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

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

You make excellent points.
From my observations of human life & society over the years, it becomes obvious that in general, humans as they psychologically develop, respond to the natural norm of a two parent heterosexual arrangement.
That is not to say that a gay couple, single mother or father, widow or widower, cannot ever raise healthy functional adults.
But the odds are in favor of the natural example.
So society really does have an interest in promoting the most successful arrangement whenever possible.
Human beings are animals & we are biologically respondent to the way our species propagates & raises its young.
You change that & results can be less desirable.
Can polygamous cultures produce a society that is compatible with Western societal ideals like Liberty?
We have but to look at the Middle East for our answer to that.

Badger40 on March 29, 2013 at 10:53 AM

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

anyone telling me i can’t be what i want to be is someone trying to “control” me. and i will not be controlled. and what i want to be is with the conservatives who know right from wrong and do not lead their lives with their “feelings”. now, i am going to do something very offensive, so hold on tight to something:

I WISH YOU ALL A VERY NICE EASTER!

notice, i did not say have a nice spring.

i did not say have a nice “winter break”.

and i certainly would not call a terrorist act on miltiary men and women “workplace violence”.

just like marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

oh dear, that leaves me out. oh wow. my life is ruined. i cannot possibly go on. i can no longer work, have hobbies that bring me joy, or have friends and family that bring me joy. i can no longer enjoy a nice cheeseburger and fries and BIG GULP when i want to. nope….all is lost.

these homosexuals and their ever loving family members are a bunch of kangaroos. from hell.

GhoulAid on March 29, 2013 at 10:56 AM

As recently as last year, traditional marriage was an issue that played to our advantage, our major advantage, in a critical segment of independents of the electorate.

But we have Romney to thank for screwing that up for us.

It was no coincidence that Obama made his gay marriage proclamation just a few days after Romney secured the Republican nomination. Obama knew Romney would not respond effectively to O’s gay proclamation, and the result would be the demoralization of Republicans, and ultimately, “the missing white vote.” Indeed, Romney wouldn’t even stand up for ChikFilA, even for ChikFilA’s freedom of speech rights. It was sad. Maybe the issue is lost now thanks to Romney. Who knows.

anotherJoe on March 29, 2013 at 10:57 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

I agree. The continued vilification of people who are committed to their religion (unless it’s islam of course) will continue.
Consider the photographer (in AZ?) who refused to photograph a gay wedding?
This agenda has not been about letting two people who love each other be together. Bcs for YEARS that has been left alone.
Even with sodomy laws in some states being in place, they are not enforced.
Gay people are not being ripped from each other’s loving arms.
This is about forcing us to give up our convictions about right & wrong.
That war is going to get worse if the Fed enforces gay marriage.
This needs to be handled by the individual states.

Badger40 on March 29, 2013 at 10:59 AM

It was no coincidence that Obama made his gay marriage proclamation just a few days after Romney secured the Republican nomination. Obama knew Romney would not respond effectively to O’s gay proclamation, and the result would be the demoralization of Republicans, and ultimately, “the missing white vote.” Indeed, Romney wouldn’t even stand up for ChikFilA, even for ChikFilA’s freedom of speech rights. It was sad. Maybe the issue is lost now thanks to Romney. Who knows.

anotherJoe on March 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM

That, IMO, is a ridiculous assertion.
This issue has been long coming, for the reasons I have stated above.
In reality, what I see is the ‘gay’ cause getting hijacked wayyy back. First gays just wanted to be able to participate in their lifestyle without getting arrested.
They didn’t want the state involved in their bedroom affairs.
Now they have what they want.But they want more.
This isn’t about denying gay people the opportunity to eff each other in the rear, or in bath houses, lick each other everywhere, etc.
This is about destroying America’s religious groups.
And I have to think that in some way, the communist cause has perhaps helped this along a little bit, if they’re not steering it purposely, using the useful idiots that jump on their bandwagon of oppression with a false battlecry.

Badger40 on March 29, 2013 at 11:04 AM

And what is ironic is that gays 1st wanted the state OUT of their bedrooms.
Now they want the state back into their bedrooms.

Badger40 on March 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM

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

Elton John is against gay marriage.

Epic fail, asswipe.

JannyMae on March 29, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Honestly, true or not, Rush can be pretty depressing at times. I know he’s the mayor of “realville” and all that, but somedays what he calls his realistic views are really just his pessimistic whining.

I remember a caller he had a few weeks after the election. She said she was a black conservative woman from some western state who had just won an election. She was a hardcore Rush fan and never hid it.

I would think that you would want to celebrate her victory and ask her to tell more about her story. Use it as an example… but he was so in his “Mayor of Realville” crap he blew this person off and kept right on going on about how we were losing the nation.

Some of us can’t afford depression. We have families and continue to hold up some hope for America. I realize it doesn’t look good.. but when you’re in battle you really don’t need some of your leaders with big megaphones to start declaring battles are lost.

JellyToast on March 29, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Elton John is against gay marriage.

Epic fail, asswipe.

JannyMae on March 29, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Elton John has talked publicly about how agonizing it is that his adoptive child won’t have a mother. This is the argument they are making in France. Every child deserves a mother and father. It’s a winning argument which is why we don’t see any of the French rallies for marriage covered in our media today.

monalisa on March 29, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Rush may be right on “SSM’s” inevitability but it will not change my mind about what is right in God’s sight and what is natural in normal biological function. One man, one woman = marriage. Changing a word will not make something into something else.

This is about destroying America’s religious groups.
And I have to think that in some way, the communist cause has perhaps helped this along a little bit, if they’re not steering it purposely, using the useful idiots that jump on their bandwagon of oppression with a false battlecry.

Badger40 on March 29, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Pre-cise-ly. And anyone who does not admit that or refuses to see it is fooling themselves. It may not happen this year; or even the next. But the end result is to reduce the influence religion (specifically Christianity) has in public life. Oh, you can be a Christian in your private life–provided you don’t use your opinions to influence other’s thinking, like your children–but you *will* conform to what the left thinks is proper.

Funny how they used to be all about “love” and “tolerance” and “non-conformity” and “free speech.” Now it’s all “my way or the gulag, peon. You will conform.”

Ah well. Jesus said the world would hate His followers. I just never imagined it would happen in my lifetime in the United States of America, the land of the “free” and the home of the brave. These days you have to be brave to try to be free.

theotherone on March 29, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Some of us can’t afford depression. We have families and continue to hold up some hope for America. I realize it doesn’t look good.. but when you’re in battle you really don’t need some of your leaders with big megaphones to start declaring battles are lost.

JellyToast on March 29, 2013 at 11:22 AM

This is why people like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin (yes, that Sarah, haters) still give me a little hope. Rush seems to have given up; Sarah, as evidenced by her recent video release, has only just begun to fight.

theotherone on March 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM

INC on March 29, 2013 at 2:09 AM

Thanks for link on propaganda. Will read

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

Yes in the sense that marriage was being pushed, in public discourse, as a civil state retaining legal and financial benefits and obligations. In Catholicism, it is a sacrament. A sacrament is not something that can be changed by non believers.

People walked into the trap, and used the new meaning of the word, to argue with the people who set the trap. This is what Rush meant.

Once a word has double meanings it is almost impossible to have reasonable debate. Stalinist Doublespeak defined redistribution as the ultimate good. To argue against redistribution was to argue against good. Thus, as the anti-redistributionist was being hauled off to the gulag, those who believed the Mother State were happy to see the removal of opponents of the good

As many have noted, these benefits legally attached to marriage could easily be installed for any other partnership, including non sexual partnerships. Thee reason the attack groups focused on the definition of the word, instead of gaining the benefits, was an attempt to force religions to bow down to a new morality

This is the ‘logic’ Obama used in his gay evolutions: gay coupling is also marriage, and Jesus approved marriage. Ergo. The game is pure Karl Marx

The redefinition of the word was understood to be the key. I remember years ago, a GLBT legal activist in Canada stating: we can have freedom of religion, or gay rights, but not both. The needs of that lawyer was not a tax deduction, or even adoption rights. They needed the lifestyle validated, and religious disapproval invalidated. Fastest way to goal: revise the definition of sin

What we are seeing now is a replay of ancient Rome. We even have the same players.

