All Episodes
Previous Next
May 14, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:31
May 14, 2012, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hour number three, Rush is back tomorrow.
So hi there again from the EIB Northern Command, Midtown Manhattan.
We're about to dive right back to your calls.
I've got a couple of things I want to do.
One, an offshoot of our last gentleman.
One, the thing that I teased here with you, the husband of a 9-11 victim who wants to testify at Gitmo.
So right there, you're thinking, okay, that's lovely, except you might not think that when you find out what tack the gentleman wants to take.
But real quick, I meant to get to this at some point.
It'll just take a second.
Every time I fill in, we got to lose a pop culture icon.
It was Dick Clark last time.
Now, I'm not doing apples and apples on this.
In fact, if you want to talk about equality, we're all God's children.
And every contribution to the rich American popular culture is something to be noted.
But it's kind of funny.
We were just talking about today's bumper music library having a bit of a 70s funk or disco flavor.
But if you want to go back and let's go back to the 60s and let's talk some Booker T and the MGs.
I mean, this is, I mean, this is so my wheelhouse.
And I just love it so very, very much.
Donald Dunn, affectionately known as Duck, get it, Donald Duck Dunn, was 70 years old, and he passed away over the weekend.
He and Steve Cropper, Steve Cropper and Duck Dunn, many of you who are well younger than I am will recognize these names as being in the Blues Brothers band with Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi.
Okay, that's lovely.
But well before that, we're talking about work with Muddy Waters, Freddie King, Albert King, eventually Lee Von Helm, who also recently passed away, Neil Young, Jerry Lee Lewis, Eric Clapton, CCR, Donald Duck Dunn, one of just the quintessential bass guitarists, as well as a producer and a songwriter.
What an incredible life led, and what a loss.
I mean, an amazing man.
He was 70, so it's not like he got cheated.
I mean, it's not like he died when he was 40 or anything like that.
But still, it's just too soon.
It's just too soon.
So a big, big salute to Donald Duck Dunn, a giant of American music passing away over the weekend.
All right, so the last gentleman in one of his points, and he made many, and some of them had merit, brought out the hammer that a lot of folks will wield from the left.
Well, you're just against equality.
Let's spend a moment on that.
Because yes, I am.
When equality is not called for, I am steadfastly against any attempt to bring equality to things that are not, in fact, equal.
Let's just follow me down this road.
This is why.
And who is it that's been invoking all of this?
Reince Priebus, the RNC chairman, was on one of the shows over the weekend saying that the Republican position on opposition to legal equality for gay marriage is not, I can't believe he actually has to say this, is not some resurrection of Jim Crow.
That's because there was never a proper moral underpinning for racial discrimination.
Never.
There absolutely is a moral underpinning and a valid one.
I mean, it's one we could disagree with.
I mean, if you're walking around saying, hey, gay, straight marriage, no difference.
Okay, that's fine.
But the people who don't say that are not bigots, are not homophobes, are not haters.
They are simply looking to stick up for something that deserves defense.
The traditional definition, legal definition of marriage is one man and one woman.
This deserves defending for a number of reasons that I've made already today, that have nothing to do with homophobia, that have nothing to do with bigotry of any kind.
And it is here that we get to a concept that maybe is worth dealing with here, and that is the hazard of applying principles of equality where equality does not belong.
Now, between the races, there's no distinction to be drawn between the races, the worthiness of someone as a human being because of what race they are.
And listen, interracial marriage.
That is the business of those getting married.
And there is no societal downside.
Here's another talk show if you want to start with this.
It's tricky.
Ask Barack Obama about this.
It's tough.
You know, you got one black parent, one white parent.
What are you really?
You know, what's going on?
I mean, everybody's looking at you in this certain way, yada, yada, yada, yada.
But that ultimately, ultimately, is the business of those getting married.
But when we change the definition of marriage, the legal definition, the marriages that we are going to afford that unique protection to, and say that homosexual marriage is the same thing as heterosexual marriage.
That means manhood and womanhood are in fact the same thing, and they are not.
We should not draft women.
There are various protections and various delineations of manhood and womanhood.
Mothers and fathers are not the same thing.
You don't learn the same thing in the same way from your father as you do from your mother.
A child needs both.
A child benefits best from both a mother and a father.
And this may be the most pernicious part of this entire thing.
And it may not, I don't even think it's the intent of most who are forwarding it.
They just want to be nice to gay people.
It's like an article of empathy.
Like I've called it, we just want to be nice.
