All Episodes
Previous Next
June 26, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:44
June 26, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Our telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address, ilrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Do you realize, ladies and gentlemen, just a year and a half ago, 18 months ago, I want to wait till the music fades out before I say that.
18 months ago, Barack Obama opposed gay marriage.
Just 18 months ago, in time and leading up to the 2012 presidential election, Barack Obama opposed gay marriage.
18 months ago, the homosexual community was very upset with Barack Obama for failing to come through on this issue.
If you remember, 18 months ago and four years prior, many in the activist gay community on the left were very upset with Obama for not advancing their agenda, which happened to be gay marriage.
Just a year and a half ago, folks.
Just 18 months ago, the president of the United States opposed gay marriage.
Now, 18 months later, we are told that the whole country supports gay marriage, and those who don't are bigots.
And that was in the Supreme Court ruling today, that people who oppose gay marriage are bigots and want to deny and want to make fun of and want to impugn and demean homosexuals.
Why do we even need a court if it is going to behave like this?
Why do we even need a Congress?
Why don't we just, anytime we want something, go find the nearest judge, say, hey, judge, I want to do this.
What do you think?
And whatever the judge says is fine.
Doesn't have to be a member of the Supreme Court, just any, hey, judge, want to marry this or that.
I want to marry three people.
Here's how this was, this all came down.
For hundreds of thousands of years, or tens of thousands of years, whatever belief you have in the length of human history, for all of it, for all of human history, marriage was that between a man and a woman.
And everything was hunky-dory.
Everything was fine.
And people who supported marriage weren't bigots or racists or sexists.
They just people that, you know, triumph of emotion over logic.
They did it anyway.
They get married over and over again.
It's all it was.
There was no hatred associated with it.
There was no, I can do this and you can't.
There was no impugning people who didn't get married, same-sex or opposite sex.
They just got married if they wanted to get married.
And that's just the way it was.
And they raised kids, had families, created a family tree, biological family tree.
And it's just the way it was.
And everything was fine, hunky-dory for thousands of years.
Then all of a sudden one day, homosexuals decided that it wasn't fair, that they couldn't get married.
So they began to agitate and stir things up.
They began to advocate for change, the law that would allow them to get married.
They began to agitate and advocate for a change in the law that would say people of the same sex can get married.
So after tens of thousands, whatever number of years where everything was just fine and hunky-dory and marriage was indisputed, undisputed, indisputable, there was no...
I don't know of one person who ever got married who felt, I can do this and you can't.
I never know one person who thought because they were getting married that they rejoiced in the fact that other people couldn't or didn't.
But all of a sudden, that's what we were told.
All of a sudden, after tens of thousands of years, people who were left out of marriage because of the definition, I mean, marriage is that between a man and a woman.
It has religious roots, biblical roots.
It's something that society has evolved over hundreds, thousands of years as the primary best way to raise children and have families and so forth.
And all of a sudden, that was deemed to be exclusionary.
And the people who got married, opposite sex, all of a sudden became these horrible things, racists, bigots, you name it.
So those who were agitating for the change and trying to upset tens of thousands of years of tradition become the virtuous ones and the defenders of the tradition all of a sudden became bigots and homophobes and who knows whatever the hell else.
All because they simply chose to defend something.
There was not one attack on homosexuality in regards to this.
The attack came the other way, but yet look who the bigots are.
The Supreme Court said so in his decision today.
It's remarkable.
Scalia concluded in his decision.
I don't know if he concluded, but at some point he said, we might have let the people decide, but that the majority will not do.
Some will rejoice in today's decision and some will despair at it.
It's the nature of controversy that matters so much to so many.
But the court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat.
We owed both of them better.
So stop a year and a half, even the president of the United States supports same-sex marriage, opposes gay marriage.
President Bill Clinton, Democrat, signs DOMA into law.
Now, all of a sudden, after Obama changes his mind, now the whole country supports gay marriage, and those who don't are bigots.
David Korn, who's his mother Jones now, used to be with the nation.
