Blogs Mar 26, 2013 at 6:37 am


In any case, the popular vote shouldn't matter. It's a civil right and civil rights actually should not be put to a popular vote. They are fundamental. This really is a decision for those dang "activist" judges. But it's going to happen either way.

I wonder when Rush is going to collapse and die under the weight of his bile and moral corruption...
Someone needs to let Rush know about the polls.
Do you honestly think he would care? Rush is a bigot in so many contexts it is tough to keep track. He in an echo chamber personified. There is nothing that you could tell him that would ever cause him to question his assholery.
At least he's right about being a bigot.
I'm sure in 1954 he would have made the same argument against Brown v. Board of Education
Marriage equality has been a civil right for at least 45 years: just ask Mildred and Richard Loving. And ain't it funny how Limpballs today sounds just like the racist bigots opposing interracial marriage 50 years ago.
tolerate his intolerance, you anti-intolerant bigots!
@4 You can bet his dad did, and told little RushBo all about it during their nightly ass rape sessions that he would later blame on gay blacks.
But, but, but... Elton John performed at his (latest) wedding, so he can't be bigot.
@3 - thanks for the laugh.
Lots of people regularly tell Rush to go fuck himself. He doesn't care. It's good for ratings. If he ever finds himself caring, he just pops another pill.

Look up "loathsome creature" in the dictionary. They use Limbaugh's picture for an illustration.
Tormato @4: No need to imagine - I'm pretty sure he argues against Brown v. Board of Education NOW.
"So same-sex marriage and wiping out the Defense of Marriage Act is now a civil right. People that oppose it are bigots"

No Rush, it's not "Now". It's always been a civil right, just one that has been illegally denied a segment of the population, and people who have opposed equality have ALWAYS been bigots.

These gay hating fucks get upset at being called bigots. They think that if they can get us to stop calling them bigots then history won't remember them as bigots, but they are wrong. Even if every person today stopped calling these bigoted assholes what they are history will still not remember them well. If Rush makes it into the history books he will be remembered in them for being a bigot, no matter how many people today call him out on it or not.

That's what the republicans who are jumping ship on this issue and starting to take a stand for what is right are doing. They are trying to get on the right side of history so that they won't be remembered in history as a bigot, because they know what way the wind is blowing and realize they can't stop it.
Is that windbag still talking somewhere? Why does anyone listen?
Voting on Civil Rights is like 9 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Thankfully, 5/9s of the wolves are now pretty enlightened.
What? Rush Limpballs is still alive? I thought he died from too much Viagra and OxyContin and whatever else he stuffs down his slimy, lard-filled body. In any case, he'd have to fuck himself because I'm sure no self-respecting woman would ever let that get near them, let alone on top of them. Ugh. Now I'll have to go watch the Jim Carrey gun video again to rid myself of the image of Limpballs and his (undoubtedly) pinky-sized dick.
Who cares what fat moron says? Just tell us who his sponsors are so we can use our money to fuck his fat ass.
Fucking hell! It took only a few weeks to out-do FauxNewzSalts' "Germany is much sunnier than America" shit in the self-apparent lies department. At least in that case, the typical ignorant-of-geography viewer would have had to think of questioning the matter and look up the answer.

Surely even Limpballs' dittoslime can be expected to have been exposed to a basic news report about recent election results. Was he actually able to resist blathering about it himself after the election to show how depraved we are? Hard to believe he missed that low hanging fruit. (pun intended) I guess that would have been flushed down the memory hole by now.
Rush is right ! Dan, why do you hate so much?

Polls and Votes are two different things numbnuts.

"Gay rights" are meant to confer "rights" to a select group of people and not to the broader society. It is therefore nothing but a power grab.
Oh No.....

Is Danny developing a Hate Rape Crush on Rush?

Does Danny want to make some santorum IN Rush?


Remember, Danny.

Confessing that didn't go so well with Rick.

Have you ever gotten back on TV yet?
@18: Fuck you asshole. If you understood the US Constitution you would realize that all rights not explicitly granted to the federal government or to the States are the rights of the people. The US Constitution does not grant rights. It only states which rights the government has.

The easiest question to ask to determine if a person truly understand the Constitution is to ask "is the Bill of Rights redundant?"
He's the Original Troll.

Rush has been quite effectively marginalized since the Sandra Fluke dustup, and he knows it. Advertisers have continued to flee, and no one save for the extreme fringe give to whits about what he has to say anymore.

So now he has to be even more ludicrous than ever, just to hang on to that sliver of actively dying (literally) audience that he has left. He knows he's full of shit, and he doesn't really care one way or another about marriage equality. He's just a sad, obese, has-been troll trying to be relevant, and failing miserably.
There is no irony in the fact his followers are called Dittoheads.

