All Episodes
Previous Next
May 14, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
May 14, 2012, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
From the EIB Northern Command, New York City.
How's everybody doing on this Monday?
Rush is back tomorrow.
Numbers the same, 1 800, 282, 2882.
Website the same.
Always go to Rush Limbaugh.com.
Even when the fill-in guys have the microphone for just a day here and a day there.
But again, Rush is back tomorrow.
Alrighty, we have hit the ground running on a number of issues.
Let us continue, whether it's JP Morgan Chase or some gay marriage talk or various 2012 angles.
Let me um uh lay down a uh a couple of uh fresh pastry layers of topicality here because we've talked a lot about how the gay marriage uh issue and the president's posture on it would affect the presidential race, an obvious big deal.
But what about the United States Senate?
Because there are those who feel that Republican control of the Senate is as big a deal as regaining the presidency.
I think those people are mistaken.
If you give me a choice and I only get one, give me the presidency.
Uh I, of course, I'm gonna get greedy here.
Hey, I'm a Republican, we get greedy, wink wink, nudge nudge.
Uh I want a Republican White House and a Republican Senate.
To go along with a Republican House.
And in fact, if somebody's listening and going, Oh, this is not that's not real greed.
Look, we had one party rule for a while, right?
Hasn't the Democrat, hasn't the liberal way of doing things pretty well held sway largely for the better part of fifty or sixty years?
How about and I know we had Republican presidents in there, I'm well aware, especially Reagan, who changed the direction of many things and in a direction in which they remain changed today, but I'm talking about an era ushering in an era in which the House, the Senate, and the White House are all pretty well on the same page about reducing the size of government.
We've certainly had White Houses, houses of representatives, and Senates that have all been on board for making government bigger, and a lot of times those were under Republican control.
So wouldn't it just be crazy refreshing?
Give us two years, give us four years, see what happens.
Watch the Earth not spin wildly out of its orbit and crash into the asteroid field or something if government actually got smaller.
Watch everything actually be okay.
Watch some things actually get better.
Wouldn't that be something?
No, the reason I'm waxing semi-eloquent about all of this, uh, is that I want to take a look at the U.S. Senate and some interesting positioning of some people on gay marriage.
Alexander Bolton had a great story in The Hill at the Hill.com a couple days ago.
Senate Democrats facing difficult reelections are breaking with President Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage, a sign that the issue is politically dangerous in battleground states.
Senators John Tester of Montana and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, the two most vulnerable Democrat senators, have declined to endorse Obama's call for the legalization of gay marriage.
Senators Joe Manchin in West Virginia, Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, Bill Nelson in Florida.
These are Democrats who have easier races, but in states that could become more competitive by November, they have also backed away from Obama's stance.
They all represent states with constitutional amendments or laws.
Uh-oh.
Gotta say to Mr. Bolton here, for shame, sir, for shame a little bit, and I mean that affectionately.
Banning same-sex marriage.
There's no such thing as a ban on same-sex marriage.
No such thing.
Gays can get married anywhere they wish, anytime they wish.
The only question is, will those marriages get legal equality with heterosexual union?
So just everyone, please stop this.
This crazy language about a gay marriage ban.
There is no such thing.
And if you missed my rant in the first hour about this, there are three components to marriage.
There's the religious angle, the social angle, and the legal angle.
How religious your marriage is is your business, nobody else's.
The social component of marriage, how married you are according to your friends and family, that's their business as well.
None of mine, none of anybody else's.
The only thing that's the public's business is the legality of gay marriage and whether legal recognition of it.
And there's no place in which it is going to be illegal for two men or two women to go marry somewhere and be considered as married as anybody else by their friends, family, loved ones, etc., etc., etc.
So any time you see a story in which there's a talk of a gay marriage ban, that is some journalistic sloppiness.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed predicted Thursday the Democratic Party would adopt a pro-gay marriage plank in its platform.
While that may happen when delegates to the Democratic National Convention meet uh in September in Charlotte, North Carolina, the party remains divided, and with that, let us go and throw a little love to Proud Rush affiliate news talk 1110 WBT in Charlotte.
Are you guys ready for the Democratic Convention to come to you in Charlotte?
Will it in fact be coming?
The answer is yes.
The answer is yes.
But the state of North Carolina, in a story that uh that Bo gave me this morning, is particularly interesting.
North Carolina is a state that President Obama won in 2012.
