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

Gay lovin’ 2.0
–bayam

tom daschle concerned on March 28, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Repeating because this hit at the bottom of page 1:

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 9:15 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

I realize that. But when the case is made for validation of gay marriage, and that validation being made by SCOTUS, then court rulings are not only part of the discussion, it is the pivot point. In that vein, I pointed to logical fallacies have not standing in ruling on Constitutionality..

Mimzey on March 28, 2013 at 9:17 PM

If the GOP had aggressively sought to legalize civil unions, we wouldn’t have been having this debate. Rove blew it in 2004.

John the Libertarian on March 28, 2013 at 9:17 PM

I expect a hardening of positions . . . when there are no other options.

entagor on March 28, 2013 at 9:12 PM

^

Axe on March 28, 2013 at 9:19 PM

If the GOP had aggressively sought to legalize civil unions, we wouldn’t have been having this debate. Rove blew it in 2004.

John the Libertarian on March 28, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Not a chance. The gay mafia wants the title marriage, just like any straight couple would have. Next stop is suing Christian organizations that won’t adopt out to these “married” couples.

crrr6 on March 28, 2013 at 9:22 PM

What now?

Well, the issue is largely an issue of the emotions surrounding certain semantics. I don’t think anybody on either side is all that concerned about tax implications, or visitation rights. It’s all about,each side trying to get formal affirmation of their moral world view.

So, in my mind, since neither side actually had to give away something of actual substance. There should be a compromise view that more or less satisfies the sensibilities of each side.

Basically, there’s got to be a way of telling everyone to mind their own friggin business. The reason why gay marriage as an issue has slowly but surely gaining in popularity, is because at its culture core, most Americans can respect, “leave me the heck alone,” which is essentially what most same sex marriage advocates are saying when they appeal for the right to do their own thing.

With this in mind, I would think if somebody offered a position that allowed each side to yell, “leave me the heck alone,” I think both sides would eventually gravitate towards it.

Of course, it’s possible that I’m being over optimistic. There are those after all, that only care about this issue one way or another, because it offers a political club for them to use. These individuals will be reluctant to do anything about it one way or another.

Which, is actually why democrats ignore so many cultural issues whenever they’re in obvious. Finding solutions would, in the long term, weaken their own positions.

WolvenOne on March 28, 2013 at 9:22 PM

If you are the enemy of a society, you attack it from all angles. You do all you can to confuse the societial moral compass. The idea is to replace our system with its morals with that of the communist ideal. The State knows best. I say we start the civil war soon while we can still win. They indoctrinate our children. I would eliminate from the educational system all those who lean left.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on March 28, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Yep. They want the definition changed.

Then they can get the churchs into court along with anyone that ‘discriminates’ against them.

catmman on March 28, 2013 at 9:24 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

We all have a cross to bear.

Solaratov on March 28, 2013 at 9:25 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, I hope one day you will find a nice America-loving, godly, conservative ass-licker to marry. Maybe at a Log Cabin Republicans meeting? ;-)

cam2 on March 28, 2013 at 9:26 PM

[1] In the LORD I take refuge;
how can you say to me,
“Flee like a bird to the mountains;

(“So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains… Matt 24:15 -16

[2] for lo, the wicked bend the bow,
they have fitted their arrow to the string,
to shoot in the dark at the upright in heart;
[3] if the foundations are destroyed,
what can the righteous do
“?
[4] The LORD is in his holy temple,
the LORD’s throne is in heaven;
his eyes behold, his eyelids test, the children of men.
[5] The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked,
and his soul hates him that loves violence.
[6] On the wicked he will rain coals of fire and brimstone;
a scorching wind shall be the portion of their cup.
[7] For the LORD is righteous, he loves righteous deeds;
the upright shall behold his face.

Psalms 11 (RSV)

That is all.

Cleombrotus on March 28, 2013 at 9:30 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, I hope one day you will find a nice America-loving, godly, conservative ass-licker to marry. Maybe at a Log Cabin Republicans meeting? ;-)

cam2 on March 28, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Log cabin republicans want SSM, i’m a traditionalist ghey. and i too hope to find a nice American-loving, godly, conservative ass licker to date and NOT get married to and live our lives in private unlike the majority of queers and queers supporters who WILL NOT SHUT THE F_CK UP!!!!!

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 9:33 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

Anyone who thinks like that is clearly not an evangelical nor understands how we think.

What to you appears as a single issue to us appears as the tail end of a long continuum down the cesspool. From which there will be no turning back.

What to you will appear like “walking away” will be, in reality, finally seeing the hand writing on the wall.

Cleombrotus on March 28, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Cleombrotus on March 28, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Verse 4 is the answer and the reassurance.

A former pastor used to quote verse 3, and then say, “go on being righteous.”

INC on March 28, 2013 at 9:36 PM

This war issue is lost – Harry Reid Rush Limbaugh

Reid was wrong. Rush is wrong. Never give up.

thebrokenrattle on March 28, 2013 at 9:41 PM

INC on March 28, 2013 at 9:36 PM

And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”

“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.

Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.

Rev. 22:10-15

Yes sir, INC.

Cleombrotus on March 28, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Log cabin republicans want SSM, i’m a traditionalist ghey. and i too hope to find a nice American-loving, godly, conservative ass licker to date and NOT get married to and live our lives in private unlike the majority of queers and queers supporters who WILL NOT SHUT THE F_CK UP!!!!!

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 9:33 PM

If you are truly gay then I hope that there are more gays like you but I do not think that there is…

mnjg on March 28, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Log cabin republicans want SSM, i’m a traditionalist ghey. and i too hope to find a nice American-loving, godly, conservative ass licker to date and NOT get married to and live our lives in private unlike the majority of queers and queers supporters who WILL NOT SHUT THE F_CK UP!!!!!

