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

He’s right.

Nessuno on March 28, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Deo vindice

Greek Fire on March 28, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Probably, but how it is lost matters.

Much like abortion, if the issue turns on the SCOTUS inventing meaning in the Constitution, that’s much more harmful than duly elected legislators passing changes (or at least duly dodging their duty out of cowardice through referendums).

HitNRun on March 28, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Rush’s argument (if you can call it that) would work to argue against allowing state-sanctioned interracial marriage.

But the definition of marriage has changed as it relates to state. The best thing that could happen to the GOP would be for this issue to be put to bed forever.

Pun intended.

fatlibertarianinokc on March 28, 2013 at 8:08 PM

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.

Exactly what I’ve been saying since forever. The word “marriage” carries an identity with it just like the word “lesbian”. They just want “marriage” to be redefined.

Okay, so I insist that from now on, “lesbian” includes heterosexual males. If you want to be identified as a lesbian woman who prefers women, you’ll have to qualify “lesbian”. I am a lesbian, too, and I’m a heterosexual male. Don’t you dare argue with me about that, or you’ll be violating my civil rights.

The Rogue Tomato on March 28, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Of course he’s right. It IS inevitable, which even Justice Scalia acknowledged in his dissent in Lawrence. People under 30 are in favour of SSM by a margin of 4 to 1. So, even if it takes 20 years and it occurs only as a result of attrition, SSM will become a reality.

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 8:10 PM

So if Limbaugh now calls a tail a leg, a tail is now a leg? Has he consulted with God or Darwin on this or is he back on drugs again?

VorDaj on March 28, 2013 at 8:11 PM

He’s wrong.

Look at the 30 odd votes put to the people, even in deep blue states like California and Massachusetts. Look at the 31 states that ban it in their constitutions.

The fact is, social conservatives have yet to start fighting back at the decades of relentless propaganda from the progressive homosexual agenda (of which Hot Air is unfortunately part of). Once social conservatives organize and start telling the truth – the inevitability of polygamy and consanguinity, the use of the government to sue people and organizations of faith, and the continued proselytization of homosexuality in our schools, this “inevitability” meme will be proved false.

Rebar on March 28, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Huckabee’s kidding himself if he thinks evangelicals will walk away as a bloc over SSM (they’re not single-issue voters)

What makes you so sure? I’m more than happy to leave the GOP for the Constitution Party, and I’m an atheist.

Stoic Patriot on March 28, 2013 at 8:13 PM

You are an old man Rush. You have no more fight left within you. Thank you for all you have done but you got too close to W and hang out with the establishment “in” crowd now. You even told us Etch-a-sketch would win in a landslide, LOL!

Too bad. Thanks for everything we will do the heavy lifting without you. Guess that new young wife stole all your thunder.

Jayrae on March 28, 2013 at 8:13 PM

OT: Tea Partier Gina Loudon is on “Wife Swap” 8pm EST on ABC right now. I’m sure it’s going to be hilarious. It deserves a headline mention. :)

Paul-Cincy on March 28, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Probably, but how it is lost matters.

Much like abortion, if the issue turns on the SCOTUS inventing meaning in the Constitution, that’s much more harmful than duly elected legislators passing changes (or at least duly dodging their duty out of cowardice through referendums).

HitNRun on March 28, 2013 at 8:07 PM

I agree with this.

22044 on March 28, 2013 at 8:14 PM

The Bible’s Letter to the Roman Christians discusses God judging people by pulling back his restraining influence & allowing them to be captivated by their lusts.

It specifically mentions homosexuality.

It’s timely that the CDC just released the latest total of sexually transmitted infections in the USA:
110,000,000.

“Why would God judge us?”

For one, we sin against knowledge. There’s a church in every neighborhood, & Bibles in every bookstore.

Two–the blood of a million children killed every year for being inconvenient.

itsnotaboutme on March 28, 2013 at 8:14 PM

How is it lost when:


“All told, the people of 41 states have affirmed the conjugal view of marriage by direct voting or through their representatives.”

The arguments supporting conjugal marriage are just getting better and better, sharpened as they are by the constant assault on marriage

INC on March 28, 2013 at 8:15 PM

I tell you what needs to be done.
We need to start shifting all our resources to the protection of
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. To insure that no church etc. is forced to
perform gay marriages or be threatened with losing their
tax exempt status if they don’t comply.
I am all for taking marriage out of the tax code to limit
BIG GOV. war on religion, but regardless we need to
build up a wall of protection now.