He also won Virginia.
The prediction game is a very dangerous one.
Heaven knows any of us who have shows for a living have learned that uh uh it it is a double-edged sword.
It can make you look really good, it can make you look really stupid.
But I'm gonna suggest something to you.
Unless something in the dynamic changes mightily, I don't think President Obama wins North Carolina or Virginia this time out.
Which makes it interesting that the Democrat convention is in North Carolina's largest city, the fine, fine city of Charlotte, North Carolina.
Mitch Weiss of the Associated Press writes as follows.
Once a bright spot for President Barack Obama, North Carolina is now more like a political migraine less than four months before Democrats opened the party's national convention in Charlotte.
And the causes are plenty.
Labor unions, a core Democrat constituency, are up in arms.
Democrat Governor Bev Purdue is not running for reelection.
Democrats say she was likely to lose.
The state Democrat Party is in disarray over an explosive sexual harassment scandal.
Voters recently approved amending the state constitution to oh, here it is again, to ban gay marriage.
Stop it.
Stop it.
No one is banning gay marriage.
Stop it.
Two guys can go marry each other in Charlotte or Nag's head or Winston Salem or Raleigh tomorrow.
The only question is whether those marriages will be the legal equal of heterosexual marriages.
Do I need that on a continuing loop or something?
Ugh Anyway, North Carolina's been in the news a lot lately.
Um now traditional Democratic Party groups are threatening huge protests in part because they're deeply uncomfortable that the convention is being held in one of the least union friendly states.
Thousands of Democrats across the country are calling for the convention to be relocated because of North Carolina's gay marriage vote, and Democrats say that won't happen.
Charlotte is going to host a great convention, says Mayor Anthony Fox, who pushed to bring the event to Charlotte.
They ain't gonna move the convention four months out.
But that is going to be an interesting, interesting enclave of Democrats there in Mecklenburg County.
That's a g it's a great town, it's a great state.
My dad's whole side of the family is from North Carolina, so that's gonna be uh it's gonna be a lot of fun.
Republican Convention is in Tampa the week before the week before, and that gives us a bit of a segue into something else we can do today.
Seems like if I'm, you know, I or the other fill-in guys are here every few weeks or every few months that it's worth putting our finger on the pulse of vice presidential talk, John Thune, Senator of South Dakota was on Fox News Sunday, uh talking about the VEP stakes as it is affectionately called, And I will tell you, the Florida convention thing, though, just to fire off that brain synapse, takes me to some imagery that I've had for a long time.
And that is a convention in Tampa.
Romney accepting the nomination, with Florida's own favorite son Marco Rubio as his running mate.
That has given me the Tingleys for a good long while.
However, however, I come to you today with a change.
I'm not cooling on Rubio.
Love the guy, that's fine.
He might be a little dream act friendly, which is problematic.
But here's the overall vice presidential vibe that I'm carrying around with me these days, and I want to see if if you agree with me on this or or not.
What do Joe Biden and Dick Cheney have in common?
I know.
I know, I know, I know.
Not not so very much.
However, they kind of do.
They were really safe, just bedrock choices, guys who everybody had heard of forever, because they'd been around forever.
Oh, yeah, Cheney, he's been in government forever.
Oh, yeah, Biden, he's been around forever.
And that made them it made them safe.
It made them helpful.
They didn't distract from the nominee.
And of course, the most important thing that Dick Cheney and Joe Biden have in common is they both won, or at least, you know, the top of the ticket won.
So they got to be vice president.
And as the time ticks by here in this already volatile year, there's going to be plenty of volatility.
There is a big part, a growing part of me.
And God bless Marco Rubio and God bless Chris Christie.
And I still don't know what I think about the Condoleez Rice thing.
Everybody's all geeked out about Condi Rice.
I got 50 questions for Condi Rice before I'm remotely interested in her being anybody's running mate.
And I love her, please, especially on national security stuff, but I don't know what Condi Rice thinks about abortion.
I don't know what Condi Rice thinks about gay marriage.
I don't know what Condi Rice thinks of the Second Amendment.
I don't know what Condi's I I got a ton of questions for her before I could glom on to that whole thing.
But anyway, my point being, there are all these hot, sexy, wild, interesting uh, you know, t uh lightning rod names for Romney's running mate.
That made that just might not be the way to go.
Maybe the and the maybe the way to go is follow me here.
