Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Death of the Family [Steyn]
National Review ^ | 3/29/2013 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 03/29/2013 6:23:57 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last
Steyn exposes the social terrorists with his classic wit.
1 posted on 03/29/2013 6:23:57 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Sir Napsalot; JLS
Steyn ping.

The most reliable constituency for Big Government is single women, for whom the state is a girl’s best friend, the sugar daddy whose checks never bounce. A society in which a majority of births are out of wedlock cannot be other than a Big Government welfare society. Ruining a nation’s finances is one thing; debauching its human capital is far harder to fix.

2 posted on 03/29/2013 6:27:25 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

I’m really getting discouraged.


3 posted on 03/29/2013 6:28:55 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Whenever I read or listen to Steyn I feel smarter


4 posted on 03/29/2013 6:33:03 PM PDT by Mr. K (There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Liberal statism requires mindless serfs to labor to support a favored, tiny, elite ruling class. Hard working, educated, God fearing Americans raising kids in healthy stable marriages so their kids will grow up like them to be another generation of prosperous individualists is what lefties hate even worse than our ability to own & use guns.


5 posted on 03/29/2013 6:41:30 PM PDT by RicocheT (Eat the rich only if you're certain it's your last meal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross
It's well worth checking out the link and reading the entire article. One of Steyn's major points is the socioeconomic issues at work here, not the legal ones.

One reason why conservative appeals to protect the sacred procreative essence of marriage have gone nowhere is because Americans are rapidly joining the Scandinavians in doing most of their procreating without benefit of clergy. Seventy percent of black babies are born out of wedlock, so are 53 percent of Hispanics (the “natural conservative constituency” du jour, according to every lavishly remunerated Republican consultant), and 70 percent of the offspring of poor white women.

I happened to be in the car the other day listening to the radio when Rush Limbaugh launched into his pessimistic downer of a monologue about the inevitability of "gay marriage" becoming a reality in the U.S. As I was listening to it, two things really stuck in my mind:

1. This guy has been married four times.

2. This guy had Elton John play at his last wedding in 2010.

Item #2 should not be overlooked, because it involves two aspects: (A) Limbaugh invited him, and (B) Elton John accepted the invitation.

When I got home I did some research and found some very interesting articles linked in the Google search on "Elton John, Rush Limbaugh." Among other things, Elton John says that Rush Limbaugh is very different off the air ... and he even suggests that Limbaugh (while he will never admit it publicly) is a supporter of "gay marriage."

I think Mark Steyn is right. The institutions of this country are being run by a monolithic ruling class that has no moral foundation and is completely disconnected from the nation's historical cultural norms.

6 posted on 03/29/2013 6:43:18 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Thanks for posting this. This is brilliant.


7 posted on 03/29/2013 6:44:43 PM PDT by madameguinot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
The supreme court can rule that a cow is a horse, but it won't be true.

And they can rule that an unnatural union between homosexuals is a "marriage," and that will be no more true.


8 posted on 03/29/2013 6:50:15 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross; fellowpatriot; MarineMom613; Ron C.; wolfman23601; ColdOne; navymom1; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

9 posted on 03/29/2013 6:50:53 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

“Discouraged” is a pretty mild term for what is happening to all of what was formerly called Western civilization. But I figure Christianity has now “moved on,” down to the global south and to Asia, and so the new world the PC-fruitcakes are making can just go its rotten way until the Muslims take over anything that might be left.


10 posted on 03/29/2013 7:13:19 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Rush, O’Reilly, and others make money telling us what they think we want to hear. They are entertainers - nothing more. I will admit that Rush played a large part in turning me into a conservative, though I think it would have happened anyway as I got older. Still, I don’t worship the golden microphone and am thankful we can get our news from a lot of different sources, the best being FR.


11 posted on 03/29/2013 7:14:53 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
I agree with you. And here's something else for you to think about:

Some of these "conservative media personalities" are dumb as bags of rocks once they are off the air and out of their controlled environment. I don't necessarily include Limbaugh in this group, but you might be shocked at how mediocre some of his counterparts in the industry are.