David Korn, just moments ago, tweeted the following, quote, 10 years ago, today, Antonin Scalia wrote an angry dissent saying that if sodomy laws were rejected, it would lead to gay marriage.
Well, he was right, close quote.
That's David Korn saying it with a smile.
Ten years ago, Scalia wrote an angry dissent saying if sodomy laws are rejected, it would lead to gay marriage.
Well, he was right.
Korn is chortling, gloating, but Scalia was right.
And people said he was crazy 10 years ago.
They mocked him for being an alarmist.
They told everybody he was a homophobe 10 years ago.
In his dissent, Scalia also points out the Supreme Court is not supposed to be greater than any of the other two branches of government.
With the DOMA decision, the court has announced that they are superior to the Congress and the executive.
Again, from his dissent, Scalia writes, it is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people's representatives in Congress and the executive.
It envisions a Supreme Court standing, or rather enthroned at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere, primary in its role.
Well, this is another thing that many of us on the right have questioned.
I can't remember.
I can't count up all the times.
Every June, we come and we wait with bated breath for every Supreme Court decision.
And it wasn't long ago.
This is absolute futility.
This is literally ridiculous.
We have all been sucked in here that there are nine people who wear black robes who all of a sudden are the final arbiters of everything.
And everybody just goes along with, and they wait with their tongues hanging out with bated breath and excitement for what's coming down the pike.
And with each of these decisions from the court, we have more and more usurpation of constitutional power.
And by the same token, we've got, sad to say, a Congress which seems willing to abrogate its power because they don't want to make the controversial decisions.
I remember when it came time because of budget reasons to start closing military bases.
What did Congress do?
Hell, they formed a bunch of blue-ribbon panels of retired members of Congress and retired military people.
And they brought them out of retirement.
They brought them into Washington.
And they sat them in rooms.
They put them in hotel suites.
They paid them exorbitantly.
And they decided which bases would remain open.
And they decided which bases would be closed.
So that when the rubber hit the road, the member of Congress could tell his constituents, it wasn't me.
I had nothing to do with it.
We had a blue-ribbon panel.
And more and more controversial decisions were passed on to the court.
It happened with McCain Feingold, campaign finance reform.
Neither a president nor a Congress wanted to deal with it.
So we'll let the court figure it out.
We'll let the court be the final word.
And the court has willingly, especially the leftists on the court, have willingly stepped in.
be happy to be the final authority.
This was not a matter of the court finding DOMA unconstitutional, by the way.
Do you know that?
That's not what happened here.
They didn't really bother to do that.
The court just decided that the decision was wrong, and they're going to correct it.
Now we're told over and over and over again, the court is supposed to go out of its way to not overturn decisions of the legislative branch, like they didn't with Obamacare, remember.
John Roberts twisted himself into positions that were unrecognizable in order to avoid declaring Obamacare unconstitutional, which it clearly was.
In this case, they couldn't wait to strike out at DOMA because, and here's the real reason for this ruling today.
The five libs and Justice Kennedy, for some reason, just couldn't wait to insult supporters of traditional marriage.
And they took the occasion of this case to do it.
It wasn't a judicial ruling.
It was pure politics coming out of the Supreme Court, which, by the way, is not unique either.
That's been happening for quite a while.
We'll take a brief timeout, my friends.
El Rushbo, the EIB network, rolling right on right after this.
President Bill Clinton today, folks, released a statement together with his wife, Hillary Rodham Rodham, hailing the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.
Bill Clinton signed it into law.
In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act passed the House of Representatives 342 to 67.
It passed the Senate 85 to 14.
What a bunch of bigots.
And the Supreme Court majority today said that all of those 342 in the House and those 85 in the Senate passed the Defensive Marriage Act because they hated gays and they wanted to punish gays and they wanted to mean gays and they wanted to impugn gays and they wanted to impugn homosexuality.
That's why 342 members of the House passed DOMA and that's why 85 senators voted for it.
