As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Rush: Victory for Gay Marriage “Inevitable”

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said today that the battle to preserve marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman is lost.

This issue is lost. I don’t care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable — and it’s inevitable because we lost the language on this. I mentioned the other day that I’ve heard people talk about “opposite-sex marriage,” or you might have had heard people say “traditional marriage.”

You might have heard people say “hetero-marriage.” I maintain to you that we lost the issue when we started allowing the word “marriage” to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it, because marriage is one thing, and it was not established on the basis of discrimination. It wasn’t established on the basis of denying people anything. “Marriage” is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with. But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way . . .

So far as I’m concerned, once we started talking about “gay marriage,” “traditional marriage,” “opposite-sex marriage,” “same-sex marriage,” “hetero-marriage,” we lost.  It was over.  It was just a matter of time.

Rush goes on to make the argument that marriage is more than an arrangement between two people – evolving as a way to unite a man and a woman to raise a family together – and that by definition it is limited to opposite sex relationships.

H/T Dylan Byers of Politico.

28 Responses to Rush: Victory for Gay Marriage “Inevitable”

  1. So, what happens after the Supremes declare that prohibiting homosexuals from the bonds of matrimony is unconstitutional? The gay couples get married, divorced, fight over assets and child custody just like the rest of us, I guess.
    Then, the ‘others’ will want their right to marry, too. The polygamists will want the same legal benefits and why not? There will be odd combinations of people who claim they have rights to marriage as it’s now just a state recognized legal contract.
    Lawsuits will be filed against religious organizations that refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies, gay married partners will demand to be declared a legal parent so that a child could have 2 fathers and 1 mother and that opens another issue; who inherits?

    What a mess.

  2. He was discussing how the left managed to change the definition of marriage, and how the gullible Republicans fell right into their trap. Too bad Politico didn’t include Rush’s example of creating a law to change the definition of family so he can become an Obama…

    “If I were to say, “The Obama family has more rights than I do. Obama’s family, which hasn’t been elected to anything, get millions of dollars in government benefits. They are globally admired in a way that I’m not. My self-esteem is wounded. The world loves the Obamas and they don’t love me. Therefore, I want to be considered an Obama. From now on, I want to be an Obama so that people respect me and love me — and so that I, too, can take a vacation every month on a big 747.”

  3. Even outside of the Jewish and Christian traditions marriage has always been a social contract between a man and a woman for the purpose of bearing and raising children with two identifiable parents committed to their welfare. Its purpose was never solely that a man and a woman who loved each other could legally live together. Maybe it started changing when it became that, when children became unnecessary.

    As happens so often with me, I don’t believe the polls. They and the media are on a campaign to convince that the majority of Americans now favor gay marriage. Yet 40 out of 50 states have ruled against it or found some alternative language than marriage. I find it very hard to believe that the legislatures of these 40 states have ruled to thwart the wishes of their constituents. And it is not in the Constitution that the federal government make marriage laws: it is specifically a function of state government.

    • In 2005, Texans passed an amendment to our State Constitution –

      “Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

      (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

      (Added Nov. 8, 2005.)”

  4. it’s unfortunate that at a time like this, with the world on the brink and danger everywhere you look, we’re angsting about the rights of gay yuppies to get married in church. pretty much everyone thinks that gay people should be able to enter into civil unions. but why do they also need to march down the aisle–two brides, or two grooms, is it just me or isn’t that just kind of silly?

    • Rulierose, first they proclaimed to merely want the ability to have a legally recognized civil union. But, that was a first step in moving toward the “fight for marriage equality”. The reason they want it to be called “marriage” is so it can be considered “normal”, despite the fact that they make up only 3.5% of the population. Once gay “marriage” is legally recognized, then they’ll argue that it MUST be taught in schools as perfectly normal; one can marry a member of the opposite sex, or of the same sex. Fast forward to your fourth grader’s math homework and what do you know? The word problem about Sally and her family having a picnic and packing 6 sandwiches for four people, is accompanied by a picture of her “family” – two dads, two kids, and a dog.