AmeriCuda on March 28, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Tonight, the show Wife Swap is featuring an “extreme right wing” tea party activist and a polyamorous family. Gee, I wonder who is going to get the Palin treatment.

txag92 on March 28, 2013 at 8:16 PM

OT: Tea Partier Gina Loudon is on “Wife Swap” 8pm EST on ABC right now. I’m sure it’s going to be hilarious. It deserves a headline mention. :)

Paul-Cincy on March 28, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Speaking of gay marriage … the other couple to the Tea Partier gina is in a “polyamorous relationship” and they’d like to get married. One man, two women. The 3 want to marry each other.

Paul-Cincy on March 28, 2013 at 8:17 PM

He’s wrong.

Look at the 30 odd votes put to the people, even in deep blue states like California and Massachusetts. Look at the 31 states that ban it in their constitutions.

The fact is, social conservatives have yet to start fighting back at the decades of relentless propaganda from the progressive homosexual agenda (of which Hot Air is unfortunately part of). Once social conservatives organize and start telling the truth – the inevitability of polygamy and consanguinity, the use of the government to sue people and organizations of faith, and the continued proselytization of homosexuality in our schools, this “inevitability” meme will be proved false.

Rebar on March 28, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Previous votes don’t matter as much when more and more people start supporting one side. It’s why Democrats are suddenly so much more comfortable on this issue.

And there are very few supporters of gay marriage who go on to change their minds about it later.

Mister Mets on March 28, 2013 at 8:17 PM

we may not be single bloc voters, but many of us won’t sell out souls just to benefit the gop.

dmacleo on March 28, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Are heterosexual Americans going to allow this farce that homosexuality is “normal and natural”?

Question this with boldness. “Normal” in what way? Do gay guys have “turd” children?

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on March 28, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Previous votes don’t matter as much when more and more people start supporting one side.

Mister Mets on March 28, 2013 at 8:17 PM

This meme of homosexual “marriage” inevitability, of this sudden groundswell of support, is simply a lie, propaganda.

Rebar on March 28, 2013 at 8:21 PM

There is one thing that homosexuals can not do, and that is to have human, sexual, intercourse. They can have faux sexual intercourse. (Think of a dog humping a person’s leg.)

The kind of sexual intercourse that homosexuals have, is as pathetic as the aforementioned dog. “Gay marriage” is all about sex, and nothing deeper.

About thirty plus years ago, homosexuality was described as a mental illness in the DSM of the APA. Lucky for the homosexuals, (I guess), their mental illness was “cured” by protest.

Even after all the protests, and the claim that their “way” is normal and natural, they STILL can’t have sexual intercourse with each other.

As for the 40,000 children in California that have a “deep” desire to have their parents married, I call BS on this. Even if their “parents” had a faux marriage, they still wouldn’t have a MOM and a DAD like the “normal” children that it’s claimed that they want to be like. Sorry kids. Your “parents” are freaks.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on March 28, 2013 at 8:21 PM

We’re supposed to surrender on this because of its popularity despite the fact that non-bride/groom weddings are voted down everywhere. If that’s the case, then we should definitely surrender on every other ‘rat-supported issue because everything else has had more poll success ( I mean real poll success, elections ) than their homosexualization of marriage.

There are no victories on the horizon for Republicans. It is best to help the degeneration along and start voting for Democrats. Start promoting the worst Democrats you can find.

Buddahpundit on March 28, 2013 at 8:23 PM

One of the things that swayed me in favor of gay marriage (and frankly, until I was in favor of it, I was unaware of the controversy) is that I haven’t been convinced that there is such a thing as traditional marriage. Historically, marriages have included bigamy, divorce and a lack of autonomy. It wasn’t always the ideal of one man and one woman who love one another. So it seemed foolish to allow the myth of perfect marriages to restrict two consenting adults who love one another from getting married.

Mister Mets on March 28, 2013 at 8:24 PM

This meme of homosexual “marriage” inevitability, of this sudden groundswell of support, is simply a lie, propaganda.

Rebar on March 28, 2013 at 8:21 PM

I agree.

INC on March 28, 2013 at 8:24 PM

One of the reasons why although I think Rush is funny, smart, and provocative, he’s pretty much everything I don’t trust in the GOP. How does a multiple-divorced man with no children and pretty much zero evidence of any sort of faith come to represent conservatives? He’s the caricature that liberals use to mock conservatives: rich, old, white.

This is just another check on the side of not trusting his judgment.

Living4Him5534 on March 28, 2013 at 8:24 PM

It is not lost. America is.

astonerii on March 28, 2013 at 8:25 PM

I’m in favor of MSM. MORE SEX MARRIAGE.

That is better than NSM. No Sex Marriage.

How bout PSM. Pet Sex Marriage. That will be NAMBLAs next trick.

SparkPlug on March 28, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Living4Him5534 on March 28, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Rush is right on many things, but his multi-divorces indicate he’s failed to grasp an elemental understanding of marriage.