12 posted on 03/29/2013 7:37:29 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Yeah, he’s like that isn’t he?


13 posted on 03/29/2013 7:46:35 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

I heard Don Imus ( on his radio program ) ask the question regarding Gay Marriage -— “What harm is there in letting people do what they want with their own lives?”

First, regarding — “What harm is there in letting people do what they want with their own lives?” — Liberals make a common mistake in assuming this issue is about limiting the freedom of homosexuals.

The reality is -— there’s currently nothing that stops homosexuals from making lifelong commitments to each other. Gays already are allowed to make the same commitment. In fact, it’s done all the time. They already have the liberty to do what they want with their own lives.

The problem lies here -— A marriage license, however, goes a step further than providing liberty.

It doesn’t give liberty, it FORCES SOCIETY’s APPROVAL of that union, which homosexuals don’t presently have.

It forces people whose deeply held religious beliefs tell them that homosexual acts are sinful to give their APPROVAL to these acts.

So, gay marriage is not about what homosexuals are being forced by others not to do, but what society is being forced to do by homosexuals: APPROVE. That’s another issue entirely.

Gays can marry all they want, but why should devout Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and others be FORCED to violate their religious tenets in order to give approval to this lifestyle?

Second, implicit in the act of altering the definition of marriage to include homosexuals is the acknowledgment that marriage isn’t anything in particular, but can be defined and redefined as society likes.

If marriage isn’t any particular thing, then family isn’t any particular thing either (this not only follows; it’s an integral part of their argument). If we then concede that family isn’t anything in particular, but is simply a convention, a social construct we invented and can alter at will, then this has direct ramifications for the future of the family as we know it.

How can you say this isn’t an impact?

Finally, if marriage isn’t anything in particular, but is merely defined by society in a way that the definition can change to meet changing conditions, then you cannot argue that “marriage” between humans and animals could never take place because animals can’t consent (or can’t, as some people put it, enter into contracts).

“Who are you to say” that a marriage is based on consent? If you can change its definition once you can change it again.

For instance, a baby used to be considered human, worthy of protection under the law. Now, there are those who would allow babies born alive to be slaughtered. Once you start on that path, how does it end? What was once considered a ridiculous argument has now become REAL and something we are now grappling with.

It’s also a bit stunning that liberal objections to humans marrying animals is grounded in the inability of animals to consent. Is this the best rejoinder they can offer?

Philosopher J.P. Moreland tells of a guy in Colorado, I think, who brought his horse to the courthouse to try to get a marriage license for the two of them. The clerk was flummoxed for a moment and finally turned him away because the horse wasn’t 18 years old yet! I guess this was just another way of saying that the horse was under the age of consent.

My point is, I think there is a more obvious concern than mere consent. Marriage *IS* and *MEANS* something in particular, not something we can re-define and twist any way we want.


14 posted on 03/29/2013 8:08:31 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
The supreme court can rule that a cow is a horse, but it won't be true. And they can rule that an unnatural union between homosexuals is a "marriage," and that will be no more true.

But, they can force us, at the point of a gun, to ACT as if it were true.

15 posted on 03/29/2013 8:21:45 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

To summarize - Homosexual marriage is not something new out to destroy marriage and the family.

Rather, it is just another milestone on the road to destruction of marriage and the family.

As you point out, heterosexuals and society of the last 50 years have made a joke of marriage. Homosexual “marriage” will simply take the next step, and make the idea of marriage a total absurdity.


16 posted on 03/29/2013 8:25:26 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Marriage of Convenience - an adapation of a society to the pressures of political, social or economic means without any personal attachment. Do we truly believe the politicians in DC truly believe that Gay marriage is the solution.

The Family structure will be destroyed. But look at America - Single Mother Led Families are the norm.
- Political, Media, Celebrities - married multiple times after multiple divorces.
- No fault divorces
- Living together without being married norm

So America is in the process of reaping what it has sown - degradation of the family unit to that of something totally different.

