I'm just waiting for the printer to spit something out here.
It's about the Chief Justice.
Here's the headline.
Chief Justice John Roberts compares gay marriage to forcing a child to call someone a friend.
They have released the audio of the oral arguments now, and this is the story from Mediaite.
The optimism Jean Podraski, cousin of John Roberts, displayed the optimism she displayed when she told the LA Times she trusts that her cousin will go in a good direction in deciding whether same-sex couples have the right to marry may have been misplaced.
On MSNBC's Enringing Mitchell NBC News this afternoon, the fill-in host Chris Elizabeth played some sound from the oral arguments today on Prop 8 in which Justice Roberts compares gay marriage rights to forcing a child to call someone a friend.
Whoa!
That could not have gone over well inside the court.
In one of the early pieces of sound to emerge from the oral arguments, Roberts made what they call here in MediaIte a brain-dead comparison that might portend disappointment for his cousin.
If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend.
And that's, it seems to me, what supporters of Prop 8 are saying here.
All you're interested in is the label, and you insist on changing the definition of the label.
So let me interpret this for you.
What Roberts is saying, marriage is a man and a woman.
It's what it's always been.
It's what the word means.
Now, you want the label to mean something new.
So you may as well start telling kids that they have to tell everybody that they're their friend.
I know exactly what he's talking about.
He's simply saying marriage is what it is.
If you go to the dictionary, marriage has a specific definition.
Now, if you're coming here and saying that you want to change that definition, then you are essentially just telling everybody that they must accept everybody as their friend or as they want to be accepted, and the definitions don't mean anything.
And the media here, who is this?
Tommy Christopher is the mediaite reporter, refers to that as braindead.
And I think that's classic.
I think that perfectly illustrates where we are.
We have a low-information reporter here who doesn't care what the definition of a word is, who doesn't care what the meaning of it is.
All that matters to this brain-dead reporter is that the Chief Justice doesn't see the world the way he does, and therefore the Chief Justice is brain dead.
And it's what I've always said.
The real problem with low-information people is not what they don't know.
It's what they do know that's wrong.
And that was actually an utterance of the famous and great Ronaldus Magnus.
The problem is not what they don't know.
It's what they do know that's wrong.
Or what they do know that isn't right.
Anyway, greetings and welcome back.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Once this gets out, this is going to be the focal point of everybody's discussion, and they are going to just, they're going to humiliate Roberts.
You haven't seen anything yet.
Once this gets out, and it is out now.
Chief Justice Roberts compares gay marriage to forcing a child to call someone a friend.
And the proponents of gay marriage, I mean, this is the most important thing in the world.
It is the most important thing in the world.
And it's love.
It's about love.
And here's Roberts making fun of it and impugning it, diminishing it, acting like these people are just a bunch of kids.
Oh, this is not going to sit well with the low-information crowd in the media, folks.
Anyway, great to have you back.
800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
Now, we had a guy on the phone here a moment ago named Art who steadfastly maintained that he does have limits on this stuff.
He thinks it's fine if two men want to get married and two women want to get married.
That's cool.
None of our business.
They love each other.
That's great.
And two parents, even the same sex, better than a single parent.
So Art clearly hates single parents, as things work out in America today.
But I said, well, okay, Art, at what point will these kind of arrangements become something you can't agree with?
He says, well, three people.
If three people want to get married, I'm going to draw the line at it.
Why?
Well, it's just too many.
Well, why?
I mean, there's more love, the better.
Two people in love, three people in love, two people of one sex, one of the opposite sex.
I mean, you've got constant sex that way, and you've got constant babies being born.
And oh, you don't need adoption.
He couldn't go for that.
And I kept probing.
Why not?
What's wrong with three?
Why not four?
It's just like the minimum wage argument.
can eventually reach an amount that even proponents say is too much.
And here with the gay marriage art, you can construct a definition of marriage that even proponents of same-sex marriage will, no, no, no, no, that's going too far.
But see, once you cancel the definition of marriage, then it can become anything.
And that's another thing that Roberts is saying.
Once you take something that has a specific definition and you obliterate that, then it can become anything you want.
And there's no limit to it.
So there's a church out there, folks, called the Unitarian Church.
Many of you have heard of it.
You just don't want people to know that you know.