Go boring with me.
Go Mitch Daniels, go Rob Portman, go somebody who you just you know what you know about them?
You know they're competent.
You know they're not going to upstage the nominee.
They're not going to be any and Rubio is fantastic.
What's he been around for?
Ten minutes?
Sufficiently vetted doing not that there's stuff in Marco Rubio's closet, I trust the guy enormously.
But there's something comforting about somebody who's really been around for a while.
And here's the thing.
Here's the ultimate thing as we break.
If you as the nominee so urgently need someone hot and exciting to be your running mate, you're in trouble already.
You're in trouble already.
John McCain was in trouble already.
And God bless Governor Palin for the various things that she brings to the table.
But uh that just that didn't work out so well.
And uh so that that is why a Romney Portman, a Romney Daniels, Romney Thoon.
I mean, and there are people who'll go, well, that's just two relatively dry white guys.
Yes, it is.
Um, oh, please find me a thorough I mean uh listen, and maybe uh it doesn't have to be a white guy.
I mean, JC Watts been around a good long time.
Love me some JC Watts.
Getting a little pushback on that, perhaps.
But it has nothing to do with I don't racially, I do not care.
Gender-wise, I do not care.
Yeah, I don't care what the the sex or race of the running mate is, but if the thing that I'm focusing on here is how about somebody who's been around for a good while that we're familiar with, that we know about, no surprises, so somebody that doesn't distract from the nominee and just and just go with that.
Because you know what you're looking for when you're up against Obama, what's the biggest thing you can bring to the table?
Competence, bedrock competence.
The notion that neither the nominee nor the running mate is gonna have to get a crash course on how government even works before they're sworn in.
January 20th, 2013.
Okay, just say it.
Your thoughts are welcome.
1800, 282-2882, Mark Davis in for rush on this Tuesday.
Monday.
Hey there, Mark Davis in for Rush.
Rush is back tomorrow, and you always like your fill and host to have a good command of the facts, and you always like your fill and host to know what day of the week it is.
I'm well aware that it is Monday.
The reason I had Tuesday on the brain is my uh eagerness to tell you that for the Tuesday show, Rush will be back.
All righty, and that's a good thing in many ways.
1-800-282-2882, as we head to Sacramento.
Mike, hey, Mark Davis in for Rush, how are you?
I am good.
How about you?
Great, thanks.
I am just driving, and I was listening to your comments on uh gay marriage.
And um I just first off, I'm a conservative uh heterosexual married man.
And uh I just I didn't agree with a couple of your points.
Um the first one that you get married to have kids, or that that's the primary reason why you get married.
No, careful, that's not that that careful, careful, careful.
That's not the the re the reason why everybody definitely gets married.
There are people who marry with no intention of having kids.
But the reason that the that this that marriage societally exists is to create the structure for the continuance of the species.
Sure, I I agree with that.
But I I know the reason I got married was because I loved my wife, and when I proposed, it was, you know, I want to spend the rest of my life with you, and I love you, and I want to marry you and spend the rest of my life with you.
It really wasn't to have kids.
But here's the thing.
Here's here's what's here's what's important.
Uh do you have kids?
Uh no, I do not.
Okay, and and you may never, and God bless you and your wife, no matter what happens, uh, whatever you want to have happen, I want that to have happen.
But if but for the procreation aspect of it, there would really be not as much, not as much of a need for the institution of marriage.
You guys could hang together for sixty years if you want to, or break up after five, whatever you want to do, it's if it's just between you and your wife, it's just kind of a contract that can live as long as you want it to live.
It is the existence of children who deserve an intact household, that the commitment of marriage and the structure of marriage societally exists.
That's all.
I I agree with that, and I and I think there's plenty of kids out there that are looking for adoption, and I I don't think gay parents would be bad parents for those about the children.
So, all right, careful, careful.
Indeed, I I fully recognize that there are gay parents and single parents doing a bang up job of child rearing.
However, would you differ?
Would you find fault with the following sentence?
That the ideal placement for a child is an adoptive household featuring a man and woman married to each other.
That is the ideal.
Anything other than that is a is is somewhat less than the ideal.
Do you agree with that?
I agree.
Okay, I agree.
Then continue.
But my second point is I didn't didn't understand what you were talking about, women losing their rights at the workplace.
Uh I just I can't I know.
I can't see.
