Skip to comments.Left Outraged by Roberts' Analogy
Posted on 03/26/2013 4:05:09 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: I'm just waiting for the printer to spit something out here. It's about the chief justice. Here's the headline: "Chief Justice John Roberts Compares Gay Marriage To Forcing A Child To Call Someone 'A Friend.'" They have released the audio of the oral arguments now, and this is the story from Mediaite. "The optimism that Jean Podrasky, cousin of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, displayed when she told The Los Angeles Times that she 'trust(s) he will go in a good direction' in deciding whether same-sex couples have the right to marry may have been misplaced. On MSNBCs Andrea Mitchell Reports Tuesday afternoon, fill-in host Chris Cillizza played some sound from todays oral arguments on Proposition 8, in which Roberts compares gay marriage rights to forcing a child to call someone a friend."
Whoa-ho! That could not have gone over well inside the court.
"In one of the early pieces of sound to emerge from oral arguments ... Roberts made a particularly brain-dead comparison that might portend disappointment for his cousin. 'If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say "this is my friend," but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that's, it seems to me, what (supporters?) of Proposition 8 are saying here. All youre interested in is the label, and you insist on changing the definition of the label.'"
So let me interpret this for you. What Roberts is saying, marriage is a man and a woman. It's what it's always been. It's what the word means. Now you want the label to mean something new so you may as well start telling kids that they have to tell everybody that they're their friend. I know exactly what he's talking about. He's simply saying marriage is what it is. If you go to the dictionary, marriage has a specific definition.
Now, if you're coming here and saying that you want to change that definition, then you are essentially just telling everybody that they must accept everybody as their friend or as they want to be accepted and that definitions don't mean anything. Tommy Christopher, the Mediaite reporter, refers to that as brain-dead. And I think that's classic. I think that perfectly illustrates where we are. We have a low-information reporter here who doesn't care what the definition of a word is, who doesn't care what the meaning of it is. All that matters to this brain-dead reporter is that the chief justice doesn't see the world the way he does, and therefore the chief justice is brain-dead.
It's what I've always said, the real problem with low-information people is not what they don't know; it's what they do know that's wrong. And that was actually an utterance of the famous and great Ronaldus Magnus. The problem is not what they don't know; it's what they do know that's wrong, or what they do know that isn't right.
I tell you, once this gets out, this is gonna be the focal point of everybody's discussion, and they're gonna humiliate Roberts. You haven't seen anything yet. Once this gets out, and it is out now: "Chief Justice Roberts compares gay marriage to forcing a child to call someone a 'friend.'" And the proponents of gay marriage, I mean this is the most important thing in the world. It's the most important thing in the world, and it's love, it's about love, and here's Roberts making fun of it and impugning it, diminishing it, acting like these people are just a bunch of kids. Oh, this is not gonna sit well with the low-information crowd in the media, folks.
RUSH: We have the audio of Chief Justice Roberts during oral arguments on the same-sex marriage case today.
ROBERTS: If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, "This is my friend," but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend -- and that, it seems to me, what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. All you're interested in is the label, and you insist on changing the definition of the label.
RUSH: I hate to say it -- I mean, I really hate to say it -- but he's dead-on right. You know, words mean things. At the root level, that's what this is all about. It's about changing definitions to include people who don't automatically (What's the word?) qualify. That's all this is about when you boil it all down, and every argument made to advance it is marketing and packaging. Now, where does this come from, by the way? "If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, 'This is my friend.'" Are there schools that do that? Would he maybe have had a child in a school where that was required?
Are there schools that make the children refer to every other child as their friend and the teachers refer to the students as their friends, and might he have had a child in such a school? What are the odds? So the media guy is calling him a meathead, but you boil this down to its essence, to its most simple, and this is exactly what this is about. It isn't a civil rights issue. It isn't a love issue. It isn't any of that. If everybody is your friend, then there's no such thing as a friend -- and if anybody can marry anybody, there really isn't anything called "marriage" anymore.
Marriage is a word. It's in the dictionary. Look it up. It has a meaning.
It did not evolve out of any form of bigotry or discrimination.
It didn't evolve negatively at all.
It wasn't created negatively.
It wasn't created to exclude anybody because everybody has the choice. Anybody in the world can get married, if you convince somebody to marry you (or trick them or whatever you do). But marriage is not something that's denied people. Now, I know I've really stepped in it with the traditional low-information argument as it's advanced today, but, I'm sorry. It's what it is. Marriage is not discriminatory. No matter who you are, if you're a human being, you can get married as marriage is defined. So what is happening here is that a tradition or a custom or what have you, now must be altered and changed to mean something it doesn't mean.
I'll tell you: The media is gonna harp on this. They're gonna just jump on this.