There's a joke about Unitarians.
The joke is, and this is the Washington Post saying this.
This is not an El Rushboat joke, just so you know.
It's right here in the Washington Post.
The joke about the Unitarians is that they are where you go when you don't know where to go.
Theirs is the religion of last resort for the intermarried, the ambivalent, the people who want a faith community without too many rules.
It's perhaps no surprise the Unitarian Universalist Association is one of the fastest growing denominations in the country.
They've grown by 15% over the past decade.
But within the ranks of the Unitarian church over the past few years, there has been some quiet unrest concerning an activist group within the church vociferously supporting polyamory.
That is to say, the practice of loving and relating intimately to more than one person at a time.
Now, you people in Rio Linda know all about this.
But for the rest of you, polyamory is loving and relating to three people in a relationship, four people in a relationship at the same time.
And the Unitarians have a mission statement from the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness, or UAPA.
That's the acronym, UAPA.
It is.
U-U-P-A, the UUPA.
The UAPA encourages spiritual wholeness regarding polyamory.
Now, here's the problem.
What's the limit?
Where do you draw the line on polyamory?
Two women and one man?
One woman and six men?
Three women and two men?
12 people.
Where do you draw the one?
The line has not been drawn.
The polyamorists don't want any such lines.
They don't want any limits whatsoever.
A great example of this would be the famous rapper Shaughty Lowe.
Remember him?
He was going to have that great TV show, the rapper in Atlanta, the Oxygen Network, canceled it.
Boy, this guy was ahead of his time.
This guy had 11 kins with 10 baby mamas.
And they canceled this show because it was upsetting.
But this guy fit right in now.
That show could be exactly what's called, especially to humiliate Roberts.
You know, you could put that show on a DVD and drop it off at Roberts' office.
Say, here, these are my friends.
So it is happening out there within the Unitarian church, but the headline of this story is many Unitarians would prefer that their polyamory activists keep quiet.
In other words, don't talk about it.
Don't call attention to what we're doing here.
Just do it.
If you have a spiritual wholeness and an intimate relationship with three people, do it.
But don't tell anybody.
Don't run around and brag about it when you go to the IHOP.
You know, just do it.
And this church is growing.
But some people won't like that because there's limits.
Let's see.
I better mention this since I teased it.
Bill Gates looking for more relevance since he retired from Microsoft.
He's now totally in a charitable game, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
And Gates has a new project.
He has offered a $100,000 grant to whoever can invent the next generation condom.
The money will come from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's Grand Challenges in Global Health.
The estimated 80 grant recipients can then apply for a follow-up grant worth up to $1 million to come up with the Better Rubber condom.
The grand challenge of the Gates Foundation says, is it possible, is it possible to develop a product without this stigma or better, one that is felt to enhance pleasure?
Gates is looking, he wants to give anybody 100 grand.
He'll come up with a new condom that enhances pleasure rather than restricts it and offers the same level or even more protection.
If so, would such a product lead to substantial benefits for global health, both in terms of reducing the incidence of unplanned pregnancy and in prevention of infection with HIV or other sexually transmitted infections.
The challenge prompt notes that condoms are effective at preventing pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases like HIV.
The University of Washington, a company called Origami, are already working on ways to build a better condom, according to the foundation's blog.
Origami has three designs at present for rippled, folding condoms designed to enhance pleasure and to be put on quickly.
Bill Gates seeking the next generation condom.
And you think your life doesn't matter.
You think your life has no meaning.
Bill Gates seeking the next state-of-the-art condom.
Low information news.
For those of you mothers of daughters out there, are you familiar with the latest rage among young girls that is called the thigh gap?
Are you aware of this?
Do you know what the thigh gap is?
I'm asking a mother.
Well, you think you can.
Well, okay.
What is a thigh gap?
Well, that's really a nice guess.
HR says it's wide-hipped and more conducive to having a children.
No, it's not what it is.
The thigh gap has been popularized by rail-thin models.
The thigh gap is achieved among those women who have it.
When they are standing straight up with their knees together, is there a gap between the thighs at the pelvic region?
That is what is desired now.
A thigh gap, because models have it.
In other words, women, young girls whose thighs appear to have grown together, not cool.
We have the audio of Chief Justice Roberts during oral arguments on the same-sex marriage case today.