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Never be afraid to tell the truth. ++

Mimzey on March 28, 2013 at 9:43 PM

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

You’re right — this is conservatives’ best legal argument. However, you don’t have to get too far through this thread before it’s apparent that there is a small minority of Republicans who are against homosexuals, which is problematic from a P.R. standpoint.

cam2 on March 28, 2013 at 9:45 PM

What to you will appear like “walking away” will be, in reality, finally seeing the hand writing on the wall.

Cleombrotus on March 28, 2013 at 9:35 PM

. . . or noticing the man behind the curtain.

Yes sir, INC.

Cleombrotus on March 28, 2013 at 9:42 PM

*cough* Ma’am. :)

Axe on March 28, 2013 at 9:46 PM

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.

Needed? NEEDED?
That was unnecessary and….alot of other things…like petty, for example. What was your point, Allah?

egmont on March 28, 2013 at 9:52 PM

godly, conservative ass licker

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Never be afraid to tell the truth. ++

Mimzey on March 28, 2013 at 9:43 PM

You let that slip past you, Mimz.

Cleombrotus on March 28, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Just wait until 2016 when the evangelicals stay home and you ask “why did they stay home with such an important election.”

mrscullen on March 28, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Gone? Yep. My first brand new car was $1,999. Try walking into a dealer with that offer. Society has moved on, like it or not, it is what it is and you’ll never ever ever get it back.

Limerick on March 28, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Log cabin republicans want SSM, i’m a traditionalist ghey. and i too hope to find a nice American-loving, godly, conservative ass licker to date and NOT get married to and live our lives in private unlike the majority of queers and queers supporters who WILL NOT SHUT THE F_CK UP!!!!!

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 9:33 PM

If you are truly gay then I hope that there are more gays like you but I do not think that there is…

mnjg on March 28, 2013 at 9:43 PM

well, i could prove it to you, but it wouldn’t be pretty, so you’ll have to trust me. sadly, my minset is in the minority. my catholic, conservative parents got their hands on me before the gay pride parade folks did. and thank God for that. i’m not a victim, never have been one, never will be one. it does not matter to me what anyone thinks of homosexuality as it does not wholly define me. i have many interets and hobbies that keep me busy not to be so focused on who i sleep with, etc. plus it helps that a purse doesn’t fall out of my mouth when i speak. i do not shove it in anyone’s face, nor make it a “wedge” issue bewteen me and my family or other staright people. Jesus Christ, i just want to be left alone. i wanted the America i grew up in and it’s traditions to be left alone as well, but that’s all gone to hell. the only reason i mention that i am teh ghey on here is to let you know that there are some rational ones around, for what it’s worth. i have no other further intentions. i’m more worried if there will be a 7-11 IRON MAN 3 slurpee cup this summer than i am about SSM. i am literally as sick of it all as many of you are. it’s all group think, zombie B.S. and as a ghey, you are punished socially if you dare think otherwise or do not tow the gay line. it’s just sick and nauseating. ok, i have rambled on enough.

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 9:59 PM

mnjg on March 28, 2013 at 9:43 PM

There’s a reason why the figure “dogs” is used, mnjg.

“Outside are the dogs…”

Cleombrotus on March 28, 2013 at 10:00 PM

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

You’re right — this is conservatives’ best legal argument. However, you don’t have to get too far through this thread before it’s apparent that there is a small minority of Republicans who are against homosexuals, which is problematic from a P.R. standpoint.
cam2 on March 28, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Thanks for the strategic advice, but anyone who believes it is a fool. Out the other side of your mouth you’ll turn around and defame us unless and until there are openly gay women priests “marrying” gays in Catholic Churches, adopting out to them and then teaching those children about homosexuality in CCD. Oh yeah, just accept gay marriage – that’s the last stop. Just trust you on that one.

crrr6 on March 28, 2013 at 10:05 PM

(continued)

In short, I can see libertarian principles driving someone either to making the statement you did and sticking by it by not wanting to expand government intrusion by supporting SSM, or to deciding that because straight couplings are materially (and culturally and historically) different than gay couplings the state has a compelling interest in some aspects of the straight union but not the gay union. I don’t see how libertarian ideals lead to supporting SSM because “equality” is not a libertarian virtue – it’s a progressive one. I fully support disentangling all the things government has hooked on to marriage, keeping it as a contract and proceeding from there with it being available to whoever wants to contract with their fellow citizens in whatever arrangements seem best to them. Supporting SSM is a move away from this.

This is another prime example of why this issue is lost. Gay couples aren’t be denied any rights. Saying they do is a complete perversion of what a right is. At the most you can say they are being denied some government entitlements and benefits – just like everyone else who is denied some government entitlement at some point in their life.

gwelf on March 28, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Ooops

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.

This is another prime example of why this issue is lost. Gay couples aren’t be denied any rights. Saying they do is a complete perversion of what a right is. At the most you can say they are being denied some government entitlements and benefits – just like everyone else who is denied some government entitlement at some point in their life.

gwelf on March 28, 2013 at 10:13 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

Just a reminder: Phyllis Schlafly is 88 years old.

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 10:14 PM

You’re right — this is conservatives’ best legal argument. However, you don’t have to get too far through this thread before it’s apparent that there is a small minority of Republicans who are against homosexuals, which is problematic from a P.R. standpoint.
cam2 on March 28, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Yep and they are their own worst enemies.

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 10:17 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

Given that the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” have been celebrating Holy Week in San Francisco with a “Hunky Jesus Contest” on Easter Sunday since 1979, before same sex marriage was even a glimmer in their eye, it is clear that their target is not marriage but rather the Christian religion.

It’s our birthday and we want you to come to the place where the Sisters started it all back in 1979 – Dolores Park – and help us celebrate in proper style with the ever-popular Kiddies’ Easter Egg Hunt at 11am, followed later in the day with the Easter Bonnet Contest and the Hunky Jesus Contest

http://www.thesisters.org/index.php/calendar/icalrepeat.detail/2013/03/31/154/-/easter-in-dolores-park-under-the-big-top-.

