By The Right Scoop


Rush Limbaugh explains why he says we’ve lost on the issue of gay marriage:

During the break, I had an e-mail. “Rush, in all of this talk about gay marriage, I haven’t heard what you think about it.” I thought about that. I asked myself, “Is my position on this really not known?” Snerdley, are you curious as to my position on gay marriage? (interruption) Well, let me try it this way. A friend of mine sent me a note, actually, and it’s got some things in it that I think are on point. As usual, what we’re talking about, again, with the left is the language.

The language game, the left really excels at changing the language to benefit them politically, and they do it in such a way that a lot of people on our side have no idea what’s happened until it’s too late and the issue is already lost, which this issue is. 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.

I would go so far as to say that there are some people who think marriage is an evil Republican idea, simply because they’re the ones that want to hold on to it. 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. This is the point a friend of mine sent me a note about.

“Once you decide to modify the word ‘marriage,’ then the other side has won, or at least they’re 90% of the way home. The best thing that ‘marriage’ had going for it was basically what they teach you the first day in law school: ‘If you hang a sign on a horse that says “cow,” it does not make it a cow,’ although today it might.” That’s where we are: 5 + 5 could = 11, if it works for the Democrats. A cow could be a horse, if it works for the Democrats. The thing is, discrimination has never been a part of marriage.

It evolved as the best way to unite men and women in raising a family and in cohabitating a life. It’s not perfect. The divorce rate’s what it is. But it evolved with a purpose. It was not a creation of a bunch of elitists wanting to deny people a good time. It was not created as something to deny people “benefits,” but it became that once we started bastardizing the definition. But discrimination is not an issue, and it never was. No one sensible is against giving homosexuals the rights of contract or inheritance or hospital visits.

There’s nobody that wants to deny them that. The issue has always been denying them a status that they can’t have, by definition. By definition — solely, by definition — same-sex people cannot be married. So instead of maintaining that and holding fast to that, we allowed the argument to be made that the definition needed to change, on the basis that we’re dealing with something discriminatory, bigoted, and all of these mystical things that it’s not and never has been.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • stage9

    If you won’t allow the OTHER SIDE to argue from statistical FACTS, then YES, it will be institutionalized. But every time an expert begins to debate the merits of SSM using sound statistical data, he/she is silenced and marginalized.

    • ryanomaniac

      stage9 Yep. It is absolutely impossible to make an argument made on statistical facts when no one in media will report it. You have to be extremely clever to win a point with this biased, pansy, butt kissing, Obama worshiping(Hillary is next), lying bastards club media.

      • stage9

        ryanomaniac stage9 A one-sided debate is tyranny.

    • clockwindingdown

      stage9 “But every time an expert begins to debate the merits of SSM using sound statistical data” An expert? By whom’s definition? Typically “an expert” is one brought in to support ones case, both sides have them. So both sides have experts… kind of brings us back to the starting point doesn’t it. I also noticed you put in “merits” which shows bias but does not use evidence. 
      Is it fishing season, seems to be a lot of trolling going on…
      merit |ˈmerit|nounthe quality of being particularly good or worthy, esp. so as to deservepraise or reward 
      So you’re saying homosexuality helps mankind out by improving the species or what?

      • stage9

        clockwindingdown stage9 By the definition of expert! A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject. Having, involving, or demonstrating great skill, dexterity, or knowledge as the result of experience or training.
        Does that help define “expert” for you?
        Someone who doesn’t come sashaying to the table with horns on his head and spandex, but someone with reasonable experience in social science. 
        And arguing with incredibly stupid people such as yourself is a hopeless cause!

    • clockwindingdown

      stage9
      stage9, I’m not attacking you, it may appear that way, just asking for clarification… I can interpret your original post several ways… THX I was typing and missed edit deadline – man I dislike that…

      • clockwindingdown

        Sorry Scope this new format is always jumping screens and trying to link accounts when typing, it causes me nothing but a headache… Can’t tell you how many posts its dumped or cut me off of while typing… I know it’s not your fault…

      • stage9

        clockwindingdown stage9 It’s OK, my friend, there are a lot of “lurkers’ today. It’s easy to miss interpret.

        • clockwindingdown

          stage9 Thank you for the kindness and clarity. 
           All discussion with the left is one sided, they will not rest until they reach their goal. They take what they can get and come back for more until they have it all…

  • http://cfp4us.org/ AmericanborninCanada

    True.  Rush is right. Unfortunately.

    • americalsgt

      AmericanborninCanada You called it ABC.  My problem is that they will move this victory to what next?  As for me, I am of the mind that it is time to move South, to a Red State  I’m short in  a military sense and am packing to get away from the NE.  This victory for 4% of the population really makes me tired.

      • http://cfp4us.org/ AmericanborninCanada

        americalsgt AmericanborninCanada I hate to admit it- because I still will never see homosexual marriage as nothing but a special right, and it’s so wrong. But we’ve allowed the leftists to redefine things way too often.  sigh. it’s a tough and tiring road though.  We’d be happy to have you come down to Florida!  Talk to tinlizzieowner.  There are a lot of excellent veterans down here :-)

      • DCGere

        americalsgt AmericanborninCanada Plural marriage? There are lots of folks pushing for their “equality” as well. After all, who are we to judge who you want to love/marry…

      • steveangll77

        americalsgt AmericanborninCanada They are already trying to push the age of consent lower and lower to eventually eliminate it.
        The number of teachers that rape their students is sky high already.  One recently only got five months.

      • JJacobs

        americalsgt AmericanborninCanadapack those bags girl….and come experience the beautiful city of
        Greenville, SC. The home of Trey Gowdy, Jeff Duncan & Tim Scott.