If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend.
And that's, it seems to me, what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here.
All you're interested in is the label, and you insist on changing the definition of the label.
I hate to say that.
I mean, I really, but he's dead on right.
You know, words mean things.
At the root level, that's what this is all about.
It's about changing definitions to include people who don't automatically qualify.
That's all this is about when you boil it all down and every argument made to advance it is marketing and packaging.
Now, where does this come from, by the way?
If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend.
Are there schools that do that?
Would he maybe have had a child in a school where that was required?
Are there schools that make the children refer to every other child as their friend and the teachers refer to the students as their friends?
And might he have had a child in such a school?
What are the odds?
But for the media guy calling him a meathead, but this is, and you boil this down to its essence, to its most simple, this is exactly what this is about.
It isn't a civil rights issue.
It isn't a love issue.
It isn't any of that.
If everybody is your friend, then there's no such thing as a friend.
And if anybody can marry anybody, there really ain't anything called marriage anymore.
Marriage is a word.
It's in a dictionary.
Look it up.
It has a meaning.
And it did not evolve out of any form of bigotry or discrimination.
It didn't evolve negatively at all.
It wasn't created negatively.
It wasn't created to exclude anybody because everybody has the choice.
Anybody in the world can get married if you convince somebody to marry you or trick them or whatever you do.
But marriage is not something that's denied people.
Now, I know I've really stepped in it with the traditional low-information argument as it's advanced today, but I'm sorry.
It's what it is.
Marriage is not discriminatory.
No matter who you are, if you're a human being, you can get married as marriage is defined.
So what is happening here is that a tradition or a custom or what have you now must be altered and changed to mean something it doesn't mean.
I'm going to tell you, the media is going to, they're going to harp on this.
They're going to just jump on it.
Folks, I'm warning you, this could be fascinating to watch.
Well, as you know, ladies and gentlemen, Bill Clinton was our first black president.
And he will also be the first to have a black grandchild.
We've got to remember now, the NAALCP and other rights groups used to, you know, they were very, very supportive of the notion that Bill Clinton was the first black president.
In fact, it was the famed poet and writer and singer, whatever she was, Toni Morrison, who said that Clinton had the childhood background that equated him with blacks.
And now, Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of the first black president, is going to adopt a baby from Africa.
This from the National Inquirer.
She decided on the surprising maternity plan after watching both of her parents battle potentially deadly health problems while she has struggled to get pregnant.
After years of worrying that she'd lose her dad Bill to a heart attack, Chelsea flipped out when her mom, Hillary, was hospitalized with a blood clot near her brain.
DeClotte was successfully treated.
Hillary is out of the woods, but the incident made Chelsea realize that life can turn on a dime.
So Chelsea Clinton decided to adopt a child from Africa because of her father's bad heart, and Hillary, her mother, fell down.
Nothing to do with the fact that this is the latest fashion accessory for elite liberals, particularly of the Hollywood variety.
Nothing to do with that at all.
Here is Paul in Ottawa, Canada.
Hi, Paul.
I'm glad that you called and got through.
Welcome.
Hi there, Great White North Megadittos.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
You're absolutely right what you say about, you know, if same-sex marriage is made a civil right, then it's going to brand everybody who's opposed to it as a bigot.
That's pretty much what's happened up here.
And it hits hardest on teenagers, I think, really, because the peer pressure they face from other teenagers and from the educational system is really intense.
And, you know, sometimes it drives a real wedge between parents and children.
It is exactly the ploy being used here.
And this is the number one issue among people under 30 in this country, even conservative young people under 30.
And it is this technique that has secured it, I think you're right.
And it often drives a real wedge between those kids and their church as well, if they're active in a church.
And it really goes beyond just branding individuals as bigots, though.
If you say that same-sex marriage is a human right or a civil right or something along those lines, then every single church that stands for traditional marriage suddenly becomes like the KKK.
And that's a very dangerous situation to be in.
Because they're opposed to civil rights.
The KKK was opposed to civil rights.
Gay marriage is a civil right.
So if you're opposed to it, you're no different than the Klan.
Yeah, so how can the government justify giving you a break on property taxes or counting you as a charity if you're an organization that's opposed to a civil right?
