All Episodes
Previous Next
March 26, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:45
March 26, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you once again, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
Time for yet another hour of broadcast excellence hosted by me, your guiding light, Rush Limbaugh, half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair, as always.
Phone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the email address, Lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
I really didn't have enough time for Anthony to get to the point that he was really trying to make.
What Anthony, our litigator from California, was saying was that the original litigants, the state of California, dropped out of the case as it went before the Ninth Circus and another group came in.
And it is that case that the Ninth ruled on.
So if this new group, as I understood Anthony's point, and this could be all wrong, too.
I'm just...
Sharing with you, we had a caller, and you may not have understood what his point was.
I'm trying to elucidate it for him since he didn't have time to squeeze it in.
Essentially, this new group did not have standing.
And if that is the basis of a Supreme Court ruling, then the Ninth Circuit case ruling would be invalidated and Prop 8 would be upheld.
Now, all of this is why I am profoundly confused.
Because it's all speculation that nobody here today, anywhere, that can tell you what any of this that happened today means because there is no vote.
And there's not going to be a vote until June.
And so we are left to the analysis of so-called so-called experts, whose lives are devoted to analyzing what the justices say and mean during oral arguments.
So forth.
So in other words, if the standing question, other words, standing question goes back to whether the original proponents of Prop 8 had a right to defend it in court once once Schwarzenegger and Brown dropped the state from defending Prop 8, which is what Anthony said happened.
The Ninth Circuit said that they did, and then ruled against them.
But if they had no standing, then the ninth ruling should go away too.
So it is possible, and this is why there's confusion.
It's possible, as it's known now, that dismissing the case could either uphold the night circus or invalidate it.
And until I have a better grasp on the whole concept of standing in this case, who has it and who doesn't, or who the court might rule has standing and who doesn't, to even bring the case.
Kennedy was saying, uh, I just wonder if this case was properly granted.
That means is anybody here have standing to even bring this case to us.
Based on what he was hearing from the people participating in oral arguments.
Now the proponents of Prop 8 for what it's worth called the National Organization for Marriage.
Now, while all this is going on, the low information voters out there are wondering what happened or is happening to Amanda Knox.
And we haven't, we haven't delved into that.
So anyway, I just I just wanted to clear up what Anthony, our caller from California, was talking about.
And it does come down to the standing issue and who has it, who doesn't, and what the court might rule.
Uh and the original interpretation was that the Ninth Circuit could be upheld if they dismissed the case, but now Anthony said, no, wait a minute, wait a minute.
It depends on who's got standing here and who doesn't.
Let's go to the audio sound bites to illustrate the confusion even further.
This is CNN Newsroom this morning.
The anchor at Ashley Banfield spoke with the senior legal analyst at CNN, Jeffrey Tubin, about the Supreme Court oral arguments, the legality of Prop 8, which upheld the notion of by the way, do you know what has become a popular term today in the in the debate to show you just to illustrate the inroads the same sex, the homosexual marriage crowd has made.
It is now common to hear on television and in in the midst of debate the concept of opposite sex marriage.
Yeah, it's same-sex marriage is so ingrained in the culture now that you when you're talking about regular good old fashioned marriage, you have to say opposite sex marriage to let people know what you're talking about.
Just describing just talking about marriage doesn't let anybody know what you mean anymore.
You have to specify opposite sex marriage.
Honest to God, pay special attention and you'll notice this.
Anyway.
Ashley Banfield says, Jeffrey Tubin, I just need to know, Jeff.
We all just need to know.
How did it sound to you?
Let me know, Jeff.
What did they say?
How did they question it all?
Can we read any tea leaves here, Jeffrey?
A deeply divided Supreme Court.
I think it is even harder to predict the result of this case after hearing this argument.
Certainly it was clear that Justice Galia, Justice Leto, and almost certainly Chief Justice Roberts were very hostile to the idea of the court imposing same-sex marriage.
It is quite clear too that the liberal justices, the four Democrats, seemed favorably disposed.
Justice Kennedy, as so often is the case, did seem like he was in the middle, and he said things that would give comfort to both sides.
He did not seem anxious to even resolving this case.
He suggested a couple of times that perhaps this whole issue was premature.
And again, if if Kennedy, he openly said, Why are we even deciding this?
That could lead to him making a suggestion that well, let's just dismiss this thing and not rule on it.
And that's that's where the can of worms gets opened, in terms of interpretation.