Liberals will expand on the degradation - political gain. make the family mean something totally different 2 mommies 2 daddies. Partners. Look at Univ of Wisconsin Madison - faggots, queers run the university - remember the capitol protests in wisconsin. Look at John hopkins - medical students do not want Dr. Benjamin Carson to speak because of his views on the family, marriage and he does not endorse gay marriage.

celebrities - Kristen Bell mother, but refuses to marry her finance (child’s father) because her friends whom are gay and lesbians do not have marriage equality.
Elton John gay and married and has a child with his partner - but he is in the UK. US must be like Europe ( gag me)


17 posted on 03/29/2013 8:48:32 PM PDT by hondact200 (Candor dat viribos alas (sincerity gives wings to strength) and Nil desperandum (never despair))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Very good. To sum it up “If marriage can mean anything then it means nothing”.


18 posted on 03/29/2013 9:15:04 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Obamanation Counterculture File.


19 posted on 03/29/2013 9:15:05 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Traitor John Roberts' Commune-Style Obama'care' violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Is this what the moderates wanted when they voted liberal Democrat?


20 posted on 03/29/2013 9:20:47 PM PDT by Tzimisce (The American Revolution began when the British attempted to disarm the Colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I agree with everything you said. But what we must accept is that some of this idiocy going on now about gay marriage is largely our own fault. Since the 1960's, adultery, divorce, remarriage, promiscuity, abortion and single parent home rates have all skyrocketed. The "gays" aren't responsible for that - we are. If heterosexual marriage remained the recognized and respected nucleus of society, I don't believe the small percentage of homosexuals demanding equality in marriage - and honestly, even they know the majority of gays have no intention of ever getting married and cramping their promiscuous lifestyle - would have nearly as much evidence to throw back in our faces and get us to admit they have a point. Society, even ten years ago, would have (and did) denied gay marriage. Now, with the abysmal example heteros have made concerning the sanctity of marriage and keeping the family intact, is the perfect time for them to make their move. We have lost the very ground upon which we could have made a stand.

As Christians, we know that God calls homosexual acts an abomination and that marriage was instituted by HIM to be between one man and one woman and what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. That should be enough of a reason to reject gay marriage - and homosexuality as a whole - and combined with a strong, stable and superior example of one man/one woman marriage and stable families, prove it is the ONLY acceptable way. But take away what is called the "religious" reason for rejecting gay marriage, presuming upon the establishment clause preventing government's respecting one religious view over another, and the argument is lost. Our own destruction of what marriage has been about for millennia will be why they will succeed. We have brought this about. It may be too late now to right the ship and our great country will fall into the abyss that the slippery slope of relativism started. I'll never approve but I will have to watch it happen.

21 posted on 03/29/2013 9:57:24 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Discouraged about what? You know where I am? Effing Faggotwood, this is where I work. I deal with these libtards, fudgepackers, Godless heathens every damn day. I should be the one discouraged.


22 posted on 03/29/2013 10:09:22 PM PDT by max americana (fired liberals in our company after the election, & laughed while they cried (true story))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

“Discouraged” is a pretty mild term for what is happening to all of what was formerly called Western civilization. But I figure Christianity has now “moved on,” down to the global south and to Asia, and so the new world the PC-fruitcakes are making can just go its rotten way until the Muslims take over anything that might be left.

***

More than likely true enough, but I’m gonna go down swinging anyways.


23 posted on 03/29/2013 10:42:07 PM PDT by Luircin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Placemark.


24 posted on 03/29/2013 10:51:12 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Steyn is right, but he fails to go into the reasons why Marriage as an institution has become increasingly devalued.

But he does catch the point that leftist Gays are simply calling the bluff and finishing off the institution in an effort to get other people to accept and respect their sodomy as being as legitimate as procreative marriage.

Dispute it being useless, sinful, and self-destructive. Ultimately of course this entire movement will collapse upon biological realities that homosexual unions are incapable of producing a future.

Thus populations that encourage the life style as normal undercut their own growth & stability potential. For the western world this devastating as our growth rates have already been undercut by the already existing debasement of marriage, family, and abortion effecting sub-replacement level birth rates.

As a population we are already in decline, and looking towards foreign replacement not just demographically but culturally as the already eminent consequence.

