Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Rush Limbaugh Compares Marriage Equality for 9 Million Americans to Animal Marriage
Rush Limbaugh lived down to expectations today by claiming that the 14 Amendment doesn’t cover same sex or animal marriage.
Audio courtesy of Media Matters:
Transcript from Rush Limbaugh:
LIMBAUGH: No, I don’t think 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, 400 years down the line where marriage isn’t gonna be between a man and a woman.” Wouldn’t even consider it. What are you trying to get, original intent for marriage in the Constitution?
Here’s the thing. You know, the 14th Amendment is what the same-sex marriage proponents are using, and that’s how they’re linking it to civil rights. And, by the way, this is really important here, folks. The reason that the proponents of homosexual marriage call it a civil right is because it’s all about optics and imagery and PR, and if you’ve got a civil right, no matter what it is, it may as well be draped in gold. A civil right is unchallengeable. A civil right is the most powerful right anybody can have. And people who oppose them are bigots. So you categorize what you want as a civil right, you immediately establish your opponent as a bunch of bigot hayseeds making it easier to defeat them.
Now, 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 of same-sex marriage, the 14th 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 Civli (sic) War. But, you know, the left looks at the Constitution and sees things that aren’t there and then they find ‘em.
A little background is required to understand who Rush Limbaugh was comparing to animal marriage. According to a 2011 study by the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute, “Drawing on information from four recent national and two state-level population-based surveys, the analyses suggest that there are more than 8 million adults in the US who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, comprising 3.5% of the adult population. There are also nearly 700,000 transgender individuals in the US. In total, the study suggests that approximately 9 million Americans – roughly the population of New Jersey – identify as LGBT. Key findings from the study include among adults who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, bisexuals comprise a slight majority (1.8% compared to 1.7% who identify as lesbian or gay); women are substantially more likely than men to identify as bisexual; estimates of those who report any lifetime same-sex sexual behavior and any same-sex sexual attraction are substantially higher than estimates of those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. An estimated 19 million Americans (8.2%) report that they have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior and nearly 25.6 million Americans (11%) acknowledge at least some same-sex sexual attraction.”
What if Republicans were arguing that the constitution does not provide rights for the entire population of New Jersey? The argument would be considered absurd, and laughed out of court. However, this is the argument that Republicans are making today. They are claiming that a group of people who are recognized as citizens in every other way, are not guaranteed the right to marry who they want to marry under the constitution.
Republicans apparently see no contradiction in labeling themselves the party of individual liberty and less government while they try to deny individual liberty to a group of Americans by asking a branch of the government to deny them rights.
No matter how the Supreme Court rules, conservatives like Rush Limbaugh have already lost. The court of public opinion supports marriage equality, and if Republicans keep talking about “animal marriage,” they will continue to lose elections.
Today, in response to a caller asking about the "slippery slope of gay marriage," Glenn Beck claimed that ga ...
Rush Limbaugh claims that Obama is at war with traditional marriages, but he personally has destroyed mo ...
Former Sec. of State and potential 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced her support for ...
Wow. This is just so easy. The day after President Obama made history by becoming the first sitting ...
Here is a puzzler of a position, one held by pretty much every Republican candidate and group, but I will le ...
Paws
Mar. 26th, 2013 at 6:35 pm
You’ll have to forgive me for not looking to Rush Limbaugh for constitutional scholarship.
kirbyjay
Mar. 28th, 2013 at 3:35 pm
The same can be said for gun rights. The founding fathers added the amendment to assure Americans that they could defend themselves against foreign or domestic governments. I don’t think Tom, John and Ben thought people would be mowing down children.
Churchlady
Mar. 26th, 2013 at 6:37 pm
I think he may be right. After all, he’s been getting human women to marry him, and look where THAT got us.
Sherlock
Mar. 27th, 2013 at 5:22 pm
Churchlady
Remember the 11th Commandment—- thou shall not assume.
PSzymeczek
Mar. 28th, 2013 at 11:42 am
That makes four women who’ve been married to a jackass.
Older_Wiser
Mar. 26th, 2013 at 6:39 pm
By his own interpretation, Animal Limbaugh has no right to be married either.
Anyone who looks to that asshat for their Constitutional education needs therapy.
Reynardine
Mar. 26th, 2013 at 6:54 pm
Cats form polyamorous pair bonds and still remain attached to each other for life, which is a little more than Rush has managed.
