Posted on 03/26/2013 4:05:09 PM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
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 MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports Tuesday afternoon, fill-in host Chris Cillizza played some sound from today’s 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 you’re 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.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
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.
END TRANSCRIPT
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, it’s 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.
Agreed.
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. That’s 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.
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.