You know, everybody wants to know what's going to happen before it happens.
And everybody wants to be able to tell you what's going to happen before it happens when nobody knows.
And before it happens, I mean by that the court's ruling, which comes in um in June.
So now, as you can hear from Tubin, Kennedy is the focus.
The left has got to get to Kennedy between now and the final vote, whenever that's taken.
The ruling in June, the final vote obviously sometime before that.
So then Ashley Banfield said, Well, Chief Justice Roberts' cousin was sitting there listening.
She's a gay woman.
She wants to be able to get married.
I didn't know if it had an influence.
Could you feel that it did?
Certainly.
She wasn't seated with the immediate family members.
There's a family section.
If he is sympathetic to his cousin's plight, I didn't sense that strongly.
Oh no.
Oh no, that we read the big story yesterday, the LA Times was that Justice Roberts has a cousin who's a lesbian, and she was gonna be there.
And they were gonna put her in a front row, and every gonna try to gauge Justice Roberts' reaction to his lesbian cousin being there.
And you just heard Tubin say, if he's sympathetic, I didn't sense it.
Well, that doesn't mean that he isn't.
It just means that he didn't betray himself one way or the other, portray himself one way or the other.
But folks, the reason why, again, this is all nail-biting stuff to everybody, and particularly the left.
I mean, if you boil it down, they're still nervous as hell because this still, if what they want is to happen, it's gonna have to be forced on the people of the country.
You may not know it, but everywhere this issue has come up before the people, it has been voted down.
The concept of uh Homosexual marriage has been voted down everywhere.
And that's why it's at the Supreme Court, because the will of the people here has never been on the side of same-sex marriage.
So that's why they're biting their nails.
The other side's biting its nails because, you know, they they're they're constantly concerned the will of the people doesn't count for anything anymore.
You know, and what what what's the next in their view?
What what's what's the next thing that nobody wants it's gonna be forced on us?
We've had Obamacare forced on us.
We've had any number of things forced on us that nobody voted for, nobody wanted.
What's next?
A lot of people think that the whole government right now is governing against the will of the people.
And there's no end in sight to it.
And it's it's a very deflating realization.
The left is nervous for the same reason.
They know they don't have any popular support for what they really believe.
They do know that, folks.
They may never admit that, but they know it.
But they that's why everything has to be forced.
And they don't care, by the way.
They don't care.
It's it the I mean, the fact that it what they believe in doesn't have popular support does not slow them down at all.
They're not like now, I imagine there's some of you out there, probably very feverishly punching your phones trying to get in here to ask me, well, what about when the will of the people goes against what you want?
I'll be glad to answer that question.
And here's the difference between conservatives and liberals.
When we lose a vote of the people, we immediately set out trying to within the boundaries of the democrat process, democratic process.
We set about changing people's minds and hearts.
We do not force things on people.
That's not how we want things to eventuate.
That's not how we want things to happen.
We have what we consider to be, anyway, a respect for our form of government, a constitutional republic.
We believe in it.
We want legitimate mandates.
We win an election, we want it to be because the genuine majority of people who share our beliefs.
We don't think we accomplish anything by forcing something on people.
But that's not the way the left looks at this at all.
They can only get what they want by forcing it on people.
So, I mean, the will of the people goes against us all the time.
It's the nature of life.
Nobody ever gets everything they want.
But within this context, our solution or or course of action, our form of redress is to go back to the people again and again and again until we persuade them.
But always leaving it up to them.
Why are you smirking or smiling in there?
Well, why not ask me the question now?
Why wait till during the break?
Mm-hmm.
Do I think that there was any question about the original will of the framers on this issue?
No, I don't think they the framers of the Constitution never once imagined that ever in the history of humanity would this question ever come up and be treated with validity.
Do you think Washington and Adams and Jefferson and Monroe said, you know, we can see three or four hundred years down the line where marriage isn't gonna be between a man and a woman, they wouldn't even consider it.
What are you trying to get?
Original intent for marriage in the Constitution?
There was no.
Here's here here is the here's the thing.
You know, the 14th Amendment is what the same-sex marriage proponents are using.
And that that's how they're linking it to civil rights.
And and by the way, this is really important here, folks.
The the reason that the proponents of homosexual marriage call it a civil right is because it's all about optics and and imagery and and PR, and if you've got a civil right, no matter what it is, why it that's it may as well be draped in gold.
Civil right is unchallengeable.