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

Sadly you are being dragged into a battle against religion, in an era when the truce has been broken. Group think was installed, and encouraged, and it now has a life of its own. We now debate with meaningless words, so the debates fall apart. ‘Fairness’ unfortunately was redefined by the courts as a condition measured by numbers, and dollars. If any argument was lost, it was lost in the civil rights decisions, where fairness was redefined as a group right, and not an individual right.

I love you for your honesty, and for your intelligence. You understand we are all being stoked and used. My friend, not gay, also talks about the new zombies. She is scared stiff. I pray for you, because you see more, so you feel more pain. I hope you would pray for me. We are being dragged into the usual, horrible mass movement, in which a fairly decent and free civilization is ruined

entagor on March 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM

This isn’t about denying gay people the opportunity to eff each other in the rear, or in bath houses, lick each other everywhere, etc.

And here, folks, is the real animus driving conservative hostility to SSM. Not principle. Not tradition. Simple disgust and bigotry.

lostmotherland on March 29, 2013 at 11:31 AM

And here, folks, is the real animus driving conservative hostility to SSM. Not principle. Not tradition. Simple disgust and bigotry.

lostmotherland on March 29, 2013 at 11:31 AM

What gays do is disgusting and immoral and degenerate. There is no bigotry in calling it what it IS. It is debased, destructive and harmful to all it touches, including just those who are mere observers.

The hostility to SSM is equal to the destructive nature it poses to society.

astonerii on March 29, 2013 at 11:38 AM

entagor on March 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Very good evaluation.

I WISH YOU ALL A VERY NICE EASTER!
GhoulAid on March 29, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Thank you! I wish you one too. May the deep, spiritual significance of it–the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the new life He provides–fill your heart with joy and peace. Oh, and maybe a chocolate bunny or two as well. ;-)

theotherone on March 29, 2013 at 11:38 AM

I’m not sure the issue is lost, but the pro-traditional marriage side needs to come up with some victims of the redefinition of marriage.

So there is this enduring relationship between one woman and one man which creates children…what is that called? If you are a supporter of “every child deserves a mother and a father” what is that called? Just the fact that we now have to call that “heterosexual or opposite sex marriage” demonstrates that every marriage has been reduced and harmed.

Two men or two women as equal parents to one mother and father harms every mother and father by saying they don’t matter and harms every child with same sex parents…by automatically denying them a mother or father.

I suggest we start using the greater than > symbol on our facebook pages.

monalisa on March 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM

And here, folks, is the real animus driving conservative hostility to SSM. Not principle. Not tradition. Simple disgust and bigotry.
lostmotherland on March 29, 2013 at 11:31 AM

It all depends if it is bigotry, to hold sin in contempt. The new politics demands that children be taught that certain behavior is not only not sinful, it is good and right. The same moralist would find disgusting a movie that celebrates the joys of serial killing

Today, various behaviors are tolerated, in the sense they are allowed, but people reserve the right to disapprove. They do not want to be forced to validate sinful behavior, They do not want their children exposed to it. They do not want the institutions of society to celebrate it. In fact, they want the behavior to be private. Bible believers do not want simulated heterosex on television, or teen movies promoting sex before marriage. It happens, but they find it disgusting.

As the idea of sin is pushed aside, in the name of tolerance, society slides down mighty fast.

See the Telegraph, UK, the article “Forget the goat sex: Pompeii’s open attitude to sexuality didn’t hold women back”

This is not a gay problem, this is a decadence problem, and the Telegraph reflects the slide down. One side would say the article was strictly scientific and in good taste. Another side would say, the paper is bringing decadence into the public square, under pretense. The pretenses are being pushed aside rapidly.

entagor on March 29, 2013 at 11:50 AM

The problem that we run into folks, is that when we examine the question of homosexual marriage from a constitutional standpoint… there’s no bar to it. When we look at “rights” as the freedom to do whatever we like in the pursuit of our happiness, just so long as our exercise does not impede anyone else’s like right, there’s no legal basis to disallow it. That’s just the bottom line. Two homosexuals getting “married” doesn’t stop any other individual citizen from enjoying his own guaranteed rights.

We can’t have it both ways. We can’t stand on the rights of the individual under the U.S. Constitution -and- on social engineering by the state. Our backs are to the wall and we must choose one priority.

Yes. There’s an aberrant subculture forcing its way to mainstream. And yes… it conflicts with Judeo-Christian values and Biblical teachings. But it can’t be stopped unless one is willing to abandon the founding philosophy of this nation and the protections guaranteed by our Constitution. IOW, we’d have to give up our own religious freedom to the State.

Of course, that doesn’t mean a clear win for homosexuals. There’s still the matter of mental illness and where the line is drawn, when the behavior does in fact harm other individuals who are minding their own business in exercise of their own rights. As long as the Constitution stands, no one can be forced, on an individual basis, to accept beliefs which are abhorrent to them. Nobody can force me to take a trannie to lunch or to pay for the mutilation of his/her body, not and still claim constitutional authority. Those kind of things run afoul of MY rights.

We’ve lost the meaning of the word “marriage”, that’s true. But it’s not just because of homosexuals. It was lost long before this, when Marriage stopped being a spiritual contract between a man and a woman… when it became something easily dissolved for the sake of convenience. We can either choose another term to describe that type of union, or we can lobby democratically for the State to adopt other verbiage to describe its recognition of domestic partnerships, both heterosexual and homosexual in nature. But Rush is right… the battle is lost and this is NOT the hill to die on. It would require forfeiture of our own Liberty.

One other thought to take comfort in… There will always be those individuals among us whose chief motivation is rebellion against societal norms and convention. To remove the taboo of homosexuality pulls its teeth as a vehicle of nonconformity and self-involvement. These sort of people will no longer get the public attention and infamy they seek. Past the initial surge of attention-seekers “coming out”, we will eventually settle back into normal percentages of hetero- and homosexual behavior.

Murf76 on March 29, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Elton John is against gay marriage.

Epic fail, asswipe.

JannyMae on March 29, 2013 at 11:17 AM

No he’s not, “asswipe.” Nice.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/elton-john-the-historic-fight-for-equality-must-go-on-lets-get-on-and-legalise-samesex-marriage-8202686.html

cam2 on March 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM

The gnashing of the teeth continues….

Pablo Honey on March 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Elton John has talked publicly about how agonizing it is that his adoptive child won’t have a mother. This is the argument they are making in France. Every child deserves a mother and father. It’s a winning argument which is why we don’t see any of the French rallies for marriage covered in our media today.

monalisa on March 29, 2013 at 11:23 AM

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

thuja on March 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Obama enables SSW.

Obama enables the Muslim and other Brotherhoods.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 12:09 PM

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

thuja on March 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM

It is a good argument, because it then forces people to confront the fact that we are subsidizing these single parent homes and since the children deserve a mother and father, maybe we should no longer do so.

astonerii on March 29, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Murf76 on March 29, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Do people have the right to USURP an institution? Does that not actually entail them infringing upon the right to the title for which they originated and created?

astonerii on March 29, 2013 at 12:11 PM

I suggest we start using the greater than > symbol on our facebook pages.

monalisa on March 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Dude, I’m already using >, but I’m claiming to be a gay supremacist. I fear you are so dense you may not get it is a joke.

thuja on March 29, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Rush is clarifying his position right now since so many people left out crucial components of his argument yesterday. He said the reason why ssm is inevitible is because 1) the left never lets anything go but more importantly 2) the GOP is unwilling to fight for anything. They will give the left every single issue because they don’t want to be criticized in the media.