No, well let me give I'll let me give I'll I'll do a 30-second recap here.
Previously on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Uh here's what it is that that if if you if for you and I, if for us to marry a man is the same as marrying a woman, and that is what gay marriage equality will do.
It is it is the law saying marrying a man is the same as marrying a woman, just mathematically, that is the law drawing an equivalency between manhood and womanhood that has other potential hazards.
The drafting of women, weird laws that we laugh about now about hooters guys and unisex bathrooms, things that we that we can laugh out of court now because you're able to go, hello, it's men, it's women, they're different.
The ability to say that is eroded as soon as the law says that for us to marry men is the same as for us to marry women.
The differences between manhood and womanhood are sacred.
They exist for a reason.
Go ahead, I'm sorry.
I know, but I I can't see that ever being used as a precedent as to why a woman would would lose her uh why in the world not.
Why not?
Isn't there I mean, listen, there are a lot of things that and and I'm not a big slippery slope guy that just because you think something's gonna happen, it definitely will, not at all.
But how I mean, did you ever think the government would would own a car company?
Did you ever think that we would have a bailout?
Did you ever think that 9-11 would happen?
Did you ever I think there are a million things I could just because we can't sit here and imagine it, especially in the world of litigiousness, especially in the world of lawsuits and activism, oh restrain yourself.
Anytime you think, oh, there's no way that would ever happen.
I I just can't see it, but I understand what you're saying, but I I just uh I can't see how you a woman would lose her any type of rights in the workplace because the issue with well depends but but by I'm not so much talking about rights as I am about protections.
There are things that that there that women perhaps in pregnancy, that women perhaps uh honestly here's what's kind of funny.
If men and women are exactly the same, you know what might really uh take it on the chin is uh is sexual harassment uh laws.
If if if women are not in a kind of a unique position to be made uncomfortable in the workplace because of their womanhood, uh maybe there's there's all kinds of room to suggest if men and women are really the same thing, then sexual harassment is is is a kind of a non-phenomenon and something to be given the back of our hands and something you know like uh so she's uncomfortable, whatever.
Manhood, womanhood, they are the same.
And I know that these are hyperbolic things that I'm thinking about, that I'm you know pulling them out of of of thin air.
But that's what people will do.
If given the opportunity, if given the opportunity to take a look at manhood and womanhood, motherhood and fatherhood as uh a distinction without a difference, as the same thing.
In into that vacuum, into that arena, will pour all kinds of people looking to engineer society in various crazy, wacky, ridiculous ways that you didn't foresee and that I didn't foresee.
I don't even want to give them that opportunity.
1-800-282-2882, go to Rush Limo.com, even when the fill-in guys are here.
I'm Mark Davis, one of those fill in guys.
Rush is back tomorrow.
Right now that is a continuing Monday rush show, and we'll be back in just a moment.
And it is a Monday from the EIB Northern Command, a welcome to all of you.
As we head down the interstate a bit and uh over into Pennsylvania and go to Cutch Town P. A. Lou, Mark Davis in for Rush.
How are you?
Hi, Mark.
Uh good afternoon.
How are you?
Uh good.
Uh was Colin, you touched earlier in uh the program about the uh bailouts, and it kind of uh reminded me of a situation locally here in Coutstown PA where we had uh somebody had uh two dealerships, a Chrysler and a General Motors, and they folded.
They went out of business.
And this was back with the bailout uh period.
Um initially on the news they said that uh you know the General Motors had made the uh decision that uh this dealership uh wasn't making enough money or whatever the case was, didn't have enough volume, and that's why they lost the uh dealership uh franchise.
Right.
Came to find out that the real reason, and again the local news covered this also, was that it wasn't that they weren't selling enough cars, it was that the fellow who owned the dealership didn't want to conform to what General Motors was doing with all their dealerships, where they had to do um reconstruction on the facades to make them all look the same.
Do tell.
And he wanted nothing to do with that, and that's why uh the two dealerships are gone and all the people are unemployed, and now we have two huge buildings that sit vacant.
As much as I would love to lunge at this opportunity, oh, and I will, if if if if it if the bottom line uh warrants it, uh how how close to the I'm if those businesses were really going well and things were going great, and uh was it the same guy who owned the Chrysler and the GM place?
Yeah, he owned both.
So if he's got Chrysler 300s and Buick Enclaves just going over the curb like uh cotton candy, is boom boom boom, but along comes government with certain aesthetic requirements, and he says that's it, I'm out.