INC on March 28, 2013 at 8:26 PM

I think rush is wrong on this one.

unseen on March 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM

This meme of homosexual “marriage” inevitability, of this sudden groundswell of support, is simply a lie, propaganda.

Rebar on March 28, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Do you believe the polls to be a conspiracy?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-is-changing-and-what-it-means/

If people my age support gay marriage 4 to 1, then there is increasing support for it, even if older people don’t change their minds.

Mister Mets on March 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Yea… Noted “Fabulous” Beta Male BlOGGER declares the GAY WARS over and that America Lost.

SWalker on March 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Rush claims the battle was lost when conservatives started modifying the word “marriage”

I’m for the word “gayrriage”. As Biden would say, I’m serious. I’m not kidding. Isn’t it funny how it just comes down to a word?

Paul-Cincy on March 28, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Rush is correct about the issue being ‘lost’…but he is wrong to link it to any conservative strategy.

this is a western civilization thing…not a US thing. It started ‘gaining traction’ legally about 10 years ago. Momentum will carry it forward.

The table buried in this wikipedia post shows the time line in Europe. Momentum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Europe

the major challenge for the US is the issue of forcing churches to perform marriage etc.

there is great danger…and it is not in gays/lesbians getting married…it is in the suppression of Christianity/Islam. Whatever worldly consequences of ssm are, the primary concern IMHO is the maintenance of freedom of religion

r keller on March 28, 2013 at 8:28 PM

One of the arguments on the left is that traditional marriage is pretty weak with the high divorce rates and number of children born to a single mother. After 40 years of attacks by the free love movement, no-fault divorce, you can’t tie me down, woman; homosexual agenda; feminists I don’t need a man attitude, it’s a wonder that marriage is doing as well as it is. The institution is battered and bruised, but still standing. It is just like liberals, though, to attack, attack, attack, and then complain about what bad shape marriage is in.

Conservatives and marriage supporters need to focus on why marriage is essential and positive for society. That will counter the emotional arguments coming from the SSM promoters.

1.Marriage is essential for the raising of children for the good of society. It is well known that a mom and dad are the best environment for raising kids. It is the most stable situation available.
Children in broken homes are more likely to fall through the cracks and become dependent on government support programs. A stable home life helps reduce the need for social services and big government.
Having a stable home life reduces crime. A vast majority of people in prison are from single-mother homes.
As women age, they no longer can bear children. Men stay fertile their whole lives. Marriage is an institution that will keep men from roaming and impregnating other women, resulting in children in single parent homes.

Mallard T. Drake on March 28, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Mister Mets on March 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM

oh crap its over a liberal pollster pushing a poll that shows a liberal policy leading in the polls. quick call Mitt and explain to him how the polls said he should have won.

unseen on March 28, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Another question is why it was an issue that the federal government worried about. And then reward those who are the right “type” with tax credits and denied those who are not the right “type” with none.

No tax credits for anyone.

tjexcite on March 28, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Okay, so I insist that from now on, “lesbian” includes heterosexual males. If you want to be identified as a lesbian woman who prefers women, you’ll have to qualify “lesbian”. I am a lesbian, too, and I’m a heterosexual male. Don’t you dare argue with me about that, or you’ll be violating my civil rights.

The Rogue Tomato on March 28, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Among my more extreme leftard friends, if you proclaim yourself a lesbian, you’re a lesbian. If someone attempted to qualify lesbian, by what you in fact are, that person is transphobic. So your argument doesn’t work in leftard world.

thuja on March 28, 2013 at 8:30 PM

J. E. Dyer: Same-sex “marriage”

I would add that I doubt the Framers ever thought the U.S. would have sunk so low as to have vocal elements supporting subverting marriage in this way.

INC on March 28, 2013 at 8:30 PM

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.

And one step further, each time more gays come out to friends and family, the stereotype many have of gays gets broken down. Before I came out, I had my own stereotypes as well. It wasn’t until I started to meet other gay guys that my own presumptions of gays I found was totally wrong.

JetBoy on March 28, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Rush is correct about the issue being ‘lost’…but he is wrong to link it to any conservative strategy.

this is a western civilization thing…not a US thing. It started ‘gaining traction’ legally about 10 years ago. Momentum will carry it forward.

The table buried in this wikipedia post shows the time line in Europe. Momentum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Europe

the major challenge for the US is the issue of forcing churches to perform marriage etc.

there is great danger…and it is not in gays/lesbians getting married…it is in the suppression of Christianity/Islam. Whatever worldly consequences of ssm are, the primary concern IMHO is the maintenance of freedom of religion

r keller on March 28, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Yep – law firms who advocate for religious liberty, e.g. Becket, Alliance, Rutherford, Liberty, ACLJ, etc. are gonna get busy.