        • americalsgt

          JJacobs americalsgt AmericanborninCanada Thanks JJ.  Greenville is on my short list of places to move. Depends a bit on where  I can get a job.  More likely it will be closer to Atlanta as we have 3 grandchildren there.  Thinking maybe Woodstock, GA

        • JJacobs

          americalsgt JJacobs AmericanborninCanada  Greenville is 2 hours from Atlanta… (without the traffic!) lol….but seriously if you guys are seriously thinking of moving south, DO stop in Greenville on your way down. I have several GF’s who live in ATL, and they love it up here. Info for you….http://www.forbes.com/pictures/efel45eddf/greenville-s-c-2/

        • JJacobs

          americalsgt AmericanborninCanada maybe this will work..
          http://www.forbes.com/pictures/efel45eddf/greenville-s-c/.

  • Watchman74

    I think Rush is right, just another sign of the (end) times.

    • DCGere

      Watchman74 But, but, we’re just “evolving”…sarc.

  • K-Bob

    This goes to one of my usual rants about conservatives.
    If you let the left frame the issues, and then use their language, you have “pre-lost” the debate.  You might as well not bother to show up.We don’t have an “immigration Problem” in this country, we have an “Illegal Alien” problem.We don’t have a need for homosexuals to call their partners “spouse.” We need to have our married couples work harder to make marriage what it’s supposed to be.  Homosexuals can go do what they do without bothering married people about it.”Some restrictions on guns” are not “Reasonable.” They are “infringements.”The media does not refrain from printing news about jihadists due to “Political Correctness.”  They do it out of “please kill me last” cowardice.The term “migrant” has nothing to do with the issue of citizenship.When the right went from calling healthcare “an issue of the free market and insurance” to calling it (with the left) an issue of “benefits” we lost the debate.When Newt attacked Romney for his activities while with Bain Capital, Newt used the language of the left. It helped the other side.The screwup in managing post-Saddam Iraq was not due to “Nation Building.”  It was due to letting the defeated loser side determine it’s own postwar government.  We should have given them a government, like we did with Germany and Japan (yes, there are quibbles on that, but we put people in place), and told them to keep it or face even greater defeat.Lawyers have made America a risk-averse nation.  It’s not always about “fault.” That’s the language of the left. We have to allow for “accident.”  Even tragic accident.  Imagine what will happen if a private company manages to get access to space opened up, and some vehicle or engine of their crashes into a city and kills people.  Do we let that kill the enterprise?  The left would say “yes.” We cannot let them control the debate.
    These are only a few places where mental discipline issues cause the right to lose the debate, over and over.

    • steveangll77

      K-Bob Seems that most Conservatives would feel the same on every issue here.  Except one most Conservatives do not believe Mitt was Conservative.  As far as Newt his attack was not well thought out and reflected poorly on him as it should have but his thinking on that was not very Conservative.
      Conservatives I know fight tooth and nail against the language of the left.  While people like McCain and Romney use it all the time.

    • http://famous.wolf@frontier.com famouswolf

      This is only the tip of the iceberg, too. We need to get up to speed on an awful lot of ‘mental discipline’.
      I think the most heinous ‘label’ the left is trying out is the one ‘identiying’ people like us as ‘terrrorists’. For starters.

      • K-Bob

        famouswolf Yes. We need to just use that tactic against those racist totalitarians every chance we get.

  • http://famous.wolf@frontier.com famouswolf

    Ok, so lets start calling spades spades.
    It’s not ‘gay’, it’s ‘homosexual’.
    A rainbow is a pretty light refraction in the sky, nothing more.
    There was never a country called ‘Palestine’.
    Islam is a culture of war and hate, not a religion of peace.
    The USA is NOT an imperialist country, and never was.
    And so on. Lets STOP letting these b*stards redefine EVERYTHING with their ‘newspeak’ bullsh!t. Call ‘em on it, NEVER let it pass.
    And I tell you all what, I am going to enjoy one aspect of sharia if it gets a hold here…the moslem way of handling homosexual ‘marriage’. Especially what they do to the homo feminazis.

  • MatthewFivethruseven

    He is wrong on this.  His reasoning is fallacious; false dilemma.  The third way, and the only way, is the creational order established by God in the beginning.  Marriage has never “evolved”, except when men have moved away from God’s revelation on the matter.  Rush also assumes that a civil divorce, ends a ‘marriage’, when in fact it does not, if it is a one flesh covenant.  Death alone dissolves the union, and any attempt to justify 2nd and 3rd “marriages” while ones spouse is alive, is only specious adultery according to the blessed Jesus.
    Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and everyone who marries a woman who is divorced from her husband commits adultery. (Luk 16:18)

    • steveangll77

      MatthewFivethruseven You are right.  We lost this fight long ago in the 60’s when free love lie was sold and bought by America.  We bought our own destruction with that.  Gay Marriage became inevitable.  The destruction of the family inevitable and thus the destruction of America.
      America is on life support right now only GOD can save our life.

      • MatthewFivethruseven

        steveangll77 MatthewFivethruseven The saints have known this for quite some time; the homosexuals have the apostate church backed into a corner.  They know that adultery and fornication are quite acceptable, and in reality, defended.  It then comes down to a civil ‘discrimination’ issue; why is other sins permissable, but not mine? If God still ‘loves’ you while your sinning, then He “loves” us too.  In that sense, the homosexuals are ‘right’, but according to Jesus, they have only proved that they are just as wicked as their neighbor.  They willingly chose a bad copy, and they will fall in the ditch with them.  The US is acting out the very conduct of Sodom & Gomorrah, which scripture uses as an example for the destruction of this present world.  dreadful times.  Politcal solutions can’t solve this.