Kataklysmic on March 29, 2013 at 12:12 PM

If anyone is interested, Rush is talking about this now on his show. It might clear up some things up if you listen?
L

letget on March 29, 2013 at 12:15 PM

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

thuja on March 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM

It is a good argument, because it then forces people to confront the fact that we are subsidizing these single parent homes and since the children deserve a mother and father, maybe we should no longer do so.

astonerii on March 29, 2013 at 12:09 PM

I would gladly let gay marriage take a back seat in exchange for serious efforts to reduce single motherhood. I hope I’m not kicked out of the homosexual union for that.

thuja on March 29, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Do people have the right to USURP an institution? Does that not actually entail them infringing upon the right to the title for which they originated and created?

astonerii on March 29, 2013 at 12:11 PM

The litmus test, just as in cases of libel and slander, is whether damage can be shown. And that damage has to be significant and affecting an INDIVIDUAL citizen. It can’t be damage to society. That’s social engineering. To stand for social engineering by the State isn’t conservative or constitutional if you ask me. It would make us no different than the socialist Democrats seeking to control us.

Murf76 on March 29, 2013 at 12:17 PM

The litmus test, just as in cases of libel and slander, is whether damage can be shown. And that damage has to be significant and affecting an INDIVIDUAL citizen. It can’t be damage to society. That’s social engineering. To stand for social engineering by the State isn’t conservative or constitutional if you ask me. It would make us no different than the socialist Democrats seeking to control us.
Murf76 on March 29, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Easy. Children of gay marriages are harmed.

Skywise on March 29, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Easy. Children of gay marriages are harmed.

Skywise on March 29, 2013 at 12:30 PM

If that’s so, it becomes incumbent upon those who would disallow homosexuals from marriage to PROVE that marriages are made for the purpose of procreation and that all individual children raised within such are harmed. It can’t be done.

Murf76 on March 29, 2013 at 12:42 PM

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

When Will Some SSM-Opponents Realise That They Are Their Own Worst Enemies?

BTW, Q: Bruce Carroll a/k/a @GayPatriot is a strong conservative and, as his twitter handle implies, a homosexual. He was seriously considering challenging Lindsay Graham next year. If there was a two-man primary for the Republican Senate seat in South Carolina, who would you rather: John McShame’s mini-me, Senator Scarlett, or a real conservative, who just happens to be gay, Bruce Carroll?

COME ON! That’s a no-brainer.

Resist We Much on March 29, 2013 at 12:54 PM

I would gladly let gay marriage take a back seat in exchange for serious efforts to reduce single motherhood. I hope I’m not kicked out of the homosexual union for that.

thuja on March 29, 2013 at 12:16 PM

They might torture you.

astonerii on March 29, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Murf76 on March 29, 2013 at 12:03 PM

A well thought out piece, however, you are fundamentally wrong. You wrote, “We can’t have it both ways. We can’t stand on the rights of the individual under the U.S. Constitution -and- on social engineering by the state. Our backs are to the wall and we must choose one priority.”

So according to you, we must allow polygamy, incest, 50 year old men marrying 13 year old boys? if you take your assertion to it’s logical conclusion, there are no laws regarding an individual’s behavior.

Marriage is not “social engineering.” Marriage between a man and woman has existed for thousands of years in almost every civilization. It is only recently that the definition of marriage has been under assault. You and so many others seem to not understand that if you change the definition of marriage, you are devaluing what a marriage represents and all those who are married now. Marriage has always been for procreation. Yes, there are people who have no children and are married, but the reason that marriage has existed throughout time is to guarantee that a society survives. While homosexuals could not marry during the Greek and Roman empires, the acceptance and promotion of it as an acceptable lifestyle led to declining birth rates and contributed to both civilizations demise.

I have a question for you. You and others claim that whatever the current popular opinion is should dictate changes in time held principles. So, do you ever consider how those changes will affect future generations or do you think that those here now have the right to care only about this moment in time?

fight like a girl on March 29, 2013 at 12:57 PM

The media takes any snippet of anything anyone says, and twists it to support their overwhelming agenda. No one wants gay marriage except slightly over 50% of the people in a handful of states. It’s not a majority of Americans. And Vermont…they, for once, Sensibly decided for Civil Union.

The “gay everything” bombardment started up about two or three weeks ago. In MA, we who are Christians and conservatives recognize the pattern. It’s propaganda. “Everyone thinks this way so YOU should too.” The Boston Globe would bombard people everyday with one tale of woe after another – so you should be for gay marriage. Then they started appearing in the public schools: no time for reading and math, you need to study the gay agenda, Heather has two Mommies, Two Princes…etc, in which is more important to have the Proper Attitude” than actually being good at anything like academic work.

And while it is possible that those on our side (R) do vary on our opinions of Gay Marriage, based on friends/relatives being gay, there seems to be a miniscule few grabbing the loudspeaker to claim a lot more support on the (R) side for gay marriage than actually exists. The media saw that and ran with it.

When Rush analyzed that article the other day, I was thinking, it was a Media Plant article. I wished he didn’t go there. I don’t know if the people in the article were plants or dupes, but their opinion was exploited when they said they wished the gay marraige issue would just go away. (I do too.)

I will repeat my usual advice: If you live in a red state with an (R) governor right now, you should immediately petition for important safeguards in your state constitution

Start with gender I.D. Insist for legal documents that gender be the XX/XY genetic gender, and prohibit the definition “assigned gender” or mayhem is coming your way.

Forbid two XX’s and two XY’s from marriage to same sex partners, based on reproductive tradition.

Write in your constitutions that no homosexual person can be barred from entering a legal marriage with a person of the opposite sex.

Clear the way for any identification of partners to establish family status/Household and include anything nice from pro marriage laws or benefits so there is no whining about Fairness. Abolish Estate Tax for Everyone.

Be aware that these are people who are unhappy unless the get their way on everything with whining and lawsuits. Many of them actually make their living suing nice people who are naive and normal.

You will have to be specific about what is taught in your public schools. Time for traditional normal people to wake up in the red states where you think you are safe, and pre emptively strike against the propaganda that is coming soon to an elementary school near you.

It is no comfort to me, that now you will know how Mitt Romney felt when they courts hi jacked MA law and forced this on the populace of the Commonwealth.

Fleuries on March 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM

There are some very good points made here – one that is critical is the distinction between the form of a union and how the state treats that union.

Civil unions aren’t enough, apparently. Fine, that’s not my call. Live and let live. Gay couples want to be called “married” by the state, not merely by themselves and the community. Example: common law marriage has been around for a very long time. Hold yourselves out as married, you are married.

The question becomes, though, does the state recognize the union and are there “rights” provided to “married” couples that are not available to civilly joined or common law unions? If so, there’s a legitimate gripe. I get that argument. And, I buy it.

However, there is a distinction between recognizing a union for purposes of legally derived rights under an equal protection argument and the wholly independent decision regarding what else such unions – gay unions / or marriages / in this case – are allowed to do which can affect others. Libertarians, this is where you start to care.

While a state can choose to recognize “marriages” between gay couples, can the same state then deny that couple the ability to adopt a child, for example? That’s the most glaring example of a potential effect on another person outside the union – in this case a child who, by law, is incapable of protecting their own interests (which is why guardians must be appointed for them in juvenile proceedings).

That is a subject worthy of discussion and study, totally aside from the question of what two consenting, sane (I know, that can be debated about all of us, but using a clinical definition) adults do without affecting anybody else, which is none of the state’s business.

Can the state make a distinction if it has a rational basis and a state interest (the state interest can be presumed because the institution of marriage is already a state sanctioned and regulated undertaking)? Of course. Should it make a distinction in the case of [your choice - I offered adoption a one example]?

That, to me, is a legitimate question. And a more legitimate issue than the state deciding which two people can “marry” and which two can’t. If two or more, move to Utah.

I, for one, would like to see some outrage over things being done under color of law today that are crippling tens of millions of people who are losing value in their jobs, their incomes, their investments, their homes, their security, their personal freedom, all in the name of “progressing” – it’s progression toward the way of the Roman Empire or modern Greece. If there’s no country left, it won’t matter what form of “marriage” that country might have approved.

I know there are those who will retort – we won’t have a country if our moral foundations are lost. Poppycock. The entrepreneurial spirit and a sense of basic human justice (right and wrong if you will) are in the human DNA; they are not a social concept. Nor are they reserved to the God fearing.