22044 on March 28, 2013 at 8:31 PM

I think rush is wrong on this one.

unseen on March 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM

down to 99.5% ?

It doesn’t matter..
No one listens to Rush../

Electrongod on March 28, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Has talk radio actually helped conservatives past the year 2000?

ninjapirate on March 28, 2013 at 8:31 PM

oh crap its over a liberal pollster pushing a poll that shows a liberal policy leading in the polls. quick call Mitt and explain to him how the polls said he should have won.

unseen on March 28, 2013 at 8:28 PM

It’s not one pollster. It’s an aggregate of pollsters. Including Fox News.

Mister Mets on March 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Among my more extreme leftard friends, if you proclaim yourself a lesbian, you’re a lesbian. If someone attempted to qualify lesbian, by what you in fact are, that person is transphobic. So your argument doesn’t work in leftard world.

thuja on March 28, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Your extreme leftard friends are insane.

It’s like this scene from Life of Brian:

FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith’s point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man–

STAN: Or woman.

FRANCIS: Or woman… to rid himself–

STAN: Or herself.

FRANCIS: Or herself.

REG: Agreed.

FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.

STAN: Or sister.

FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?

REG: I think you’d finished.

FRANCIS: Oh. Right.

REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man–

STAN: Or woman.

REG: Why don’t you shut up about women, Stan. You’re putting us off.

STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.

FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?

STAN: I want to be one.

REG: What?

STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta’.

REG: What?!

LORETTA: It’s my right as a man.

JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

LORETTA: I want to have babies.

REG: You want to have babies?!

LORETTA: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But… you can’t have babies.

LORETTA: Don’t you oppress me.

REG: I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

LORETTA: crying

JUDITH: Here! I– I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

REG: What’s the point?

FRANCIS: What?

REG: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?!

FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

The Rogue Tomato on March 28, 2013 at 8:33 PM

is Rush turning into a rino?

renalin on March 28, 2013 at 8:33 PM

It goes to prove that government has no right in the marriage business. Even the DOMA challenge is wrong. I agree the woman shouldn’t pay the estate tax, but that is because the government shouldn’t tax wealth that has already been taxed. The government got into marriage because they wanted to protect children. This was a way of allocating funds to protect children, instead of a safety net. They should o my recognize marriage as the social contract that is, even gay couples would be su next to this, but partners would then be exempt front the death tax

uncommon sense on March 28, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Rush is right on many things, but his multi-divorces indicate he’s failed to grasp an elemental understanding of marriage.

INC on March 28, 2013 at 8:26 PM

So those who never went to college shouldn’t talk about indoctrination issues?

All Rush is saying is what I said in last night’s QOTD thread and I got blasted. Gotta love it.

Midwestprincesse on March 28, 2013 at 8:34 PM

There should be a million LGBT march on Dearborn, Michigan that should not end until the name of that city is changed from Dearborn, Michigan to Gay Pride, Michigan and every Mosque becomes totally Gay compliant. Justice can settle for no less.

VorDaj on March 28, 2013 at 8:34 PM

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

No sh*t, Sherlock.

cam2 on March 28, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Sorry for the duplicate. I wasn’t done before somehow hitting the “post” button.
===============
One of the arguments on the left is that traditional marriage is pretty weak with the high divorce rates and number of children born to a single mother. After 40 years of attacks by the free love movement, no-fault divorce, you can’t tie me down, woman; homosexual agenda; feminists I don’t need a man attitude, it’s a wonder that marriage is doing as well as it is. The institution is battered and bruised, but still standing. It is just like liberals, though, to attack, attack, attack, and then complain about what bad shape marriage is in.

Conservatives and marriage supporters need to focus on why marriage is essential and positive for society. That will counter the emotional arguments coming from the SSM promoters.

1.Marriage is essential for the raising of children for the good of society. It is well known that a mom and dad are the best environment for raising kids. It is the most stable situation available.

2. Children in broken homes are more likely to fall through the cracks and become dependent on government support programs. A stable home life helps reduce the need for social services and big government.

3. Having a stable home life reduces crime. A vast majority of people in prison are from single-mother homes.

4. As women age, they no longer can bear children. Men stay fertile their whole lives. Marriage is an institution that will keep men from roaming and impregnating other women, resulting in children in single parent homes.

5. Marriage and the benefits of raising children by a mom and dad have been known for years. SSM marriage and other types of families are relatively new. We still don’t know the effects of these relationships. We don’t need to rush into changing the institution before knowing better if there are good or ill effects on children and society. Early returns say there may be.