Folks, I'm warning you: This could be fascinating to watch.
Roberts will cave.
What a sham. They know Roberts believe it’s “unconstitutional” to ban gay marriage.
Roberts is either GAY or being blackmailed for illegally adoting his two kids or BOTH>
“Newspeak is explained in chapters 4 and 5 of Nineteen Eighty-Four, and in an appendix to the book. The language follows, for the most part, the same grammatical rules as English, but has a much more limiting, and constantly shifting vocabulary. Any synonyms or antonyms, along with undesirable concepts are eradicated.”
Look around folks, the gay rights movement is forcing schools to push gay sex and transgenderism on kids, and even to keep what goes on in these sexualized schools from being told to the parents!
Johnny will be a girl at school using the girls’ room, and his parents will not be told. This is law in Mass. now.
So imagine how much worse this will get once gay marriage is declared a Constitutional right.
I think its a perfectly fine analogy
And the libtards are going to hate it, so there’s that too
It is absolutely amazing how much power the queers have when they used to hide out in restrooms.
My first thought was. “So what?”
I still want a lawyer to ask the court if marriage can be defined by any other sex practice. Like foot worship or BDSM.
Because when you remove actual sex from a homosexual couple’s ‘to do’ list, you are left with ‘close friends’.
Think about that everyone,
They are trying to force the gay agenda into everyplace, and then “fellow travelers” in positions of authority will keep promoting each other until the people with no moral compass are totally in control.
Then were are totall screwed
Rush knows a thing or two about getting married. Not as much as Mickey Rooney, but a lot.
I am waiting for one of the Justices that actually have a brain to retort to one of these fag loving lawyers that “gays” already have the same exact right to get married as everyone else in the country. Any queer in this country can go to any Justice of the Peace and marry someone of the opposite sex, just like normal people can. That is their equal right. It is the queers that want separate but equal rights. They want to be able to fornicate with something different and call it “marriage.” Then they call those of us who are against it as homophobes. A phobia is an irrational fear. No one is afraid of some turd pushing nancy-boy. We are simply disgusted by them.
Rogers postured on the Obamacare issue before caved too.
I should have typed, “Roberts will bend over...”
The country is going to hell.
Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg
The left has a problem with reality.
“Chief Justice John Roberts Compares Gay Marriage To Forcing A Child To Call Someone ‘A Friend.’”
Yeah, that crazy talk. Roberts is the MAN!! The MAN I tell ya.... It would be like, passing a law that says something is a “penalty”, but instead we will just call it a tax....
That would be a good one. I'd like to hear "Are gay marriages consummated by sodomy which used to be illegal?"
Soon it will be requirement to engage in same-sex sexual relations to earn a high school diploma.
Only partial credit for whites unless the partner is of a different race.
Roberts will cave on this, saying that if we want 'better' laws we should elect 'better' representatives. We'll all go, "Huh? But we elected the people who voted in DOMA!!", but Roberts will have already disappeared to some remote island and won't be available for 3 weeks (or until the furor dies down).
I’ll take being blacakmailed for the illegal adoption of 2 Irish kids for $500 Alex.
I wrote up a chapter on this for a book project. The core argument is so simple. But I have never seen it refuted.
When you strip gay marriage, indeed all ‘homosexual rights’ to the cote, it’s all based on a specific sex practice. So why not BDSM? Why not FOI? Why not Morris approved toe sucking?
Why just oral/anal/digital sex between same gender couples? I really want to see it argued.
It’s like the whole gay propaganda thing in media. I have said it and I am not the first or alone. Show the result of the two gay GQ bosybuilders in the commercial. Show one dead from aids. Show the Rosie O’Donnell lesbians having their fun on TV, not the Playboy centerfold type.
SHOVE IT IN PEOPLES FACE based on the reality. Then watch the polls. And the laws change.
Fabulous... Just Fabulous!!!
If Roberts is consistent — with himself — he’ll say it is up to the people to decide these things.
As for his analogy, labels have practical consequences. If your new “friend” he can’t keep his hands to himself, you should not include him in sleep-overs, but...is that any way to treat a friend?
Likewise there are consequences to legalizing gay marriage, aside from watering down the word “marriage.” And among those consequences would be tolerating and creating opportunities for evil behavior.
Still, Roberts will say that if that’s what the majority rules, the majority rules!
Gay marriage is gay marriage, marriage is marriage. They are two different relationships. Period.
And you are positive that he will? How do you know that? Just because he did once does not mean he will all the time. Why don’t you just wait and see
Rooney was married 8 times which is twice as much as Rush.
>> When you strip gay marriage, indeed all homosexual rights to the cote, its all based on a specific sex practice.
Homosexual ‘marriage’ is about forcing the citizens to support and service homosexual behavior. Without sodomy, there is no component of homosexuality.