If the definition of marriage is changed to include same sex couples, it won’t be long before the LGBTQ community starts demanding:

- Requiring Churches and Priests/Ministers to marry same sex couples regardless of their religious teaching/beliefs

- Prohibiting religious adoption agencies from discriminating against same sex couples when placing children

- Requiring schools (religious, in addition to public) to teach children that when they grow up they can marry anybody they want to, whether they are the same sex or the opposite sex.

- Prohibiting vendors (photographers, caterers, facilities etc.) from denying services to same sex couples for weddings, even if these people have personal religious objections to these marriages.

- Taking away the tax exemptions currently given to religious organizations, if they discriminate against the LGBTQ community in any way, with the ultimate objective being to weaken these religious organizations financially.

The same sex marriage issue is simply a means to the ultimate end of destroying religious organizations that do not embrace the LGBTQ lifestyle.

wren on March 28, 2013 at 10:19 PM

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 9:59 PM

Thank you for the good post. I was not really doubting that you are gay but I am doubting that there are many gays who think like you, unfortunately…

mnjg on March 28, 2013 at 10:20 PM

I expect a hardening of positions . . . when there are no other options.

entagor on March 28, 2013 at 9:12 PM

That will happen if the Court goes the Roe route, which I now highly doubt. For years, I argued otherwise. If you’re interested, take a look: http://tinyurl.com/cyz8kws. Pay particular attention to the comments made by Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy and even Sotomayor.

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Thanks for the strategic advice, but anyone who believes it is a fool.

crrr6 on March 28, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Well, what do you think is your best argument, legally speaking?

cam2 on March 28, 2013 at 10:21 PM

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 9:59 PM

Well, don’t you worry. If you mention that enough, you’ll find people telling you that you can’t be a gay conservative. They know, you see.

MadisonConservative on March 28, 2013 at 10:23 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

Just plaster pics of the Folsom St Fair in front of them and tell them about how their kids will be taught in schools all about homosexuality and watch how quick those numbers change.

njrob on March 28, 2013 at 10:29 PM

There’s a reason why the figure “dogs” is used, mnjg.

“Outside are the dogs…”

Cleombrotus on March 28, 2013 at 10:00 PM

As a never married single heterosexual man I have been committing the sin of fornication a lot and for many years but I will never say the Bible is wrong on fornication because I am committing this sin… At the contrary the Bible is right and I judge myself in this regard as a huge sinner…

mnjg on March 28, 2013 at 10:29 PM

Well, what do you think is your best argument, legally speaking?
cam2 on March 28, 2013 at 10:21 PM

That’s not the best argument that is the legal argument. Either people govern themselves and write their own marriage laws in which there will always be some kooks that feel are exclusionary, or you have 9 kings writing laws for you.

There are some people who hate gays in your party as well as ours (see: blacks), but since yours controls the media, you will always ignore your own while you impugn our motives and cast anyone who opposes gay marriage on natural or spiritual order and tradition as gay-hating bigots. That’s how you operate because though dishonest, it is extremely effective.

crrr6 on March 28, 2013 at 10:31 PM

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 9:59 PM

You’re awesome. :)

Kensington on March 28, 2013 at 10:37 PM

What now?

Well, the issue is largely an issue of the emotions surrounding certain semantics. I don’t think anybody on either side is all that concerned about tax implications, or visitation rights. It’s all about,each side trying to get formal affirmation of their moral world view.

So, in my mind, since neither side actually had to give away something of actual substance. There should be a compromise view that more or less satisfies the sensibilities of each side.

Basically, there’s got to be a way of telling everyone to mind their own friggin business. The reason why gay marriage as an issue has slowly but surely gaining in popularity, is because at its culture core, most Americans can respect, “leave me the heck alone,” which is essentially what most same sex marriage advocates are saying when they appeal for the right to do their own thing.

With this in mind, I would think if somebody offered a position that allowed each side to yell, “leave me the heck alone,” I think both sides would eventually gravitate towards it.

Of course, it’s possible that I’m being over optimistic. There are those after all, that only care about this issue one way or another, because it offers a political club for them to use. These individuals will be reluctant to do anything about it one way or another.

Which, is actually why democrats ignore so many cultural issues whenever they’re in obvious. Finding solutions would, in the long term, weaken their own positions.

WolvenOne on March 28, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Yeah, if people are free to speak their minds, if churches are free to not marry homosexuals and so on.. all is well and good.

But that is not going to be the way this turns out. And the homosexual activists are not going to be content with SCOTUS giving them the right to marry in all 50 states. They are going to next demand churches open their doors to them. They are going to demand churches not preach openly against homosexuality.

There is not going to be peace.
I know there are gay people who are content to just live their lives in peace. But gay activists are no different than terrorists. Go to youtube and watch the movies, if they haven’t taken them off by now. Homosexual mobs surrounding people who are just walking quietly down sidewalks and praying. You can not appease people like that.

Nothing is going to get better. It never does.

JellyToast on March 28, 2013 at 10:39 PM

Thank you to Allah Pundit for resisting the urge to bash The Walking Dead in this post.

TigerPaw on March 28, 2013 at 10:42 PM

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 9:59 PM

Keep up the good fight.

gwelf on March 28, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Just a reminder: Phyllis Schlafly is 88 years old.

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 10:14 PM

There are other Phyllis Schlaflys.

Axe on March 28, 2013 at 10:46 PM

mnjg on March 28, 2013 at 10:29 PM

An honest man. Not to minimize your sin, but “dogs” refers to something a lot more depraved.