A civil right is the most powerful right anybody can have.
And people who oppose them are bigots.
So you immediately be categorizing what you want as a civil right, you immediately establish your appointments, a bunch of bigot hayseeds, making it easier to uh defeat them.
Now the f to answer your question specifically, the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause, which is what the proponents argue, that's where they go in the Constitution to advance the notion, same-sex marriage.
The Fourteenth Amendment was passed after the Civil War to apply to former slaves to ensure that they are treated like all other citizens.
It never did have anything to do with gay marriage.
It was never intended to have anything to do with gay marriage or animal marriage or any other kind of social contract.
It was specific to slavery.
And after the Civil War.
But you know, the left looks at the Constitution, sees things that aren't there, and then they find them.
They look at things that are there and claim they're not there.
Like the Second Amendment, nah, nah, it's not there.
They really didn't intend that.
No, no.
Abortion, you can't find it.
Yeah, there it is, plain as day.
See it, it's right there in the 14th Amendment, the 10th Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, the fifth no, it's not.
I did a keyword search, even on Google.
The Google guys haven't even found a way to put abortion in the Constitution yet.
Give them time.
Give the Google guys time, and abortion will show up in a key word search in the Constitution is not there yet.
Second Amendment is.
These liberals are the craziest things.
The Constitution, they see things in it that aren't there and ignore things which are.
So the 14th Amendment, nothing to do with gay marriage.
Anyway, Rob Reiner, Meathead, all in a family, on CNN this afternoon.
He was on with uh who?
Uh Michael Michael Holmes, co-anchor.
What about those uh meathead who uh who say it was the will of the people?
California states uh have the right to decide.
What do you say that concept of the will of the people?
When it comes to a civil right, and there's no question about this, this is a civil right.
This is not something that is should be left to the whims of voters.
If that was the case, maybe women can't vote.
Maybe uh black people should still be slaves.
I mean, these are civil rights, and this is the one class of people, the gay and lesbian community, the one class of people in this country that is viewed lesser under the law.
See, I mean, the guy has come along and and and confirmed every argument I am telling you that they use.
Will of the people, we can't leave it up to them.
It's a civil right.
And you start comparing this to slavery and women not being able to vote and all that, and that's how normalcy ends up getting perverted and trumped up to be things that it isn't.
Anyway, that line's gonna get me in trouble tonight.
I don't care.
I really don't care.
Okay, back to the phones we go.
And Wayne in San Diego, next.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hello, uh, Rush.
Mountain biking San Diego Ditto's here today.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Uh quick point uh on the subject of uh thwarting the will of the people, of course, in California we have a long history of that.
Uh I was pointing out to Bo Snerdley that uh this is the second time or Prop eight was the second time that we voted on an issue in California.
And uh Prop 8 was a result of the first one being invalidated by the state court.
So when they came back with Prop 8, it was an amendment to the California Constitution.
So just further uh uh examples of the of the will of the people being thwarted on that.
Just like Prop 187.
Yes, just like Prop 10, like Prop 94.
Well, I tell you, Judge Roberts or Justice Roberts, I should uh I should point out since this whole standing issue has been raised, Justice Roberts today also questioned the standing of the defenders of Prop eight.
Now that's important because our caller from LA, Anthony said that Prop eight, when it went before the Ninth Circus, the the original proponents of the law didn't show up to defend it, and others had to go in there and they went ahead and heard the case anyway, and now the Supreme Court is saying, wait a minute, um, did the people that were defending Prop eight before the Ninth Circus even have standing?
Now, if that's the question that they ultimately decide on, then I can see Anthony's point.
If the Supreme Court says that the argument before the Ninth Circuit was invalid, because the proponents, the original proponents of the law were not there, then they could reject the Ninth Circus ruling.
And if they did that, then of course Prop eight would stand.
It would be validated until the bomb goes off somewhere, uh, or whatever next step the proponents uh would would take would be.
But we're we're th this is sort of like folks trying to predict the Oscars.
Uh and it's this it's the same people uh basically trying to predict uh what the outcome of the Academy Awards is gonna be.
It's interesting speculation, but we really won't know anything uh until the next iPhone comes out.
By the way, folks, I should point out that there will be more oral arguments at the Supreme Court tomorrow, tomorrow's DOMA, the uh defense of marriage act, which of course every Democrat under the sun, every elected Democrat was for, including Bill Clinton who signed it into law.
Obama was even for it until he didn't have to run for any more elections, and then he evolved.