I just wish America could get past the hate-politics & the emotionalism, and move into an era where people and politicians have actual, rational discussions in the media. But we are probably several generations from that happening. *sigh*
@18: I asked Seattleblues this question and now you are to receive my wisdom as well. What right are gays asking for that straights wouldn't also have?
When all else fails, conservatives just choose to stop history at a point where it works for their argument. I've heard Anne Coulter do the same thing numerous times with idea that the Democratic party is the party of bigotry and racism because all those evil segregationists were Democrats after all.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

- Mildred Loving on June 12, 2007, the 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement

Limbaugh and Coulter are going down in the history books with the KKK and Jim Crow. Fuck those bigots, they're losing and they know it.
Venomlast- Gay people already had the right to marry in the EXACT same way that everyone else does...

That is, to marry a person of the opposite sex. Nobody was denying them that right.

However, gays want special dispensation of rights to accommodate their particular predilections.

Oh, and delirium, you are only partially right on your Con-law.

The Constitution LIMITS the federal government; Those items that the Constitution is silent on, falls to the STATES to decide. They are not automatically a "right of the people" as you say.

Its not "hate." Its just wrong to make this "right" out of whole cloth.
Rush is choosing to conveniently ignore what is one of the most exhilarating aspects of the push for marriage equality, and that is the tremendous speed of progress. Four years ago? Sure, no state was going to allow same-sex marriage via popular vote. Less than six months ago? Yup, FOUR states voted in favor of civil rights. Change has all the momentum now, so Rush just pretends he's living in the last decade.
"However, gays want special dispensation of rights to accommodate their particular predilections."

Wait... I'm hetero and I would gain the right to marry someone of my gender. By your logic, gays wouldn't get any *more* rights than heteros, we'd still be as equal as we were before I got my new (hetero) right.
@26: That's more or less what Seattleblues said. As #28 has neatly observed, straights would ALSO have the right to marry people of the same gender as them. So tell me, which rights would gays get that straights WOULDN'T?
Also, have you ever heard the expression "a tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews"?
"Gay people already had the right to marry in the EXACT same way that everyone else does...

That is, to marry a person of the opposite sex. Nobody was denying them that right."

That's a disingenuous argument.

The key is being able to marry the person you love.

Your argument could also be used against interracial marriage. The argument that interracial couples weren't being discriminated against because they had the same right to marry someone of the same race that everyone else had.

It was a transparent and disingenuous argument then, and it still is.

It also undermines the very notion of marriage that these folks claim to want to protect.

It basically says that it is perfectly fine to enter into a sham marriage with someone you don't want to really spend your life with, but not to enter into a committed marriage with the person you love.

That marriages of convenience are OK, but marriage with someone you actually care about can easily be forbidden if you happen to be part of a group of people that the majority simply doesn't like.

It's a shoddy argument at best.
Marriage does NOT equal happiness people. Take it from all the divorced people out there.

Marriage is but a contract with two people, with the expectation of REARING children TOGETHER. The government and 4000 years of history believes that is the best general situation for society. Yes there are exceptions.

Venomlast, the government is not taxing gays despite what you believe in all your little heart. Nor is the government denying people from being gay. It just shouldn't sanction it.

Government should be TOTALLY NEUTRAL on the subject of Homos. Neither sanction it or prevent it.
@ 31, people pursue happiness in many ways. It's not about finding it, it's about pursuing it.

Does your head hurt a lot?
We won't prevent black people from being black but we won't sanction it.

Fucking hilarious.
@ 31 Government should be TOTALLY NEUTRAL on the subject of Homos. Neither sanction it or prevent it.

I couldn't agree more, which is why the government has a duty to uphold same-sex marriage!

Which is more neutral? The government that doesn't distinguish between hetero or homosexuality and allows both hetero and homosexual couples the right to be married to the person of their choice, or the government that denies that right to only homosexual people? That doesn't seem very neutral to me.
"Marriage does NOT equal happiness people. Take it from all the divorced people out there."

Marriage is a path to happiness for many. Just because some people fuck it up doesn't mean that marriage doesn't make a lot of people happy. But we should all have a chance at it just the same if we want to give it a try.

"Marriage is but a contract with two people, with the expectation of REARING children TOGETHER."

Really? Well, take a look at our marriage laws and tell me what rights regarding child rearing are specifically linked to marriage.

Is it financial responsibility? Oh, no that's based simply on being the parent.

Is it the right to custody? No, that's based on being a parent.