Basheert
Mar. 26th, 2013 at 10:18 pm
This is true – I have 2 neutered boys – who have grown up together and honestly, they are closer than an old married couple. They spend every second together, hugging and rolling around!
On the other hand, I have never had an urge to actually marry either of them.
Shiva
Mar. 26th, 2013 at 6:55 pm
The same argument can be applied to the 2nd. It is about as applicable for today as the one that says no forced quartering soldiers. The 2nd expects the citizens to be fighting wars. No longer true. No longer applicable.
But as expected, Rush doesnt understand equality. He has the bucks, and you dont count.
Its obvious Rush has nothing to say on the subject except to make up a story
labman57
Mar. 26th, 2013 at 8:49 pm
Christianity has as much validity as Scientology, witchcraft, or satan worshipping. All are based on a bunch of voodoo, black magic, and superstitious nonsense.
Well, what do you think? Pretty outrageous statement, eh?
If you are offended, what you are experiencing is some of the pain, anger, and outrage felt by the homosexual community when their lifestyle is equated with pedophilia, incest, polygamy, or bestiality.
Of course, homophobic haters hiding behind the Bible will no doubt indignantly claim that their comparisons are justified whereas the other one is not. Just further evidence of the holier-than-thou self-righteousness, prejudice, and hypocrisy of the socially intolerant so-called “religious right”.
Reality check — If you want to keep innocent children away from a subset of society that demonstrates a disproportionately high rate of pedophile behavior …. then don’t let your kids near the local Catholic priest or Boy Scouts scoutmaster.
djchefron(Moderator)
Mar. 26th, 2013 at 9:16 pm
At least the flying spaghetti monster is real.He is real?
Basheert
Mar. 26th, 2013 at 10:21 pm
Since most of us have gay friends or gay individuals we work with, it’s very hard to see what all this fuss is about. They are human beings.
Is it really Constitutional to make a law that impacts a specific group of individuals only because of who they are?
What’s next? Blondes?????
Just A Dumb Fireman
Mar. 26th, 2013 at 9:46 pm
Says the guy who was caught smuggling Viagra into the Dominican Republic – a place best known for the availability of little boys to hvae sex with…
Sherlock
Mar. 27th, 2013 at 4:37 pm
To Just a Dumb Fireman
I thought Limpdick was getting into those bronze Thai teen boys.
Can anyone out there– male or female- imagine having sex with this Rushthing?
mjh
Mar. 27th, 2013 at 1:46 am
Rush Limbaugh Compares Marriage Equality for 9 Million Americans to Animal Marriage
And Limpballs should know — the four women who married him basically married a fat pig . . .
.
befunknote
Mar. 27th, 2013 at 10:41 am
Omg. You can’t marry an animal because it can’t consent or sign a marriage license. This argument is so damn stupid!!
William
Mar. 27th, 2013 at 10:43 am
We should listen to Rush. He may completely oppose the intent of the constitution, but he [MUST] be an authority on marriage. He’s been married 5 times and divorced 4. He is a perfect spokesman for the sanctity of marriage.
Mark
Mar. 27th, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Isn’t the constitution written in such a way for future what ifs ? Wasn’t written overnight.And used big words that maybe Rush just doesn’t understand.
Sherlock
Mar. 27th, 2013 at 3:27 pm
I’m for a constitutional amendment to ban marriage of fat people to skinny people,or medium people or other fat people.
Sorry Limpdick– thats just the way it is in 2013 America.
Bill
Mar. 27th, 2013 at 3:40 pm
If there was a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only being between a man and woman then his parents wouldn’t have qualified. After all one was a pig the other a jack ass.
Torsh Johansen
Mar. 28th, 2013 at 6:03 pm
I find it hilarious (and sad) that folks will make the beastiality comparison. It’s like comparing apples & trucks.
It’s about rights of the PEOPLE, not animals. To sign a contract, you need to be human anyway. Completely misguided argument. We’re talking about different types of people who are not, by natural default, sexually compatible or child-bearing.
Would you say to a person born of both genders or sexually cut off biologically — that they can’t marry someone? No.
The founding fathers would have laughed at the notion of a black man being able to marry a white woman, just as much as two gals marrying each other. It’s about a bond, a non-platonic, romantic relationship — not level of fertility or sexual compatibility. Again, it’s about PEOPLE — any idiot knows that. Making a comparison about animals or inanimate objects just ruins one’s credibility.