    • stage9

      MatthewFivethruseven You’re right. You’re absolutely right, but if you argue from the Bible in a secular culture, you’re going to lose. And lose BIG! This culture does not regard the Bible as a legitimate source of truth. You and I as believers KNOW THAT IS A LIE, but then, WE’RE BELIEVERS!
      YOU have to approach this from a different angle — the EFFECTS OF HOMOSEXUALITY ON CULTURE. Is there EVIDENCE to suggest that homosexuals should not get married? and why?
      And the answer is yes!
      What same-sex “marriage’ has done to Massachusetts
      http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/index.html

      • MatthewFivethruseven

        stage9 MatthewFivethruseven I can never lose by affirming the commandments of Jesus, and the eternal truth of God, which applies to every human soul.  Jesus kingdom is “not of this world”, which allows His follwers to exhort or reprove all men equally, and without partiality.  Remember, Paul made Felix “tremble”.  As soon as I ground my appeal in human reasoning only, I lose in 2 ways; 1, My soul for denying Jesus in a “sinful and adulterous generation”, and 2, the solid ground of truth and the eternal consequences of violating it.  The damage done by divorce of covenant marriages is undeniable, but the wicked will always believe that they are the exception, and will ‘make it all right’ somehow.  The true church is praying for mercy, and for laborors in the vineyard.  The ‘debate’ will only be won with the “sharp two edged sword.”

        • stage9

          MatthewFivethruseven stage9 The Apostle Paul did not go into Mars Hill with the the Gospel; he went in with an apologetics approach. Once he defined for them that there was a single Deity (they had descriptions for all of the statuary of their gods save one — the statue to the “unknown god”), he THEN told them WHO THAT UNKNOWN GOD WAS, and then brought them the Gospel.
          We live in a SECULAR culture. People don’t attend church every Sunday like you or I do, so the understanding of the Gospel is next to nil. They have NO CONCEPT, other than the misinformation they see on tv, about Christianity.
          You can say, “well, the Bible says” all day long until you’re blue in the face, but they aren’t going to give a flying flip. They’ll just say, who cares about your Bible!
          IF YOU WISH TO CHANGE THE CULTURE, you must approach the culture as Paul did, by creating a foundation upon which you build the Gospel. WHY IS GOD’S WAY BETTER THAN THE SECULAR WAY? And in this case, that begins by showing the fallaciousness of the homosexual lifestyle and the destructive effects it has on homosexuals and culture. Once you’ve established this, you can then explain WHY THE BIBLE REJECTS THIS BEHAVIOR. The Bible’s prohibition is EVIDENCED by the  effects that we ALREADY know about the lifestyle.
          Even homosexuals have admitted that if “the right can convince people that we are preying on their children, then we will lose.” (Kevin Jennings)
          Based on what we’ve heard in regard to the homosexual movement’s plan for the Boy Scouts, which is to sexualize it, he’s right, and we should attack them there. And is there evidence to suggest that this is what they want to do to children? YES!
          Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?
          http://www.queerty.com/can-we-please-just-start-admitting-that-we-do-actually-want-to-indoctrinate-kids-20110512/
          GOP lawmaker: “Radicalized” Girl Scouts “sexualizing” recruits
          http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/21/gop-lawmaker-radicalized-girl-scouts-sexualizing-recruits/
          ‘Gay’ attack on Scouts: The sword and not the shield
          http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/gay-attack-on-scouts-the-sword-and-not-the-shield/

        • MatthewFivethruseven

          stage9 MatthewFivethruseven
          Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Rom 1:19-20)
          For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; (Act 17:23-25)

        • MatthewFivethruseven

          stage9 MatthewFivethruseven 
          If you finish Paul’s appeal at Mars Hill, you can see that he affirms the truth of Romans 1,and gives them no quarter for their sins. There is no ‘cultural’ appeal strictly speaking, and certainly no political one. The first step is to realize that God has not left Himself without a witness, and that all men are in fact “without excuse.”
          I don’t attend a synagogue where typical western professing christians meet. I haven’t found one that is not apostate, and teaching “another gospel”. I use to be part of the fundamental mainstream though.

  • http://virusx.wordpress.com/about/ VIRUSX

    Then, I guess I can give up on listening to his useless show.

  • WinMissouri

    A few days ago, I commented on the view of Eric Mataxas author of Bonhoeffer that if we lose on this issue we lose our religious liberty.
    On Univision today, Obama said that people with religous views cannot hold their view beause it is not fair to everyone. I paraphrased the fool but that is basically what he said.
    If we hold a view based on our faith and someone thinks it is unfair then we have lost our religious liberty.
    Someone mentioned end times, I agree this is a sign. When right becomes wrong and wrong becomes right, Jesus will be here soon.

  • troutfisher

    Rush has and always will be, been about 2 concrete things.
    1.  Rush Limbaugh.  Himself being thrice married, he knows that the institution is imperfect and he doesn’t have much room to operate with regards to gay marriage.
    2.  Electing conservative candidates.  He knows this issue is a loser going forward for conservatives and that it is time for the GOP to face the facts.

    • steveangll77

      troutfisher 2010 kind of proves that wrong.

      • Suzyqpie

        steveangll77 @troutfisher YIPEE, steveangl77, why is 2010, only two years ago, being buried so enthusiastically?

    • WinMissouri

      troutfisher Are they to face the facts, change their principals? Wow so everyone has to agree, no differences, all have the same positions on issues. Rollup the tent and go home conservatives? Not me. I may always be votiing for the loser but I will stand on the side of right.

