eye.

As individuals (myself included) we may be rock-ribbed and consistently pro-family (pro-life, against divorce & remarriage, against SSM) but you can’t possibly argue that the worldwide church is consistent in supporting the Biblical model of marriage and family that God intended.

RationalIcthus on March 31, 2013 at 8:06 PM

If you want to call any church establishment lily-livered go right ahead. Don’t call us evangelicals anything but what we are, followers of Christ.

njrob on March 31, 2013 at 10:32 PM

If you want to call any church establishment lily-livered go right ahead. Don’t call us evangelicals anything but what we are, followers of Christ.

njrob on March 31, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Mr. Rob,

I’ve already noted that as individuals we may be true “Christ followers” — those who adhere to all of His teachings. But you cannot hope to insist that the evangelical movement as a whole is as consistent on the issue of divorce as they are on the issue of SSM.

Case in point — where is the evangelical cause supporting a Constitutional amendment to repeal “no fault” divorce, which is clearly in violation of the principles found in scripture, and is (in terms of sheer volume of divorces) FAR AND AWAY more prevalent and damaging to our society?

I despise the idea of SSM, and will fight it vigorously. Having said that, I ought to be at least as consistent in my protection of heterosexual marriage from divorce. That’s the point I’m making, evangelicals (corporately) included, and I’ll stand by that statement.

RationalIcthus on April 1, 2013 at 1:00 AM

Calling it a ‘civil union” is fine but it will never be a marriage. They can call it marriage until the end of time but it will never be the truth. Never.

potvin on April 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Perhaps gays should opt for gayage, queerage, or lesbage. The word marriage is already taken.

Dasher on April 3, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4