I I think there might there's probably more to the story here a little bit, don't you think?
No, no, no.
He he saw it as a principal issue.
Yes.
He was being told what to do, and he said he wanted nothing to do with it.
He was a well-to-do businessman.
All right.
And just said that's it, I'm done.
Well, that's um so I mean I made a comment to the uh call screener that says, Well, hopefully everybody's got their little red jackets and caps because we're all gonna be in lockstep after a while between Obamacare and uh government motors, what's next?
Lou, I thank you.
I appreciate it very, very much.
I'd love to love to talk to that guy.
Because I mean I I generally generally think if something that that might have been sort of the straw that broke the camel's back.
But if indeed this is a guy who would have been thoroughly, thoroughly pleased to have remained in the car dealership business, but uh along came uh certain government edicts that he didn't want to live with, and so on principle, he shut the doors.
Okay.
Okay.
See that this is the the here's the the pool from which I drink in every way on this issue.
If it's a company doing what a company wishes to do, that's it.
It's your company.
You can do what you want.
Now in this case it was his dealership, and he can do what he wants.
Now, if he is a GM dealer and GM in the in a private sector realm comes down the pike with some memos and says you gotta do this, you gotta do this, you gotta do this.
Well, GM may do whatever it wishes.
But when government's running the show, well, if government is the owner, if government is the uh you know the CEO, then government gets that judgment call.
And that's just not as clean.
That's not the marketplace.
That is a a perversion, a poisoning of the marketplace.
We don't always agree with what businesses do.
We don't always applaud what businesses do.
But if they're making those decisions in the free market, they can do whatever they wish, and then we can either choose to shop there or not, open our dealership or not, close our dealership or not.
But when elected officials are doing this, and when government is, as the saying goes, picking the winners and losers, it's just a big infernal mess.
It's just a mess.
Uh David, you are next on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis Fillman.
How are you?
Hey, good.
Hey, um, I just wanted to say that um uh first of all, I'm a I'm a charter listener, I've been listening since the mid eighties.
Um but I just wanted to say that, you know, JP Morgan doesn't upset me very much when they lose two billion dollars of money that people voluntarily contribute for investments.
What irritates me is when the government's losing six billion dollars a day in deficit spending that they take out of my pocket through the force of law.
That really gets on my nerves a whole lot more than ja anything JP Morgan might be doing.
Well, i e exactly.
I mean, we're sitting here looking at a story in which uh th a company is in trouble for losing a lot of money, ostensibly because of some type of inaptitude, some type of handling of that money that they simply should have been more visionary about.
Well, if that and and then everybody's talking about heads need to roll at JP Morgan Chase.
Really?
Let's follow that logic and let's do it blissfully.
If mismanagement of money, if making boneheaded decisions is the kind of thing that loses you your job, boy, it I could almost do this in my sleep.
It's almost too easy.
What are we to say about government and the degree to which there is vast uh mismanagement of our money, of taxpayer money?
The kinds of things that are done that that the in this JP Morgan Chase story, the taking of a lot of money, putting it where it shouldn't have been, miskept miscalculation of risk, misappropriation of something that should have gone somewhere else.
W whether within the law or without, uh, this is the kind of thing that is the habit that is habit.
It is it is normal daily uh procedure in government, and um and we tolerate that every day.
Yeah, I just um I d I just think that uh i it if the government you know the the Bible tells us that uh you know you pull your own plank out of your own eye before you try to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.
Well, I think the government needs to pull a bunch of planks out of their eye before they start telling private business how to remove the specs from their eyes.
Exactly.
Because they're certainly wasting a great deal more money than private business ever thought about, and nobody's lost their jobs over it.
Well, hopefully in November they will.
Absolutely true.
Absolutely true.
Appreciate the call from Amarilla, David.
Thank you so much.
And and indeed there it is, it is it is comical when people in government uh uh wag a finger at at people in the private sector for mismanagement of money.
It's like what?
Who are you lecturing?
And and in one of the the prime examples.
Uh here is President Obama taking a uh uh a full length ad to criticize Mitt Romney's business credentials.
Really?
I I would think that anybody criticizing Mitt Romney's business credentials, am I just being unfair here and suggesting that anyone taking issue with Mitt Romney's business credentials should perhaps actually have some business credentials?