    • http://famous.wolf@frontier.com famouswolf

      He didn’t say it was not a good institution.
      This is not true, he ‘knows’ no such thing.

    • K-Bob

      troutfisher A non sequitur followed by wishful thinking.  Well done. That’ll show ‘em.

    • Amjean

      troutfisher  Rush keeps marrying blond model types 20-30 years younger than himself; very common
      for wealthy men (and wealthy women cougers).  He doesn’t have children so doesn’t know that marriage
      should protect the family, not a gay lifestyle.  Gays can have civil unions which would allow them to have
      death rights in regard to a dying partner and insurance from the working partner.  The gay lifestyle is not
      equal to marriage no matter what anyone says.

  • Judges718

    I grew up listening to Rush.  I have the deepest respect and admiration for him.
    However, or late, he seems to be dispirited and defeatist.  If I recall correctly, after Maobama’s re-election, Rush said, and I paraphrase, we were outnumbered and it was only a matter of time that America was over.
    If that were the attitude he is suggesting Americans adopt, then I guess it is over.

    The Revolutionary War was not a resounding success for the colonists.  As a matter of fact, the British won most of the battles, but not the war.  At Valley Forge the Continental Army was starving, many of the soldiers lacked proper shoes during a brutal winter, but they marshaled on.  If they had adopted a defeatist attitude, then this country would never have existed.
    If you want to surrender, then surrender, but as for me, I will continue to fight the good fight.

    • http://famous.wolf@frontier.com famouswolf

      Here too.
      I’ll go with Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz, and people like you here.

    • Suzyqpie

      Judges718 excellent and correct. Rush desperately needs new show producers and show advisors. I quit listening. Republican “shellacked” Ds in mids 2010. Sweeping demographic change does not take place in 2 years. I am sick of the 0bama-nice-guy meme. 0bama is not a nice guy. He won on the mythology of nice guy.

    • Laurel A

      Judges718 I don’t recall that. As a matter of fact I recall the exact opposite. Remember he says he will tell you when it’s time to panic and he hasn’t said that yet.

      I am a member so I can scour the archives and look for your statement if you like.

  • Matt2Matt

    Rush is right, the Left is under, over, and through the wire at this point.  Alger Hiss is doing cartwheels in his grave.  And we’ve got John Boehner as our point man against communism?  God help us.

  • Diogenes_wy

    The times they are a changing:
    Infanticide is now called abortion.
    Drunkenness is now a disease called alcoholism.
    Sodomy is referred to as gay rights or an alternative
    lifestyle.
    Perversion is now adult entertainment.
    Immorality is replaced with moral relativism.
    Cheating is now accepted as a legitimate means to a socially
    acceptable end.
    Shacking up is now a committed relationship.
    Criminals are now victims of a corrupt society.
    Christians are now intolerant right wing extremists.
    Hooligans are now called protesters.
    Treason is now change we can believe in.
    Americans are now hyphenated in the name of diversity.
    Speaking out against anything is now hate speech.
    Union thuggery is now solidarity.
    Jihadist Islam is now a religion of peace.
    Theft is now called paying your fair share.
    Patriots are now a threat to society
    Religion is slipping into secular humanism.
    Friends are now Facebook devotees.
    Socialist program spending is now economic stimulus.
    Government takeover of industry is called a bailout.
    Gluttony is now a lack of good food sources.
    Sloth is now welfare and unending unemployment benefits.
    Greed is now good.
    Anger is something to be managed.
    Pride is something to be celebrated.
    Envy is now social justice.
    Lust is now hooking up.
    Youthful energy is now a medicateable disease called ADD.
    Public education is now indoctrination.
    Teen pregnancies are now feted.
    Marriage will be between you and whatever you’re in a relationship
    with.

    • steveangll77

      Diogenes_wy Greed is now BAD.
      I am a huge defender of Greed.  It is what made America great.  I was greedy and wanted the American Dream I was taught to work hard and I could obtain it which I did.  It was greed that led to almost every good choice I ever made.  Greedy that some people were so good so I sought out how they did this and obtained that as well.
      Greed is not the problem.  Envy is the problem and the left has redefined Greed to mean Envy and that to mean stealing from others.
      No Greed is simply the desire to obtain through hard work the things we desire to have.

      • hbnolikeee

        steveangll77 Diogenes_wy Search for Milton Friedman on greed.  He said it all.  We need more like him.

      • Watchman74

        steveangll77 @Diogenes_wy That’s why Capitalism works so well, it takes a product of human nature and utilizes it in a way that benefits society.

      • Suzyqpie

        steveangll77 @Diogenes_wy Greed, what is greed? No one reading here is greedy, it’s the other guy who is greedy. Greed is individuals making economic decisions in their own self interest. Sheparding assets to grow in order to best provide for ourselves and our families. Greed prevents need for those who recognize the pride in providing for themselves. Our Government is greedy. First and foremost they fund their salaries,pension, and health care, and the patronage jobs for their fellow travelers. MO, preserve the largesse for we in government.

      • Laurel A

        steveangll77 Diogenes_wy Big difference between greed and self interest.

      • Diogenes_wy

        steveangll77 Diogenes_wy  
        Desiring to improve ones situation and provide for ones family by setting goals and working towards a successful outcome are free market ideals and are good. It is when the accumulation of wealth becomes an all consuming obsession that it becomes greed. Why do you think it was included as one of the seven deadly sins? For the answer, look to the ten commandments: Thou shall put no other gods before me.