6. Biologically, a man and a woman are complimentary creations. There is something in each that completes the other physically, psychologically, emotionally. It is a relationship that can not be recreated between two men or two women.

Mallard T. Drake on March 28, 2013 at 8:36 PM

How about coming to a time when children are no longer used as a pawn in the tax code?

Midwestprincesse on March 28, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Has talk radio actually helped conservatives past the year 2000?

ninjapirate on March 28, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Is that its stated goal?

tom daschle concerned on March 28, 2013 at 8:38 PM

And one step further, each time more gays come out to friends and family, the stereotype many have of gays gets broken down.

JetBoy on March 28, 2013 at 8:30 PM

There’s more to it than how people see things and stereotypes and prejudices. A lot of people have a problem putting a homosexual union on the same level as what we now call “marriage” because of what it is. Not because of some issue of “perception”. As Obama famously said in his 2008 campaign, alluding to Sarah Palin, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. Which is a rude way to say though the love and caring and companionship and fidelity may be the same in gay marriage, the sexual intercourse on which it’s based isn’t. And that matters.

Paul-Cincy on March 28, 2013 at 8:38 PM

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.

This hits it on the head. No one is looking for “marriage equality.” They’re looking for “marriage redefinition.” Look at how many things progressives have sought to redefine of late.

Sgt Steve on March 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

The oh so rich irony is that the gays will have their perversity mainstreamed about the time America implodes under debt.

roflcoptor

tom daschle concerned on March 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

I don’t care!

bernverdnardo1 on March 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

I’m gay and the more gay people I met It was clear as day that the majority of them are American hating, godless, Obama ass lickers.

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Midwestprincesse on March 28, 2013 at 8:34 PM

So you’re wrong as well.

INC on March 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

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

And they will use the same technique on every single left wingnut topic. Because it worked.

Mimzey on March 28, 2013 at 8:41 PM

This is so messed up. The whole “gay marriage” thing is just an excuse for its proponents to selfrighteously hate people, and feel better about their own deviance. The gross dishonesty of the whole thing gets near to the point of enraging me. Only “useful idiots” think this has anything to do with “rights”.
The whole “I know someone that’s gay” excuse is like saying “I know someone who smokes, so I think the government should sponsor advertizement promoting smoking”.

Count to 10 on March 28, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Huckabee’s kidding himself if he thinks evangelicals will walk away as a bloc over SSM (they’re not single-issue voters)

You’re right, of course, that they’re not single-issue voters – but taken with the GOP’s stance on amnesty (fail), fighting for fiscal sanity (fail), fighting Obamacare (fail), the GOP giving conservatives the finger, and many many more, SSM is just one of many reasons to walk – and it’s more than just evangelicals walking, bro.

Midas on March 28, 2013 at 8:42 PM

If people my age support gay marriage 4 to 1, then there is increasing support for it, even if older people don’t change their minds.

Mister Mets on March 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM

That should have zero standing in ruling Constitutionality.
It’s actually a logical fallacy. The Appeal to Popularity.

Mimzey on March 28, 2013 at 8:43 PM

Mallard T. Drake on March 28, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Those arguments have been made here in many threads.

INC on March 28, 2013 at 8:43 PM

I’m pi$$ed off because now I won’t
have an excuse not to pop the question.

bazil9 on March 28, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Let it burn. Fabulously.

Midas on March 28, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Mallard T. Drake on March 28, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Those arguments do need to be repeated often to those who are clueless and to those who support marriage, but are unsure how to defend it.

INC on March 28, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Does Ed have a view on gay marriage at all? Mary Catherine or Ericka? Is Allahpundit then allowed free reign to push this homosexual agenda? No balance at all on this site when it comes to this issue and it’s honestly making me sick seeing all these pro-gay marriage articles.

sadsushi on March 28, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Your extreme leftard friends are insane.

The Rogue Tomato on March 28, 2013 at 8:33 PM

I have noticed that.

thuja on March 28, 2013 at 8:46 PM

And one step further, each time more gays come out to friends and family, the stereotype many have of gays gets broken down.

JetBoy on March 28, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Oh, it’s changed, to be sure. Now it means everything it meant before, but also bigoted, angry, bitter, devisive, manipulative, dictatorial, intolerant *and* gay.

Go figure, huh?

Midas on March 28, 2013 at 8:46 PM

This hits it on the head. No one is looking for “marriage equality.” They’re looking for “marriage redefinition.” Look at how many things progressives have sought to redefine of late.

Sgt Steve on March 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Actually, they’re getting more than that.
It’s not a new definition of marriage, no definition of marriage.
It will be argued that anything goes. Love is love and who is anyone to define it…and they’ll have legal precedent.