And in fact, there's actually a legal precedent that would give the government a lot of power to impose very harsh penalties on churches under that circumstances.
If you go back to the late 1800s, when there was this big fight between the Mormons who were practicing polygamy and had that definition of marriage and the federal government that had a monogamous definition of marriage, there was a bill passed called the Edmund Tucker Act.
And that bill, it wound up stripping anyone who didn't accept, like swear an oath, to accept the state's definition of marriage.
If you didn't do that, you did not have the right to vote.
You did not have the right to serve in a public office.
You did not have the right to serve as a juror.
Wives could be compelled to testify against their husbands or be sent to jail if they didn't.
The Mormon church itself was disincorporated and its assets were seized.
And, you know, this sets a legal precedent that could be turned around at Catholics, at Baptists, and at Mormons again, and every other church that holds to traditional marriage.
If you go and say-sex marriage is a right.
This also works on the Manhattan under-30 bar scene conservatives.
Nobody wants to be called a bigot.
Nobody wants to be thought of as discriminating against love, which is apparently a commodity in short supply.
Because whenever people find it, it's supposed to stop everything and celebrate it.
It's so hard to find it out there now that when it is discovered, we've got to stop and celebrate it and proclaim support for it no matter what.
Let me ask you this philosophically.
Could we get to the point where we would say opposite-sex couples are bigoted because they're not marrying people of the same sex?
Possibly.
You know, give it time.
I think anything's possible.
And I think the real issue here isn't, you know, is same-sex marriage a right or not, but who gets to decide what's a human right or not?
And that really is fundamental to what kind of government you have.
You know, if you have a monarchy, the king has the ultimate power.
If it's a theocracy, then some church or religious body has the ultimate power.
Who has the ultimate power in the United States to decide what's a human right and what isn't?
Is it some oligarchy of judges or politicians, or is it the people?
It's a combination of both, but it's the oligarchy of judges deciding everything in this country.
But you raise a good point.
How long will it be before churches lose their tax deduction if they don't perform same-sex marriages?
And I'm not joking.
People who engage in opposite sex marriage, are they going to someday be bigots for not marrying somebody of the same sex, which is the popular and hip thing to be doing?
Now, Snerdley, you're smirking at me, but I'm just taking this.
I see, I love logic and I love context.
I love to take, okay, going to do something today.
Where will it lead down the road?
Which hardly anybody thinks about.
Why do we think it's popular?
What?
Same-sex marriage?
Well, Snerdley is telling me that everybody he knows is sick and tired of hearing about it and they just want it to go away.
I will have to concur.
A lot of my friends have a different reason they want it to go away.
They don't care.
They are so worried about what's happening to the economy.
They are so worried about what their kids' futures economically are not going to be that they don't care about this.
Just to hell with it.
Why are we wasting time on something like this?
It doesn't matter.
And that also is being taken advantage of in pushing the effort.
But you see, the reason why it all matters and the reason why it's all linked, why am I going to get in trouble for this?
It's just the whole concept of morality.
There's got to be a moral foundation to every aspect of life in a free society or it's going to vanish.
We were talking earlier when freedom is defined as anything you want to do with no moral underpinning, with no virtue.
Freedom without virtue is not really freedom.
And I forget, Oz somebody, his book I quoted from, I forget his last name, but he said, this is the root to the decline of free societies, is this open-ended definition of freedom to which no virtue is attached.
Hello, Rome, for example, is his point.
Anyway, at this point, I must take another obscene profit timeout, which we will do, and we will resume.
We'll come back and continue after this.
Mr. Snerdley, no sooner do you ask me who says this is a popular issue, speaking of homosexual marriage, than I find the following story in the Washington Post.
And the headline is support for gay marriage oversold.
And what they've done here is it's the Chris Saliza blog with a couple of contributors here writing who have analyzed a lot of polling data.
And what they have found is that the polling on gay marriage has weighted opponents to gay marriage by 7 to 10% less than they are.
On average, and in some cases, it's 15%.
Meaning, if you see a poll 52-45 in support of gay marriage, it's probably more like 49-49 tied or 4850 opposed.
That there is that much bias.
Even in the latest ABC Washington Post poll, they have found that the anti-gay marriage polling data among the opponents is undersampled and underrepresented.
And the headline says it all.
