Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  litmus tests

Fifty Bucks If You Know How Rush Limbaugh Answers the ‘Can I Be Conservative Without Favoring a Constitutional Gay Marriage Ban?’ Question

SOUNDBITES — “I tell you, abortion, the only choice that the Democrats and the left are going to allow before it’s all over is abortion, it’s the only choice they’re going to allow. But, you know, gay marriage, both of those things are not going to be solved by amending the Constitution and nobody is trying to. Those things are going to be solved or dealt with at the state level, and they’re not going to be pleasing to people. Those are cultural issues, the so-called social issues which a lot of Republicans want nothing to do with. But still, those are things the people of the country ought to vote on via the elected leaders that they send to various state legislatures around the country. We’ve never voted on abortion. You know, abortion does not nearly roil the British society like it does ours because they voted on it there. It was not imposed by a Supreme Court, nine people wearing black robes. Gay marriage, there’s a political issue behind gay marriage, the militant homosexual community has been pushing the envelope on a lot of things, but the way to deal with all of these is to have the people of the country or various states vote on them, and that’s — Of course you’re going to get people arguing, ‘Well, if one state allows gay marriage and 48 don’t, are you saying every gay that wants to get married has to go to that state?’ Well, yeah, at some point. That’s what the practical end result of it would be. It’s still going to be a controversial issue because where the states that have voted to make it illegal the gays are going to continue to press and force the issue so that they can change the vote there, which is what the country is all about.” —Rush Limbaugh, answering a caller’s question about whether it’s possible to remain conservative without wanting to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage (and abortion) (via)

(Thanks, Andrew!)

By:           editor editor
On:           Feb 13, 2010
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 21 Comments
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      So: well, he knows the Supreme Court doesn’t decide what happens in Britain. That’s a start, I guess.

      Feb 13, 2010 at 11:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob Lablah
      Bob Lablah

      I’ll bet $50 no one cares! On second thought I’ll bet $.50 no one cares.

      It really sickens me how talk radio show hosts can keep the attention of the American public, grammatical errors and all, while that same public can not see just how high off the hog these people live via their ignorance.

      Feb 13, 2010 at 11:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JT
      JT

      Well, he doesn’t know the number of states, and still can’t make even an elementary logical series of statements. On the positive side, he does seem to indicate that legalization of gay marriage is inevitable, even though he also doesn’t know how many states allow gay marriage.

      Teabaggers, take note: Your prophet, Rush, is abandoning you! He is backing down on pure conservatism (at least how you define it). He equivocated and left open a possibility that something positive will happen. Rebel, I say! Run him out of the country and off the air!

      Feb 13, 2010 at 11:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      London calling? I read Limbaugh’s quotes three times and still don’t think I “get” what he’s saying about same-sex marriage and how he’s trying to compare it against abortion. And then he brings up England, and whatever argument he was trying to make fell like a tin shanty in a storm.

      Did he ramble so incoherently when he was on drugs?

      Feb 14, 2010 at 12:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bobito
      bobito

      @Lukas P.: What makes you think he’s not on drugs now?

      Feb 14, 2010 at 4:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      @bobito: Good question!
      Folks relapse all the time. Maybe he did. He sure has gone quiet on issues relating to illegal drugs, though, hasn’t he?

      If he were taking ‘legal’ psychostimulants (e.g. for narcolepsy, ADD, etc.) he’d theoretically be more focused brain-wise, and prob. losing kilos. Seems to me — based on just a few minutes of seeing/listening to him, he’s doing neither! I could be wrong.

      So, what’s his point? Let the Feds settle abortion issues but let the states handle same-sex marriage? [no need to answer, I don't think he knew what his point was either!]

      Feb 14, 2010 at 5:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Curt T
      Curt T

      We only have 49 states?

      Feb 14, 2010 at 9:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ROB
      ROB

      Well, the British parliament voted to legalise abortion in 1967, not as a result of either a referendum or due to the introduction of a Bill by the Labour government of the time. It was in fact a Private Member’s Bill introduced by the Liberal Party (in British terms, the centrist third party between Conservative and Labour) MP David Steel. The government did allow the Bill enough parliamentary time to pass, and the Abortion Act should be seen in the context of the other progressive private members’ legislation of the mid- to late-60s, such as the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the abolition of the death penalty. Limbaugh is as ignorant as ever, however, if he thinks the British people voted on abortion in anything but the most indirect fashion. He is right, though, that apart from for some hard-right fundamentalist cretins, abortion (nor, largely, gay rights) is simply not a political issue in the UK.