And then he announced that the regime was no longer going to defend that law.
In a sense, just pretending that it doesn't exist.
The oral arguments on Defense of Marriage Act are uh up tomorrow.
In the meantime, here's Art in Windsor, Connecticut, as we go back to the phones.
Hello, sir.
Uh Russ, how are you doing?
I'm fine, sir.
Thank you.
Look, I I just think, you know, there used to be laws that said black people can't marry white people.
I don't think this is any different.
I mean, if you're gay and you want to marry somebody who's gay, marry somebody who's gay, that's your business.
What is the business of the state government or the federal government telling me who I can and can't marry?
You um you are serious with this question you want to equate interracial marriage to uh homosexual marriage.
Yeah, I think I think that a person should be able to make their own personal decision.
I think actually this should be something the Republican Party should be in support of.
It's individual rights marry whoever you want.
You don't have to worry about the Republican Party's moving in that direction.
It it it is.
Yeah.
Well, where does it let me ask you this where where does this uh uh freedom to do what you want stuff stop?
What in your in your case, what would two people wanting to do raise a red flag for you?
What what would you say, no wait a minute, no no no, you shouldn't do that?
Well, I think if you were talking about like a three-party marriage, an eight-party marriage.
Why?
What I mean, uh if you love one, you can love two.
What if all three people love each other and they want the benefits and all that?
Why why should who who who among us should deny those three people their love?
I think they can be loved.
I just don't think you need to give it a legal status, right?
Why not?
Because two people would make a family, they could raise kids, adopt kids, do whatever they want.
I don't think I don't think suspended.
Well, Wait a minute.
No, but why can't three people do that?
In fact, if you have two of the same sex and one of the opposite sex, you've handled the adoption for you.
You don't need to adopt.
You can have you have one woman and two guys in a marriage, and the woman could be impregnated by the two, and voila, you got a family.
I don't see that.
And you got a lot of love and and what could be possibly be wrong with that.
I I think society is determined that two spouses, two people are.
Society's determined, you know, by the way, society has determined human civilization from the beginning of time has determined that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.
The Republicans didn't do it.
Right.
Conservatives didn't do it.
Right.
Churchill didn't do it.
Margaret Thatcher didn't do it.
Gorbachev didn't do it.
It was humanity which did it.
And you just said society has determined that well, society has determined that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But you don't think society's right in that case.
I just No, no, no, I I don't agree with you.
I think society has evolved away from that.
I think the people in general think that if you want to marry somebody should be able to marry Well, someday the society is going to evolve away from marriage being two people, and it can be three or four.
And you're going to oppose that then for some reason.
You're going to deny those people their love.
Yeah, I would.
I would oppose that.
Why?
I don't I don't I don't understand.
Why would you discriminate that way?
What is the number matter when we're talking about love here?
You need it you need two parents.
Well why?
Because every family's got grandparents and aunts and uncles.
It's always more than just two people raising the child, it's a village doing it sometimes in the Clinton's case.
Not in my family.
I never had the village come to my house and raise my family.
I I I think that it generally takes two people.
I'm I'm not homosexual.
I became a Republican after Lieberman got thrown out of the Democratic Party because I said party doesn't have enough room for Joe Lieberman, it doesn't have enough room for me.
But I think that a once that decision has been made that you I mean in our society, financially and economically, you need two people to raise the.
Well, but now see, let me play devil's advocate with you, because in the case of of homosexual marriage without additional steps, you can't those two people can't produce a family.
Right, they can't.
They'd have to adopt.
But but then you'd have to Well, adopt or have a surrogate, artificial womb somewhere.
Yes.
You or you'd have to say, I've got I've got, you know, you think maybe society you had a sterile woman.
Well, do you think marriage evolved in society precisely because it takes one of each sex to make another human being?
It used to.
Let me ask you this.
Do you believe or not believe?
You think it matters or not that a child grow up with two parents or one?
I think in an ideal world, it's better to have a a male and female parent, but I think that the world is never ideal, and I think having two parents of the same sex is better than having one parent who's not the same sex.
Why do you think that?
Uh I think two parents are better than one parent.
I I just don't I don't I think two parents help to raise a family properly, and I think it really helps if you have a two-parent family.
But why?
What what is what do two accomplish that one can't?
Well, they produce more income, they have more time to divide among their kids when one parent needs to take the kid to school and the other one needs to go to work, they can do that.