Is it the right to visitation? No, that's based on being a parent.

The vast majority of rights and responsibilities between parent and child under the law have to do with being one of the child's parents regardless if you are married.

Marriage has to do with money, and the ability to make a person you are not related to by blood your next of kin. It is also a public recognition of the relationship between two adults.

Back in the day the way it related to children was to establish the official heirs of someone so that they could make sure that property and titles went to the right person.

Besides, plenty of gay people rear children together. Not allowing gay people to marry does harm children. Allowing gay people to marry harms no one in any way that anyone has ever been able to objectively demonstrate.

"Government should be TOTALLY NEUTRAL on the subject of Homos. Neither sanction it or prevent it"

Not allowing gay people to marry is not neutral. It denies gay people the same benefits and access to public institutions that straight people have and is therefore inherently punitive. Allowing gay people the same rights as straight people IS neutral. It is the only neutral stance.

The government doesn't sanction our existence. It either tries to put as at a disadvantage or it doesn't. To put us at a disadvantage by denying us equal access to the rights, responsibilities and protections of all laws is punitive and an attempt to prevent it. To allow us equality is to not make a statement but to simply not actively try to cause harm, distress or punishment of gay people for being gay.

The idea that treating someone fairly and equally is some kind of sanction would really put our whole public morality into question.

We allow criminals to marry. Is that sanctioning crime? We allow divorced people to remarry. Are we sanctioning divorce? We allow men who father children with multiple women to marry. Are we sanctioning out of wedlock children? We even allow pedophiles to marry. Is that sanctioning pedophilia?

NO, NO, NO!!!

Allowing two people to marry doesn't sanction some aspect of who they are. It is just recognizing a legal right that people have regardless if we like them, or approve of / sanction their actions.
@31: I never said anything about the government taxing gays. Look up the quote.
@31: It's not a matter of "special rights", it's a matter of equal access. And there is no particular provision or impetus for rearing children. You're talking church which, if I remember my U.S. government fundamentals, is supposed to be separate from matters of state no matter how icky or sinful you find the queers. Prop 8 and DOMA are hardly neutral with regards to gays- they actively discriminate, creating a definition of marriage that did not exist before with the specific purpose of excluding us from the institution. Government has the duty of advocacy to all its citizens. Period.
Why do gay people hate religious people so much?

Celebrate Diversity !
@ 38, you got "gay" where "religious" should go, and vice versa.

Have you had a lie down yet?
@26: Equal protection clause, motherfucker.

Bigots like you will always cling to anything that they can remotely use to justify their hate. Fuck off and die.
"Why do gay people hate religious people so much?"

Most gay people ARE religious t some extent.

Gay people don't hate religious people.

Gay people hate people who use their religion like a weapon to hurt us.

If you just followed your religion and lived your own life according to it without trying to mess with other peoples' lives no one would care one whit about your religion.

But the willful ignorance of someone who uses their religion as justification for discriminating against other, then acts all offended when those people don't react to them or their religion positively, is rather amazing.

If you don't want people to hate your religion then stop using your religion in a hateful way. If you want people to respect you're religion then don't use your religion as an excuse to show disrespect for other people's lives and relationships.

And diversity only takes you so far. No one should expect Jews to celebrate diversity with Nazi's, or black people to celebrate diversity with the KKK. So why expect gay people to celebrate diversity with right wing anti gay fundamentalist religious people?
"But the thing you can't say is that if left to a vote of the people, same-sex marriage loses every time it's on the ballot."

Rush must have forgotten about the 3 states that voted in favor of SSM in November.
For Pete sake ignore Rush, he needs attention and will wither and die without it. I don't give a shit what he is saying this week.
Hey everybody. Just remember, Rush Limbaugh is a sex tourist who was caught with an illegal Viagra prescription while returning from a destination where child prostitution is rampant.
"Gay rights" are meant to confer "rights" to a select group of people and not to the broader society. It is therefore nothing but a power grab.
Not at all. My wife and I have enjoyed the very rights in question for over 16 years now.
Gay people already had the right to marry in the EXACT same way that everyone else does...
Not if we accept that, in a plurality--probably an outright majority--of cases, marriage involves both erotic attraction and emotional and/or intellectual and/or spiritual compatibility. That is, you spend the rest of your life with someone you can stand to share your life with and who will fuck you once in a while.
The Constitution LIMITS the federal government; Those items that the Constitution is silent on, falls to the STATES to decide. They are not automatically a "right of the people" as you say.
The language implicates both the people AND the state. So really, it depends on whether the people are willing to bend to the will of the state.
Marriage is but a contract with two people, with the expectation of REARING children TOGETHER.
Less than 50% of marriages at any given time involve progeny. Moreover, the medically sterile and the elderly remain allowed to marry. Would you also deny them that right? Should married couples be barred from using contraception?
Now while we're at it, any bets that GeneStoner is the "artist" formerly known as SeattleBlues?
@44 I keep hoping someone will come up with footage of him with an underage prostitute in some foreign country and we can ship him off to face his crimes and be rid of his limp dick, smarmy persona, and inflammatory lies.
@46: I'll take that action.
@38, some people are gay AND religious! Imagine that!
Wow, genestoner, there isn't a single one of your posts that doesn't include a completely wrong statement, blind ignorance or both.