And Bill Clinton signed into law and today Bill Clinton and his lovely and gracious wife Hillary Rodham Rodham issue a statement hailing the decision, overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, which he signed into law.
Clinton's statement said by overturning DOMA, the court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect.
is such a bogus poppycock.
A year and a half ago, President Obama was opposed to gay marriage.
A year and a half ago, he was opposed to it.
Now the whole country, we're told, supports it.
And those who don't are bigots.
Here's George in Carl Gables, Florida, as we start on the funds today.
George, thank you for calling.
Great to have you here.
Hi.
Good afternoon, El Rushbo.
I am a longtime listener.
In fact, I remember when you were on WTVJ-TV down here in Miami, back in the late 19th century.
We had 1992, 93, 94, 95, and 96.
Yeah.
Some great years in American history.
I think that this is probably a good ruling.
And the reason is, is that us as conservatives, and I'm very conservative.
I agree with you about 95%, 97% of everything you say.
But this gay marriage issue has been a huge stumbling block.
And the reason that it is, is because I can persuade my liberal gay friends, and I happen to be gay myself, The magnificence of our arguments, the logic, the reason, the evils of the far left and liberalism and how it destroys and hurts pretty much every level of society, whether it's economic, social.
I can persuade my liberal friends on those arguments.
But when it comes to the gay rights issue, they just throw it out as a huge stumbling block.
But you're supporting a party that's against your very essence, your very being of who you are.
And that's where I always lose the argument.
You know, I just ask you a simple question.
Do you believe there's such a thing as homosexual citizens of the United States?
Yes or no?
You're asking me?
Yes.
What kind of question is that?
Do you believe that there are gay citizens of the United States?
Okay, I'll play with you.
No.
You don't believe that there's any gays?
I want to see what you're going at.
That's a silly, silly question.
The Republican Party doesn't believe that.
Nobody believes that.
And the Republican Party is not known for hating what may be known, but it's not the case.
The Republican Party doesn't hate gays.
It doesn't hate anybody.
I'd never said they did.
Well, you just did.
You just said talking to your gay buddies that they're against this or that.
Well, I'm talking about the liberal ones.
I can persuade people on the merits of the argument, but when we basically, in most cases, even the DOMA case, the majority of the voters were Republican in that particular thing.
They passed it for political expediency.
They wanted to get more people to come out to that election cycle.
I mean, I kind of understand why politics works the way it does, but it's not a good thing to create some kind of discrimination as part of the law.
It's just a bad idea.
If we can get this issue off the table and put it behind us and move forward, just like the misogynation laws back in the 50s and 60s, I'm sure a lot of people were in favor of that too, but it was wrong.
It was wrong then.
It's wrong now.
The what laws back in the 50s and 60s?
Misogynization.
Misogynization laws?
Yeah, misogynization.
That's when white and blacks couldn't marry.
It was a law in 26 states.
Okay, so you think that there is discrimination against gays when claiming that...
When they can't get married, yeah, I do.
Okay.
And especially when you have about 1,100 federal rights and privileges and, you know, you get special things.
So marriage is a route to benefits.
That's what its primary purpose is now.
Marriage is a route to benefits.
Rush, I submit to you that probably your most precious prized possession is not your money or your house or anything.
It's probably your marriage certificate with Catherine.
I don't think there's anything in the world that could persuade you to give that up.
Irrelevant.
Well, I think it's entirely irrelevant.
There is nobody who's looking to that I can't.
Here's the thing.
No, this is where this all breaks down.
There's a bunch of flawed premises that you are advancing here, that the Republican Party is being held.
The Republican Party is being held back by everything the left wants.
What the Republican Party needs to do is give up everything it supports, and then it'll be loved.
And what people are really wanting, why don't you Republicans just quit?
Why don't you just disband and stop opposing us?
And then people will love you.
Nobody in this country has ever been denied the right to get married.
Not a single person.
Stop and think about that.
Marriage is something.
Nobody is, if you want to get married, there are certain qualifications.