Cleombrotus on March 28, 2013 at 10:49 PM

You’re right — this is conservatives’ best legal argument. However, you don’t have to get too far through this thread before it’s apparent that there is a small minority of Republicans who are against homosexuals, which is problematic from a P.R. standpoint.

cam2 on March 28, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Of course you’d think that. It’s conceding you the argument. Typical leftist. You get everything you want and then think the opposing side might, just might deserve a crumb. But you’ll take that away too… in fairness.

njrob on March 28, 2013 at 10:51 PM

Just wait until 2016 when the evangelicals stay home and you ask “why did they stay home with such an important election.”

mrscullen on March 28, 2013 at 9:54 PM

I think the party leaders are pretty much over this.

In case you weren’t paying attention, your “evangelical candidates” were disasters in 2012.

Marcus on March 28, 2013 at 10:56 PM

FINALLY a thread to discuss the gay marriage issue! Thank you, AP!

alchemist19 on March 28, 2013 at 10:57 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

It’s an appeal to probability if you think it’s right merely because it’s popular. A good many SSM supporters (myself included) do believe it’s Constitutional aside from being popular.

alchemist19 on March 28, 2013 at 11:00 PM

I think the party leaders are pretty much over this.

In case you weren’t paying attention, your “evangelical candidates” were disasters in 2012.

Marcus on March 28, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Your establishment candidates were disasters in 2012.

njrob on March 28, 2013 at 11:00 PM

the trophy wife turned him. sad.

renalin on March 28, 2013 at 11:02 PM

It’s “lost” the same way the debate on “Obamacare” was lost – dumb-asses blindly supported something without having even a basic understanding of what it was, and it was sold to them as everything BUT what it was.

“Gee, I’ll have free health ‘coverage’, what could be wrong with that”? Besides the fact that it won’t be free, you won’t keep your doctor, existing health insurance will go under, care and doctor access will decrease, etc. They can’t get past the Stage 1 level of thought.

Same thing here – it’s the current “hip” issue to “jack off” to, and that’s why it’s all the rage on GayAir and the other sites.

Anyone go over the nitty gritty legal details that SAME SEX marriage will open up? Anyone consider the effect of continued redefinition of marriage into irrelevancy? Anyone consider the legal effects of making a “sexual orientation” a protected class that can’t be discriminated against or must be given benefits for? NO, of COURSE NOT, because then a gay might not get whatever they’re currently arm-flailing for.

And just like Obamacare, these dumb-ass supporters Just. Won’t. Get. It. until the bill comes due. And then it will be too late.

Saltyron on March 28, 2013 at 11:03 PM

It’s an appeal to probability if you think it’s right merely because it’s popular. A good many SSM supporters (myself included) do believe it’s Constitutional aside from being popular.

alchemist19 on March 28, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Now, how can something this controversial be popular, when things much more popular are controversial?

Axe on March 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM

Now, how can something this controversial be popular, when things much more popular are controversial?

Axe on March 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM

Dunno

alchemist19 on March 28, 2013 at 11:07 PM

Just a reminder: Phyllis Schlafly is 88 years old.

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 10:14 PM

There are other Phyllis Schlaflys.

Axe on March 28, 2013 at 10:46 PM

True, but when Phyllis Schlafly stopped the ERA, her position was not a minority one. Today, people under the age of 30 support SSM by a margin of 4 to 1. So, it may take 20 years, but attrition will work against opponents. I am not saying this to be mean. It’s just a fact. There exists a tremendous generation gap on this issue and demographics rule.

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 11:12 PM

Marriage was lost when people started treating like it was no big deal….you enter into a marriage and leave it whenever you feel like it.

terryannonline on March 28, 2013 at 11:15 PM

If the definition of marriage is changed to include same sex couples, it won’t be long before the LGBTQ community starts demanding:

- Requiring Churches and Priests/Ministers to marry same sex couples regardless of their religious teaching/beliefs

- Prohibiting religious adoption agencies from discriminating against same sex couples when placing children

- Requiring schools (religious, in addition to public) to teach children that when they grow up they can marry anybody they want to, whether they are the same sex or the opposite sex.

- Prohibiting vendors (photographers, caterers, facilities etc.) from denying services to same sex couples for weddings, even if these people have personal religious objections to these marriages.

- Taking away the tax exemptions currently given to religious organizations, if they discriminate against the LGBTQ community in any way, with the ultimate objective being to weaken these religious organizations financially.

The same sex marriage issue is simply a means to the ultimate end of destroying religious organizations that do not embrace the LGBTQ lifestyle.

wren on March 28, 2013 at 10:19 PM

All already achieved or (as in the last point) underway in Britain and Australia. It’s a sad world out there.

The Thin Man Returns on March 28, 2013 at 11:17 PM

If the definition of marriage is changed to include same sex couples, it won’t be long before the LGBTQ community starts demanding:

- Requiring Churches and Priests/Ministers to marry same sex couples regardless of their religious teaching/beliefs

- Prohibiting religious adoption agencies from discriminating against same sex couples when placing children

- Requiring schools (religious, in addition to public) to teach children that when they grow up they can marry anybody they want to, whether they are the same sex or the opposite sex.

- Prohibiting vendors (photographers, caterers, facilities etc.) from denying services to same sex couples for weddings, even if these people have personal religious objections to these marriages.

- Taking away the tax exemptions currently given to religious organizations, if they discriminate against the LGBTQ community in any way, with the ultimate objective being to weaken these religious organizations financially.

The same sex marriage issue is simply a means to the ultimate end of destroying religious organizations that do not embrace the LGBTQ lifestyle.

wren on March 28, 2013 at 10:19 PM

You say this in the wrong tense.

I live in Massachusetts. Every one of these things has already happened, and the only reason pastors haven’t been thrown in jail yet for opposing the will of two activists in black robes is because unlike Canada, the United States has 1st Amendment protections.