Mimzey on March 28, 2013 at 8:48 PM

If the issue of “Gay Marriage” is lost, what will the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” (Dudes dressed like Nuns) in San Francisco want NEXT?

For your reference, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence will be celebrating Holy Week in San Francisco with the following events:

On Good Friday – The “Chunky Jesus Contest”

This year we will have a “Chunky Jesus Contest” before the show. Yup, you heard it, all you hot and chubby Jesus wannabes, dust off your crown of thorns and loincloth, and show off your stuff as the best Son of God you can be.
http://www.thesisters.org/index.php/calendar/icalrepeat.detail/2013/03/29/170/-/sing-along-jesus-christ-superstar

On Easter Sunday – The “Hunky Jesus Contest”

I’ll let you Google this one yourselves,if you want to see photos.

For the rest of the weekend – A “Zombie Christ” Haunted House

This Easter, join us for an irreverent and hilarious romp through a “haunted house” that reveals the true horrors of Christianity while reveling in the hedonistic queer spectacle that San Francisco creates so well.
http://www.thesisters.org/index.php/calendar/icalrepeat.detail/2013/03/30/167/-/zombie-christ-haunted-house-easter-2013

The issue is not about marriage. The issue is religious freedom.

wren on March 28, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Too bad. Thanks for everything we will do the heavy lifting without you.
Jayrae on March 28, 2013 at 8:13 PM

You be sure to let us know when you get that radio show with the millions of listeners…y’hear.

Solaratov on March 28, 2013 at 8:51 PM

That should have zero standing in ruling Constitutionality.
It’s actually a logical fallacy. The Appeal to Popularity.

Mimzey on March 28, 2013 at 8:43 PM

This particular discussion is mostly about social trends, as opposed to the Supreme Court decision.

Mister Mets on March 28, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Jetboy, why are you on this site when your name links to a group who clearly are not for conservative values?

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 8:51 PM

How does a multiple-divorced man with no children and pretty much zero evidence of any sort of faith come to represent conservatives?

Although I happen to agree with Rush on this particular topic, I’ve asked myself that (your) question so often over the years….

notropis on March 28, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Allahpundit, your obsession with homosexual marriage is scary…

The left and homosexual proponents like you have yet to see the social conservatives fight back… The Moral Majority that made the Reagan revolution possible would be looked rather like the little league when it comes to the new Moral Majority the social conservatives are going to make to fight homosexual marriage and in particular if the US Supreme court make it the law of the land…

After the US supreme court allowed the killing of the unborn babies I am certain that back that the age make up and political make up of people who supported abortion strongly is the same age make up and political make up of people who support homosexual marriage. Also I am sure that back then social conservatives were told that they were finished and that Republicans are never going to win another elections if they do not support abortion… Well we know the rest of the story…

mnjg on March 28, 2013 at 8:52 PM

I’m gay and the more gay people I met It was clear as day that the majority of them are American hating, godless, Obama ass lickers.

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Well that describes most of this civilization. Further proof of the pointlessness of grouping people by one trait.

bernverdnardo1 on March 28, 2013 at 8:53 PM

If the issue of “Gay Marriage” is lost, what will the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” (Dudes dressed like Nuns) in San Francisco want NEXT?

For your reference, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence will be celebrating Holy Week in San Francisco with the following events:

On Good Friday – The “Chunky Jesus Contest”

This year we will have a “Chunky Jesus Contest” before the show. Yup, you heard it, all you hot and chubby Jesus wannabes, dust off your crown of thorns and loincloth, and show off your stuff as the best Son of God you can be.
http://www.thesisters.org/index.php/calendar/icalrepeat.detail/2013/03/29/170/-/sing-along-jesus-christ-superstar

On Easter Sunday – The “Hunky Jesus Contest”

I’ll let you Google this one yourselves,if you want to see photos.

For the rest of the weekend – A “Zombie Christ” Haunted House

This Easter, join us for an irreverent and hilarious romp through a “haunted house” that reveals the true horrors of Christianity while reveling in the hedonistic queer spectacle that San Francisco creates so well.
http://www.thesisters.org/index.php/calendar/icalrepeat.detail/2013/03/30/167/-/zombie-christ-haunted-house-easter-2013

The issue is not about marriage. The issue is religious freedom.

wren on March 28, 2013 at 8:50 PM

What is the violation of religious freedom in what the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are doing?

Mister Mets on March 28, 2013 at 8:53 PM

I used to be against gay marriage, but the more I pondered it, the more I thought how the whole issue made Republicans act like Democrats. Basically, we are getting into peoples lives and telling them the correct way to behave. How is banning assault rifles to “protect children” any different from banning gay marriage to “protect children?’”