If you don't meet them, I can't get into a bunch of clubs I'd like to get into either because I don't fit.
Big deal.
Okay, back to the phone, so we go to Longmont, Colorado.
Hi, Scott.
Great to have you on the EIB Network.
Hello.
Oh, well, hello, Rush.
It's so nice to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Wanted to quickly just say, I was sharing with Bo that I still remember where I was where I first heard you was in 1990.
I was in officer school after my second year of law school up in Newport, Rhode Island, and turned you on in my Navy barracks.
And I said, who's this guy, Rush Limbaugh?
That was, I think, right after Saddam.
You know, I appreciate it.
Everybody, everybody remembers where they were the first day, the first time they heard this show.
We once did a whole show of nothing but callers recounting what they were doing and where they were when they first heard this show.
And then that led to Gulf War I, which I think involved you having makeout scenes with Morgan Fairchild or something like that, as I recall.
Well, yeah, the character I was portraying in Gulf War I, W-O-N, Gulf War I. I'm sorry, I won't spend more time on that.
Yes, I'm a lawyer out in Colorado.
I was in the JAG Corps for a few years.
I practiced out here a number of years.
And I share with Bo, I think people as disappointed as they are when they look this morning and see what happened, what happened is, and you hit the nail right on the head, it's much worse than just, this decision is not just about gay marriage.
If it was just about that, it would be bad enough.
It's where the court is taking a further step, and Justice Scalia addressed it, where they are basically saying that I know for myself, I'll use my own perspective.
I'm an Orthodox Catholic.
I believe that what the church teaches is true, and that informs my decisions.
And as an American citizen, I like to think that my decisions as a citizen can be informed by my religious faith.
Okay, wait, let's stop right there.
You just admitted that you are a member of the military, former JAG Corps.
You're Catholic, devout, Catholic, conservative, which means you're racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe.
Exactly.
And I guess I said, well, I guess I know where I stand now, you know, and that's exactly right.
You know, I got up this morning and I was talking to my wife and one of my daughters, and I was driving to work with my daughter, works at my office, and I said, the thing that worries me about this is not that whether they'll say that this act is unconstitutional, is that I'm going to be officially declared to be, to some extent, un-American, effective today.
That you cannot be a loyal Catholic and Orthodox Christian, or actually...
You can't be a constitutionalist!
You can't be a defender of the founding.
The Supreme Court, which is what Scalia's point was today, that's what Scott's talking about here, folks.
The Supreme Court, in its DOMA decision, stigmatized opponents of gay marriage.
And basically, I'm going to say this in the most easily understood way.
And I like to take the complex and make it understandable.
What the Supreme Court majority said today essentially was, we're going to find that DOMA was bad because we don't like the people who are for it.
We don't care about the law.
We don't care what happened legislatively.
We just don't like the people because we think the people who support DOMA hate gays and they don't like gay marriage and they make fun of gay people and they stigmatize gay people and we want to stick it to them.
So here's your DOMA and put it where the sun don't shine.
That's the essence of the Supreme Court's decision today.
Nothing to do with whether or not it's constitutional, nothing to do with whether it was anything legislatively correct, whether or not the people's elected representatives have the right to make and enforce law in this country.
We had the majority of five justices basically said, we know you people hate gays, and so we're going to just ram this right back down your throat.
Here, how does it taste?
They, the majority in this decision, used character assassination as a means of deciding this case, not the law.
And that's what Scott means here.
He's a lawyer.
He read the decision.
He's now been stigmatized.
Conservatives and people of faith, traditionalist constitutionalists have been stigmatized as bigots and haters and elitists.
People want to exclude others from the good times and from happiness or what have you.
Anyway, Scott, I appreciate the call.
Here's John in Birch Bay, Washington.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Sir, hello.
Hello, Rush.
A little nervous.
Don't call shows much.
I've listened for probably 19 years.
I am a proud socialist.
I'm as left as you get.
But about the defense on marriage, what I was telling the other guy is if your side had left religion out of it, I would almost be on your side.