BKennedy on March 28, 2013 at 11:23 PM

True, but when Phyllis Schlafly stopped the ERA, her position was not a minority one. Today, people under the age of 30 support SSM by a margin of 4 to 1. So, it may take 20 years, but attrition will work against opponents. I am not saying this to be mean. It’s just a fact. There exists a tremendous generation gap on this issue and demographics rule.

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 11:12 PM

The only point that matters. Keep fighting this and Republicans will join the Whig party.

Irritable Pundit on March 28, 2013 at 11:47 PM

True, but when Phyllis Schlafly stopped the ERA, her position was not a minority one. Today, people under the age of 30 support SSM by a margin of 4 to 1. So, it may take 20 years, but attrition will work against opponents. I am not saying this to be mean. It’s just a fact. There exists a tremendous generation gap on this issue and demographics rule.

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 11:12 PM

That assumes so many things. It assumes 1. I’m wrong to begin with, and I’m not; 2. young people never grow older; 3. the puritan tides *BOO SEX* and the hedonist tides *YAY SEX* only flows in one direction, and they don’t, they rock back in forth in reaction to each other’s excesses; and 4. that I thought you were wrong to begin with. :) I didn’t. I think this is lost. I just wanted to point out that there are still Schlaflys. (And before that, that nothing is inevitable. This didn’t have to go down this way. Yet another thing that didn’t have to go down this way.)

. . . the decade of things that didn’t have to happen this way.

*sigh*

Axe on March 28, 2013 at 11:47 PM

Why Rush Said This.

1. Money. Not gay money. Paul Singer NYC High Finance money.

They are invested in the gay community through a number of avenues and want the issue gone as an appeasement, because they are totally secular animals.

2. Rush has been married four times and has no kids, on purpose.

Rush lives a self-centered, secular but married life that has more in common with gay America than it does with hetero married couples anywhere in the country who make less than a million.

By treating marriage with such disregard, Rush is as personally responsible for ghey mirage being accepted as Rove is for using it as a constitutional wedge issue.

I like Rush, but he needs to stop being a petulant and finally admit to himself that he does not walk the walk on any of the social issues he claims to hold dear.

budfox on March 28, 2013 at 11:52 PM

True, but when Phyllis Schlafly stopped the ERA, her position was not a minority one. Today, people under the age of 30 support SSM by a margin of 4 to 1. So, it may take 20 years, but attrition will work against opponents. I am not saying this to be mean. It’s just a fact. There exists a tremendous generation gap on this issue and demographics rule.

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 11:12 PM

then the Left needs to use the ballot box to repeal the one man/one woman definition of marriage that is in the states’ Constitutions. Until that happens, I do not believe it.

8 weight on March 28, 2013 at 11:53 PM

It’s “lost” the same way the debate on “Obamacare” was lost – dumb-asses blindly supported something without having even a basic understanding of what it was, and it was sold to them as everything BUT what it was.

“Gee, I’ll have free health ‘coverage’, what could be wrong with that”? Besides the fact that it won’t be free, you won’t keep your doctor, existing health insurance will go under, care and doctor access will decrease, etc. They can’t get past the Stage 1 level of thought.

Same thing here – it’s the current “hip” issue to “jack off” to, and that’s why it’s all the rage on GayAir and the other sites.

Anyone go over the nitty gritty legal details that SAME SEX marriage will open up? Anyone consider the effect of continued redefinition of marriage into irrelevancy? Anyone consider the legal effects of making a “sexual orientation” a protected class that can’t be discriminated against or must be given benefits for? NO, of COURSE NOT, because then a gay might not get whatever they’re currently arm-flailing for.

And just like Obamacare, these dumb-ass supporters Just. Won’t. Get. It. until the bill comes due. And then it will be too late.

Saltyron on March 28, 2013 at 11:03 PM

Got into a similar discussion yesterday while speaking with an acquaintance and a Canadian. Practically the first thing out of the acquaintance’s mouth was, “well at least you have free health care” to the Canadian. She concurred. I then said, “no you don’t” and explained the 17% national sales tax. They still didn’t get it. The disconnect is unbelievable when people cannot associate an indirect tax being used to pay for a product. They cannot even comprehend what sales taxes really are. They just think it’s an additional cost to the product.

How did people ever get to be so stupid?

njrob on March 28, 2013 at 11:54 PM

All already achieved or (as in the last point) underway in Britain and Australia. It’s a sad world out there.

The Thin Man Returns on March 28, 2013 at 11:17 PM

Don’t forget to include our neighbor to the north, Canada.

njrob on March 28, 2013 at 11:56 PM

Practically the first thing out of the acquaintance’s mouth was, well at least you have free health care” to the Canadian. She concurred. I then said, “no you don’t” and explained the 17% national sales tax. They still didn’t get it.

njrob on March 28, 2013 at 11:54 PM

There’s your reason why liberals love them some VAT’s. Everything’s free.

crrr6 on March 29, 2013 at 12:10 AM

Axe on March 28, 2013 at 11:47 PM

I think it did have to go down this way. CBS had a poll on this a couple days ago as well where they looked at people who had changed their minds on this issue and were now in favor of SSM. The most common reason given for switching positions was that people had learned they someone they knew, either a family member or a co-worker or something, was gay. Call it the Portman Effect. It’s tougher to get people to support discrimination if it’s against someone they know and once that’s done you can’t unring that bell. I think that’s a pretty crappy reason to switch your support on the issue but it is what it is, and it is effective.

alchemist19 on March 29, 2013 at 12:14 AM

This entire issue really boils down to some Americans demanding the federal government give them status and perceived benefits. If this was an actual civil rights issue, then it is Americans that are not married or have chosen not to marry that are getting the short end from the federal government.

