All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:47
June 29, 2015, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented as still be almost always right, 99.7% of the time.
Great to have you back, my friends, Rush Limbaugh serving humanity simply by showing up behind the golden EIB microphone every day here at 800-282-2882 in the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
So I checked the email during the break.
And I can tell I need to further explain why I think the court decision leads to polygamy.
And by the way, I could easily do that by simply reading to you some blog posts that I printed out from people already going to act uh uh agitate for it, that they want it, and then they think they know that this opens the door for it.
Look, folks, you can think all you want, but there's there's no legal basis to stop it now.
There is no intellectually honest way to distinguish the reasoning on gay marriage from applying the same reasoning to supporting polygamy.
Because it was all rooted in self-esteem and dignity and not being denied things that make you happy.
This this was the Supreme Court decision on marriage was not about any particular number of people in a relationship.
It did not assume, in other words, that marriage is of two people.
It did not accept that limit, in other words, that limit is not specifically there.
They've rewritten what marriage is now.
The point here, folks, marriage was what it was as ordained from the ancient biblical texts.
You want me to read it to you from Genesis?
Maybe that would help.
Maybe this will help.
Actually, uh, well, Genesis does it's Genesis 2, 23, 24 as sacred union between one man and one woman.
It's all the New Testament.
Jesus Christ reaffirms the biblical definition of marriage.
Jesus said, Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?
And said, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
They're no longer two, they're one.
What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.
Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 through 6.
I mean I didn't write it, so don't get mad at me.
But there it is.
It's in it's in Genesis and the New Testament as well.
But it's been rewritten now, and it's be it's been written not under any sort of constitutional purview, but but but rather there's some people out there that were denied something, and it's not right.
A lot of people had something, and those people didn't, and then those people want it, so we think they should have it.
Their self-esteem and their dignity is tied up into it.
Well, that's if if if now a guy comes along and says, I want two wives, fine.
I mean, this the ruling in this case, my only point is the ruling in this case does not give anybody the right to tell them no.
Marriage has been redefined, folks.
It's not been expanded.
It has been redefined.
Marriage had a specific definition.
Words mean things.
And now it's be it's it's become something entirely different by virtue of the Supreme Court.
So there you wait.
The attempts to expand on this in ways that you can't even conjure.
The other thing in the email, what do you mean this is happiness and self-esteem?
I think I think a lot of this, I think a lot of liberalism, folks, is rooted in the misery and unhappiness of being in a minority.
And I'm not, you know, take any minority you want.
It could be a numerical minority, it could be a behavioral minority.
Uh and along with that unhappiness is a resentment of the majority, a resentment or an envy of the majority.
And so the motivating mechanism here is to be what the majority is, to have what the majority is.
Simply because it's not fair that some people have it and some people don't.
So you can take something as specific and lofty and meaningful as marriage and reduce it to a thing or a benefit that some people get and some people don't.
And that's not fair, and it's not democratic.
How can you have that in a country like America?
Okay, so the reason the quest for happiness will never be met is because the reason for the unhappiness, the reason for the misery, the self-loathing, I don't, whatever you want to call it, the void that people have, they mistakenly think that getting what the majority has is going to make them happy.
And they're going to find out that it doesn't.
And it won't.
That's why they keep coming back for more.
It's why nothing is ever enough.
No matter how much of their demands are met, it's never enough.
I have noticed this my entire adult life analyzing these things.
It's just never enough.
And the reason it's never enough is because the whole reason why, or the the either's a misunderstanding of why there's misery in the first place, why there's unhappiness in the first place.
You can reduce it, say grass is greener.
People think it's happier on the other side of the fence.
They find when they get there it isn't.
All this is wrapped up in this, but but in the process, this has become political, and the majority is attacked vividly, belligerently, and often, because it is felt that this happiness is being actively denied people in the minority because the people in majority are mean, they're racist, they're sexist, they're what whatever.
It's their fault.
They're denying all this to us.
And so the quest is to take it away from them.
Or to become what they are and water down what they are.
But that never results in satisfaction.
It just never does.
And so the continued effort here at happiness, contentment will continue to evade, because the real reason for it's not even being addressed.
I mean, the unhappiness born of envy and resentment is never ever mollified.
That's why all of the great philosophers have warned people, do not act on vengeance, do not act on envy, do not act on – because you're not going to like what you get.
It's not going to give you the happiness you thought.
Now, continue in the same vein – Just played that sound by from Jodie Cantor, the New York Times, who said that on Sunday during the gay pride marches and so forth.
She said, so much of gay identity and culture is born of persecution, born of stigma, born of this terrible treatment.