Just saying.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Davis in for us.
We'll be right back.
Little vintage Commodores.
and that didn't Did Lionel Richie just get bounced from a show?
Um help me out.
Like, yeah, we got time to do this.
Uh okay, though like we're making another what is it, duets or something with Kelly Clarkson and Robin Thick and John Legend and uh Jennifer Nettles from Sugarland.
God cracked I can't f I've I know that, but I can't find my car keys.
Um but Lionel Richie was in there for a bit, and I guess duets is the contestants get to come in and um and sing with already established singers.
We clearly, clearly these these reality shows, these um competition shows are just a big old rock of crack for people because we're from dancing with the stars to idle, America's got talent debuts tonight.
We just uh we we just eat this stuff.
Uh you know, I I got a tiny theory about it.
I have a tiny, tiny theory about it.
Because in a world especially in a TV world where so much is canned and so predictable, it's it's the same reason that sports remains popular.
You know, if it's an NBA playoff game or something that's going on right now, I mean you you you truly do not know exactly how it's gonna turn out.
If it's an episode of something that's written by human beings, chances are it's just very predictable and very canned and very you know, ho hum.
But if it's a sporting event or if it's some wacky competition show or not wacky competition show, or we're down to the final three on idle.
I'm a Philip Phillips guy myself, and so is my bride.
Let's go to the phones.
I think that's part of what this popularity is, is that in this world of so many things that are canned and predictable, you you never really know how the voting is gonna go on idle or dancing with the stars or or what bizarre things somebody's gonna do on America's Got Talent or or something like that.
There you go.
I have no idea what lesson to learn from that.
Let's see what's going on in other somewhat meatier issues, shall we?
Let us go to Carlsbad, California.
Tony Mark Davison for Rush.
How are you?
Hi, how are you?
Doing great.
Um I've never listened to your show.
I've never heard of you.
I just happened to turn on the radio today.
Have you heard of Rush or have you just never heard of me, Phil?
Okay.
You're familiar with that, but never been with us for a while.
Well, it's nice to meet you.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
No problem.
I just wanted to let you know, freedom of choice is not just for abortion anymore.
Yes.
Okay.
This is America.
Everyone has the right to choose who they want to marry.
And if you're gonna exclude people because they cannot procreate, then why are married people getting abortions?
Why are sterilized and barren people allowed to marry?
Why is a man allowed to marry three or four times?
And what is a man?
Is a deadbeat data man?
Is a man who marries three or four times a man, is a man who smokes every day in front of his kids and doesn't eat right and takes them to Carls Jr.
Is that a good parent?
In this in in a very interesting sixty seconds, you've given me some things to agree with and some things to disagree with.
Let's let's let's let's on.
I'm sure you do.
Let's break them down.
If you heard when we first brought this up, the notion of whom someone marries, I'm prepared to observe as nobody else's business.
Two guys going to get married?
Well, you're talking about my own.
Tut tut, if I may.
What does become everyone's business is not your ability to marry, you have the ability to get married.
Then your marriage is my business?
Uh whether it is legally recognized as the equal of heterosexual marriage, yes it is.
Well, how do I know you're a good parent?
You don't.
But that's not relevant.
That's not relevant.
Correct.
The ideal situation is for two parents, a man and a woman, who don't get divorced.
Correct.
Who don't remarry, correct?
Don't cheat on their spouse.
Correct.
Who don't smoke, correct?
Don't eat bad.
All correct.
Okay.
But in there somewhere you've listed couples do you know that fit into that category?
Uh not nearly enough.
Not nearly enough.
Absolutely, absolutely.
None.
Nobody's perfect.
Everyone none.
You're not aware of a single straight couple filled with uh monogamous non smokers.
You need to get out more.
I said nobody's perfect.
Suppose they don't eat right, okay?
Suppose they're not taking their medication they're supposed to take.
Right, no, I understand.
All of these things you've brought up.
All of these things have merit.
You you have some very very good points in there, but they come sort of in two lists.
The things that law can do something about and the things that law cannot do something about.
At least for the moment, we're not gonna have diet police and go in and make sure that the parents are are are are feeding the kids right.
But we Can as a matter of law choose which marriages are going to enjoy the I'll I'll finish a sentence and you will too.
It'll be great.
Uh that we can, as a matter of law, determine which marriages get legal recognition and which do not.