      • americalsgt

        steveangll77 Diogenes_wy So you agree with Godon Gekko.  So do I.  Without a driving force to move me to success there is no motivation in life.  You always have to set a goal.  Greed gets a bad rap.

    • Amjean

      Diogenes_wy   Very nicely stated!

    • Watchman74

      Diogenes_wy I’m going to steal this, I hope you don’t mind. Did you write this?

  • Rshill7

    First, I disagree. It ain’t over till it’s over. If Rush has heard the fat lady sing, it wasn’t loud enough for me to hear it.
    Second, what I don’t understand is how the Supreme Court can overturn a state’s constitutional amendment. Isn’t that what the court would have to do? They haven’t ruled on anything yet. 
    So there!

  • K-Bob

    I wish to quibble with folks who claim he’s “given up” for stating the obvious.  You can’t fix a problem if you can’t identify the cause.
    He’s just identifying the cause of this loss.
    Now we have to repeal Obamacare, AND do something to salvage marriage, before it devolves to interspecies unions.

    • Rshill7

      K-Bob He’s certainly thrown in the towel on this. It doesn’t matter how you wrap it, or how many intelligent-sounding bows you perch upon it. What you’ve said, and what Rush said, is giving up. Proclaiming a loss before the bell sounds. Forfeiting the game while the timer still ticks.
      “On gay marriage we lost” (Rush)
      No, we did not. If you want to acknowledge defeat right along with Rush, go ahead. You can both be wrong together. The game is still afoot.

      • K-Bob

        Rshill7K-BobOkay, you tossed a flaming softball.  Here’s the hit:
        He’s not wrong. We also lost on Roe v. Wade.  How? Because it’s the law of the land: we lost, period. It’s been FORTY FREAKING YEARS, and it’s still law.
        Because we lost.  No shame in admitting it.

        Now what we MUST do is start a new battle to regain what we lost. This is what we must spend our blood, sweat, and treasure on: the coming battle.  Not on trying desperately to prevent the Fat Lady from singing in the current one. (And yes, a miracle could happen. But I’m not gonna put money on that outcome.) We’re no longer “heading for the cliff.” Barack took us over
        it, and this is what the crash looks like. We saw it coming, and now
        it’s here. We need to focus on building a new boat out of the wreckage.
        This is Dunkirk, not D-Day.

        That’s why what Rush said is so blasted important for people to get past their shields of defensiveness and upset.  No war is permanent. All the old empires have fallen, eventually.  So Rush’s point is very significant here: because we aren’t even IN THE GAME, if we accept the rules that let the left define the issues, and the language.  We cannot possibly start the effort to reverse a court ruling until we define the issue, frame it, and make certain the opposition looks as weak on it as possible, every chance we get.

        This is a crucial difference that conservatives MUST recognize. It holds true for the issues of abortion, illegal aliens, and same-sex unions (there’s a start right there: you won’t catch me calling that concept, “marriage,” and neither should anyone else who believes in the genuine article). It’s the same with free markets, and with the Bill of Rights.
        Look, right now Rand Paul and Marco Rubio are still calling for “Immigration Reform.”  Apply Rush’s logic to their use of the left’s language and framing, and you get the inevitable outcome of their folly: we will lose. Again.  Until the right learns this lesson, it will continue to lose, and should have its nose rubbed in it, like Rush is doing.  He’s trying to be nice about it, but that’s only because it’s so sad to see.  Maybe if he were more abrasive about it (like you and I tend to be) people might get a clue.

        I see no reason to shirk the coming fight.  I see no reason to put it off in the hopes things will get better.  But I’m also not stupid enough to call what Republicans have done, and continue to do, “fighting.” We need to broom the old fools out of the way, and start a new battle, with people who are smart enough to define things properly.  That’s what Rush means, and to deny that, to pretend that our actions have succeeded, that is the real defeatism.
        (Caveat: No one will be happier than me if the court decides not to destroy marriage. But you know the left, and Republicans: that won’t be the end of it.)

  • Amjean

    We haven’t lost yet; keep your big mouth shut, Rush!!!!!

    • Suzyqpie

      @Amjean thank you, Amjean. There are way to many big mouths running 24/7/365. Way to many people have lost the dignity of silence. They seem to be mesmerized by their own echo chamber.

  • Judges718

    I was not alive when the SCOTUS foisted Roe vs. Wade on the nation.  I have
    often wondered how Americans, especially those who believe in G-d, would
    just accept this usurpation and allow the legalization of the murder of babies in the womb.
    At
    the time, the majority of Americans objected to abortion.  There was no
    legal precedent or Constitutional basis for the SCOTUS’s ruling. 
    “Homosexual
    marriage” mirrors abortion, in that it is also objectionable to the
    majority of Americans of all political party affiliations, and there is
    no legal precedent or Constitutional argument in its’ favor. So why are so many Americans, especially those who believe in G-d, so willing to capitulate?
    After reading Rush’s logic and many commenters on this thread, now I understand how Roe vs Wade prevailed.

    • Laurel A

      Judges718 Americans accepted it with the same pseudo intellectualism they do with things now. Remember a lot of women became pregnant by being lured into the sack, quite common at the time, then left with no financial or legal recourse. We also had the issue of women doing the luring to as well. Times have changed but the bend in the road is still ignored now as it was then.

  • Jayrae

    Rush has been hanging out with the GOP establishment crowd since he got too friendly with W. The gopE has been using Rush to get the base to accept things. I stopped listening to Rush last January and I was a 24/7 member.