Exactly what I'm talking about.
They look at the majority.
The majority has marriage, and we don't, it's not fair, and they're keeping it from us because it's really, really cool.
It's really good.
All these benefits, and hospital, whatever they tell themselves it is that's being denied.
They want it, they demand it.
That's not why they're unhappy, though, but they think it is.
So they quest it and they make out battle plans to get it, and they do get it in many cases, such as they have now.
And now a new unhappiness has given birth, or has been born, and that is well, we liked being persecuted.
We had an identity there.
We had an identity being persecuted.
We had an identity being stigmatized.
All this terrible treatment, that's what unified us.
That's what gave us our identity, and now, well, there isn't any of that anymore.
I mean, we're we can get married.
We're we're we're no longer being isolated.
And she's, and there's here, there's a second companion soundbite to this.
Nora O'Donnell on CBS said, and this was just this morning.
Look, there's still a stigma though for some gay Americans.
I mean, it's not all solved here.
Doesn't that still have an effect?
So now they're actively seeking to be stigmatized.
So here you have Jody Cantor telling CBS, oh my God, you know what?
So much of gay identity and culture is born of persecution and stigma and this terrible treatment, and now that's gone.
And a reporter says, wait a minute, there's still some of that in there.
Oh God, there's gotta be some.
Isn't there still some stigma?
Is that there's still come on, Jody.
Absolutely, and there's a call now by the organized gay community to essentially fight housing discrimination, job discrimination as the next big barrier.
But I think we will see the culture change.
Gay people for so long were almost forced to form their own community.
Now they don't have to.
They are part of the community of marriage.
But they've got it.
It's not gonna not be good.
They're not gonna be happy being part of it.
So now they've got to fight unfair housing.
And they've got to fight unfair discrimination, job discrimination.
So they're gonna go after employers the way they went after marriage, and they're not through, by the way, because they still have to go after the churches.
Headline New York Times, second story, historic day for gays, but twinge of loss for an outsider culture.
From Capitol Hill in Seattle to DePont Circle in Washington, gay bars and nightclubs have turned into vitamin stores, frozen yogurt shops and memories.
Some of those that remain are filled increasingly with straight patrons, while many former customers say their social lives now evolve around preschools and playgrounds.
Supreme Court on Friday expanded same-sex marriage rights across the country, a crowning achievement, but wait for it.
Also a confounding challenge to a group that has often prided itself on being different.
The more victories that accumulate for gay rights, the faster some gay institutions, rituals, and markers are fading out.
And so just as the gay marriage movement peaks, so does a debate about whether gay identity is dimming, being overtaken by its own success.
This was, this is this is yesterday in the New York Times.
I have to tell you, I read this and I there was a part of me that wasn't surprised because I've uh I haven't offered it much on this probe.
The things I'm sharing with you today about the real quest behind this is misery and unhappiness, and now it's never going to be realized and satisfied.
I've had this belief for I can't tell you how long.
So the they got what they want.
It's never enough.
And now all of us, oh my God, you know what I mean?
We're not different, we're not stigmatized, we're not, oh geez, here's John Waters, film director and patron saint of the American marginal, meaning fringe people.
He warned, he did a commencement speech at Rhode Island Scrual of Design, and he warned the graduates to heed the shift.
Refuse to isolate yourself.
Separatism is for losers.
Gay is not enough anymore.
You need to find other ways now to separate and isolate yourself.
Andrew Sullivan, one of the intellectual architects of the marriage movement, quoted in the New York Times.
What do gay men have in common when they don't have oppression?
I don't know the answer to that yet.
What?
What do gay men have in common if you don't have oppression?
You know the old adage, the last thing the Reverend Jackson or Reverend Sharpton want is an end to racism?
What will they do?
There'd be no reason for their business.
Sounds like we're getting much the same thing here.
What do gay men have in common when they don't have oppression?
I don't know the answer to that yet.
Now, to be clear here, just no one is arguing that prejudice has come close to disappearing, especially outside major American cities as waves of hate crimes, suicides by gay teenagers, a workplace discrimination at test.
Far from everyone agrees that marriage rights are the apotheosis of liberation.
But even many who race to the altar.
Many, even many who raced to the altar to get married, say they feel loss amid the celebrations.
A bittersweet sense that there was something valuable about the creativity and grit with which gay people responded to stigma and persecution.
The thing I miss said Lisa Crohn, who wrote the book and lyrics for Broadway musical called Fun Home.
Get this one now.
The thing I miss is the specialness of being gay.
Because the traditional paths were closed.