I mean they can divide the it's uh it's a more resource available situation.
But with feminism, you don't have anybody at home anymore.
Well that both husband and wife go off to work and either got daycare or a nanny or somebody else not in the family raising the kid.
I think that was a temporary thing.
I think that's kind of shifting back the other way now.
As you were talking about just a few days ago, I think, weren't you?
Well, the phenomenon, yes, of of feminist women deciding after birth that you know what, I think I want to stay home with the child.
Yes, that is happening.
Right.
It has been happening for uh for a while.
So we could say that you hate single mothers.
You hate single parents.
No, I don't think you could say that.
I just think it's not the ideal situation.
Well, that's no, but that's what's going to happen to you.
I just want to warn you.
If if if you you're going to become a hater and a bigot, this is how the people if if if you if there's a movement out there for single parent families and it's perfectly fine, it's nobody's business.
But you art come along saying, No, there have to be two parents, even if same sex, you are going to become a hater.
If you oppose the single parent family movement, should there ever be one, you will be called a hater and a bigot.
I'm just gonna try to prepare you for it.
Well, thanks, Ross.
I appreciate the update there.
Okay, so our caller here hates single mothers.
That's what we've learned here today from Art.
Uh at the end of the call.
Art, I appreciate your call.
I really do.
Hope you have a um uh a wonderful day out there.
We are going to take another obscene profit timeout here at the EIB network, and we will be right back.
Okay.
Um I'm gonna continue with where we left off with art in just a second, but I want to grab Jeff on the phone from Maplewood, New Jersey.
Jeff, welcome.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Uh good to speak to you, Rush.
Uh I just want to uh your first caller was very good in terms of explaining the standing issue, but I just want to add a couple of points.
Uh a couple of times you've said that if they did reject the case or turn down the case because of the standing issue, the ninth court would not have standing also, and therefore their decision we vacated.
That's true.
And I think a couple of times you said that then Prop eight would survive.
Well, that's sort of no and yes.
Uh well, see, this is the reason I started out confused today, because I'm reading both from this SCOTUS blog, both analyses are are being offered here, and it does boil down, as best I can tell, uh, to standing.
Who has it and who doesn't, and therefore whether or not this case ought to be at the Supreme Court.
Is that what you want to add to?
Well, yeah, I wanted to add that at the district court level, which is like the trial court level for federal courts, they ruled in favor of the gay couple.
Uh Christian Perry, and I forget who her spouse was, and there was a another male couple.
So they the district court ruled in favor of that.
So if all those appellate courts get tossed out for lack of standing, the district court ruling would still stand, so Christian Perry gets to get married, the other male gay couple gets to get married.
But district court rulings don't have any precedent beyond that particular court.
Presumably if they if another couple went back into the Northern District of California and got Judge Walker again, who was the judge in that case, they'd probably win again.
But it has no legal standing as opposed to the Supreme Court, which handles all federal cases, and the Ninth Circuit, which would handle all the states that are in the Ninth Circuit.
Uh basically Well, now what I understand happened, and this is your your first caller was Anthony from LA.
He said essentially that the state of California refused to defend the law, the original proposal the state refused to defend it before the ninth circuit, and that they are they're legally required to defend it, and they didn't do it.
Therefore, the Ninth Circuit ruling could be vacated.
Is that what he was saying?
Well, they did refuse to do it.
They're not r required, it's usually traditional because it's the law of the state.
It's sort of like Obama refusing to defend DOLMA, okay.
Uh i it's sort of common practice for the state or the federal government to defend their own laws, even if they don't like the laws.
However, they're not there's no constitutional requirement that they do so.
Once a party decides not to appeal, uh uh you your listeners may be a little confused about this legal ease about standing.
Not any Tom Dick or Harry can go into a court and just argue a case.
If I think, you know, Martha Stewart was uh injustly convicted or something.
I can't go in there and appeal her case.
She has to go in there because she has an interest in the case.
Right.
So let's let's let's keep it at at Prop eight and the Ninth Circuit.
What happened there?
Well, as your first caller, Anthony said, the state refused to defend it.
So at that point, there's nobody defending Prop eight.
The proponents, the people that put it on the ballot, I forget the name of the group.
You mentioned it before.
National Organization for Marriage.
Yeah.
They said we want to step in and defend Prop 8 in court.
Ninth Circuit was a little queasy on that and they sent it to the California Supreme Court for certification as to whether under state law the proponents of the uh ballot initiative could step in the shoes of the state government and defend the case.