Salted Meats on March 29, 2013 at 12:14 AM

Call it the Portman Effect. It’s tougher to get people to support discrimination if it’s against someone they know and once that’s done you can’t unring that bell. I think that’s a pretty crappy reason to switch your support on the issue but it is what it is, and it is effective.

alchemist19 on March 29, 2013 at 12:14 AM

Knowing that homosexual couples are not married because a married couple is an inherent biological structure of the species is not discrimination. People are acting in self-service and ignorance. The ignorance is a profound lack of understanding about the structure of life, and to a lesser extent, believing the Gay Andy Griffith television character bears a resemblance to actual homosexual life. The self-service is the terrifying bit — the truth I’m willing to accept is based on the light it casts on me. My son is gay, therefore there can be nothing broken about the sexuality of gay men.

– The other path was unconditional love, like God told him to: I’m not sure why my son’s ability to marry is impaired, or why he is emotionally isolated from the opposite sex; I love him anyway.

Axe on March 29, 2013 at 12:28 AM

The reason gay marriage is progressing is because conservatives stop arguing that gay marriage was a sin. When you couch it in terms of human institutions instead of God’s commandment, you lose the stability in your argument — human institutions necessarily change.

RationalIcthus on March 29, 2013 at 12:30 AM

*Everyone is losing. Love is losing, equal-standing in society is losing, physics is losing, religion is losing — gay people are losing.

Axe on March 29, 2013 at 12:31 AM

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

I don’t think Rush swings that way. He’s on his 4th or 5th temporary wife.

Alabama Infidel on March 29, 2013 at 12:35 AM

Face it, conservatives, Rush is pro gay marriage. He can’t say so, but he’s pretty much admitting it here.

I’ve been listening to him try to defend traditional marriage for the last week and his heart and mind are not in it. In doing so, he sounds weak, defensive, uninformed, and lame, which is unusual for Rush. Even when he goes way out on a limb, Rush typically sounds convincing; not so here. He’s painting by numbers, because it is expected of him.

So he’s right. If Rush can’t come up with a convincing reason to oppose gay marriage (because, ultimately, he doesn’t want to), “the issue is lost”.

Mr. Arkadin on March 29, 2013 at 12:38 AM

Polygamy/polyandry next.

Then chaos.

Thanks for undermining a bedrock basis of civilization unforesightful fools.

That Law of Unintended Consequences is a b!tch.

profitsbeard on March 29, 2013 at 1:33 AM

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 11:12 PM

Axe on March 28, 2013 at 11:47 PM

The ERA caught the wave of the heyday of Second Wave Feminism.

Phyllis Schlafly still brought it down.

INC on March 29, 2013 at 2:06 AM

The State of Marriage In The States

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

I made my own map.

Do not buy the inevitability meme. I deliberately chose to do a series on propaganda because of its continual use by the Left. There’s a reason why those who want to redefine marriage went to SCOTUS. The legislative process is long and slow, and its an uphill battle for them, especially as more of their agenda becomes clear and arguments defending marriage become sharper. The Left has been doing this for a long time—go to the courts and have liberal judges make law by fiat.

INC on March 29, 2013 at 2:09 AM

You underestimate the evangelicals,Allahpundit.No, we are not single issue voters-we care about abortion,liberty,and gay marriage.But betray us on any one of these and we will walk,and in large enough numbers to destroy your precious GOP!

redware on March 29, 2013 at 2:22 AM

Men stay fertile their whole lives.

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

No.


What’s That Ticking Sound? The Male Biological Clock Men are also at the mercy of age when it comes to having kids

“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” – Jesus Christ, in Matthew 10:37

TigerPaw on March 29, 2013 at 2:48 AM

Man you religious weirdos are completely nuts. Exactly what is the problem? “straights’ haven’t exactly kept marriages together since the divorce rate is sky high and continuing to climb. So besides that freaky inconsistent completely dumb instruction manual full of moronic drivel for inbred hillbillies, what’s the problem?

Your Mamma loves me on March 29, 2013 at 6:09 AM

What’s That Ticking Sound? The Male Biological Clock Men are also at the mercy of age when it comes to having kids

TigerPaw on March 29, 2013 at 2:48 AM

I know this is OT, but the reporter makes unscientific conclusions not supported by the data she is citing. Based on her tone in the story, my guess is she has a chip on her shoulder about the issue, and stretched things to fit her idea of “fairness” and/or get headlines. More research is needed. It was intellectually dishonest the way it was reported.

scotash on March 29, 2013 at 6:50 AM

Well, look, if you’re swimming against the tide–and you are–of a sweeping change in public opinion, you have 2 choices:

One, you can continue swimming against the tide, until you are swept under and drown, or the tide suddenly changes direction, and you are saved by the changing tides.

Or Two, you can frame the argument so that the “inevitable” becomes part of your original position, i.e., “FAMILY VALUES” means that gay couples who choose to devote themselves to monogamist marriages are actually supporting conservative “family values” and conservatives ought to celebrate that fact!

As we learned over time that the earth was not, in fact, flat; as we have learned in time that a fetus is actually a “baby” because technology has allowed us to actually see these babies early in the womb; as we have learned that biology has more to do with homosexuality than “lifestyle choice”; and finally, as homosexuals have come out of the closet and informed public opinion as a result of personal relationships, we can either dig in our heels and continue to arguing on the wrong side of this debate, or we can embrace the marriage issue by recognizing its contribution to stable and committed relationships and framing this issue in terms of their value to society in light of their support for conservative’s FAMILY VALUES platform!

GET IT?

mountainaires on March 29, 2013 at 8:20 AM

hat assumes so many things. It assumes 1. I’m wrong to begin with, and I’m not; 2. young people never grow older; 3. the puritan tides *BOO SEX* and the hedonist tides *YAY SEX* only flows in one direction, and they don’t, they rock back in forth in reaction to each other’s excesses; and 4. that I thought you were wrong to begin with. :) I didn’t. I think this is lost. I just wanted to point out that there are still Schlaflys. (And before that, that nothing is inevitable. This didn’t have to go down this way. Yet another thing that didn’t have to go down this way.)