There was a consciousness to our lives, a necessary invention to the way we were going to celebrate and mark family and mark connection.
That felt magical and beautiful, but the thing I miss now is the specialness of being gay.
This is what passes for victory and celebration, folks, in this aspect.
Don't tell me that after all of this, that we are destroying the gay community.
Or rather, the Supreme Court is.
Don't tell me.
I mean, historic day for gays, but twinge of loss for an outsider culture.
I did not make up these quotes.
The thing I miss is the specialness of being gay.
There's something wonderful about being part of an part of an oppressed community.
I thought you were mad being oppressed.
How did I misread it?
I thought you were mad being oppressed, and you didn't like being oppressed and didn't like being mad.
I thought you wanted to be included and happy.
It turns out there's something wonderful in being part of an oppressed community.
Yeah, we had a unique identity.
And now that we can get married, there's nothing special about us.
I'm telling you, I don't want to wag my finger here, but this unhappiness, this oppression, whatever, how whatever they want to call this.
The solution to their misery and inhabit is not found, will never be found in either corrupting or taking over all of these institutions in the quote unquote majority.
It's not, it's not going to give them what they're looking for.
And I'm not any member of a minority.
I'm not talking about just gay marriage.
Not to anybody that's that's miserably unhappy politically.
Getting even with the other guys is not going to solve a thing.
It's it's no different than typical Democrat trick of going to the little guy, saying, you know what, we're going to really make things better for you.
Really?
How?
We're going to raise taxes on the rich.
Oh, good!
Wow, that's gonna be great.
Wait a minute.
How does that help me?
Well, we're punishing those people for you.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Okay, you do it.
But wait, how does that help me?
What do you mean, Hazel?
Well, how much uh uh I'm not gonna have an additional dollar in my pocket after you raise their taxes.
That's right.
But but we're gonna get them for you.
Oh, yeah, okay.
Well, yeah, you go it's all it is.
But there's no happiness at the end of it.
Here's um here's Mike and Allen, Michigan, as we start on the phones.
Great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Thank you for taking my call.
It's a great honor.
Hey, can you hear me?
Yeah, I do.
Okay.
Uh my point is uh I read uh that Alan West uh wrote on the 27th uh about ruling on the gay marriage now that uh opens up uh to other issues with some states for like concealed carry that uh that uh uh my concealed carry permit here in Michigan is now valid in all 50 states including Washington DC, New York City, Chicago, Illinois, everywhere now.
Yeah, I I read that whole thing.
I I read if I saw that story last week, um it was on Alan West blog, and it was it was one of these stories, hey, you Peter on the left, you better be careful what you wish for.
It's one of those deals.
And point was made, okay, since the Supreme Court said that since gay marriage has been recognized in 36 states, the other 14 have to recognize it too.
The point on the blog was, well hey, I mean the same thing could be true now the concealed carry permits.
If they're legal in one state, some states they have to be legal in others.
This was the theory, the point made because the way the court reasoned gay marriage, it can apply the same thing to concealed carry laws.
I don't know if that's true.
But to me it's no mollification.
It doesn't mollify me at all for the way the Constitution's been bastardized here, which it has been, the Constitution has taken a huge hit here.
And just because it may allow things which anger the left here and there that's that's not just that's my whole point.
That doesn't make me happy just because the left might have to deal with a concealed carry permit.
Anyway, back in just a second and we're back.
L Rushbow here on the cutting edge of societal evolution 800 28282 and the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com that polygamy is inevitable thing.
A lot of people are writing about this.
A lot of blog posts are theorizing and philosophizing about it.
A lot of activists in the politically active gay community are talking about it as well.
And here is a reading from the chief justice in his dissent on the gay marriage case.
Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective to, T-W-O, in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved, while the man-woman element may not.
Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which already have deep roots in some cultures or other, around the world if the majority Kennedy et al is willing to take the big leap it's hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.
It's striking how much of the majority's reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to marry more than one person.
That's from the Chief Justice John.
That's apparently a day where he felt like actually being a judge.
So we have here the Chief Justice warning about polygamy just as, you remember the Texas sodomy law?
When was that?
That was back in, that was 2003.
So we're going to 12 years ago, the Supreme Court Court uh overturned Texas law on sodomy Texas prohibited in the Supreme Court you can't do that a bunch of backward hayseeds and it prompted Justice Scalia to openly predict that the court would someday down the road very soon be hearing a Case on the constitutionality of homosexual marriage and any number of other things.
And he turned out to be exactly right.