IndieDogg on March 29, 2013 at 1:03 PM

It’s too bad the youth apparently are no longer taught the difference between the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

If the United States Federal government was the entity that granted the ‘right’ to marriage between a man and a woman, I guess one could argue about them leaving people out of the right the government originally granted. The government never invented the privilege of marriage, that is fact, and goes back thousands of years. The federal government did not write the vows for marriage either. They interceded in the regulation of marriage, what a tangled web we weave. DOMA is different, should not have been enforced, and again we have the government interceding where it does not belong.

Since marriage did not originate from the federal government, I find it humorous they are now politically attempting to extend a right they were never empowered to grant in the first place….and so it goes.

One should be able to leave their assets to any individual they choose, therefore; contractual agreements should have been extended years ago, instead of the political football back and forth it has become.

How can the SCOTUS rule? How in the world do they just create a ‘right’ and extend to others a ‘right’ that never originated with the government? Odd indeed. How will the gay and lesbian community deal with multiple partners in a marriage? Will they support the government preventing churches from refusing to marry individuals of the same sex? Can you be married to a man and a woman at the same time? I guess everything is on the table.

Meanwhile, the economy still sucks, unemployment is high, fetuses have no ‘rights’, and they are attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens of all sexes.

shar61 on March 29, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Say goodbye to freedom of religion & freedom of speech.

State Approved PC rules the day.

The next big reality teevee show will be Christians in Prison…

workingclass artist on March 29, 2013 at 1:17 PM

I know there are those who will retort – we won’t have a country if our moral foundations are lost. Poppycock. The entrepreneurial spirit and a sense of basic human justice (right and wrong if you will) are in the human DNA; they are not a social concept. Nor are they reserved to the God fearing.

IndieDogg on March 29, 2013 at 1:03 PM

This country was founded by people who claimed our rights came from God. Therefor, if you believe that America can exist without adhering to that one basic principle, you are sadly mistaken. And you ignore thousands of years of human history by stating that “The entrepreneurial spirit and a sense of basic human justice (right and wrong if you will) are in the human DNA.”

fight like a girl on March 29, 2013 at 1:20 PM

I know there are those who will retort – we won’t have a country if our moral foundations are lost. Poppycock. The entrepreneurial spirit and a sense of basic human justice (right and wrong if you will) are in the human DNA; they are not a social concept. Nor are they reserved to the God fearing.

IndieDogg on March 29, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Yeah, because godless societies have worked out real well.

JellyToast on March 29, 2013 at 1:29 PM

I know there are those who will retort – we won’t have a country if our moral foundations are lost. Poppycock. The entrepreneurial spirit and a sense of basic human justice (right and wrong if you will) are in the human DNA; they are not a social concept. Nor are they reserved to the God fearing.

IndieDogg on March 29, 2013 at 1:03 PM

This country was founded by people who claimed our rights came from God. Therefor, if you believe that America can exist without adhering to that one basic principle, you are sadly mistaken. And you ignore thousands of years of human history by stating that “The entrepreneurial spirit and a sense of basic human justice (right and wrong if you will) are in the human DNA.”

fight like a girl on March 29, 2013 at 1:20 PM

The concept of inalienable rights endowed by a creator is simple enough.

It means that rights as we understand them are not arbitrarily decided by a self appointed elite individual or an aristocratic class…neither are they arbitrarily decided by a mob.

If SSM is decided by an elite judiciary it presents a constitutional conflict.

Obamacare presents the same constitutional conflicts although the secondary conflict cases (Religious Liberty) haven’t been heard at SCOTUS yet.

workingclass artist on March 29, 2013 at 1:30 PM

And here, folks, is the real animus driving conservative hostility to SSM. Not principle. Not tradition. Simple disgust and bigotry.

lostmotherland on March 29, 2013 at 11:31 AM

You have no right to lump all those who oppose SSM with this one jerk. I have a gay relative and he is opposed to SSM. Is he doing it out of disgust and bigotry? No, it is people like you who wants to label anyone who holds an opposing view as either a homophobe or religious zealot. I am neither. I am someone who has studied ancient civilizations. I am also someone who knows that what we do, in this tiny slice of time, will affect future generations and the country and society they will live in.

fight like a girl on March 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM

I know there are those who will retort – we won’t have a country if our moral foundations are lost. Poppycock. The entrepreneurial spirit and a sense of basic human justice (right and wrong if you will) are in the human DNA; they are not a social concept. Nor are they reserved to the God fearing.

IndieDogg on March 29, 2013 at 1:03 PM

No, they are not in the human DNA. They are taught in society inside families and the community. About the only real moral guidance that is in our DNA is the need to find God. Hence the reason why every human, theist or atheist always ends up looking for something higher than themselves to serve. Theists serve their God, Atheists serve there preferred cause, whether it is Marxism, Global Warming, Mother Nature, The Union and so forth.

astonerii on March 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM

evangelical sharia

Capitalist Hog on March 29, 2013 at 1:45 PM

evangelical sharia

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Apologies to Mr. Rywall.

tom daschle concerned on March 29, 2013 at 1:52 PM

I tell you what needs to be done.
We need to start shifting all our resources to the protection of
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

I’m a childhood Catholic/adult Protestant and have used enough condoms in my married life. I’ve got nothing against condom use. But a certain strand of “enlightened” libertarians abandoned us on religious liberty in the Church v. Sebelius. They didn’t see what the big deal was with the rights of the conscience (actually frequently mentioned in their Holy Writ of the Federalist Papers.) being trampled if the church wanted step outside its doors. It needs to fall in line with what moderns think it should think.

They’ll abandon anybody they don’t think is with it enough to convince the liberals that they are no more hung-up than the libs are. (The above does not apply to Beck-style self-defined “libertarians”; Beck was a stalwart in this.)

Axeman on March 29, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Resist We Much on March 29, 2013 at 12:54 PM

If I were voting in the South Carolina Republican Senate primary I would vote for a potted plant over Lindsey Graham, and if Graham does end up losing a primary race to a homosexual I will laugh so hard it hurts.

alchemist19 on March 29, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Yeah, because godless societies have worked out real well.

JellyToast on March 29, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Hey! It’s just like socialism–it just hasn’t been done right, yet!!

Axeman on March 29, 2013 at 2:17 PM

If I were voting in the South Carolina Republican Senate primary I would vote for a potted plant over Lindsey Graham

alchemist19 on March 29, 2013 at 2:13 PM

So would I.

and if Graham does end up losing a primary race to a homosexual I will laugh so hard it hurts.

Dude, if it were a two-man race, it would be the first all-gay, Republican primary in history!

Oh, and just imagine the brain matter splatter at MSNBC’s HQs if the African-American Senator from South Carolina, the birthplace of the Confederacy and home of Fort Sumter, were to introduce a homosexual Senator to be sworn in…AND BOTH WERE REPUBLICANS!

It would be 24/7/365 popcorn time. It would make Al Sharpton’s screaming “anti-Semitism” while wagging his Yankel Rosenbaum’s blood-stained finger at critics of Nanny Doomberg look completely consistent and rational.

Resist We Much on March 29, 2013 at 2:22 PM

IndieDogg on March 29, 2013 at 1:03 PM

evangelical scientist

Capitalist Hog on March 29, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Even if the Supreme Court validates Homosexual marriage this issue is not lost. Does anyone believe that Anti Abortion campaigns are a waste of time because they were also supposedly “Settled.” The problem is that Homosexuals have fought harder for their cause and put their money where their mouth is. They have out spent, out rationalized and out demonized their opponents. Like Rush said they can hang a horse sign on a cow, but that still does not make it a cow and people will eventually realize that. The only problem I see is that so called Christians have allowed their religion to be hijacked and many now find it easier to turn their back on God and walk away from their religion than stand for what they know is right. This is not the first time that a society has been here on the social issues we are fighting today. Many empires have fallen before because of these same issues and fiscal irresponsibility. What really makes me mad is we have the power to stop this. We have a majority on the supreme court! But because we have no back bone and support weak leaders we are our own worst enemy.