The reason you hold your beliefs is because what you think are "facts" don't exist. Since you have the entire internet at your disposal, where you could read, think, and consider what GLBT folks want, and what they don't have, it is reasonable to assume that you aren't interesting in learning or expanding your understanding of the world. The very definition of a closed mind.

There is no point in arguing w/ you, since you've chosen blindness, and you like it there. Your only hope is to somehow pull a Michelle Shocked on someone and somehow convince them to close their minds.

Good luck w/ that.

I'd suggest another website.
Genestoner = Loveschild
@ GeneStoner re: "Marriage does NOT equal happiness people."

No, it does not. But marriage does equal the following:

-Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee;
-Appointment as guardian of a minor;
-Award of child custody in divorce proceedings;
-Beneficial owner status of corporate securities;
-Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses;
-Burial of service member's dependents;
-Certificates of occupation;
-Consent to post-mortem examination;
-Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases;
-Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property
-Criminal injuries compensation;
-Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee
-Disclosure of vital statistics records;
-Division of property after dissolution of marriage;
-Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation;
-Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments;
-Exemption from conveyance tax;
-Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants;
-Funeral leave for government employees;
-Homes of totally disable veterans exempt from property taxes;
-Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates;
-Inheritance of land patents;
-Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society;
-Legal status with partner’s children;
-Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts;
-Making partner medical decisions;
-Nonresident tuition deferential waiver;
-Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings;
-Notice of probate proceedings;
-Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee;
-Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death;
-Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation;
-Proof of business partnership;
-Public assistance from the Department of Human Services;
-Qualification at a facility for the elderly;
-Real property exemption from attachment or execution;
-Right of survivorship to custodial trust;
-Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate;
-Right to change names;
-Right to enter into pre-marital agreement;
-Right to file action for nonsupport;
-Right to inherit property;
-Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land;
-Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act;
-Right to support after divorce;
-Right to support from spouse;
-Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment;
-Rights by way of dour or courtesy;
-Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code;
-Sole interest in property;
-Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications;
-Spousal immigration benefits;
-Status of children;
-Support payments in divorce action;
-Tax relief for natural disaster losses;
-Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death;
-Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment;
-In vitro fertilization coverage;
-Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics.

When you say that you don't believe the government should allow consenting adults of the same sex to marry, you are saying that you believe our government should systematically deny them the rights I listed above (list courtesy PFLAG). And that makes your wish to inflict your beliefs on other human beings unconscionable and cruel.
From the beginning of history until (at the earliest in this country) 1839 (and really, more like 1919 nationally), women were subject to coverture and treated as their husbands' property. So is that what "traditional marriage" is? The ownership of a woman by a man? Actually, of course Genestoner would believe that (or claim to), because trolls are not governed by reason or common sense or human dignity.
@26-- you wrote "Gay people already had the right to marry in the EXACT same way that everyone else does... That is, to marry a person of the opposite sex. Nobody was denying them that right."

And if SCOTUS ultimately rules to allow marriage equality, straight people will have the right to marry in the EXACT same way that gay people do: straight people, if they so choose, will have the right to marry someone of the same sex.

In fact, at that point, all people will have the right to marry someone of either sex. So we're not talking about special rights for a small group. We're talking about equal rights.
There really is no better way to respond to Rush that what was said. So let me repeat:.


Someone needs to let Rush know about the polls. And someone needs to let Rush know that marriage equality has been approved at the ballot box—in four states. And someone needs to tell Rush to go fuck himself.

End Quote.

SomeONE? We all need to tell Rush to fuck himself!!
@31 GAH! Can we stop with the "The government and 4000 years of history believes that is the best general situation for society" bullshit already?! Go read your fucking bible and some history (I recommend Stephanie Coontz's "Marriage: A History" to start, then throw in "Sex At Dawn" for a deeper level).

Marriage is not about rearing children, it's about economics (as thelyamhound points out in @45) and just like ALL of our laws, it's a social construct which has changed over time and civilizations.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.