      Feb 14, 2010 at 10:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Conrad
      Conrad

      “Marriage” is an institution for two people to live together and have a family. Same sex marriage is not in line with family and children.

      If two people want to live together… does not mean marriage.

      It simply doesn’t make any common sense

      Feb 14, 2010 at 11:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BamBam
      BamBam

      @conrad:

      What about the straights without any kids? Or after the kids move out? Or before they have kids? Are they married?

      And what about gays with kids? Are they allowed to get married in your world?

      Dumbass.

      Feb 14, 2010 at 12:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NYC
      Brian NYC

      Let’s get together and pick the “gay State.” I like Hawaii.

      Feb 14, 2010 at 1:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      @Conrad: You simply don’t make any common sense, dear. What are you doing on this forum? Shouldn’t you be over on Craig’s List trolling for the “Straight-acting, straight-appealing”?

      Feb 14, 2010 at 1:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      @Conrad: gay people have children, either their own or through much needed adoption, and in which case they need the legal protections and benefits of civil marriage. Get a clue.

      As for Rush, is he sounding conciliatory, or am I losing my mind?

      Feb 14, 2010 at 2:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe from Atlanta
      Joe from Atlanta

      Conservatives are all about attacking the Supreme Court for the flimsy reason that they are making law, except where it serves their own sordid political means. They like not intervening in states rights, except when it takes away from the Florida Supreme Court the right to order a recount in Bush vs. Gore. Conservatives like elections, but only if they go their way and can overturn them at the US Supreme Court. The popular vote in that election was Gore by more than half-a-million votes. As more educated people move to urban areas, liberal votes get concentrated in large states. Conservatives win only in the small states (where the educated have fled for better jobs and income)and the Deep South, where Republican governors give lip service to improving education or blame teachers.

      Feb 14, 2010 at 3:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Timothy
      Timothy

      If I understand what he’s saying (and with Rush Limbaugh, his “meaning” is always what he says it was way after the fact when it becomes clear that he makes no sense on the face of it), he’s endorsing federalism. Some states will decide for marriage and others will continue to have “controversy” until the militant homosexuals change the vote.

      Or something like that.

      Feb 14, 2010 at 9:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No matter how one spells his name, Rush Limburger still stinks!

      Feb 14, 2010 at 10:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Rush Windbag is possibly insuring his next marriage is legit………unusual that the Rush is Gay story never got much traction. His 3 marriages were all failures. He met his last wife thru an internet service. They never lived together nor were photographed together. Supposdly he favors younger Hispanic hustlers…………

      Feb 15, 2010 at 10:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      @Terrwill: if there’s any truth to that, I think his 10 million listeners would go cross-eyed in unison. LMAO

      Feb 15, 2010 at 11:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • observer
      observer

      @bobito: Have you ever noticed how uncomfortable he looks when he is on camera being interviewed?

      Personally I think drugs are the reason why he was hospitalized not too long ago and he is gearing up support (clandestinely) from anyone when the shit finally hits the fan. It won’t be long before the editors of what is left of the major newspapers in America take off the gloves and allow the truth to be told about ol’ Rush.

      I can forgive anyone who tries to get their life together but this is one man I will never forgive. He got rich by literally condemning people to death all for the sake of money and fame. And it is now time for him to take his medicine.

      Feb 15, 2010 at 7:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Curt T don’t nitpick – I can’t stand the man either, but he was just making a “what if” point eg if all states don’t agree.

      Now, I listen to him once in a while for about 10 minutes, my maximum before I get almost physically ill; and he is doing what many do – just telling people what they want to hear.

      Obviously he didn’t even answer the question because the Constitution guarantees equality; and our interpretation has changed over the years, women get to vote now and colored peoples are no longer slaves. So he can’t use the excuse that the framers didn’t envision same sex marriage. We are talking about the PRINCIPLE of equality which is very clearly in there.

      But finally, I’m not sure I even see the point of mentioning Flush because his followers are about as blind as a bat and as unthinking as Lemmings.

      Feb 16, 2010 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      sorry – meant to say “and no amount of logic will change (Rush Limbaugh’s followers) minds.

      Feb 16, 2010 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.