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.
Number is the same, 1-800-282-2882.
Website the same.
Always go to rushlimbaugh.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 J.P. Morgan Chase or some gay marriage talk or various 2012 angles.
Let me lay down a couple of fresh pastry layers of topicality here because we've talked a lot about how the gay marriage 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.
Of course, I'm going to get greedy here.
Hey, I'm a Republican.
We get greedy.
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
I want a Republican White House and a Republican Senate to go along with the Republican House.
And in fact, if somebody's listening and going, oh, this matters, 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 50 or 60 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.
Your 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 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 theHill.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, 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.
Got to say to Mr. Bolton here, for shame, sir, for shame a little bit.
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 unions?
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 it's 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, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So anytime you see a story in which there's a talk of a gay marriage ban, that is some journalistic sloppiness.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 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 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 Beau 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 it is a double-edged sword.
It can make you look really good.
It can make you look really stupid.
But I'm going to 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 Perdue is not running for re-election.
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.
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 Nagshead 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?
Anyway, North Carolina has been in the news a lot lately.
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 going to move the convention four months out.
But that is going to be an interesting, interesting enclave of Democrats there in Mecklenburg County.
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 going to 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 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 tinglies 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 you agree with me on this or not.
What do Joe Biden and Dick Cheney have in common?
I know.
I know, I know, I know.
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'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 Condoleezza 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 Condy.
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, you know, lightning rod names for Romney's running mate.
That just might not be the way to go.
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, and Rubio is fantastic.
What's he been around for?
10 minutes?
Sufficiently vetted?
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 that just, that didn't work out so well.
And so that is why a Romney Portman, a Romney Daniels, Romney Thune.
I mean, and there are people who will go, well, that's just two relatively dry white guys.
Yes, it is.
Oh, please find me a thorough.
I mean, listen, maybe it doesn't have to be a white guy.
I mean, J.C. Watts has 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, racially, I do not care.
Gender-wise, I do not care.
Yeah, I don't care what the sex or race of the running mate is.
But 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, somebody that doesn't distract from the nominee 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 going to have to get a crash course on how government even works before they're sworn in.
January 20th, 2013.
Okay, just saying.
Your thoughts are welcome.
1-800-282-2882, 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-in host to have a good command of the facts.
And you always like your fill-in-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 eagerness to tell you that for the Tuesday show, Rush will be back.
All right.
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 gay marriage.
And I just, first off, I'm a conservative, heterosexual, married man.
And I just, I didn't agree with a couple of your points.
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 careful.
Careful, careful.
That's not the reason why everybody definitely gets married.
There are people who marry with no intention of having kids.
But the reason that marriage societally exists is to create the structure for the continuance of the species.
Sure, I agree with that.
But 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.
It really wasn't to have kids.
But here's the thing: here's what's important.
Do you have kids?
No, I do not.
Okay, and you may never, and God bless you and your wife, no matter what happens, whatever you want to have happen, I want that to have happen.
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 60 years if you want to, or break up after five, whatever you want to do.
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 agree with that, and I think there's plenty of kids out there that are looking for adoption.
And I don't think gay parents would be bad parents for those adopted children.
All right, careful, careful.
Indeed, 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 somewhat less than the ideal.
Do you agree with that?
I agree.
Okay, then continue.
But my second point is: I didn't understand what you were talking about, women losing their rights at the workplace.
I just, I can't, I know, I can't speak.
No, let me give, I'll do a 30-second recap here.
Previously, on the Rush Limbaugh show, here's what it is: that 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 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 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 can't see that ever being used as a precedent as to why a woman would lose for why in the world not?
Why not?
Isn't there?
I mean, listen, there are a lot of things that, and I'm not a big slippery slope guy that just because you think something's going to happen, it definitely will, not at all.
But I mean, did you ever think the government 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, like, there are a million things I could mention 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 just can't see it, but I understand what you're saying, but I just can't see how a woman would lose her any type of rights in the workplace because it depends.
I'm not so much talking about rights as I am about protections.