. . . the decade of things that didn’t have to happen this way.

*sigh*

Axe on March 28, 2013 at 11:47 PM

I’m not wrong on this for one reason, but I have to first make it clear that I’m going to use the phrase to describe a whole host of societal changes, NOT homosexuality:

Call my reason “defining deviancy down.”

It was very strange to older generations for women to vote, but for those that grew up with it, it was almost as though it had always been the norm. The same is true of an integrated military, desegregation, women in the boardroom, women in the military, premarital sex, illegitimacy (Remember when Murphy Brown having a child out of wedlock was controversial?), adultery, birth control, mockery of Christians, Hollywood refusing to make patriotic or Biblical movies (remember when The Sands of Iwo Jima and The Ten Commandments were blockbusters?), etc. I am not saying that all of these are good things, but they have become either the norm or much more tolerated.

Believe it or not, even in Attlee’s Socialist UK, there was a stigma attached to be a layabout and on the dole. Not any longer. People are actually quite proud of being both. In fact, they believe that not only are they entitled to such a lifestyle, they think worker bees are suckers. Look at what Obama is doing to with programmes like food stamps and disability. His administration is actually airing commercials in parts of the country teaching people that there is no stigma attached to being dependent on the government.

My point about younger people is that we’ve grown up in a far different role than older generations. Homosexuals haven’t been in the closet. They’re in every part of our lives from entertainment to our family celebrations. Which television show is the favourite of both Obama and Romney? Modern Family. Swalker, we’re not in Mayberry anymore.

Society has deviated from the “norm” continuously and, as generations grow up with those “deviations,” “deviations” become the “norms.” Once again, I am not saying that this is always a good thing nor am I arguing that it is a bad thing relative to SSM, as you know.

Resist We Much on March 29, 2013 at 8:20 AM

The only point that matters. Keep fighting this and Republicans will join the Whig party.

Irritable Pundit on March 28, 2013 at 11:47 PM

As one, who has never been a Republican a day in her life, that’s not a threat that carries any weight with me.

Resist We Much on March 29, 2013 at 8:36 AM

For me, gay marriage simply is NOT a hill worth dying on, especially when the difference between “civil unions” and “marriage” is mostly semantics.

And, honestly…if you’re a SoCon or an Evangelical who opposes gay marriage simply because of a deep-seated animosity towards gays, I don’t really want to know you or be associated with you. Feel free to walk, just as Big Govt SoCon Huckabee says. The rest of us are better off without you.

The federal govt is the biggest threat to our freedom, our prosperity, and our children’s futures. I couldn’t care less about John and James getting married. If it makes them happy, so be it. Life is too damn short, and our other problems are way too big.

DRayRaven on March 29, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Resist We Much on March 29, 2013 at 8:20 AM

Very well said.
Your posts are one reason I still wade through
the halls of HA-whatever the topic is.
I value/enjoy your opinions and debate. It is nice
in this sea of crazy from all sides.
You give it the 360 degree view.

Hope your well! Keep shining. :)

bazil9 on March 29, 2013 at 9:06 AM

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 issue was lost when we started needing to pass bans against it. By that point, the ship had already sailed, and the writing was on the wall. I’m glad that Rush acknowledged the inevitable. This might save conservatives some grief on this issue.

Ideally, the Supremes overturn DOMA as unconstitutional, and affirm CA Prop 8. Kick this thing back to the States, and let them legislate it. The second-best and most democratic (small d) outcome would be for the Supremes to stay out of it altogether, and let Congress repeal DOMA on their own in addition to letting the States handle it. However, this would put a number of Republicans in a bad spot.

Conservatives are going to have to conform themselves to the fact that gay marriage will soon be legitimate. If conservatives want to oppose gay marriage, then they neeed to fight to change the culture, and this can’t be done by imposing it through legislation. They need to change people’s hearts.

Regardless of the merits this cultural battle against gay marriage, the real and winnable politcal and legislative battles has to be fought on the grounds of defending religious liberty, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech. This fight has to be fought aggressively, because the liberals will not be content to simply legalize gay marriage. They will next try to ram their views downeverybody else’s throats, and delegitimize/stigmatize any dissent from their party line. This would be intolerable and an affront to individual liberty and a serious threat to Christianity. We’d better get cracking.

ghostwriter on March 29, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Man you religious weirdos are completely nuts. Exactly what is the problem? “straights’ haven’t exactly kept marriages together since the divorce rate is sky high and continuing to climb. So besides that freaky inconsistent completely dumb instruction manual full of moronic drivel for inbred hillbillies, what’s the problem?

Your Mamma loves me on March 29, 2013 at 6:09 AM

The vast majority of marriages last. The high divorce rate is due to folks marrying and divorcing multiple times. At any rate, your point is a non sequitur, and cuts both ways. If marriage is such a decrepit institution, then why do gays want in? They’re being spared from an unworkable, archaic scheme. What’s the problem?

In fact, the problem is you and people like you. Your bigotry is coming through loud and clear.

ghostwriter on March 29, 2013 at 9:23 AM

It’s all about acceptance. They have tried and tried to bully people into accepting them and it doesn’t work. Just because you have a friend or realitive that is gay apparently you are supposed to cow-tow to the gay preson because……..what ever the reason.

I have a very good friend that has a gay adult child. What in the world are we supposed to do? Stop loving them? No. Stop talking to them? Not a chance. But changing centuries of tradition is not a good reason for the social upheaval this will bring. It will be as bad as abortion in dividing people. The people of CA. decided they didn’t want it and some pukes in black decided the people were stupid. This is not good. Not good at all.

BetseyRoss on March 29, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Resist We Much on March 29, 2013 at 8:20 AM

When they get older and they notice their gay high school buddies are looking at their thirteen year old kid like he is a lamb chop, I am sure they are not going to change their mind in large numbers. Not at all.