SGinNC on March 29, 2013 at 2:41 PM

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

Why would same-sex marriage lower the penalties for heterosexual men stepping out and fathering children? Especially when there are criminal penalties for not paying child support. The state has lots of legal penalties for fathering many children that exist outside of same-sex marriage policy.

libfreeordie on March 29, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Does not make it a Horse. Wish they had an option for you to edit your comments.

SGinNC on March 29, 2013 at 2:45 PM

There are some very good points made here – one that is critical is the distinction between the form of a union and how the state treats that union.

IndieDogg on March 29, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Well, I don’t agree with all your conclusions, but: well said. One thing I noticed in my agnostic/atheist years is that my standard of what I could accept just slipped and slipped. When I chose my faith, I could drive a spike into the ground. I can’t say that I haven’t modified my standards or my views, since–but I can’t say that they’ve visibly slipped, and they have even been shored up. All definitions are no longer negotiable.

In fact, by applying the methodology of “diagonalization”, it allowed me to realize that if we put the value of everything being up for negotiation, up for negotiation, it loses its value as a fundamental value. If everything is up to negotiation, we have no rules to negotiate by nor any value for the process in the end. Thus degrees of “unreasonableness” in such bedrock circumstances could simply be the extent to which you’re not willing to fool yourself.

You have faith in humanity. Fine. The Man of Faith who otherwise derides “the folly of faith” is no one to have faith in. Your trying to sell us your faith in humanity, when we have grave doubts, and we find it unwarranted and unexhibited. I’ve often said that an atheist is a person that would rather believe an elephant can fly than Pegasus–because, well, they’ve seen an elephant.

Axeman on March 29, 2013 at 2:59 PM

The problem is that Homosexuals have fought harder for their cause and put their money where their mouth is. They have out spent, out rationalized and out demonized their opponents.

SGinNC on March 29, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Did anybody catch that the libs never ran away from Act Up? They weren’t ashamed to be on the same side as these guys, they didn’t “set the gay cause back” because the face of liberalism “didn’t condone their actions” but all the same “understood their anger”.

It’s just like Barack Obama, barely a month from his “violent rhetoric” sermon (which I’ve always credited him for) simply said about Hoffa’s “take these guys out” statement that that he was nobody’s speech cop, refusing to be embarrassed for or turn on Hoffa–mainly because it had no momentum in the media. Again he “didn’t approve” of what Hoffa said…

Our gutless wonders in the middle are like, “Hey we’re just as afraid of these whackos as you are! We can try to keep them in check…but they’re on that theocracy kick!” Now, my ox has not been gored in a long time, on any of this. But I do get frustrated with all the MOR louts pandering to the left, who don’t really know how to help themselves out in their marginally conservative interests.

Enjoy the nanny state, you weak-kneed moderates, you earned it. You’re are just as much a part of the circular firing squad.

Axeman on March 29, 2013 at 3:15 PM

…if, like me, you think this issue will be very much alive for social conservatives during the 2016 GOP primaries…

Great! Let social conservatives drink their fill during the 2016 GOP primaries. The rest of the nation is coming to terms with this issue the way the country came to terms with racial segregation in the 60s.

Rush “broken clock” Limbaugh is sitting on the razor’s edge of societal evolution by throwing in the towel on this issue. And who knows more about “traditional marriage” than the thrice married Rush?

chumpThreads on March 29, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Elton John is against gay marriage.

Epic fail, asswipe.

JannyMae on March 29, 2013 at 11:17 AM

No he’s not, “asswipe.” Nice.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/elton-john-the-historic-fight-for-equality-must-go-on-lets-get-on-and-legalise-samesex-marriage-8202686.html

cam2 on March 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Then he has changed his tune. http://nation.foxnews.com/elton-john/2009/11/05/elton-john-comes-out-against-gay-marriage

And Bayam’s indeed an asswipe.

JannyMae on March 29, 2013 at 3:32 PM

And who knows more about “traditional marriage” than the thrice married Rush?

chumpThreads on March 29, 2013 at 3:29 PM

FOUR times, but who’s counting???

Yet, if you combine all of the years he’s been married, he has been a stalwart supporter of the institution of marriage for the majority of his adult life so there’s that…

Resist We Much on March 29, 2013 at 3:47 PM

I think the right’s defeatism is more damning to the cause than whether we use terms like “traditional marriage”. If you take more than half state Supreme Court decisions not finding a right to SSM, over 30 states enshrining the traditional marriage distinction in their constitution, and over half of Congress at any given point is anti-SSM — and this is all within the past 10 years — why is it that gay marriage is inevitable just because of a few polls?

jas88 on March 29, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Yet, if you combine all of the years he’s been married, he has been a stalwart supporter of the institution of marriage for the majority of his adult life so there’s that…

Resist We Much on March 29, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Costa Rica + Viagra = Sanctity of Marriage

Capitalist Hog on March 29, 2013 at 4:44 PM

why is it that gay marriage is inevitable just because of a few polls?

jas88 on March 29, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Because the elderly, who are most opposed, are dying off and being replaced by the young, who are the strongest supporters of gay marriage. In addition, even among the current population, support for gay marriage has been increasing over time, further helping the cause. See: http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/20/growing-support-for-gay-marriage-changed-minds-and-changing-demographics/

cam2 on March 29, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Two homosexuals getting “married” doesn’t stop any other individual citizen from enjoying his own guaranteed rights. – Murf

I know this is a logical and reasoned statement, but it is totally false.

As soon as they get these rights, they are not happy for YOU to feel however YOU want to feel, and are not happy for you to EXPRESS yourself through free speech, when you say natural marriage partners with their own biological children are special, sacred and best. They find some way to sue you for all your money and your home and ruin your life because they are not happy unless other people can be made as unhappy as they are for being different. They force the children in the public school to parrot Heather has two Mommies, isn’t that so neat and special!

There is a distinct jealousy that overwhelms these people to the point that everything must be their way and insist on conformity, and they find some way to make you have to affirm that their choices are equal to yours or better.

That is why they are going to demand you pay for Reproductive Equality as soon as they get the wall down on gay marriage. You are going to need to pay to provide them with the family they cannot produce naturally. Because it is unfair that they are not blessed with issue.

Fleuries on March 29, 2013 at 5:09 PM

legislating morality is a losing battle. the govt shouldn’t be involved in marriage; its just another way to tax people.

burserker on March 29, 2013 at 5:17 PM

fight like a girl on March 29, 2013 at 12:57 PM

You’re still not speaking in terms of constitutional validity though. Where is the constitutional authority to deny homosexual marriage?

It doesn’t matter whether we agree with how other people live their lives, or whether we believe that other people’s personal choices are detrimental to our view of social constructs as a whole. What matters, if you believe in the Rule of Law, is what is written in it… and the basis of our law is the U.S. Constitution.

You’re right. We might end up seeing polygamous marriages too. Who knows? As long as the legalities surrounding such don’t impede upon the rights of other citizens, who cares? It’s complete hyperbole to suggest that homosexual or polygamous marriage would progress on to pedophilia. The personal choices of consenting adults aren’t synonymous with or indicative of crimes perpetrated against children.

You’re right too that “marriage is not social engineering”… right up to the point where the government has influence on it. After that, it most certainly is. Because at the point where government has an interest, the course of the institution itself can be directed. All these many years, we’ve seen it directed in ways that support the traditional definition of marriage. Now, that construct has changed. If we want the government out of our business, then we put it out of the process altogether. Either everyone gets recognition of their marriage, or no one does.

Our Constitution might have been written by religious men, but they chose NOT to include theological doctrine in it. Our Constitution is not God. It’s a step below God. So, it’s okay to go that extra step and embrace God’s law as we understand it in our personal lives. But it’s not okay to choose thus for others, as we see, for example, in the tyranny of sharia. If you invoke religion or tradition as proof of the righteousness of your position, then look around the world and SEE what’s done in the name of religion and tradition. There has to be a stopping point, at which the pursuit of one’s beliefs becomes benign to his fellow citizen, where he can continue onward to explore his own relationship with God as he chooses to interpret Him, without harm to others.