    Case in point. During the GOP primary Newt attacked Etch-a-sketch for what he did while at Bain. What he did was despicable! Capitalism is not acquiring companies that have tons of cash, pocketing the cash, loading them up with debt and then cannibalizing them. What Etch-a-sketch did was unconscionable.
     If you remember Rush attacked Newt for his criticism. That’s when I knew the fix was in and stopped listening to him.
    I thank Rush for what he has done in the past but he doesn’t have the fight in him any longer. That’s okay. We are here to do the heavy lifting. We will follow Palin, West, and Cruz.
    In my humble opinion you can keep the rest.

    • K-Bob

      Jayrae Rush was totally correct to criticize Newt. Newt was using the language of the left in attacking Romney’s time at Bain.  Newt essentially lost his momentum by doing that, and then choking in a debate against Romney.
      Failing to stand on principle and angling for a win by way of some trick or accusation is why Newt lost to Romney, and Romney lost to Obama.

      • Laurel A

        K-Bob Jayrae Good analysis.

      • Jayrae

        K-Bob Jayrae I’m sorry. I work in the financial markets. What Etch-a-sketch did is not capitalism. Rush was wrong. Capitalists don’t destroy.

        • K-Bob

          Jayrae K-Bob Congratulations. Now learn a fact: Bain salvaged several companies, and made others into major successes.  That’s capitalism.  You don’t have to like it.

    • Laurel A

      Jayrae That is not what Bain did at all. I don’t know where you got that information but it is patently false.
      You are another that needs to have some objective introspection and not be so quick to throw your own under the bus. And take note Newt changed course after the criticism but it was too late. If Rush wasn’t right Newt wouldn’t of done it.

      • K-Bob

        Laurel A Jayrae It’s that anti-corporatist rhetoric from the Ron Paul camp springing up again.  The Ronulans and the leftists both just refuse to see the difference between crony capitalism (the real corporatists, Like GE) and corporations, in general.

        • Laurel A

          K-Bob Laurel A Jayrae Yes.

  • The Sentinel

    Rush is right on this.
    As for me, I will NEVER acknowledge homesexual marriage – there is no such thing. God intended marriage to be between a man, a woman, and God – like three strands of a rope… perfectly entwined. Gad made woman from Adam’s rib… they were made for each other. Homosexuals are not.
    Now that I’ve ticked some people off, let me finish with this. This is nothing more than the “next crisis”, manufactured by the left. It distracts us and keeps our attention away from what’s really important – like the economy and Obama’s lawlessness.
    We are so easily led away.

    • Laurel A

      The Sentinel I don’t know about that. I am quite capable of walking and chewing bubble gum.

      • The Sentinel

        Laurel A The Sentinel  
        That’s because you’re awake and paying attention. :)

  • Suzyqpie

    I have long thought that the IRS would put the brakes on gay marriage. I can “marry” my friend of 40 yrs, Doris, and cut the IRS out of their cut of my estate, assets travel freely between spouses. Look at all of us wealth “little old ladies” in assisted living facilities. “Marry” your assisted living neighbor and avoid the IRS. I would trust Doris to share the money with my children more than I would trust, thee, haha, IRS.

    • Laurel A

      Suzyqpie That is exactly what is going to happen.

  • Martin2717

    Here’s a thought. How about the government stay out of the marriage business? We’d be better off.

    • http://www.911dj.com glegakis

      Martin2717 Why not stay out of the morality business completely while we’re at it.   Free abortions for everyone!

      • Martin2717

        glegakis Martin2717 Yes, by my comment you replied to means I’m for abortion. /s

    • Laurel A

      Martin2717 Too late for that argument. It is a misnomer and a ruse.

  • Nan231

    Rush needs to put his money where his mouth is and fight for some of these issues.  I always thought the problem was his mesmerizing of the audience. He lulls them into thinking they are fighting for something just by listening to him. Unfortunately words have to be turned into action in order to accomplish goals. So far, Rush has refused to used his strength to mobilize his audience. 
    Not to mention how the left uses our politeness and manners against us.  They roil their supporters by bastardizing the right, knowing that the good and decent people on the right would never respond in the same manner.  As a result there doesn’t appear to be enthusiasm/passion/support for an issue on on the right .  The left relies on this to carry them across the finish line.

  • http://www.911dj.com glegakis

    If Republicans start to flip on this issue they will lose elections for decades,  and probably lose the party. 
    If you think Christians stayed home in ’08 and’ 12,  wait until ’16.

  • DailyKenn

    Taking on water. In time, the boat sinks

    • kimber1911

      DailyKenn  I could not have said it better myself

  • StevenValdez

    Issues the Government does that bothers, just a quick list off the top of my head. There’s more just can’t list them all.. 
    Government spending too much
    Government taxing too much
    Government in the way of Economic and Job Growth
    Government eroding the 2nd amendment 
    Government using tax dollars to pay for abortions
    Government not securing the border
    Not on the list, 
    Government saying any man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman can form a union and marry.
    But it would bother me if the Government forced churches, religious institutions or businesses to do something against their faith.

    • Mokadoka

      StevenValdez    Well then you dont care about Gov spending too much or taxing too much.
      Government doesnt say who can form a “union”  Anyone can have a ceremony and commit to each other
      Government however needs a compelling reason to do something .  It has a compelling reason to record the legal marriages of monogamous heterosexuals , because it empowers children , in a couurt of law, rep’d by the State . to enforce the biological responsibility of fathers to their children 
      This means LESS spending on welfare and LOWER taxes to pay for it.
      The government does not have a compellling reason to record the relationships of polygamists, .beause the Courts can not assume biological parenthood of any child .
      The government does not have a compellling reason to record the relationships of homosexusl because they can no every make a child together. It’s phsycially and genetically impossible
      Maybe you should start carrying about the welfare of very real children

      • StevenValdez

        Mokadoka You can be married and not have children in this country, you know. And then there’s adoption, you don’t need to be biological parents to be parents.