Nations created the benefits for marriage, every nation throughout history, even the non-Christian ones, because they want more children.
Those laws are there to create more people.
And so on that line, gay marriage can't create more citizens.
You know, if you guys had left the religion part out, you might have won.
I have been married for 20 years, well, 22, and I'm non-religious.
So when you people say that, you're slapping me in the face saying my marriage doesn't really count because I don't believe in God.
Well, many of the defenders of traditional marriage do believe it has religious roots to the Bible and the Word of God.
And that these civilizations that you described simply adopted that and incorporated that in their then political laws and other rulings that had effect on marriage in terms of benefits for kids, tax deductions, that kind of thing, what you're talking about.
Alexander the Great had wives.
Genghis Khan had wives.
They weren't Christian.
I mean, wives have been around.
Marriage has been around longer than Christianity.
So I don't know how they're tied together.
But Genghis Khan, as John Kerry said, he had more than one wife at a time.
He did.
Well.
But they still considered it what we consider marriage.
They still considered it.
I mean, right now, there's no multiple wives.
We will now, too.
I mean, that's now the doors open a crack, and it's going to be real tough to close it.
When the definition of marriage has now been thrown wide open, and it's going to be able to include a bunch of things that heretofore were not deemed acceptable or right or proper or legal or what have you.
But again, like even now in other countries where the people are allowed to have multiple wives, you're saying their marriages are not real just because they don't believe in Christianity.
But they don't believe that.
So I don't understand why.
No, it's not just Christianity.
I mean, you find in any number of religions that marriage has religious reason.
But let's get to your point is that if the advocates of traditional marriage would leave religion out of it totally, that that would not have angered the same-sex marriage crowd?
Well, the problem is, it is a logical argument.
One of the reasons I listen to you is I'm very left and I love playing the devil's advocate with my leftist friends.
But the reason most of the civilizations, even back to Rome, promoted marriage is because the way to win is to have the most citizens, and marriage creates children.
So you give tax breaks so that they'll make more children.
So on that logical level, a homosexual couple can't make a child.
If you said marriage is about making more children, there would be no argument against that.
Oh, yeah, there would have.
Because this was going to be blown up no matter what.
Because this is about much more than religion.
This is about blowing up traditional morality.
That's what this is.
I'm one of those.
No, it's totally about it.
Because I'll tell you what, you know what would have been acceptable.
You know what would have been more acceptable?
Just get rid of the marriage benefits rather than redefine it.
That's exactly what they should have gone for.
The right should have said, fine, we don't need that many more people anymore.
We're already overpopulated.
Let's get rid of all the benefits.
No, no, people have been logical.
People would have had kids without the benefits.
The idea that most people don't have kids just for the benefits.
Some do, but they're generally not married.
I know that's not why they have them, but that's how the civilization promotes it.
I've gone to college, taken many history classes, and the main reason that...
That does not mean you were told the truth.
No, I know.
I've heard your view on that.
But what I'm saying is it's very logical.
If you want more people than your enemy, you try to get your people to make as many babies as possible.
So they come up with as many prices for making babies.
I don't want to throw a monkey wrench into this.
But who is it that's advocating the killing of those babies?
Again, if we want to discuss abortion, if you want to have a discussion about defining menu.
I'm just telling you that if the traditional marriage people had gone about this, look, we need to maintain marriage for what it is, because the whole point is to produce children.
You would have had the same degree of outrage because that would have been really ratcheted up on the discrimination.
Well, you're telling me I get married because I can't have children.
I have no control over that.
It's not fair.
Just because I can't have children, I shouldn't be denied it.
So why not take the benefit?
If you take the benefits out of it, if we've done just, there's no benefits, no earned income child credit, no tax credit, no this, no that, no nothing for getting married, your theory is that the homosexual communities would not have demanded it.
Is that right?
I think they would have been fine with another option, and I don't think your side would have cared so much about it either.