There are things that women perhaps in pregnancy, that women perhaps, honestly, here's what's kind of funny.
If men and women are exactly the same, you know what might really take it on the chin is sexual harassment laws.
If women are not in a kind of a unique position to be made uncomfortable in the workplace because of their womanhood, maybe there's all kinds of room to suggest if men and women are really the same thing, then sexual harassment is kind of a non-phenomenon and something to be given the back of our hands and something, you know, like 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 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 a distinction without a difference, as the same thing, 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 rushlimbo.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, there 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 over into Pennsylvania and go to Cutchtown PA Lou.
Mark Davis in for Rush.
How are you?
Hi, Mark.
Good afternoon.
How are you?
Good.
Colin, you touched earlier in the program about the bailouts.
And it kind of reminded me of a situation locally here in Kutz South, PA where we had somebody had two dealerships, a Chrysler and a General Motors, and they folded.
They went out of business.
And this was back with the bailout period.
Initially on the news, they said that General Motors had made the decision that this dealership wasn't making enough money or whatever the case was, didn't have enough volume, and that's why they lost the dealership 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 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 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 the bottom line warrants it, how close to the – if those businesses were really going well and things were going great, was it the same guy who owned the Chrysler and the GM place?
Yeah, he owned both.
So he's got Chrysler 300s and Buick Enclaves just going over the curb like cotton candy is boom, boom, boom.
But along comes government with certain aesthetic requirements, and he says, that's it, I'm out.
I think there's probably more to the story here a little bit, don't you think?
No, no, no.
He saw it as a principal issue that 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 all.
So, I mean, I made a comment to the call screener.
I said, well, hopefully everybody's got their little red jackets and caps because we're all going to be in lockstep after a while between Obamacare and Government Motors.
What's next?
Lou, I thank you.
I appreciate it very, very much.
I'd love to talk to that guy.
Because, I mean, I generally think if something 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 along came certain government edicts that he didn't want to live with, and so on principle, he shut the doors.
Okay.
Okay.
See, this is the here's 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 a private sector realm comes down the pike with some memos and says, you got to do this, you got to do this, you got to 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 CEO, then government gets that judgment call.
And that's just not as clean.
That's not the marketplace.
That is 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.
David, you are next on The Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis Philippe.
How are you?
How are you doing, Mark?
Hey, good.
Hey, I just wanted to say that first of all, I'm a charter listener.
Been listening since the mid-80s.
But I just wanted to say that, you know, JP Morgan doesn't upset me very much when they lose $2 billion of money that people voluntarily contribute for investments.
What irritates me is when the government's losing $6 billion 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 anything J.P. Morgan might be doing.
Well, exactly.
I mean, we're sitting here looking at a story in which a company is in trouble for losing a lot of money, ostensibly because of some type of ineptitude, some type of handling of that money that they simply should have been more visionary about.
Well, if that, and then everybody's talking about heads need to roll at J.P. 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, 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 mismanagement of our money, of taxpayer money?
The kinds of things that are done in this JPMorgan Chase story.
The taking of a lot of money, putting it where it shouldn't have been, miscalculation of risk, misappropriation of something that should have gone somewhere else, whether within the law or without.
This is the kind of thing that is the habit, that is habit.
It is normal daily procedure in government, and we tolerate that every day.
I just think that if the government, you know, the Bible tells us that 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 speck 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 Amarillo, David.
Thank you so much.
And indeed, it is comical when people in government wag a finger at people in the private sector for mismanagement of money.
It's like, what?
Whom are you lecturing?
And one of the prime examples, here is President Obama taking a full-length ad to criticize Mitt Romney's business credentials.
Really?
I would think that anybody criticizing Mitt Romney's business credentials, am I just being unfair here in 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 Davison for Rush and we'll be right back.
Little vintage commodores.
Did Lionel Ritchie just get bounced from a show?
All right, help me out.
I was like, yo, we got time to do this.
They're making another, what is it, duets or something with Kelly Clarkson and Robin Fick and John Legend and Jennifer Nettles from Sugarland.