Think about it like this…. If God, Himself, chose to give mankind free will, who are any of us to gainsay God? It’s not our business to make choices for others. Their choices are an integral part of their personal relationship with God. So, if an omnipotent God refuses to impose control over those choices, how arrogant is it to believe that we should do differently? Again, the litmus test has to be whether any individual citizen can claim his rights are somehow violated or that he is harmed by the actions of others who have nothing to do with him.

Murf76 on March 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Why haven’t Christians ever stood up against those who attack their religion

Jews Do

Musliums Do

Not a peep from Christians.

Or they too busy fighting among each other? Baptist, Methodist, Catholic…etc

Little like the Republican party

Dems will rule for life. Sorry. This didn’t happen overnight…Christians had their chance to stand up 30 years ago ..they did nothing. And still do nothing.

Redford on March 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM

I’m not sure the issue is lost, but the pro-traditional marriage side needs to come up with some victims of the redefinition of marriage.

That will come soon enough. One day we will hear in the news that infants are taken from several adoptive couples by authorities due to a pending discrimination lawsuit. This suit will be filed on behalf of several gay couples who felt their chances of adoption were, on paper, better than the successful couples, and but for a bias against gays in the system they would have taken home these children. The children will be removed by court order to keep them from bonding to couples who at the resolution of the lawsuit might not be the parents anymore. The gay rights lobby will throw everything they have at this lawsuit to make an example of the adoption agency/state regulatory agency so that in all future adoptions the tie, if not the edge, goes to the gay couple.

shuzilla on March 29, 2013 at 5:37 PM

legislating morality is a losing battle. the govt shouldn’t be involved in marriage; its just another way to tax people.

burserker on March 29, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Upon the State redefining two men as a married couple, everyone who disagrees with that assessment should voluntarily drop out of the system. To wit – from then on, when people get married in their houses of worship they are rightly married, and no longer register the marriages with the state. They do so knowingly losing certain monetary benefits and legal protections afforded married couples; sacrifices made to keep true marriage sacred by denying the State any role in it.

shuzilla on March 29, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Why haven’t Christians ever stood up against those who attack their religion

Jews Do

Musliums Do

Not a peep from Christians.

Or they too busy fighting among each other? Baptist, Methodist, Catholic…etc

Little like the Republican party

Dems will rule for life. Sorry. This didn’t happen overnight…Christians had their chance to stand up 30 years ago ..they did nothing. And still do nothing.

Redford on March 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Who’s attacking Christians?

JetBoy on March 29, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Fleuries on March 29, 2013 at 5:09 PM

I get what you’re saying. Fact is, that every homosexual I’ve ever met has turned out to be an attention-seeking, abnormal psychology… at least in my opinion. I could still describe them as benign in terms of presenting any sort of danger to anyone else though.

The problem with your argument is that by stepping away from the protections of the U.S. Constitution, you can no longer defend yourself from those kind of intrusions. When you fail to uphold it for one, it carries no weight for another.

The solution to the problem of government intrusion to the family is not in loosening our interpretation of the Constitution, it’s in tightening it. So instead of socially engineering your homosexual neighbor, you insist that there be NO social engineering. And that would include your kid’s classroom.

Murf76 on March 29, 2013 at 5:49 PM

I’m not sure the issue is lost, but the pro-traditional marriage side needs to come up with some victims of the redefinition of marriage.

That will come soon enough. One day we will hear in the news that infants are taken from several adoptive couples by authorities due to a pending discrimination lawsuit. This suit will be filed on behalf of several gay couples who felt their chances of adoption were, on paper, better than the successful couples, and but for a bias against gays in the system they would have taken home these children. The children will be removed by court order to keep them from bonding to couples who at the resolution of the lawsuit might not be the parents anymore. The gay rights lobby will throw everything they have at this lawsuit to make an example of the adoption agency/state regulatory agency so that in all future adoptions the tie, if not the edge, goes to the gay couple.

shuzilla on March 29, 2013 at 5:37 PM

I’m still waiting for the mass exodus of heterosexual military troops that was “inevitable” after DADT repeal, and how the military would get bogged down with lawsuits from gay servicemen and women claiming discrimination. Any idea when that’s gonna happen?

JetBoy on March 29, 2013 at 5:51 PM

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

Not until the last opponent of homosexual marriage is unable to speak.

But, quickly we’re moving to the loving relationships created by Polyamorous relationships, and who knows after that. If love is the determining factor then you can “LOVE” anything, any one, any time.


SODOMERICA 2013!

PappyD61 on March 29, 2013 at 6:31 PM

shuzilla on March 29, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Points for creativity! But minus points for batsh*t insanity.

libfreeordie on March 29, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Meh, I don’t care about this issue anymore. The marriage that matters and keeps civilization from falling apart is itself falling apart so whether or not gays can marry no longer matters. Soon enough the tiny number of gays who actually take advantage of SSM will be the only ones getting married anyways.

jarodea on March 29, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Who’s attacking Christians?

JetBoy on March 29, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Gay “catholics”…apparently.

tom daschle concerned on March 29, 2013 at 7:32 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.”

I wouldn’t choose “deviancy” either. But I don’t want to yield anything, myself, on the idea that treating homosexual couples as equivalent to married couples is one of the bad adaptations below, so here’s this sentence. Anyone following this might want to see your post on this point I’m hopping. :)

All right. That’s my uncomfortable refusal to yield for king and country; now to the good stuff:

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

I understand. You’ve put three frames of reference on the table, spot me immediate, near, and long. And you are arguing this is lost near because — regardless of its morality, efficacy, or anything else — people will adapt indefinitely.

There’s a difference between adapting to the good and adapting to the bad, though. I’m not sure people adapt in any long-term way to the bad. History seems to be biased; I don’t think America could pre-date Rome. It’s slow and drunken, but we seem to be one step closer to the door after every reel. Even over there, in their own relative near, where “there was a stigma attached to be a layabout and on the dole. Not any longer. People are actually quite proud of being both.” — the consequences of yesterdays attitudes are changing today’s attitudes. There’s no reason to believe everything UK is lost long, or even near, if we reset the clock and start it today.

Or if there is a reason to believe history favors evil’s win, I don’t know it yet. I’m reminded of a couple of things in the Bible that look pretty grim . . .

Need to think about this. Does history favor the good, or not?

Anyway, I think this battle’s lost immediate, and you are explaining to me why it’s lost near too. I don’t know if you are going to be proven right about that; near is just too fluxy, and “inevitable” is an unwise qualifier for it.

I have to believe the war’s won long, though. The long has no homosexuality in it, not for human beings; it can’t, not if we learned anything about ourselves between here and there, not if we overcame our problems. The idea that we would lope along and still have all these broken things* in our hands at the end is too horrible to contemplate, and I don’t drink.

*problems in general. Not gays.

Axe on March 29, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Where is the constitutional authority to deny homosexual marriage?

Murf76 on March 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Where’s the constirutional authority to force everyone to pretend gay couples are married, whether they believe it or not, under penalty of censure? tax?

O right. Nevermind.

Axe on March 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Where is the constitutional authority to deny homosexual marriage?

Murf76 on March 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM

It’s a lie that homosexuals are denied marriage. Any man, gay or straight, can marry any woman, gay or straight. Any other combination IS NOT MARRIAGE.

Where is the constitutional authority to deny an apple grower to sell his apples as oranges in order to obtain equal prosperity? Where does the government get the authority to deny a meat processor the right to sell horse meat as beef so long as he believes it to be beef or its equal?

Certainly, if the Supreme Court forced grocers to buy horse meat as beef and sell it as such, that would be great for all those people who want top dollar for their horse carcasses. But government is there to prevent such fraud.

What is being denied here is for a minority to impose their view of what should constitute marriage upon everyone else through color of law. The homosexual by virtue of being a minority and having a persecution complex apparently believes himself at liberty to change the meaning of words to suit his need to be validated. This, even as he/she enjoys a generally higher standard of living with better education and lifetime earnings than most.