It wouldn't be an issue at all, I think, because a lot of the, I have a lot of gay friends, they worry about, you know, passing on property when the spouse dies, seeing the spouse in the hospital.
They could have addressed every single one of those issues individually if they didn't have the religion aspect.
If they didn't say it was going to ruin the sanctity of marriage, they could have addressed every single economic issue one by one.
So we should say, take those out, get rid of all those.
And there would not have even been a controversy?
No, I mean, of course, there's going to be a controversy.
You know, we live in a controversial country, but you guys would have, on logic, there's no way your side could have lost.
And again, it's like me.
I don't know.
You know what's fascinating about this is?
Yes.
What really is fascinating about this is you say there's no way our side could have lost.
Have you ever heard of Obamacare?
Have you ever heard of illegal immigration or amnesty?
No way our side could have lost.
Well, we're talking about this one issue.
You don't want to get me started on the other one, so I'm with you all kind of on this one, so we should stick to this one.
But yes, I don't think this one issue would have related to those other issues in any way.
I'm simply saying the historical reason for marriage, if you study history, was mainly to promote, to encourage child production, to figure out how to pass on real estate to next of kin.
Now, it's really the only reason for marriage in the early years.
It wasn't, there were plenty of countries who believed in some kind of marriage that knew nothing about Jesus or any of that, but they wanted to protect their enemies.
See, this country, this country, look at the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence.
Read George Washington's Thanksgiving proclamation.
You can't take God out of this country.
That's what's wrong, is that people are succeeding in doing that.
That's really what's wrong here.
You cannot take God.
There is no United States of America without God.
And that's what offends people.
You're right.
That's what bothers people.
So you want, take God out of everything, and then there's not going to be a problem.
There also won't be what has always been known as this country.
There'll be a country, but it won't be what it was founded as.
And that's what's really going on.
You actually have nailed it.
You actually have.
And I preach.
John, I thank you for the call.
I got to go because I'm way long in this segment.
We'll be right back.
Don't go away.
And welcome back, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
As usual, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
You know, John, our last caller from Birch Bay, Washington, was really instructive because of all the things to object to in the issue of same-sex marriage.
Of all the things there are out there to find objectionable about same-sex marriage from either the homosexual perspective or the liberal perspective, of all the things that you could object to it over,
he cited religion and said that what really sealed the deal for the pro-same-sex marriage crowd was that it was opposed by Christians.
If the Christians had just shut up, then this might not have happened.
If the Christians had just been quite, just take the Christians out of it and, i.e., religion.
But see, logic, he also made a point about logic.
This is the unfortunate thing, folks.
Logic is being defeated practically every day.
Logic, common sense, tradition, whatever, learned history and tradition is being defeated every day by emotion.
And if there is A combination of emotion and low information, uninformed people who have had their feelings ratcheted up.
If there is one thing that is responsible for the, I mean, some of you might call it the corruption, but if there's one thing that is responsible for the never-ending assault on traditions and institutions that define this country, it is the concept as used and proselytized by the left of fairness.
And the premise of the left is that virtually everything about this country from its origins was unfair.
And that to low information, uninformed, other type characteristics, people works like magic.
Because everything should be fair, Mr. Limbaugh.
It is unfair that this can't.
It is unfair.
I mean, that's not fair.
It's unfair for somebody to have more than somebody.
It's unfair for somebody to earn what.
It's unfair that somebody should have that club membership.
It's unfair that somebody can marry naked.
It's unfair.
And the whole premise of unfairness is rooted in what?
That there is this elusive utopia out there where everybody's equal and everybody prospers and everybody has everything they want or nobody has anything they want.
In either case, it's fair.
And if everybody doesn't have everything they want, then there's no fairness.
And it's got to be changed.
If everybody has nothing, that's cool.
Because there's nothing unfair about it.
And that is the root of all of this, all of these messes, which is what they are.
I guess there are one, two, three, four, five examples of Obama saying how opposed to gay marriage he is in an audio soundbite, 2004 to 2010.
We'll be back.
▲
Export Selection