When they start noticing that more and more guys and gals than the number of gays are shacking up and not creating the next generation and making plans to vote the money out of their children’s pockets through more deficit spending and higher and higher social security and medicare taxes, they are not going to change their mind.

When the rich dudes end up having 50 or more wives each, and they are fighting over the pathetic wenches left over, ending up sharing one whore wife between 10 of husbands, I am sure none of them are going to change their minds.

But the final problem is, it is only going to be a few more years of burdens before this nation tips to massive and total decline. I sure as hell would not want to be a KNOWN degenerate supporting youngster looking for a tribe to survive the chaos in.

astonerii on March 29, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Rush is absolutely right on this. Go read the entire transcript on his website. Now I know not everyone will agree with his reasoning but he makes a pretty good case.

bgibbs1000 on March 29, 2013 at 10:12 AM

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

This guy gets it.

bgibbs1000 on March 29, 2013 at 10:17 AM

A mistake was made when Republican let civil unions be replaced with marriage as the ONLY solution. Many gays on message boards even admitted that the civil unions debate was to get to gay marriage. If you read their comments and even things like “we just want to love who we love” you realize their goal is wider acceptance by especially religions to their lifestyle. That is why the word marriage is important. If it had a another label they would feel like the separate but equal and that is not their goal. Their goal is EVERYONE viewing homosexuality the same heterosexuality and redefining marriage is part of the way to of that. This open the gate to being able to legally treat homosexual relationships the same in places like schools where they can teach homosexuality in kindergarten to raise this “new” generation to view 2 men kissing as it would a man and woman. That’s the goal and that is why civil unions are not enough.

Conan on March 29, 2013 at 10:21 AM

When Americans hear, from both the left and some on the right, that gays deserve the same substantive rights as married couples

No, this kind of talk is the problem. Gheys already have the same substantive rights. Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege for which you must meet certain conditions in order to be granted a license.

Gheys simply want to change those rules for getting a license to suit themselves. But it is definitely not about equal rights.

Nutstuyu on March 29, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Nice misread on what Rush was saying. His point is it’s lost because the Republicans are cowards and too stupid to actually think of anything to retort with on their own (as we see by the Republicans accepting the definition given by the Democrats as to what a good Republican should be). Really, I ought register as an independant, I can barely stand the thought of political leadership that can be paralyzed consistently by simply saying “racist, bigot, homophobe.”

John_G on March 29, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Not a chance. The gay mafia wants the title marriage, just like any straight couple would have. Next stop is suing Christian organizations that won’t adopt out to these “married” couples.

crrr6 on March 28, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Correct. In all cases, Leftism isn’t a set of goals pursued in the name of improved society but rather a pathology undiagnosed even to itself. It cannot stop.

rrpjr on March 29, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Next stop is suing Christian organizations that won’t adopt out to these “married” couples.

crrr6 on March 28, 2013 at 9:22 PM

See, THIS is what these people are angling for. They want to FORCE society to accept their aberrant behavior.
Many people,like myself, have no problem letting the state decide what the definition of a legal union is. It DOES have a vested interest in defining what a union is bcs of the problem when dealing with children.
The Fed has no interest in any of this as an enumerated power. NONE.
If a gay person, or even unmarried shacking up person wants to leave their retirement funds to the dependent(s), the correct way to fight this is to change the state law regarding such things. Not force people to accept your behavior.
It is reasonable to expect that a person in the hospital has whomever they wish as ‘family’ come visit them.
I would argue most people have no problem with these things.
In regards to insurance benefits, health insurance etc., it is a person’s legal dependents who should have access to these things.
So if your state law is deficient in this arena, fix it.
Forcing America as a whole to accept gays getting married bcs gays ‘love’ each other is ridiculous.
Marriage recognized by the state is not about love. It is about legal concerns.
The love part of your marriage gets recognized by ceremony by a religious or philosophical group.
The state has no business in the affairs of who loves whom. Only who is diddling who & where the children from unions come from.
Even property is dealt with outside of a union by the law.
So gays & others who keep pushing this meme that conservatives are trying to stop people who ‘love’ each other from being together are full of $hit.
This is about CONTROLLING the populace to force them to pubicly recognize their behavior. Behavior that some people think is immoral.

Badger40 on March 29, 2013 at 10:28 AM

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 9:59 PM

Hello there… I could have written that post word for word.

dpduq on March 29, 2013 at 10:41 AM

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

Please read what I wrote above.
The state should not be involving itself in what people love each other.
That is not the point of a government entity recognizing a union.
Marriages in the distant past were mostly contractual agreements.
And many cultures had ways to allow these contracts to be broken, ended, dissolved, what have you.
If this gay lobby were simply about having the access to being able to use the courts to fight for custody of biological or adopted children, getting access to the their partner’s benefits as a dependent like spouses are, then they should have been working harder in their states to get those things to happen.
This really is not about keeping ‘people who love each other’ together.
No one is keeping these people from getting together & banging each other.
No one is keeping these people from a lot of things.
They are being back by people who are using it to force society to accept unnatural behavior.
The polygamists are next. Then the pedophiles. Then the animists.
You think I’m being paranoid?
I imagine there are already some polygamists that have set up some legal challenges/wishes in regards to this.

Badger40 on March 29, 2013 at 10:43 AM

This is still a wedge issue. The left will use the this to force churches to perform gay marriages or face a lawsuit that would put them out of business. It’s about splitting faiths and they’ve been working on this for years. This will be another ‘right’ given under the Constitution taken away. Since the Bible has been in the news lately, it also warns about false teachers, prophets, and myth creating. Gay marriage is a myth which God does not recognize. There will be more falling away as a result of this acceptance but that’s also in the Bible. Rush is starting to come across as a moderate.

Kissmygrits on March 29, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4