So just as Scalia warned that gay marriage was coming as a result of overturning Texas anti-sodomy law, Chief Justice Roberts is warning that polygamy is right around the corner because of the way this decision was written by uh by Anthony Kennedy.
Uh what's what's going to be the argument against it?
Let's let's say that you're worried about this, that you you don't think that marriage should be anything but two people.
It can be interracial, now it can be same-sex, but it shouldn't be more than two people.
You understand, folks, that that whole definition's been thrown out now.
The whole concept of marriage and what it was has been tossed out now.
And it's a brave new world, and an entirely new definition for all intents and purposes was written, and the way it's been written, as the chief justice says, you can't find a way to not permit polygamy if somebody brings the case before this court, and he predicts that that will happen.
Somebody's going to bring this case up here.
Now, some people have claimed that we'll never have polygamy because if you let a guy marry two women, then that's placing women in a subservient role.
That would be wrong.
I mean, to let guy one guy have control over two, you can't do that.
That's not going to hold water.
That argument would take place under the tenets of feminism, and it would somehow discriminate against women.
You're going to have two women in a marriage or one guy, no way, Jose, we're not permitting that.
Well, what if it's two women who want to get married to one guy?
I mean, the feminism argument there doesn't exist.
It's out the woman, out the window.
In fact, it may even be amplified.
Well, what happens if if a woman wants to marry four guys?
Let's say that the Shaw skank prison guard up there, let's say she wanted to marry those two prisoners and two others.
After this, I know you're no, no, no, marriage is two people.
You can't, folks, you've got to understand here.
Supreme Court decisions create a lot of things.
Precedent, new rules.
And there's now animals, here's a the one thing about animals that that even though a woman in the U.K. did marry her dog, animals cannot give consent.
So I don't that's not a legitimate thing.
An animal can't consent to a marriage to its master.
An animal doesn't know what that's that really I'm thinking that the line would be drawn there.
Actually, who the hell knows anymore?
But there's nothing to limit the number of people in a marriage with this ruling, with the dignity and self-esteem and benefits.
Michael and Tallahassee in Florida, great to have you, sir, on the EIB network, and thank you for calling.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Conservatives should emulate the Supreme Court, and conservatives should use the same method of reading Supreme Court rulings as the Supreme Court uses to reading the Constitution or laws.
So the Supreme Court adds things to the laws of the Constitution or deletes things that they don't like.
So why can't conservatives say that they hail the Supreme Court rulings because the Supreme Court struck down subsidies for people in states that don't have exchanges?
Or the Supreme Court upheld traditional marriage and denied gay marriage illegal.
So why can't we do that?
Because words don't mean anything anymore.
Well, I look at I get your point, and I want to I want to make your point the following way.
I want to explain.
My friend Andy McCarthy had a piece Saturday morning that ran on the web at National Review Online.
And his uh, if if I may paraphrase, his point was that the Supreme Court has abandoned law as a manner of rendering its decisions.
And it has become essentially a political branch of government.
And he makes a very good point.
In all of these Supreme Court cases, in every damn one of them, I don't care if it's gay marriage or if it's the Affordable Care Act or if it's anything, there is never ever any doubt whatsoever how the four liberal justices are going to vote.
You have Breyer, you have uh uh Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg, you have uh Sophoma, and you have Elena Kagan.
You'll get three women and Briar in there.
That block, there is never any doubt.
They are there to advance the Democrat Party agenda.
They are there to advance the leftist agenda.
There is never ever any question in the media or anywhere else about how they're gonna come down on any issue.
But on the other side, you you can't guarantee where Scalia and Thomas and Alito and Roberts are gonna fall.
And nor Kennedy.
Uh Kennedy and Roberts, I think, go back and forth uh happily being the perceived swing vote.
But in the in the case of all five of those justices, they're worked on by the media every case that matters.
They either have puff pieces written about them or they have scathing critical pieces written about them.
The other four are ignored.
There's no question what they're gonna do.
And given that, this court's not even a court.
It's just a branch office, half of it's a branch office of the Democrat Party.
And so the question then becomes again how do we how do we deal with and and react to and treat these decisions on high from this place?
Because they have purposefully and willingly assumed this lofty position where they're going to decide political questions, not legal.
And believe me, that is one of the reasons so many people who study this and follow it are really worried, angry, upset, what have you.
Because we're not getting the law out of these people.
We're getting politics.
As designed, by the way, by the left.
This exactly they've they've they've corrupted as much of the judiciary as they can by putting fellow traveler politicians on courts as judges.
Well, they were judges to begin with, but but they are they're they're political hacks first and judges second, and they're all over the federal bench, both at a district level the appellate level, and they end up on the Supreme Court.