I mean, the story, very detailed and intricate with a lot of numbers, and I'm not going to bore you with them.
Tried to give you the overview of it.
Is support for gay marriage oversold.
I mean, the reason they're doing the story is because it is.
And it's being done on purpose, like most polls are performed and done and executed to shape public opinion rather than simply reflect it.
Here's Lisa, Morristown, New Jersey.
Hi, Lisa.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Oh, it's an honor to speak with you, Rush.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
You bet.
The point I wanted to make is Barack Obama, in his inaugural address this past January, if you can Google it, made this statement that reflecting that we should accept gay marriage, that their love and commitment should be considered just as equal as anyone else's love and commitment, namely the heterosexual communities.
Well, based on that statement, and he's just reducing and diminishing the entire definition of marriage, because then anybody could come into the fray and say that my love and commitment is as equal to anyone else's.
And that's where this is heading down the slippery slope because, in fact, Anthony Scalia, back in a case 2003 with Lawrence versus Texas, I'm reading it from an article.
It says, if the high court removes one natural parameter for one special interest group, then that equal protection under the law would require that it removes all natural marriage parameters for all special interest groups.
And that's why the next natural thing that's going to occur if they would make gay marriage the law of the land is that every single group, from polygamy, from minor to adult relationships that are consensual, they'll all be considered having to have equal protection under the law.
Now, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Everybody knows that's not what Obama meant.
That's what these people would say to you.
Obama didn't mean that an adult man can get married to a 14-year-old boy simply because there's love.
He didn't mean that.
But what you're saying is, oh, wait a minute, once the legal boundaries are gone or obliterated, anything fits the definition of love.
That's right.
And the other thing is everybody's missing this point.
I've been following and researching this issue because I'm so angered by this phony civil right framing that they've done and they've been successful at it.
You have to look at what the criteria is.
Marriage is a legal contract.
Being a black person or getting a civil right simply because you're a person, that's the dignity of the human person.
A marriage, if you ask a matrimonial lawyer, involves criteria being met.
And societies were, or rather, government got involved from the get-go overseeing and regulating marriage for the protection of generational continuity, meaning that you have the propensity in your marriage union to bring forth children.
So as you were saying earlier with Justice Roberts bringing out that point that now we would have to really remove the entire definition and reconstruct it.
And if you're really equal, you would be able to be equal to people and satisfy all the criteria, which gays cannot do because they can't procreate.
So when they cry marriage equality, you can't give it to them not because you're biased, because they don't satisfy all the criteria to, if you look up the word equal, they have to have ability.
Everything has to be equal, and they're not.
So right there, it's an unbiased way of telling a gay marriage.
But when you put it that way, you are losing everybody under 30.
When you talk about it that way, you are encouraging support.
I'm not saying you're wrong.
I'm just sort of in discussing it.
When you say they are not equal, you're creating sympathy like you cannot imagine.
The person is equal.
They have rights.
The gay person should have rights.
They're a person.
The dignity of the human person is recognized as a true civil right.
But now we're talking about union status.
That's what's up for the question of the people who are not going to be able to do that.
I know.
The civil right vanishes once a choice is made.
People don't have a choice being black, being female, being whatever.
They don't have a choice.
Marriage is a choice.
And you do.
It is a contract that you enter into.
And nobody's denied that.
There are certain ways that adults can get married.
The definition is what it is, and it's in the process of being obliterated.
But I am just saying that when you, even though you are within the concept of the law, 100% right, when you characterize it as, and you get in their face that you are not equal because you you cannot fulfill one of the requirements, i.e.
Procreation, you just you're not there.
You can't say people are not equal, they're not fair to them.
They are equal, they're human beings and they love people, and the argument is advanced.
Anyway, I appreciate the call.
I know what exactly what you're saying is.
This is simply a matter of semantics and we're at a point now where low information people are Involved.
And emotion trumps all kinds of reason, fact, law.
None of that matters in this.
Now I got to take a break.
We'll be back.
Don't go away, folks.
She was talking about contracts, folks, just so you understand.
And we all are equal in the ability to make contracts.
Everybody can contract with a member of the opposite sex to marry them.
But her point was: if same-sex fits the bill of the contract, then everything fits the bill.
And at some point, who's to say you cannot have sex with a child?