And when the debate's been hijacked so that when you don't want to do this, you're not nice.
You're a bigot.
You must hate gay people.
When that has nothing to do with it, well, then you got to spend some time rectifying the way the debate goes.
Motherhood and fatherhood are not the same thing.
And in the adoption issue, which I've spent a lot of time on today, a child for adoption purposes should have a priority chance of being placed in a house with a married man and a married woman.
It's not the same thing as going into a house with two guys or going into a house with two ladies or going into a house with a single parent, all of whom have an appreciable track record of doing good parenting.
I stipulate that.
I don't quarrel with that.
But that doesn't change what the ideal is, and that is to have a mother and a father.
And when society says, when the law itself says, eh, household with a mother and a father, or household without a father, same thing, because it's a lesbian couple.
Or household without a mother because it's two guys.
Eh, same thing.
That is a perilous, perilous place to go.
So, equality.
Let's spend a moment on equality.
So, when is equality just not called for when we say that men and women are in fact the same thing?
And again, I'm not talking equal rights or equal pay when we say men and women are, in fact, the same type of human creature, the same thing.
They are not.
And in that regard, equality is bad.
A couple of other things.
Good students and bad students.
Let's walk into any school.
You know what you'll find?
You'll find some good students.
You'll find some bad students.
And an attempt to equalize all of them.
Well, we can't have F's.
We got a grade on a curve.
There's only so many A's.
What a steaming load of BS that is.
They're good students.
They're bad students.
Differences between them must be focused on and understood because that is what will empower and persuade and spark the bad students to become good students.
Dang, I just got a D or dang, I just got an F. That's terrible.
I need to do better.
All right, here's another one: athletic skill and athletic mediocrity.
If you're just not good at baseball, if you don't get a trophy or you don't get to necessarily start every game, that is a message that you need to get better at hitting, better at fielding, better at pitching, better at catching.
If we just throw participant ribbons at everybody and go, oh, everybody's about the same.
When everybody is special, nobody is special.
When everybody's great, nobody is great.
When everybody's a good student, nobody's a good student.
When the meanings of these distinctions are blurred because we have an equality fetish, genuine achievement is thus devalued.
And when we do it with manhood and womanhood, motherhood and fatherhood, that's not about one being better than the other, not at all.
It is about the sacred and special differences between them.
We just came through Mother's Day.
My mom's been gone for 14 years.
I hope that all of you whose moms are still around had a fantastic Mother's Day.
And coming up next month, we throw dad a bone.
Father's Day is not even enough.
We got to tie that in with high school graduation.
Dads and grads.
Okay, whatever.
I'm not bitter.
Our mothers and our fathers are sacred and wonderful to us in very, very different ways.
And to suggest that it's the same thing and all these forms now that don't even say, you know, child's name, and then it doesn't say mother's name, father's name.
It says parent one and parent two, I could cry.
So anyway, equality.
Of course, equality is a wonderful thing when it's called for, when it deals with things for which there should indeed be a sameness and a battle to maintain an equilibrium and equivalence, of course.
But there's so many things for which that's just not called for.
All righty.
1-800-282-2882.
Let's knock out a call or two before we take our first break of the final hour of the Monday Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis filling in.
We're in Mont Vale, New Jersey.
Hi, Joe.
Welcome to the show.
How are you?
Very good.
Thanks for taking the call.
And regarding throwing dad a bone.
Not a bone, a T-bone.
Exactly right.
All right.
Hopefully with some meat still on it.
I want to go back about an hour.
You were talking about the Democratic National Convention.
Yes, Charlotte, North Carolina.
They might be in Charlotte, North Carolina, because that's where Bank of America's corporate headquarters is located.
So what?
Bank of America controls all the money.
All the money.
Democrats have been controlling the country.
All of them.
Now, this will come as a surprise to Bank of America executives.
They control all the money?
Well, a majority of it.
They're a large bank in the country.
Well, indeed they are.
So how does Bank of America, I mean, it's great for the city of Charlotte and for maybe various corporate sponsors and corporate entities that are there.
Speaking of bones, it's a very nice bone to throw to them, just as I'm sure there are big companies in Tampa that benefit mightily from the Republican Convention being there.
But I don't know if I follow necessarily the marionette strings that had Bank of America seeing to it that the Democrat Convention was in Charlotte.
You had brought up that it's a state that's not in favor of the Democrats.
Well, it's funny, if you're the Democratic Party, or maybe even the Republican Party, you know where the Republican Party held its convention in 2004?
No.