      • A legally recognized civil union means that gay couples will have the same rights in civil law that married couples do, such as the right to be with their loved ones in the hospital; currently family members can bar a gay partner from visiting and making decisions regarding care. A recognized civil union means that they can file joint tax returns, just like (unmarried) people of opposite sex sharing living quarters, aka POSSLQs in IRS jargon. There are a lot of little rules and regs like that where gay partners are excluded from the process and decision making. And by the way, the book “My Two Moms” is already in schools. Has been for years.

        • Yes, I understand all of the benefits of legally recognized civil unions, and I don’t have a problem with it. However, I think that most proponents of civil unions did so under a pretense that was all they wanted, to gain these legal rights and responsibilities in their relationships. They hid the fact that civil unions were just their first step in their true objective – getting their relationships recognized as “marriages”.

          I’m also aware of the book “My Two Moms” and others like that, but the point I was trying to make was that it will be far more pervasive than a book that is used for the sole point of teaching about different families. The gay lobby will be soon demand that ALL textbooks, for all subjects, reflect the new reality in America. That’s why I said we’ll be doing math homework with our kids and see a word problem about a family, but that family will consist of two dads and two kids.

  5. There is an excellent book written by Erwin Lutzer called The Serpent of Paradise. The premise of the book is that Satan can do nothing other than what God allows him to do.
    All of the agony that Satan has inflicted upon the world since Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden has been allowed by God, not inflicted on us by God, and not because God could not prevent it from happening.
    All of the evil that mankind rationalizes and embraces now is going to be even worse 10 years from now. What is unthinkable to us in 2013, is going to be common in 2023.
    Homosexual marriage is a perfect example. So is abortion. Ponder the current trial of Kermit Gosnell who took great delight in killing full term babies and paying his nurses to do the same. Ponder what the pedophiles are going to demand and be allowed to do once homosexuals have paved the way with normalization of perversion.
    It is all going to get much, much worse, and will culminate in what Revelation spells out.

  6. This should not be an issue for the supreme court. It should be voted on by the people in their state. I agree with Rush on the word marriage – outside religion – it is a social contract. Be prepared if it becomes the law of the land the next frontier will not be civil but religious. And it will reach the level of the absurd.

    • Actually I don’t understand the legalities enough to stand behind my States rights comment. But I don’t think it should be with the SC.

      • I think it’s one of the defined rights of the states in the Constitution to set the marriage laws of their states, Grace, but if I’m wrong, I’d like someone who knows the Constitution very well to tell me so. I don’t want to go around saying misinformed things.

        • The Constitution says that all laws not laid out in the document are up to the states to deal with. So if it’s not in the Constitution, it is up to the states. However, how the Constitution is interpreted changes from decade to decade, and if the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are deemed to include equal opportunity in contracts, then gay marriage would be covered.

      • Most likely the reason that Doma will be overturned is that marriage is a state right. That the federal government had no right to pass Doma. The Supreme court will be confirming this, not denying the states their rights. Im not sure if Mr Limbaugh with all his past marriages is the one to lecture on the sanctity of marriage.

    • The founding fathers were very specific about not having the majority vote on the rights of the minority. However the last four states that had a vote, all approved it. The tipping point has been reached. The younger generations no not even understand what the battle is about. Even younger evangelicals are more than 50% in favor of marriage equality.

  7. This is all sideshow. Obama is bringing up the most controversial topics possible and really amping them up to do a few different things.
    1. Divide this country against itself;
    2. Weaken the United States in the world;
    3. Keep you looking at side issues while he continues to amass power to himself.
    4. Prepare for Jihad

    Items 1-3 are all in service of item 4. Obama would like nothing better than to soak this country in the blood of Christians and Jews, and Islam is definitely an “any means to an end” religion. Homosexuals are some of his most useful idiots. They’re generally rich, politically connected, all over public entertainment, and VERY militant. What more could he want?

    Little do they realize how they will be treated under Shari’a, once Obama unleashes he!! on the United States via his private security forces. He was kinda hoping to get the guns first, but if that doesn’t work out, well, that just means a little more collateral damage might be necessary. The end result will be the same.