What conservatives should be arguing is that marriage should be left up to the states. We should also argue for religious liberties in the case that certain groups press the issue of forcing churches and other religious institutions to perform gay marriages. This removes the ability of the left from arguing that Republicans are against homosexuals, while at the same time prevents conservatives from looking like hypocrites when arguing against personal freedom while arguing for religious freedom.

ReaganWasRight on March 28, 2013 at 8:54 PM

If people my age support gay marriage 4 to 1, then there is increasing support for it, even if older people don’t change their minds.

Mister Mets on March 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM

People my age supported legalization of marijuana about 4 to 1, when they were your age. It’s still mostly illegal.

Just sayin.

notropis on March 28, 2013 at 8:55 PM

It’s been lost since homosexuality became socially acceptable – this was an inevitable step.

Waggoner on March 28, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Oh, it’s changed, to be sure. Now it means everything it meant before, but also bigoted, angry, bitter, devisive, manipulative, dictatorial, intolerant *and* gay.

Go figure, huh?

Midas on March 28, 2013 at 8:46 PM

It isn’t just the outright homosexuals, either. Most of the promoters of gay marriage, or all things gay, are heterosexual. They just want to hate those they perceive as judging their behavior, or even just “the other team” (being republicans).

Count to 10 on March 28, 2013 at 8:56 PM

I’m gay and the more gay people I met It was clear as day that the majority of them are American hating, godless, Obama ass lickers.

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

O_O

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Bishop on March 28, 2013 at 8:56 PM

If people my age support gay marriage 4 to 1, then there is increasing support for it, even if older people don’t change their minds.

Mister Mets on March 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM

At the end people like you are going to realize that voting liberalism because of gay marriage is not going to get you a better job if a job at all… It is not make you more free except for sex, abortion, and drugs… Eventually you will realize that Bob marrying Rob is not going to make your life any better under the power of liberalism, you will be poor and miserable… and then you realize that f*** liberals and all what they stand for…

mnjg on March 28, 2013 at 8:59 PM

I’m betting SCOTUS goes narrow so that it doesn’t find marriage a constitutional right and so that it doesn’t put gays in a suspect class requiring strict scrutiny protection.

Then, gays–the ultimate drama queens–will have fits and start showing their ugly side publicly. It won’t turn the tide, but it will turn some who hate to be put on the spot. When those people see regular folks and especially kids getting persecuted for not following gay orthodoxy, this move to gays is going to slow considerably.

BuckeyeSam on March 28, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Yeah ,I’d say that in a hopelessly devolved,narcissistic culture that elected a community organizer celebrity as president,whose universe centers on the Kardashians,Justin Beiber,American Idol, millionaire athletes’ games and where internet porn rules ,homosexual ‘marriage’ is pretty much an inevitability.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on March 28, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Mister Mets on March 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Oh, yeah. If it’s in the nytimesslimes, it must be true.

Solaratov on March 28, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Some moby’s roaming around here.

INC on March 28, 2013 at 9:03 PM

It’s all about controlling speech. The left and it’s lazy republican sympathizers have framed this argument all about fairness instead of realizing that words have meaning. Everything comes down to Newspeak.

They made calling someone ‘gay’ a hate crime. They made it so that homosexuals are a minority class that deserves protected extra special rights. And now they claim that if you don’t submit to the homosexual agenda, you’re a hater and a bigot.

Of course that means anyone that’s actually a practicing Christian is a bigot guilty of a hate crime. And soon enough they’ll enforce that. Watch and see.

njrob on March 28, 2013 at 9:03 PM

You are an old man Rush. You have no more fight left within you

It’s called payback. Elton’s friends wondered why any gay man would agree top perform at Rush’s wedding. Well now you know. Rush is bending over backward to support his new buddy.
And who knows, maybe someone in Elton’s entourage gave Rush a little sample of gay lovin’. And just maybe, Rush liked it.

bayam on March 28, 2013 at 9:04 PM

It’s not inevitable.

It looks like its going to happen, but there is and never was anything inevitable about it.

About the surge in support: no one should be thinking of that as a wave that ultimately sweeps away the resistance. It doesn’t work that way. It peaks, it falls back, and it stabilizes a little lower than it peaked — whatever it is, wherever it moves.

is Rush turning into a rino?

renalin on March 28, 2013 at 8:33 PM

No. :) But he was never exactly a bastion of religious zeal, either. (Believing you are a minor deity is not what I mean by religious zeal.)

***

This divides us, you know. I mean chasm style. We were already fragmented as a society, but the belief that the sixteen remaining bible-thumpers are just going to have to move their hypocrisy to Mayberry is wishful thinking. This “marriage” of ours is becoming more and more miserable, and we’ll be serving each other prized pets here in a minute.