A few blocks from here at Madison Square Garden.
What the heck sense did that make?
New York?
Are you kidding me?
There are two reasons.
There are two things a convention can do.
It can either reward a state that already loves you, or it can attempt to entice over some people who might not have voted for you regularly.
Which means it can really be anywhere.
Yes, it just, I haven't edited it up, but it's a one-on-one, and if that equals two.
Yeah, well, but I don't know that it does.
I mean, I don't think we're going to see a lot of Democrat conventions in Salt Lake City, you know, or a lot of, or maybe the Republican convention, you know, going to Berkeley or anything like that.
But by and large, the bottom line on North Carolina, though, is Obama won it.
Maybe it's a big thank you to North Carolina for the last election, but I don't think he's going to win it this time.
Joe, thank you very much.
My best to everybody in Montvale, New Jersey.
All right.
Mark Davis in for Rush, and we'll continue in just a moment.
It is the Monday Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis sitting in.
Rush is back tomorrow.
Let's dive back into your calls.
Hard by the fine town of Kalamazoo, Michigan, you find Portage, Michigan.
Hi, Kathy.
Mark Davis, how are you?
Hi, Mark.
Well, I have a comment for the young man that was calling you just before 2.
I feel for his frustration, but I'm a lesbian and I don't believe in gay marriage.
Well, I see it as we're trying to take over a terminology.
I'd much rather see something like a civil union for the purpose of if two people want to commit for life, they want their partner to have certain benefits from work.
Absolutely.
And have something legally binding.
At the same token, if they want to get out of it, they legally have to go through the steps just as somebody who is heterosexual has to divorce.
Sure.
I mean, the desire to publicly express commitment, the desire to even have that commitment legally defined is wholly understandable.
But we're just haggling over this marriage, and it's like, no, I firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Well, I could sit here, I could do 547 Rush Limbaugh shows and various shows of my own anywhere and not be of as much value to the subject as you've been with this one phone call, because I presume our good fellow from Sacramento is not going to come through the phone toward you and suggest that you must hate gay people.
Maybe you're a self-loathing lesbian.
I don't know.
I mean, how does that go when you bring this up?
Are there those who say that?
I'm not well liked with it.
They try to make me see, but I bring up things like, well, what happens if the heterosexual world told us you have to get married?
Instead of just saying, you know, what if they said you have to get married?
I said, 90% of the people would be screaming, no, we don't have to get married.
What are you telling us we have to get married?
Well, nobody's, I don't think there's any discussion of compulsory marriage anywhere else.
To even put that down as such, it's like, no, we have a choice.
Well, you have a choice.
You have a choice to be a partner.
And just because you're civil, you know, the civil union, if it's recognized legally, it's going to be way different.
Because if you would really sit and think, the marriages that took place legally in some of the states that everybody ran to, many of them are divorced already.
If I can garner one more benefit from you for a couple of, because I really am grateful.
Because it is about more than hospital visitation, which just is human decency to me.
It's about more than a public expression of the commitment.
There are folks who want this passionately because they feel, and I can understand their wish for this, that it will be sort of a hedge against homophobia, that if we can make gayness as normal and undifferent as possible, then maybe that will help him in that noble quest for less actual bigotry.
What would you say to that?
I didn't catch.
What did you say, Peter?
There are those who want this, that they'll be satisfied with nothing less than equality for homosexual marriage because they just feel that without it, it makes you guys, I guess the familiar term is second-class citizens.
I don't feel that way.
I feel civil union would do it.
I mean, I try to get that.
Why do we need marriage?
Why are we hung up on the term of marriage as far as adoption goes?
They said, well, no, with the civil union, the laws would guarantee us the same backup.
Yep.
And you would be, and your devotion to your partner would be the same.
You would be considered as married among your friends, family, and loved ones as anybody.
My partner can inherit things.
Everything can be there for me.
They have the right over the family because we are legally a union.
I would love to have the ability anytime.
I mean, if I could just sort of carry this with me, and just anytime somebody comes at me and suggests I must just be some gay hater, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I would just say, oh, yeah.
Thank you, Argyll.
Well, you're more than kind in that regard.
And I just want to play this conversation.
I'm going to ask you a question saying, I'm sorry, adoption, there are children out there that nobody wants.
And we do have one big thing, and that's love.
And they're financially sound a lot.
Indeed, so let me ask you, this is good.
No, no doubt about it.
Let me ask you about this.
Because I'll stipulate, and maybe I should have said this, that rather than having a kid rot in an orphanage, would I put him in a single-parent family or a gay family?