For the State to change the meaning of words for mere political accommodation is to invite the kind of world described in Orwell’s 1984. Where does the Constitution give any branch of government the power to subvert the meaning of words? Where do we stop?

Is anyone in jail in the US today for being “married” to a person of the same sex? For officiating such a ceremony? For attending such a ceremony? I don’t think so. So how then is a gay person being discriminated against? He is not. His problem is that the state cannot yet compel others to accept his/her marriage. The gay rights advocates cannot stand the freedom of conscious that allows me to attend a same-sex wedding and throw rice if I chose or to instead scoff at their delusion of being married if I chose.

Homosexuals need to accept, and not be offended, that many people do not believe two people of the same sex constitute a marriage. It is their freedom of conscience that is a stake.

shuzilla on March 29, 2013 at 10:16 PM

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

It’s interesting to me that even intelligent people can’t seem to grasp the fact that allowing women to vote didn’t require changing the meaning of the word vote, nor did allowing a black man to marry a white woman require changing the meaning of the word marriage.

shuzilla on March 29, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Points for creativity! But minus points for batsh*t insanity.

libfreeordie on March 29, 2013 at 6:32 PM

A world that can’t figure out two people of the same sex doesn’t constitute a marriage naturally requires a PhD in Batsh*t to navigate.

shuzilla on March 29, 2013 at 10:27 PM

A world that can’t figure out two people of the same sex doesn’t constitute a marriage naturally requires a PhD in Batsh*t to navigate.

shuzilla on March 29, 2013 at 10:27 PM

To be a truly hardcore liberal, you honestly have to ‘study’ for it in just this manner.

MelonCollie on March 29, 2013 at 10:54 PM

It’s a lie that homosexuals are denied marriage. Any man, gay or straight, can marry any woman, gay or straight.

Oh good Lord, can we please stop with this stupid argument. A gay person has no more desire to marry someone of the opposite gender as you have to marry someone of the same gender. If you think this argument is going to convince anyone of the soundness of your reasoning, you’re sadly mistaken.

Homosexuals need to accept, and not be offended, that many people do not believe two people of the same sex constitute a marriage.

shuzilla on March 29, 2013 at 10:16 PM

If you don’t approve of gay marriage, then don’t get gay married, for heaven’s sake. You need to accept, with the appropriate counseling and medication if necessary, that your obsession with gay people’s lives is not healthy.

cam2 on March 29, 2013 at 10:57 PM

If you don’t approve of gay marriage, then don’t get gay married, for heaven’s sake. You need to accept, with the appropriate counseling and medication if necessary, that your obsession with gay people’s lives is not healthy.

cam2 on March 29, 2013 at 10:57 PM

If you do not want to be married, which is an union between a man and a woman, then don’t get married! And stop obsessing about being married!

fight like a girl on March 29, 2013 at 11:56 PM

Oh good Lord, can we please stop with this stupid argument. A gay person has no more desire to marry someone of the opposite gender as you have to marry someone of the same gender.

cam2 on March 29, 2013 at 10:57 PM

No, a person who choses to be with a member of the same sex choses NOT to be married. Regardless of what he/she desires. A person desiring to live with her sister is choosing not to get married. An adult desiring to live with his parents is likewise choosing not to get married. So is a person living with six cats and a turtle by choice. We can’t make them all married so to compensate for living arrangements that might not be as beneficial to them as marriage.

A gay person CAN get married, and even naturally conceive children. Many have. As you pointed out, most choose NOT to, and that’s fine. Why their obsession to change the meaning of marriage, instead of accepting the consequences of the living arrangement of one’s own choice?

shuzilla on March 30, 2013 at 12:04 AM

Murf76 on March 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM

WOW! There is so much wrong in your reply to me that I don’t know where to begin. You seem to not understand the intent of the Constitution and you really don’t understand the need for laws and social norms. You claim that denying SSM is not in the constitution. But the right to change the definition of marriage is not there either. Just because a person claims a right does not make it valid and just because the right he claims does not infringe on another individual does not mean that what he claims is right or will not infringe on society as a whole.

You also talked of free will as given to each of us by God. Free will is the choices we make, which can be right or wrong, good or bad. Free will is a test of each individuals moral character. Just because you have been given free will does not mean that every choice you make will be the right one or the moral one.

fight like a girl on March 30, 2013 at 12:15 AM

A gay person CAN get married, and even naturally conceive children. Many have. As you pointed out, most choose NOT to, and that’s fine. Why their obsession to change the meaning of marriage, instead of accepting the consequences of the living arrangement of one’s own choice?

shuzilla on March 30, 2013 at 12:04 AM

Because they want to force acceptance of their lifestyle. Unfortunately, they confuse acceptance with approval.

fight like a girl on March 30, 2013 at 12:19 AM

fight like a girl on March 30, 2013 at 12:15 AM

All rights are valid… right up to the point where they impede or abrogate the like rights of other individual citizens. That’s FREEDOM. Your neighbor’s homosexual marriage does not strip you of your rights. But the State’s impediment to his individual pursuit of happiness DOES strip him of his. He has the same right to government recognition of his domestic partnership as you do. Don’t like it? Fine. Get government out of marriage.

Murf76 on March 30, 2013 at 2:14 AM

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.

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

Well look at it this way, if the dole is compassion, more people on the dole means more compassion demonstrated. If you go on the dole, the country gets to demonstrate its compassion.

Also, without more abstract values, a chief survival value is “intelligence” or even cunning. Those people allowing the people of their country to demonstrate the country’s compassion, are expending the least amount of energy for their sustenance. The other people who work and make nearly the same are the suckers. The guy who has tricked another guy into working for the first guy’s livelihood is the winner, and all for the ego-stroking of feeling “compassionate”. What a sap.

Axeman on March 30, 2013 at 2:51 AM

What a sap.

Axeman on March 30, 2013 at 2:51 AM

Heh — then this “adaptation” thing must be stopped. :)

(It’s a interesting point.)

Axe on March 30, 2013 at 4:35 AM

I don’t understand how you can make this perfectly factual statement:

Any man, gay or straight, can marry any woman, gay or straight.

shuzilla on March 29, 2013 at 10:16 PM

. . . and get this response:

Oh good Lord, can we please stop with this stupid argument. A gay person has no more desire to marry someone of the opposite gender as you have to marry someone of the same gender. If you think this argument is going to convince anyone of the soundness of your reasoning, you’re sadly mistaken.

cam2 on March 29, 2013 at 10:57 PM

I can’t get a rational sequence drawn from that A to that B.

Axe on March 30, 2013 at 4:41 AM

I can’t get a rational sequence drawn from that A to that B.

Axe on March 30, 2013 at 4:41 AM

Because A could have been used against the Loving family in 1969. The Court has decided that merely because everyone had an equal right to same-race marriage was not sufficient to maintain bans on interracial marriage. Even if race and sexuality are fundamentally different, the Court has recognized that one’s right to marry includes one’s right to marry the person they love. At that point then, the burden switches to opponents of same-sex marriage to identify some unique state interest in restricting same-sex marriage. In short, shuzillas point on March 29 2013 has already been settled by Equal Protection case law since Brown v. Board overturned Plessy.

libfreeordie on March 30, 2013 at 5:52 AM

libfreeordie on March 30, 2013 at 5:52 AM

I’m about to say something I never thought I’d say.

Thank you for explaining that.

Axe on March 30, 2013 at 6:08 AM

Huh. So:

If I imagine that I can simply point out that everyone’s rights to marry are the same and end arguments about equity under the law, I’m wrong. The reason I’m wrong is because I’m presupposing gay couples cannot be married couples; that there is no option there. The person with whom I’m arguing presupposes the option exists and that the law is arbitrarily barring it. My argument would stand up just fine if I could demonstrate that gay couples cannot be married couples; my opponents argument will overcome mine if he/she can demonstrate gay couples can be married couples. There’s no real problem with the argument itself, it’s just not determinate. We each have to appeal to another discipline.