        • Laurel A

          StevenValdez Mokadoka Yes but it is till in the interst of the state for that to happen because married couples live longer and retain more wealth. They are healthier and more self sufficient.

          As to adoption…history hasn'[t proven that it’s negative or positive. Right now it’s mixed. Some kids have real trouble with being adopted and others don’t. What is whispered about but never spoken out loud is children of gays have a lot of hang ups and problems. Lots of books written on this topic by children of gays.

    • Laurel A

      StevenValdez Then you should be bothered because that is already happening. Businesses are getting sued for refusing to cater to homosexuals because it’s against their religion. Use your search engine and check it out. It’s happening quite a bit.

    • stage9

      StevenValdez I’m very glad you feel that way about churches, because that’s on the homosexual’s list:
      http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/index.html#churches

  • c4pfan

    That’s why I don’t listen to Rush anymore.  I don’t agree that it’s lost!

  • Godisright

    As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be when the Son of Man returns. Sin has an exponential affect upon people and things. The effect of sin is death – there is really not much more to add. God has set blessing and curses before us  – OUR choice determines the outcome. Jumping off a building without a parachute – you would enjoy a few moments of seeming to defy gravity, but you will eventually meet an equal and opposite force that will not allow you to proceed any longer.

  • clockwindingdown

    Wonderful to see so many trolls here marching to their orders, it means the left is being hit very hard and pulling out the stops. We see them clearly, they show up like flies but bring their own dung with them and start flinging  it hoping to stir things up. All they are really doing is showing we are winning, we are a threat, they are a minority,  and they are in fear!

  • deTocqueville1

    Unfortunately it is Rush who is lost and has been for some time now. He has become a despairing apologist so often for the left. Sad as he was once a lion warrior.

    • Laurel A

      deTocqueville1I disagree…and it isn’t just Rush that is saying this. If we don’t start getting honest with ourselves and stop with the automatic knee jerk reaction-ism instead of honest assessment and introspection then it is over for this country. Rush is still a warrior. BTW…even if gay marriage passes it still can be made obsolete by reforming the tax code.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_supreme_court_and_faux-marriage_fallacies.html

    • K-Bob

      deTocqueville1 I only catch bits of his show a few times per month, plus what Scoop posts here, so I may have missed something, but I have never once heard him be an “apologist” for the left.
      His point isn’t that the left is good, it’s that the Rockerfeller Republicans, the RINOs, and too many Conservatives have frequently abandoned all principle in this fight, opting instead to appeal to the scumbags in the media in a vain effort to win votes.

      • Laurel A

        K-Bob deTocqueville1 Exactly. People don’t seem to realize that Ted Olsen is one of the lawyers arguing before the SCOTUS for homosexual marriage.

        • K-Bob

          Laurel A K-Bob deTocqueville1 And he was one of the strong contenders for a SCOTUS appointment by “W”.  Strange times.

        • PhillyCon

          Laurel A K-Bob deTocqueville1 Excellent point, Laurel.

  • Laurel A

    Once any argument descends into the emotional it becomes difficult to combat. The lef tis comprised of a bunch of people that suffer from arrested development. The right is the parent that has to be the bad guy in the parent child relationship and say “No!” as well as listen to the ensuing temper tantrums. Unfortunately too many on the right (80 Republicans that signed amicus brief) have caved into the temper tantrums replete with emotional thinking.
    The world is getting tough. It is time for tough people.

  • JohnCraven

    God took a rib from Adam and from it created Eve.  He didn’t take a rib from Adam and from it create Steve.
    And God commanded our ancestors to go forth and multiply and subdue the earth.
    Had God created Steve from Adam’s rib and not Eve, we would not have had Cain and Able or any of us because there would have been no woman to cleave to a man and produce children.  Two men can never produce children together nor can two women and this is exactly why homosexuality is so highly promoted by so many of our cultural “elites” because it is a form of population control through the promotion of sexual unions which produce no offspring. 
    In China, for example, because of their evil one-child policy which forces couples to kill any children, except their first child, the Chinese population has become heavily skewed in the direction of many more males than females and consequently this leaves many Chinese men with no hope of ever having children and has led to an increase in the sex slave trade throughout China which steals women from places such as North Korea for sale as brides in China to desperate men.
    If we are to have a future, as Americans, as human beings, we must reproduce ourselves and marriage is both a privilege and a responsibility we’ve been given as a way to protect the rights of both man and woman and their progeny, if any.
    John Craven – New Orleans

  • Judges718

    Ask yourself two questions.  How does the left view these comments by Rush?  Do his comments encourage or discourage them?

  • libertifirst

    Both the left and the right succeeded in making this an issue when the started transforming this country into a socialist society. Now that socialism has penetrated almost every aspect of society, equal rights to this socialism has become an issue. Marriage is being redefined by the left to accommodate homosexuals in the socialist system. Otherwise, there would be no issue. In a free society, homos can do whatever they want, and there is no public issue, and so can everyone else. 
    The left may redefine a lot of things by changing the language that is used, but we didn’t lose this battle just because of that. We lost the moral definition because we are forced into providing equal justice for all, and the socialist system is the only reason that this is required. 
    I agree with Rush that the battle has been lost, but it is because the right is blind to the consequences of the socialist tyranny that they helped create, and still support. If there was no “Social” Security, marriage status wouldn’t be an issue. If there was no insurance mandates in the law, marriage wouldn’t play into it. If there was no socialist tax code, marriage wouldn’t be factored into that. 
    Why is this so hard to understand, an why do people think that the right is doing anything substantive to solve the problem when they don’t even talk about the core issue that is used to destroy the traditional definition of marriage? 
    The right is missing the cause, but the language that Rush is talking about is just a small tactic compared to the core issues here.