Of course I would.
However, if the choices are, you know, two lesbians or two dudes and a married man and woman, are you okay if preference is shown to the married man and woman so that the kid can have both a mother and a father?
Is that okay?
I feel that they do need a mother and a father.
They do need an influence of such.
I have friends that have two moms or two dads, and they introduce men or women in as like a surrogate or expose them to the opposite shoe.
Sure.
It's like, it's still not the same.
Kathy, for your...
Although I know some children that have grown and they're just, they're out, they're married.
You know, a lot of heterosexuals think because gays are raising them, oh, they're going to be gay.
No, no, no, no, no.
We don't.
There's a lot we do not know about homosexuality.
I mean, that's the whole perplexing thing, is we do not, in fact, know how people wind up gay or whatever.
But one thing that appears not to be the case is it tends not to wind up in some kind of odd osmosis from who is raising you automatically.
Kathy, thank you.
And listen, I thank everybody who calls, but I particularly, particularly thank you.
This is just great clarity from you.
Deeply, deeply appreciate it.
Mark Davison for Rush.
We are in the home stretch half hour.
Let me get to a couple of things that I suggested I would get to.
But first we have a little bit of breaking news.
This is something that's asked colloquially, you know, how long will Ron Paul campaign?
And, well, isn't he always campaigning, even if not campaigning?
This is a movement rather than a campaign in the technical sense.
But Congressman Ron Paul said in a statement today that he will end active campaigning in the GOP presidential race, but will continue efforts to win delegates at state conventions.
On the list of really interesting stuff for Tampa, on the list of really interesting things on the etiquette list for Tampa, is where do you put Congressman Paul on the speakers list?
Does he, you know, quote unquote, deserve a spot?
And the answer is, of course, he does.
Of course, he does.
My book on Ron Paul is about the same as most mainstream conservatives and Republicans, and that is to admire him greatly for his courage on fidelity to the Constitution and limited government and lower taxation and much less spending,
but also to recoil at the naivete and the recklessness of his foreign policy and national security views, which are actually to the left of President Obama.
But with that mixed bag, so what do you do with this guy at the convention?
Does he get a speaking slot?
I think, of course, he should.
I generally believe that anybody who garners a certain amount of, I mean, I don't know if Gary Johnson needs a speaking slot at the Republican Convention for the five minutes and five votes that he got, but maybe there's kind of a bit of a coming to terms here.
I think if we're going to talk about etiquette, here's a little bit of etiquette.
I think etiquette requires that Ron Paul get a speaking slot at the Republican Convention in Tampa.
Etiquette also requires that Congressman Paul find a way to tailor his comments in a way that does not offend the lion's share of people there listening to him.
So that means no derision of the mission of the troops, no categorizing of the United States as some empire-building monolith.
I just kind of leave that for another day, if you will, there, Congressman, and we'll see how that goes.
So Bo says you bet he gets a speaking slot 7 a.m. Monday when they're just hosing off the driveways outside the convention.
No, I think that would be viewed as a slight.
All right, the other thing that I mentioned that I would indeed get to here involves the husband of a woman killed on 9-11.
His name is Blake Allison, and he is one of 10 relatives of victims.
This is pretty wild.
The arraignment of confessed 9-11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, and four of his evil accomplices.
I could imagine the list of people who wanted to go to that was probably quite long, especially among the relatives of 9-11 victims.
I'd sure want to go.
I don't have a relative who's a 9-11 victim, and I'd want to go anyway.
So imagine if you did indeed lose a loved one on 9-11 and the opportunity arises for you to go to the arraignment of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and four of his accomplices.
Well, how do they do that?
How do they settle that?
Answer is a lottery.
Wow.
So Mr. Allison, who lost his wife on 9-11, was one of those afforded the opportunity to go to Guantanamo for the arraignment.
So far, so good, right?
I mean, that's great.
But here's where it throws you an interesting curveball.
Do you know what his main agenda is in being there?
He wants to argue against the death penalty for them.
He is a steadfast opponent of the death penalty.
And this 62-year-old wine company executive, held as from the New York Post today, held a clandestine meeting with the terrorists' lawyers in which he offered to testify against putting their clients to death.
He is a vocal critic of capital punishment.
Mr. Allison wants to convince the U.S. government to spare the lives of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and his minions, even if a military commission convicts them of a slew of death penalty charges.
Mr. Allison telling the New York Post, the public needs to know there are family members out there who do not hold the view that these men should be put to death.