Exactly. And thus my statement about good friends.
All anyone has to do to see it is a line item comparison between the things homo and straight friends do. Remove the sodomy and what’s left? Two good/close/whatever friends.
It all revolves around the sex. The power comes from using the sex as a hammer. When the sexual component is put in context with every other sex practice, it becomes self evident to any but the homos and their supporters.
And there’s ‘marriage equality’ — the idiotic agenda that equates copulation with sodomy. What man would accept the assertion that sex with his wife is no different than butt pumping another male? Are these ‘marriage equality’ advocates equating a woman’s vagina with a man’s anus?
Yes actually. The whole bisexual wing. And the vagina is an object of sheer hate/revulsion for many gay men. If you have never heard the misogyny of a homo rant on the naughty bits first hand, consider yourself blessed.
Think of it like the Muslims do. Same thing really
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Just to add to my last post, Gay male aversion is so systemic that they have made cartoons about it.
See “Tripping the Rift” for details, where Gus the gay Robot faces his greatest fear.
As far as the "action" goes, Sam Kinison said it best - You basically have to make an appointment for that folks. Thats not just going to happen.
I often wonder if Sam wasn’t offed intentionally. Look what they did to Dice Clay. Eddie Murphy was reduced to B movies and worse until he got his mind right on it.
RE Sam: I live a few miles from where he was killed and I know the story of what happened to him so I say the above tongue in cheek. But at times I do wonder...
SHOVE IT IN PEOPLES FACE based on the reality.
Just look at the screaming when pro lifers use aborted fetus pix. They howl because they know that “Reproductive rights’ looks a lot different to the moderates when they see the results.
Even to some liberals.
I still want a lawyer to ask the court if marriage can be defined by any other sex practice. Like foot worship or BDSM.
Because when you remove actual sex from a homosexual couples to do list, you are left with close friends.
Think about that everyone,
Very well and simply said.
Roberts’ argument is arguing in favor of the concept of language...I have been beating that drum for quite some time - nice to see it finally made its way into the discussion on this issue. You can’t have a marriage without a husband and wife - and by definition, a husband is a man, and a wife is a woman. There’s no getting around that. Arguing that two people of the same sex have a right to “marriage” is an assault on the concept of language. This would only be the start of setting aside definitions of words to twist meanings to suit a particular purpose - witness the school system up in Massachusetts now trying to implement policies which disregard gender altogether and that people aren’t born a certain gender and can choose what they want to be (ironic concept for those who argue homosexuals are “born that way”...but I digress).
Marriage existed before there were any statutes passed by the states to govern them, and there were no “same sex marriages” then either because that does not and cannot fit the definition of the word. And of course, when these statutes were put into place (likely due to the fact there would be disputes over where property goes in the event a spouse dies, when there is divorce, etc. that required court intervention to settle and therefore there needed to a framework to deal with it), marriage was not defined as a husband and wife in the laws - why? Because that would be completely redundant - you don’t have to spell out the definition of words in statutes to have meaning. The word means what it means. “Marriage equality” is nonsense. Language is language.
If language does not prevail in this case, it is only the beginning of a cascade in many other issues and there could be no clear framework for anything if we can simply disregard what words mean to get what we want in any instance.
I think most people are intentionally led off course by all the propaganda. All they have to do, as with all things, is reduce it to the core. and the core is that a specific sex practice is all homosexuality “IS” by definition.
Take away the sex and you have close/good/whatever friends.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE QUANTIFIABLE between a celibate ‘homosexual” couple and two men watching a football game or doing any other thing two men or two women do together.
NONE. And I defy any GLBTwhatever fan to refute that factually. People can “Feel” anyway they want. Homosexuality requires homo-sex. Take away the sex act and what’s left?
Game, set, match.
Exactly right - whereas a marriage between husband and wife is much more than sex...and even with the sex, they can have sexual intercourse, which no same sex couple can engage in, and by no natural means can they conceive children, and cannot provide children with a mother and father. It can never be "equal" - because those attributes can never exist in their relationship.
Here’s another one to consider.
What is the sole/single/only difference that separates a High School gym shower and a gay bath house? Both are filled with hot, sweaty and very naked dudes.
The sex. that’s it. It’s all about the sex act. Nothing else.
I have no faith in Roberts after his Obamacare decision. He fooled me once into thinking he was a conservative. Not again.
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Just like Prince Charles.
They're outraged that "silly little states" get votes in the Electoral College, or that their votes are even counted.
Who cares what rubes from Stickland think? They should be broken to helotry and bought and sold as slaves, by loyal Obama voters.
Roberts is a steer not a bull, and his leash ends in Obama's pocket. Courtesy of the Chicago Boys' professional blackmailers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.