And there is a difference in the adoption thing, for example.
And you're losing your grip.
I beg your pardon?
You're not going to be able to stop gay people from getting married, and you're getting married.
I'm not trying to stop gay people from getting married.
It's not it is none of my business.
You're judging.
But it is my butt.
Yes, it is.
Why are married people getting abortions?
That is well, that's that's that has nothing to do with what pe what people do with a marriage that they are blessed with becomes their business.
The reason the institution of marriage junk.
Wow, wow, dude, you gotta help me out here.
That's not a good parent.
I agree with you.
I agree with you.
But let me ask you one thing, this will be an interesting touchstone.
If let's say you and I run an adoption agency, and wouldn't that be an interesting day at work?
And we have two households into which we can place a child.
And both are loving households, non-smokers, and good dietary rules.
Household A Can I please finish the premise, please.
In household in house in ho, it didn't that I I appreciate it.
In household A, married man and mar in household A, married man and woman.
Household B, gay couple, right?
Okay, well, I'll be able to do it.
Is that is that exactly the same, or is one of those a somewhat better destination than the other?
Well, I'd have to ask.
Which couple is um faithful to each other?
Both of them.
Both of them.
All other things being equal.
All other things being equal for the premise of the question.
Okay, well, then it means it wouldn't matter which couple.
If everyone's equal to the water, and with that I have my answer.
I get the feeling that I have my answer.
Exactly right.
I am against equality for things that are not equal.
You believe that it is the same thing for a child to go into a house without a fun dude.
I love you.
I gotta finish a sentence here.
You've been given that honor.
I've got to tell you that I'm against equality for things that are not equal.
You believe that it is the same thing for a child to go into a house with a mother and a father versus a child going into a house with no mother or with no father.
Okay, well, first of all, if you were going to adopt a kid, I would not allow you to because you're a bigot.
I'm no such thing.
I am no such allow a bigot to adopt a child.
But I'm no such thing.
No.
I'm not saying there's not equality by straight people, okay?
Okay.
Who who raises?
Who who creates all these gay people?
Straight people do.
Well, not by intent we don't.
How many gay people do you know that were raised by gay people?
Virtually none.
I don't believe that's something we catch from us.
But why are all you straight people raising gay kids and then telling them they're not equal?
Because anybody who holds a standard of maintaining a unique legal definition for man-woman marriage does so on principle, not from bigotry.
It's the easiest, it's the easiest trick in the book.
Not at all.
Not at all.
Yes, you do.
I don't have a lot of.
See, here is your quandary.
I d and this is and I love you.
This is a great call.
I don't have a homophobic bone in my body.
Oh my God.
You just uh for you to say that you just can't handle it.
A joke because you're saying I'm not eating.
You're trying to take my own.
No, I'm not saying that you are not.
No, this this has nothing to do with my value of you as a human being, nothing whatsoever.
But I know this lady that's had ten abortions, okay.
Sherry Shepard has had ten abortions on the butt and she's against same-sex marriage.
Okay.
Okay.
What the hell kind of a hypocrisy is that?
Uh well, they are on different issues, and I but that that's that's fine.
But generally speaking, yes, in in terms of I I I have no qu no comment whatsoever to make about your value as a human being.
I have no lesser diminished opinion about you about you as a as a human being, none.
But to say that that that a same-sex union is is exactly the same thing as a heterosexual union is simply a a misstatement of fact.
And in terms of the adoption thing, which was a lot of the the locomotive that ran the argument I made in the first hour, that if in one household a child can have a mother and a father, and in the other household, there's either a mother missing or a father missing, and that's okay.
That's that's all that's all I really need.
That's all I really need to make this argument.
This non homophobic argument that uh the the the the obliteration of of these lines takes us down that road because motherhood and fatherhood do mean something.
And a child does deserve both a mother and father.
Mark Davison Farush, back in a moment.
Uh th th this seems like as good a time as any to uh share the big Twitter feed.
If you want to follow me on Twitter, either because you just love me or can't stand me and just want to keep track of what I'm doing.
Mark Davis on Twitter, M-A-R-K-D-A-V-I-D-A-V-I-S.
Follow me on Twitter.
It is an honor to be here anytime for Rush and be able to toss that out for you.
I deeply, deeply appreciate it.
All right, in a minute, a story of a very interesting 9-11 widower headed to testify in Guantanamo.
▲
Export Selection