You know what?
Okay.
I now know.
And you know what else?
I respect Mr. Allison's view.
I don't agree with it, but I respect his right to have it.
But here's what gets interesting.
To what extent do victims' family members, and it doesn't have to be 9-11, it could be some local murder in your town.
Let's say somebody's about to get put to death, but the family members of the victim are against the death penalty.
Should that somehow hold sway?
That answer is no.
And here's why.
The death penalty is not a token of personal revenge.
The death penalty is a societal statement that says, because we cherish innocent life, we're going to take yours because it is not innocent life.
So I am more than willing to hear Mr. Allison and hear of his opposition to the death penalty, but he doesn't get like 25 votes against my one or your one because this is not, I mean, pardon the way this sounds, but it ain't about him.
It's not about just him.
Our empathy for him is about him.
His grief for his wife is about her.
I mean, it's obviously very, very personal, but the death penalty is a societal statement.
It is a society saying, if you do this, you will die.
And individual folks, even if they are family members of victims who disagree, listen, if they can get enough people to disagree and get the death penalty overturned in their state or get the death penalty legislatively removed from the Khalid Sheikh Muhammad type cases, okay, then they have prevailed.
But until they do, if there is something for which there is the death penalty, under no circumstances does a disapproving family member get to feel that he should somehow be able to obviate that very proper death penalty finding.
So if Khalid Sheikh Muhammad is convicted and he and his minions are convicted of a slew of death penalty charges, I don't want their path to execution slowed for one second by Mr. Allison's objections to the death penalty.
I feel for him.
I pray for him and I hope for the most healing he can possibly experience for what happened to him.
But that pain, that loss, that status as a 9-11 victim family member doesn't mean that you get to veto a lawful death penalty for somebody who did this to your wife.
1-800-282-2882.
All righty, we are in Santa Barbara.
Diane, Mark Davis, in for Rush, how you doing?
Hey, pretty good, Mark.
Hey, I was wondering, it's bothered me quite a bit that President Obama is getting credit or taking credit for any kind of successful anti-terrorist successes.
Because if I recall right, he did back the Arab Spring, which seems to amount to have kicked the hornet's nest in a sense.
Well, I don't know.
Let's spend a second on the so-called Arab Spring.
I could understand anyone's wish to take a look at all these people taking to the streets in Egypt, taking to the streets in Yemen, taking to the streets anywhere in the Arab world and saying, oh, this is great.
This must be finally these populations reaching out and crying out for Jeffersonian democracy.
Yeah, but this called out for skepticism because it just was not necessarily the case.
Some of them may well have been, but in a lot of cases it was the Muslim Brotherhood.
In a lot of cases, it was Taliban hordes.
It was just people rushing into a power vacuum.
For the president to try to glom onto this is certainly understandable if it's happening under his watch.
President Obama would like to be thought of as someone under whom the Arab world enjoyed these waves of Woodstock-style joy and a quest for democracy.
But I think we've learned better of that, that the Arab Spring was nothing of the kind.
Yeah.
Well, it's just gotten worse.
I keep following all the stuff going on in Yemen and everything.
And it's just like, oh, no.
And then the drone activity is kind of bothersome kids.
Well, I long for the day when I have a real palpable reason to believe that these populations are indeed crying out for.
I mean, you know, there's one portion of the population in that part of the world that I believe may be the strongest candidate for people who have just about had it up to their eyeballs with totalitarianism and they want better, and that is the young people, the younger than average population of Iran.
In Ahmadinejad's Iran, I believe that a ton of the population there, especially the younger population, that their thirst for democracy and reform, I believe that it is real.
And that is why we desperately need a president that will help foster that and will help to nurture that rather than coddle Ahmadinejad.
Diane, thank you very much.
My best to everybody in Santa Barbara.
Mark Davis in for Rush on the EIB network.
Right here on the EIB network.
I'm Mark Davis, filling in.
Much appreciate it.
And if we're about 12 minutes from Parton Company till next time, then do me a favor, if you will, and follow me on Twitter if you wish at Mark Davis, M-A-R-K-D-A-V-I-S, at Mark Davis on Twitter.
And toss up stuff, some big things, some little things, some enormously meaningful, some just silly.
I hope that's part of the charm.
And as always, I'll have a word to say at the close of the hour, but I'm just so enormously pleased to be around Bo and Mike and enormously appreciative to Rush for the opportunity to fill the chair even for this one day.
And he is back tomorrow, and all will be right with the world.