. . . That discipline is probably Sociology.

. . . So . . .

. . . I’m f’d.

Another Romney election night.

*groan*

Not wrong, by the way. Homosexual couples are not married couples or equivalent to married couples or, or, or, and that isn’t a religious statement. If I’m right, study would vindicate me, assuming the lights stayed on long enough. Beaten like a rented mule, sure, but not wrong.

Sure would like to defeat one evil thing soon.

Axe on March 30, 2013 at 6:33 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.

I had to sleep on this. I agree with him on that point.
I’ll tell you where else the church is screwing it up with definitions. That is “creation science” vs what? Real science?

It should just be science. It’s the same principle.

JellyToast on March 30, 2013 at 8:44 AM

Religious Unions – Marriage
Nonreligious Unions – Civil Unions

scruplesrx on March 30, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Here’s my take on why we social conservatives are losing the argument on gay marriage.

I think it’s because people don’t believe facts. People believe stories.

Anyone here write stories?

Everyone knows how a good story ends. The villain gets killed and everyone lives happily ever after.

But something else has to happen first.

The villain has to be shown to be a VILLAIN. Otherwise the audience doesn’t cheer when he’s thrown into the reactor shaft. They see something awful happen on screen, they feel sympathy for the villain and disgust at the hero. So if you want the audience to cheer, you’ve got to make the villain out to be a nasty piece of work first. You’ve got to have him kicking puppies or tying women to railroad tracks or doing some really awful things that gets the audience booing and hissing and throwing popcorn at the screen.

Well, we haven’t done that with gay marriage. Just the opposite. Between Fred Phelps and the constant barrage of “bullied victims” in media, WE’RE the ones kicking the puppy on nationwide TV, and the audience — the voters — boo us.

If we’re ever going to win, we’ve got to throw away the script and stop playing Bull Conner. People rely on their feelings and their guts, not their brains. And when brains collide with guts its far easier to rationalize our gut feeling than it is to override it and make it obey what we know to be factually true.

So how do we win ?

The answer is simple: Rewrite the story so that we’re the heroes and the other side are the villains. Then the audience cheers US as we win.

We can’t do much to get the other side to look like villains — they’ll have to do that themselves. But we CAN control our behavior and start acting like heroes. Look at movies and films and play up to what modern America thinks a hero looks like, not putting on the “60s villain” costume and speaking lines which sound like something out of the mouth of a grumpy old white man who can’t stand the way the world is changing.

We act like heroes, and we let the other side act like villains. When they do, we tell the truth about them without trying to unduly smear or slander them. Then when the audience is subconsciously rooting for us, then we win.

Regrettably, I don’t see the happy ending coming for decades. Because white Christian males, having run the country since its founding, are very hard to pitch as villains. No, I don’t see any way for those in favor of gay marriage (and, for the record, I’m in favor of civil unions) to become villains until gay marriage has been the law of the land for awhile and its evil fruit becomes obvious beyond the ability even of Hollywood to magic away.
Villains are villainous because their evil acts are obvious, and I don’t see any way to get there from here until they’ve had a chance to be evil for awhile. Old religious people grumbling “it’ll end in trouble” don’t convince anyone. Old religious people grumble that way about EVERYTHING. I can still find Chick tracts decrying the evils of rock music and any Bible but the King James Bible. Religious people waving their Bibles have NO credibility with the outside world, thanks to Fred Phelps.

No, if people are going to believe gay marriage is bad and we’re the heroes fighting against a world which unjustly accuses us, then they’re going to have to SEE the harm it does. Not just on fox news. In their own lives.

If anyone has a neat trick to persuade everyone now, this year, and so save everyone in America a lot of pain and heartache, I’m listening. But I personally don’t see any alternative but to let the kid who wants to smoke so bad find out the hard way why we have those rules. If you can’t stop a fool from playing with fire, he’ll have to learn himself about burned hands.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

pendell2 on March 30, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Because A could have been used against the Loving family in 1969. The Court has decided that merely because everyone had an equal right to same-race marriage was not sufficient to maintain bans on interracial marriage.

Of course, because an inter-racial marriage, if between a man and a woman, is a marriage. The court did not have to contrive a new, expanded meaning of marriage in order to allow that couple the same rights as everyone else.

To unilaterally change the meaning of a word, especially one that appears in contracts, is a special right not possessed by anyone else. Especially given that the change of a meaning of a word retroactively changes the meaning and intent of all previous legislation containing that word.

A black man and a white woman can be married. Therefore, that couple can be prevented by law from marrying. Such laws were struck down. That has nothing to do with two men wanting their union declared to be a marriage.

Two men cannot be married (without government taking on the burden of redefining marriage). Therefore, they cannot be prevented from marrying. A law that defines marriage in the traditional way is not aimed at homosexuals but at legislators. Even then, courts can do an end-run on legislation. So a constitutional amendment is necessary to take the power to redefine words away from the courts. Perhaps such an amendment should be broader than marriage.

Governments have long felt the need to restrict marriage, whether it be between different races, religions or social positions. We still prevent marriage at ages that some nations allow, should that be done away with as well? But, government has no business expanding the definition of marriage.

shuzilla on March 30, 2013 at 10:35 AM

shuzilla on March 30, 2013 at 10:35 AM

You don’t know me, but I want to thank you for trying about half my arguments in a fire hotter than I’ve ever had to put them. :) We’re not in lock-step or anything, but we’re pretty close on some things, and I’ve learned a lot just reading these parts of the debate.

Also realized that trying to imagine how the SCOTUS will rule is an exercise in mapping plausibility and not accuracy. You might not agree, but I noticed I’m having to follow lines of thought that are broken from the ground but consistent within themselves (like above) just to find conclusions like lily-pads. “I can get here from there.”

Strange feeling, debating without ever typing. I’m feeling a little lazy and guilty. Want some water? :)

Axe on March 30, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Also realized that trying to imagine how the SCOTUS will rule is an exercise in mapping plausibility and not accuracy.

Axe on March 30, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Axe, that’s where the fight for “traditional” marriage was lost – when as a nation we decided that the courts had final say in everything, was the wise father of squabbling lessers (legislative and executive branches), rather than the old concept of balance of power among three equal branches.

At some point, same-sex marriage will be firmly established in society. Prior to that point, legislation will continually re-affirm traditional marriage. Beyond that point, legislation will not. That should be the end of it, but not by a long shot.

Not having the patience to wait until society “catches up” with the enlightened, we have a court challenge to pro-marriage legislation on behalf of an aggrieved minority, legislation that is in step with the will of the electorate as it is at present, and that challenge comes about because if you ask a court for an opinion it will usually give you one.

We lost the battle to save marriage back when the majority expeced the Supreme Court to take the lead in societal evolution instead of society itself doing so, at its own pace, through legislation.

shuzilla on March 30, 2013 at 12:39 PM

If people would actually listen to Rush, he was quoting from the story that 2 Republican consultants said that and since the RINO’s in the GOP don’t seem to want to fight this it appears as though it is a foregone conclusion. He was pointing out that there needs to be some in the GOP to actually do something besides trying to appease the Dems

flytier on March 30, 2013 at 1:06 PM

All rights are valid… right up to the point where they impede or abrogate the like rights of other individual citizens. That’s FREEDOM. Your neighbor’s homosexual marriage does not strip you of your rights. But the State’s impediment to his individual pursuit of happiness DOES strip him of his. He has the same right to government recognition of his domestic partnership as you do. Don’t like it? Fine. Get government out of marriage.

Murf76 on March 30, 2013 at 2:14 AM

All rights are valid? Rights are not wants and desires. And FREEDOM is not doing whatever you damn well please. If we follow your line of thinking, my neighbor has the right to marry a 13 year old boy, or three teenage boys, and my other neighbor can marry his sister, as long as it makes them happy and doesn’t infringe upon my rights.

BTW, The government does have the right to define marriage for the purposes of taxation, just like it defines taxable income, age, dependents, non-profits, etc. If it were up to me, we would all pay a flat tax and all this would be a moot point.

fight like a girl on March 30, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4