Axe on March 28, 2013 at 9:05 PM

BuckeyeSam on March 28, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Absolutely.

The reaction to Prop 8 should have opened some eyes. The biggest roadblock to truth is the media.

INC on March 28, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Previous votes don’t matter as much when more and more people start supporting one side.

Mister Mets on March 28, 2013 at 8:17 PM

This meme of homosexual “marriage” inevitability, of this sudden groundswell of support, is simply a lie, propaganda.

Rebar on March 28, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Mister Mets is right. Support for gay marriage has grown and continues to grow across all age groups and all religious groups, even evangelicals (from 13% in 2001 to 24% in 2013). The 2nd and 3rd chart in the column cited below show the trend lines. As more gays “come out” and get married, more Americans will get to know them and accept them as friend and neighbors and the trend will only accelerate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/whatever-the-supreme-court-decides-these-nine-charts-show-gay-marriage-is-winning/

cam2 on March 28, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Just a reminder to Rush, Phyllis Schlafly stopped the ERA when stopping it was considered a lost cause.

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1986/sept86/psrsep86.html

Fallon on March 28, 2013 at 9:08 PM

When those people see regular folks and especially kids getting persecuted for not following gay orthodoxy, this move to gays is going to slow considerably.

BuckeyeSam on March 28, 2013 at 8:59 PM

This is possible. The worst thing homosexuals can do is overplay their hand. Acceptance of gays and gay marriage is growing because many people see them no differently than themselves. I believe that without any action at all, within 20 or 30 years gays will be able to marry in all 50 states. However, if people are overwhelmed by ranting, raving and threats, then the gay population can go from being seen as an oppressed underdog to the left’s version of the Westboro Church.

ReaganWasRight on March 28, 2013 at 9:09 PM

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.

A steady trickle of people have been walking away from the GOP for years, and not just over SSM.

ddrintn on March 28, 2013 at 9:10 PM

Just a reminder to Rush, Phyllis Schlafly stopped the ERA when stopping it was considered a lost cause.

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1986/sept86/psrsep86.html

Fallon on March 28, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Great example. I forgot about that, it’s been so long. I remember when people were debating it.

INC on March 28, 2013 at 9:11 PM

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

Huckabee isn’t wrong in principle. They are single issue voters, if they are evangelical. They won’t support decadence.

If the party makes it one big happy gay marriage family, they are not going to be able to woo the marginalized conservatives who did not vote in the last election – because they had no trust either party would represent their needs. That no longer loyal bloc will be very much bigger.

I listened to Rush today. He was right on target about losing the semantics argument, and went into depth about how crooked and disingenuous a game was played. Rush doesn’t care if any type of couple, or group, wants to set up domestic partnerships that establish property, guardianship, and other such rights also attached to marriage, but he does not cede the category of ‘marriage’ to such arrangements.

By defining these partnerships as ‘marriage’, the already established legal rights transfer to the new groups, and ‘marriage’ is in the evangelical and Catholic religions defined as the ‘honorable state’. This means it was taught in schools, set as a norm, and encouraged. Grandfathering gay couples into ‘marriage’ after the fact, makes evangelical preaching against the newly expanded legal condition of marriage, a hate crime.

Evangelicals aren’t stupid. They are being beaten up in schools, for refusing to stomp on the word ‘Jesus’ or not applauding the promotion of gay lifestyle in Jr High attended by their own kids.

Whoever makes soft excuses on this slam against Bible believers becomes their enemy. Enemies are not the preferred candidate for any voting bloc.

As Rush said, it could have been handled with expanded partnership laws, but that was not the purpose of this push. He said, the case was presented as fairness, but the intent was something else, to transfer the definition of marriage to something that was not.

IMHO the intent was to suppress the old religions and install a new, universal religion. Huckabee knows his people actually believe the Bible. This is something the liberals, progressives, libertarians, and secular humanists cannot comprehend. It will not go away. It is going to get bigger

Personally I am over the doublespeak. We are now in an era like Stalinist Russia, whose the leaders spoke of the glorious lives of the freedom loving peoples of the CCCP.

You either give up truth, lay down and die, or fight back. I expect a hardening of positions. Resistance is not futile, when there are no other options

entagor on March 28, 2013 at 9:12 PM

When those people see regular folks and especially kids getting persecuted for not following gay orthodoxy, this move to gays is going to slow considerably.

BuckeyeSam on March 28, 2013 at 8:59 PM

I read about a case, if I find it I’ll post it, that gay activists were asking the gay litigants to hold back because they thought it would harm their cause.

Waiting for the dam to burst.

INC on March 28, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4