Right now, though, let us head to Detroit City.
Jim, Mark Davis, in for Rush, how are you?
Hi, thanks.
I'm great.
Hope you're doing well.
Thank you, Jim.
Thank you for taking the call.
I loved what you said about equality.
No two people are equal.
That's the end of that.
That's not going to change with any laws.
I think we agree.
The marriage issue is really simple.
And I'm sorry, you're on the wrong side of it.
And you just made my point talking about the death penalty with that weird guy who cares more about that than his own family.
The way you made the point is if you believe in rule of law and that the purpose of law is to protect each individual in the society against wrongful use of force and all that.
And if you believe that it's a legitimate function of a government to set objective rules for stuff like contracts and so on, when it comes to a contract, like a marriage contract, the rules have to be about the contract.
They can never be about which participants are allowed to participate.
If understanding that marriage is not really a contract in the strictest legal sense, it's not a marriage contract?
No, it's not.
No, not at all.
It's just not.
I mean, you know, a marriage is a covenant, religiously speaking.
And now that's religiously speaking.
But in terms of law, law recognizes some of those unions and chooses not to recognize some others, but it recognizes it.
But that doesn't make it like a contract you have with the local food store.
Like what?
What's enforceable?
I mean, you don't really sue.
Whether it's the passage of a state or whether it's who can sue whom or whatever it is, the details don't matter.
The point is that you can't say that some people are allowed to be protected in this fashion and other people are not.
Of course you can.
Of course you can.
And I think it's because marriage is not a contract in the strictest legal sense, like a contract that my office supply store might have with your business.
It is a vast difference.
What are you saying it is in this legal term?
Well, marriage is something that is legally recognized.
But it is at its most important root, not a business relationship, but a personal relationship that has certain legal accommodations, certain trappings of law that come along with it.
Right, correct.
Exactly right.
But it's not a contract in the strictest sense.
You don't have somebody.
I mean, I guess we do talk about people, quote-unquote, suing for divorce, but that's a bit of a myth.
That's what you call it.
Well, words mean things.
Marriage is not a contract in the strictest sense, like it is in a business.
Whatever it is that's recognized by law, it doesn't matter what you call it or don't call it.
It has to be recognized or not recognized for every participant in the success.
That is preposterous.
No, it does not.
If you say black people don't count for this, or tall people don't count for this, or something else don't count for this.
I hope every listener takes advantage of the free book Man Alive at selfadoration.com.
Hence the reason for the call.
Yeah, well, okay, love the plug, but the bottom line is that if a state wishes to recognize the legal equality of gay marriage, it may do so.
But if the state next door wishes not to, then it may do so.
And I may do this.
I may take the final pause and come back and see what happens next.
Mark Davis in for Rush on the EIB network.
Well, it has been a party.
I just sort of wanted the last guy to rattle around in my head a little bit.
And you know what?
I think if there's a theme, if there's a theme here to where we've gone today, it is the myth of universal equality.
Some things just are not equal.
You know, the regard we should have for people irrespective of race, that is a proper recognition of equality.
The equality that we should have in terms of our regard for all people as God's children, that is a proper representation of equality.
But some things that do not come under the realm of equality, not all kids are equally good as students.
And when we attempt to blur the delineations between the good students and the bad ones and try to make everybody just bathe in false self-esteem, that's bad.
Same thing with athletic prowess and athletic mediocrity.
If you tell the crummy basketball player that he's great, there's no argument for him to get better.
Now, no, that's not apples and apples with gay marriage.
But what the gay marriage thing does is this brings into focus the difference between men and women.
And if it's the same thing for me to marry a man as it is to marry a woman, well, doggone it, man.
That is where law begins to equate manhood and womanhood, fatherhood and motherhood.
And that's problematic.
And the last gentleman's notion that if marriage is a contract, you have to afford the right of everybody to engage in that contract.
Well, marriage is not.
I think I said this five times.
It is not a contract in the strictest sense.
It's a covenant between people for a purpose.
And with that, I'm pretty well out of oxygen and time to make those points.
And perhaps we'll pick them up next time I'm here.
Because whenever that is, I'm always happy.
I want to thank Beau and Mike and particularly Rush for letting me do it.
Just God bless this great country and God bless the people who put on the uniform of this country to fight for it.
It is a joy and an honor to be here on the EIB network.
I'm Mark Davis.
Follow me on Twitter at M-A-R-K-D-A-B-Is.
and we'll see you next time.
▲
Export Selection