So this was a political question.
There's there's no this this case should have been rejected.
A Supreme Court that deals with constitutionality, the law would look this is not a question for us.
It's a question for the American people.
Marriage has always been in the purview of the states.
We're not going to supersede that.
It's not our job to take that over.
We have no business deciding this.
That's the legal analysis of this.
But that would not sit well with the Democrat Party and the leftists, because the court is supposed to be a branch of the Democrat Party where the stamp of finality is to be placed on political issues.
And that's why I tell you something, when I when I hear Republicans say, well, okay, that ends that because that's now the law of the land.
No, it's not.
It was the political decision of the time made, but it's not the law of the land.
I mean, it is the law of the land.
But it's a it's it's a bit of a the correct reaction to something like that is if you're running for president, elect me so I can put people on this court who are gonna go back to judging the law and not imposing their own personal political views on us.
That's the answer.
Somebody comes along, whoa, you know, there's the law of the land.
I think we just gotta move on to that.
Uh you don't that that's do you ever hear the left say when they lose a decision?
Well, that's the law of the land.
They they when they lose a decision, they start attacking every I'm not saying emulate them in the way they go about personally destroying people.
But point is when it comes to their political agenda, anything and everything goes, and if we're not on even the same playing field, it's all academic.
Let me give you grab audio summite number one.
We have a little montage here from Friday and Saturday of people on uh let's see, I guess this is basically people on Fox, various programs on Fox, analyzing the Supreme Court decision here.
While conservatives clearly lost in both cases, some people are arguing they're in fact in better shape politically going forward.
You know who should be happy about this?
Republicans.
The gift to the GOP.
Both of these things take the pressure off the Obamacare decision was probably a great boon to Republicans.
We know where public opinion is and where it is going.
So are Republicans gonna go off chasing a rabbit they'll never be able to catch.
What do you think the meaning of all that is?
We're st we're told we won.
How do we win?
How do we because we've lost another couple of issues, but they're taken off the table.
We don't have to embarrass ourselves fighting for them anymore, so we've won.
Don't you like that?
We're in the midst of losing big time, and here come these learned analysts telling us, no, no, no, no, you're winning.
How are we winning?
Because you're not going to embarrass yourself anymore trying to go after issues that nobody likes.
That's what we're supposed to pardon me.
I know, folks, it was it was uh it was Peggy Noonan in this soundbite that I played, who said, We know where public opinion is and where it's going, so our Republicans are gonna go off chasing a rabbit they'll never be able to catch.
She was talking about gay marriage there.
Because everybody knows polling on health care.
Nobody's there's never been a majority in favor of Obamacare.
There isn't now.
By the way, Paul Ryan, I better get to this other stack of stuff out there.
Paul Ryan's out there saying that Obamacare is going to collapse of its own weight or some such thing.
It's just gonna it's gonna implode on itself because it can't it cannot possibly uh sustain itself.
But that's look this Peggy Noonan is quote for what these these people, it's the same old thing.
You got a controversial issue, oh no, we'll only lose.
Just thank God for the court, they've taken it off.
We don't have to argue.
This this is these are all Republicans who think social issues are killing them.
But what it represents, folks, is uh is a lack of motivation to fight for what they believe in, if they believe it.
That's all these quotes really mean.
It's a gift to the Republican Party.
Now the issues are gone.
You don't have to embarrass me anymore by having idiots in our party make cases out of these issues.
That's all it means.
Umigan, this is Sue.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks so much for your show and everything you do.
Um my question is since the subprime court made their ruling, I'd like to ask you, how many gays do you think will be demand will be demanding to be married in a mosque?
I don't think any.
And why might that be?
Um the truth of the matter is that the gay community in America does not see militant Islam as discriminating against them.
Militant is true.
Militant Islamists have not denied them happiness in good times and getting married, and it's Christians.
It's Christian.
You might say, but do they not know that homosexuals are put to death in in Muslim countries?
Well, but it's not happening in America.
We don't live in those countries.
They're not gonna go and they're they're scared.
They're not gonna go to a mosque and demand it's not what this is about.
This is not designed to take down Islam.
This the target's not Islam.
The target is not religion per se.
The target is Christians.
And I'm glad you called because it's an excellent point.
Gotta go, though.
Back after this.
Okay, big exciting hour broadcast excellence remaining.
Al Gore said, way too early to pick Hillary.
Emails show that Hillary withheld emails from the State Department when she told him she gave them everything.
Withheld on oil and terrorism.
▲
Export Selection