    • TheRedWriter

      libertifirst This is the best comment I’ve read on this issue so far.  This kind of intelligence only comes from Libertarians.  I’d give it 1,000 likes if I could.

      • libertifirst

        Thank you, sir. I hope it catches on.

    • Gtrjag

      libertifirst I believe that Rush and most conservatives would agree with you, and by Conservatives I mean real Conservatives not Republican Progressives.

      • libertifirst

        Republican politicians and pundits don’t seem to even mention getting rid of the social systems anymore. I think they just quit about 20 years ago. Bush 1 kinda got the republican progressive globalist movement going strong, and the subject evaporated.

        • Gtrjag

          libertifirst There is a difference between Republican and Conservative.

  • alankh

    Lesson: NEVER EVER EVER ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE OF THE LEFT.
    The left changed the meaning of marriage a lot earlier than a lot of people realize. That happened in the early Sexual Revolution, when Elton John was still bisexual and Pluto was still a planet. Officially-sanctioned marriage had always been a public contract between the married party and society, the married party bound to each other and society bound to refrain from jumping the claim. Marriage was necessary for preparing children for adulthood, and for keeping the market for mates peaceable and orderly.
    Some societies allowed polygamy so that special interests – elite males – could corner the market on babes. In some unusual cases private citizens experimented in unsanctioned polygamy/group marriage, in cases when there was a shortage of one gender. (I’m told that at one time Chinese laborers in America engaged in polyandry due to the lack of Chinese women and the taboo against marrying non-Chinese women.)
    Marriage was always heterosexual. For whatever reasons, those societies that didn’t condemn homosexuality didn’t see any reason to regulate it as they regulated heterosexual pairings via marriage.

    The sexual revolutionaries told us that marriage was just some private thing that people did out of sentiment. This divorced marriage not only from the public sphere but also from responsibility. (No wonder the Left delegates so much of the socialization of children to the government schools.) You didn’t have to have marriage for sex or children. If you do marry, it’s no big deal if the marriage doesn’t last.
    So how could the cultural left avoid calling for same-sex “marriage?”

  • DEEKAYBEE

    I agree. Being an adoptive parent, I am sensitized to the number of times I note the usage of real parents to mean bilogical parents. If the left was worked up on adoption and not abortion, that distinction would have been in the vernacular.

  • graywolf4life

    if the church stand up for its beliefs then there will be no same sex  marriage rights performed by anyone other than a judge in a civil union.  If this does not occur then we will be judged by the almighty.

  • suzy000

    I don’t think so.  SCOTUS is going to send this back to the states.  Why?  Because they are not going to open up a can of worms.  If they mess with this….others will come out of the woodwork to challenge another marriage law on the books….polygamy.  Does anyone have a good legal argument to ban polygamy without using religion?  This is what the liberals keep asking us…and even some GOP…give a good reason why two men cannot marry and keep religion out of it they say.  So…the Justices are already way ahead of us and have been down this thought process road and want NO parts of it.  Betcha Two Dollars to a Donut they put it back to the states!

    • K-Bob

      suzy000 That would be an excellent outcome.

  • palintologist

    The gist I got out of this was when Rush said this would — if okayed by the SCOTUS — go down just like Roe v Wade.  It would be contentious.  If you were adamantly opposed to it, you were always going to be opposed to it.  In other words, gays might think they are legislating you into acceptance, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.  In fact, I think it will just make the anti’s dig in their heels.

  • dover

    What Rush said is that the left has co-opted the WORD “marriage” ! By definition marriage IS a binding of a man to a woman-period. But, the left kept attaching- same sex & marriage- together. Thus “marriage” came under attack- not the union, or contract or whatever of same sex benefits thru partnership.  “Gay” was a nice word and a person’s name for a long time but again the liberals co-opted it and it it’s meaning became something entirely different. liberals always take a person, place, thing, word etc. and mangle it to obfuscate their real agenda. THIS is the conversation that must be had.

    • applepie101

      Good point. We should reclaim that territory, start using these English words again with their proper meaning. If we can accomplish that, I’ll be happy and gay.

      • K-Bob

        applepie101 That’s the style!
        Same sex unions are not “marriage.”  Calling them marriages will not magically make them so.

  • NJK

    Rush just said that the students at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine graduating class, has asked that Dr. Ben Carson be removed as their commencement speaker? He has stepped aside. 
    Exactly what qualifies as a physician attending medical school now? I guess you have to be a bonafide commie pinko to attend now. How sad, to have a brilliant man who has helped so many children treated this way. My son was once a patient there. 
    If anyone has any contact info. for these students, please post it here. They need to be told what absolute ingrates they are. 
    I did manage to find a contact number where you can leave a message. We need to fight for this good man.
    For questions and additional information, please call 410-516-7711 or email commencement@jhu.edu.

  • DebbyX

    Okay, now I’m really sad. I just don’t see us coming back to the way of life we all grew up with.  Honestly, the days where Lucy and Rickie slept in separate beds with pj’s on were the best of times.  At least we still a some innocence left in our childhood to savor and look back on with nostalgia. What are our kids going to look back on? Nothing good, that’s for sure.

  • DebbyX

    I gotta go have a beer now.  That was a real bummer.

  • applepie101

    This is not about marriage, it’s about acceptance, and congress can’t legislate acceptance.

    • K-Bob

      applepie101 Too right.