The state Supreme Court came back and said yes they can and so the Ninth Circuit said basically, well good enough for us, uh we'll let them defend it in the court.
What brings this up was about fifteen years ago in a case not exactly but there was some a it was an Arizona case.
I think it was Arizona I forget the name of it now, but it had to do with an English uh uh ballot initiative in Arizona dealing with English only and the proponents were uh trying to defend it in uh court and the Supreme Court in it wasn't really on point to the case but they raised the prospect that they weren't too keen on giving standing to proponents of uh ballot initiatives that it had to be the state this one's sort up in the air because again the s uh state Supreme Court
is saying yeah we don't have a problem with the proponents stepping in our shoes but on the other hand it is a federal question so therefore it's up to the federal courts to really say whether they have standing or not.
And just to give you a little heads up, Justice Scalia does I I didn't see the oral arguments today, but he's had a history of not being loose with giving standing to organizations.
Uh so okay let's let's make it simple for the lay people here.
If the Supreme Court decides that anybody at the Ninth Circuit when that case was tried there did not have appeal, did not have standing what does that mean?
It means Christian Perry and her uh bride or I don't know what you call it two brides two keep it in terms of gay marriage.
Is it stand or not?
Uh in California the two couples that brought the case would be allowed to get married and everything else in terms of the law being strictly overturned, no, they would have to go back and bring another suit like a class action suit.
So Prop eight would be overturned.
And anybody in California could get married.
If they if they did it just on those grounds, no.
They it would just be if they if they throw it out on standing uh the appellate court case i goes out is thrown out and the Supreme Court basically says nothing about it and the only thing that stands is the district court ruling and the only thing the district court effect has would be I am more confused than ever though.
I'm sorry I did that to you right you may maybe have to talk to the great one.
Maybe he can uh explain it better than I'm explaining No I I thought you were calling to confirm what Anthony said and when I told you what Anthony said you said no that that that's that's so I'm that's why I'm confused.
No no I'm I'm Anthony said that there was no standing at the Ninth Circuit that the state didn't defend it and therefore the case ought not even be at the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court can say this case has no business being here because it wasn't legally tried in the Ninth Circus we're throwing it out we're not hearing it.
At that point Prop eight is upheld because the Ninth Circus ruling is invalidated.
That's what that was his point.
Yeah I agree with basically all of that with the one caveat that the two plaintiffs in the case the the real people the ones nobody really cares about because everybody looks at this as a Wait a minute we love those people.
No, no, I didn't mean them as a group I mean everybody's concerned about this case in terms of what does it mean for the country.
What does it mean for California?
What does it mean for Arizona?
Blah blah blah.
There's actually real people in this case okay there's four four people a male couple and a female couple.
Right.
Both people would get to get married in spite of the lost standing.
Okay.
But nobody else could it would not be overturned at this point that's correct.
Now what might happen is the next person that goes to court is going to have to go back and say look you know what all this there is no reason any of this should be at the Supreme Court.
This is this is preposterous.
This whole thing this is th we this is ridiculous.
It's just it this is this is I can't believe this.
And I bet Scalia can't believe it.
Great.
It should it shouldn't be, but I'm just clarifying.
The other thing is if they did do it on standing, that would probably be a very, very big loss for the uh gay marriage community.
Because again, it has no even though the tax.
Well, that that that was Anthony's point.
Yeah.
That it would be a huge loss.
And even even as at at that, the uh uh the the court apparently is gonna rule with this within the context of the state of California only and and not although anything can happen in the ruling, but based on what the interpretation, the oral arguments are today, they're not gonna end this thing by proclaiming gay marriage the law of the land everywhere.
So okay.
Well, look, Jeff, I appreciate the call.
Thanks much.
We're wading through this.
I knew I wasn't wrong to be confused when this day started.
I knew I wasn't wrong.
I know I just the epitome of normal here.
Everybody else is confused too.
However, there is a movement in this country that you don't hear much about called polyamory.
And uh we just our caller art said, oh no, no, no, no, no, no.
That's where I draw the line.
You can't have more than two people get married.
Well, there's a movement for that, and the proponents are being urged to shut up about it and just do it.
Fast as three hours in media.
I don't know one other show that could make two hours on the same subject fascinating, but this one can, and we do.
But we are gonna move on to other things, like Bill Gates and his quest for the new condom.
▲
Export Selection