    Obama himself may be a little conflicted on homosexuality anyway. Between his mother and Michelle he has plenty of reasons to distrust females, and has actually shown MUCH more interest in, eh, “male companionship”. This may be who he is, or it may be that he “went native” in creating his taqiyya, but either way, it puts him in the position of being noticably “gay” while in service to a religion that is famously intolerant of “gay”. This might be why he’s held his hand this long. It won’t last, though, eventually the tyrant WILL subdue this nation, reduce it to ashes, and hand what’s left over to his Sunni brothers. Whether he will then be able to convince them that his apparent interest in males is a subject many of us won’t live to see play out. He will then turn his full force on Israel, and will then fail because God will protect it.

    God will not protect US, however. As a nation, we pretty much forfeited our rights to celestial protection when we permitted the slaughter of the innocents. Over 3,000 babies are murdered each day, most because they would inconvenience their “mothers”.

    That, and the fact that the homosexual movement has become so powerful, has doomed us as a nation in the eyes of G_d.
    ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.’ – Leviticus 18:22
    His gentle correction of Sodom demostrates how he responds to that sort of provocation.

    Many attempt to say Chistians should contenance homosexuals, because Jesus didn’t speak to the subject directly. There’s at least two problems with that;
    1) In Mark chapter 10, Jesus said the following; ““6 “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.7 “for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother ,8 “and the two shall become one flesh, so they are no longer two, but one flesh.” 9 “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Doesn’t look like an endosement for homosexual marriage.
    2) There’s also this from Matthew 5; ” 17“ Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.19“ Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

    The Supreme Court may overturn Propositon 8, but Jesus did NOT overturn God’s law.

    To sum, by the actions of some and the inactions of others, this nation is doomed. It may be cold comfort, but such as it is, know that Obama is ultimately doomed as well.

      • GOOD ONE! It’s ALL correct, but the most relevant to this topic is THIS part:

        “24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

        26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

        I didn’t include the latter books though, because they didn’t have red letters. One of the ways “Christians” cafeteria-shop for just the parts they like is to say, “Well, this might just be Paul’s opinion, and Jesus would never have said that.” which ignores it ALL being an inspired work, but that’s one of the half-baked argmuents you’ll hear. This is why I went to the Source, because that argument, lame as it is, won’t even SLIGHTLY work THERE!

        Still, great text! Here’s a link for anyone interested;

        We have a “Gay” church in Cincinnati, gay pastor and everything. Guessing he doesn’t spend a lot of time in this chapter..

        Watch this, though. HERE’S some tortured logic for ya;

        “Other Christians interpret the passage differently. They note that the persons involved in the orgy were former Christians, and were heterosexual. Romans 1 condemns because they went against their nature — their heterosexual orientation — and engaged in same-gender sexual behavior. By the same reasoning, lesbians and gays who went against their fundamentali nature — their homosexual orientation — and engaged in opposite-gender sexual behavior would also be sinning.”

        WHOO-HOOO! See what he did there? You’re THIS way, so if you don’t STAY THIS way, God doesn’t like it! Instead of being condemed for being gay, you’re condemed for NOT being gay if you really are! That’s just PERFECT!

        I wonder if that logic works with pedophiles? Bestiality? Rapist? Aren’t you saying that you have to be true to your “nature”? There is some evidence of heritable tendencies for ALL of these things. Do you REALLY think it’s pleasing to G_D?

        They don’t need to answer me. I’m just an old sinner who’se trying to live in the Lord to the extend a human can. I’m NO ONE’s judge, nor would I WANT to be.

        They WILL need to answer HIM, though. All we can do is try to lovingly point out the error of their ways, and pray the realize it before it’s too late…

  8. Maybe I am a dope, but isn’t welding people together, making it hard for them to waltz off, good for children, who benefit from two incomes as we so often say? Don’t committed couples deserve the tax benefits–and also the legal entanglement that makes for stability? Yes–it’s a big intellectual change–but I think using the human brain, this change is coming. It already has come some places. As for marrying your dog or sister–this is kind of a silly straw man…at least in my opinion.