God cried, I know that, but I can't find my car keys.
But Lionel Richie was in there for a bit, and I guess duets is the contestants get to come in and sing with already established singers.
We clearly, clearly, these reality shows, these competition shows are just a big old rock of crack for people because from Dancing with the Stars to idle, America's Got Talent debuts tonight.
We just eat this stuff.
You know, 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 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 truly do not know exactly how it's going to 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 Idol, I'm a Phillip 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 never really know how the voting is going to go on Idol or Dancing with the Stars or what bizarre thing somebody's going to do on America's Got Talent or something like that.
There you go.
I have no idea what lesson to learn from that.
Let's see what's going on and 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.
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, Philip?
But never been with us for what?
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 going to 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 dad a 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 a very interesting 60 seconds, you've given me some things to agree with and some things to disagree with.
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?
Not my business.
Well, you're talking about my mother.
Tut, tut, 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?
Whether it is legally recognized as the equal of heterosexual marriage, yes, it is.
How do I know you're a good parent?
You don't.
But that's not relevant.
That's not relevant.
You say the ideal situation is a man and a woman to adopt kids.
Correct.
The ideal situation is for two parents, a man and a woman, who don't get divorced.
Correct.
Who don't remarry.
Correct.
Who don't cheat on their spouse?
Correct.
Who don't smoke.
Correct.
Who don't eat bad.
All correct.
But in there somewhere you've listed couples do you know that fit into that category?
Not nearly enough.
Not nearly enough.
Absolutely, absolutely.
None.
Nobody's perfect.
None.
You're not aware of a single straight couple filled with 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 be.
Right?
No, I understand.
All of these things you've brought up, all of these things have merit.
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 going to have diet police and go in and make sure that the parents are feeding the kids right.
But we can, as a matter of law, choose which marriages are going to enjoy.
I'll finish a sentence and you will too.
It'll be great 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 is none of my business.
You're judging.
But it is my bet.
You're darn right I'm judging.
It's not just for procreation.
Yes, it is.
Why are married people getting abortions?
That is, well, that has nothing to do with what people do with the marriage that they are blessed with becomes their business.
The reason the institution of marriage is wow.
Wow.
Dude, you've got to help me out here.
We'll get through this.
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 household, I appreciate it.
In household A, married man and woman.
In household A, married man and woman.
Household B, gay couple.
Okay, well, 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 faithful to each other?
Both of them.
Which couple has a better education?
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.
And with that, I have my answer.
I get the feeling here.
And then I have my answer.
Equality.
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 fuck.
Dude, I love you.
I've got to 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 equality.
But I'm no such thing.
You're not saying that my equality is not valid.
No.
I'm not saying there is not equality.
I'm not going to be by straight people, okay?
Who raises?
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 a big catch from us.
So 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.
You don't feel superior to a group of people.
Not at all.
Not at all.
Yes, you do.
I don't have any.
Nobody does.
See, here is your quandary.
And I love you.
This is a great call.
I don't have a homophobic bone in my body.
Oh, my God.
For you to say that it is a joke because you think I'm not equal.
You're trying to take my voice.
No, I'm not saying that you are not.
No, this has nothing to do with my value of you as a human being.
Nothing whatsoever.
But I know this lady that's had 10 abortions, okay?
Sherry Shepard has had 10 abortions on the view, and she's against same-sex marriage.
Okay.
Okay.
What the hell kind of a hypocrisy is that?
Well, they are on different issues, and that's fine.
But generally speaking, yes, in terms of I have no comment whatsoever to make about your value as a human being.
I have no lesser diminished opinion about you as a human being.
None.
But to say that a same-sex union is exactly the same thing as a heterosexual union is simply a misstatement of fact.
And in terms of the adoption thing, which was a lot of 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 all I really need.
That's all I really need to make this argument, this non-homophobic argument, that the obliteration of these lines takes us down that road because motherhood and fatherhood do mean something, and a child does deserve both a mother and a father.
Mark Davis and Farush, back in a moment.
This seems like as good a time as any to 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-A-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