As conservative the only hope we have is to consolidate our numbers and look inward toward protecting ourselves and our families from this cultural corruption.

We must secure control of our local schools, commutes and States. Such will be essencle if we are to preserve something of our civilization.


The reason marriage is dying is because as Mark said its hollowed out.

To be specific the institution is an increasingly costly and perceptually pointless(due to being hollow out by redefined & striping of function) union.

Indeed the only thing that holds marriage together is millennial of cultural momentum & social pressure by folks like us. But the fact is The marriage today is not the marriage of two centuries, or even 50 years ago.

The institution has in fact been redefined to center around the parents feelings while neglecting the unions function in children. The institution was further hollowed out by the growing cultural and legal accordance of divorce thus rendering the martial union and more a partnership.

Indeed Partnership is increasingly the term used to refer to this “union” now as people recognize the reality of what it now is.


25 posted on 03/29/2013 11:40:24 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; max americana

You are right. Fornicators killed traditional marriage in more ways than any other group.

But these hypocrites are too blind to see the blood on their hands.


26 posted on 03/29/2013 11:40:33 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

“But these hypocrites are too blind to see the blood on their hands.”

They probably wouldn’t care, it is after all the nature of such people to disregard. The bounds of the martial institution. Why should they care that they held a part in its demise.

The only group that would care are the young women looking for security of a husband and family. Sadly this demographic is going to be left wanting as their romantic fantasies are shattered, and they & their children needs are left unfulfilled.

Young men on the other hand as a group will find the new environmental prime hunting ground, at least the player portion of the population.


27 posted on 03/29/2013 11:47:03 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

Even the death penalty would be too kind to them for what they have caused. Civilisation is dead where fornication is given a special pass.


28 posted on 03/29/2013 11:49:49 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Luircin

“More than likely true enough, but I’m gonna go down swinging anyways.”

We can, and must fight, but we must also recognize that this fight is in our own families and communities. It is our posterity and the structure & values we provide that will decide not only our individual & families fate but the fate what remains of our civilization.

Because in the end our families(if we are successful) will be all that remain.


29 posted on 03/29/2013 11:53:40 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

“Even the death penalty would be too kind to them for what they have caused. Civilization is dead where fornication is given a special pass.”

Not quite, we have thou out our history dealt with “fornication” even where it is successful. Institutions like marriage have mitigated its damage by both sweeping it under the rug and tying the man’s obligation, and resources to his lawful wife.(to exclude his ‘illegitimate’ mistress, whore, or prostitute’s child)

Indeed our literature & cultural history is replete examples of this kind of conflict & vice. All of which was recognized as such and generally looked down upon & condemned.

It is not the fornicatiers that has undermined our civilization in themselves, but the embracing and accepting of their practice that has perhaps contributed.

In reality however i suspect the key change was the liberalization of divorce law, both religious & otherwise.


30 posted on 03/30/2013 12:06:28 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Spot on for Limbaugh. It’s a show, a scripted show. He’s as often a GOPer as he is a TEA Partier. Depends on which way the winds blowing.

One thing that every FReeper should know from history is that the leadership, once far removed from the locale and view of the people is via ego nearly entirely hedonistic. Satisfying their own pleasure by power, sex, pleasure, money, etc. becomes their onlly goal. Without moral restraint they find themselves in a toilet with a wide stance. It’s sick and the nature of Big Government at every point in human history.

Why can’t we learn?


31 posted on 03/30/2013 12:44:59 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
In reality however i suspect the key change was the liberalization of divorce law, both religious & otherwise.

Agreed. No-fault divorce law effectively negated the marriage contract transforming it into a meaningless piece of paper -this while as well giving government free reign over what was at one time individual rights government could not infringe upon unless there was proven some higher necessity.

Now all one has to do is file some papers and the courts step in and start making decisions that in effect cut the matrimonial baby in half before the baby is even declared dead. No-fault divorce is akin to marriage abortion where only one party has a 'choice' and all others must simply bend to the will of that imposed by the force of government.

32 posted on 03/30/2013 12:57:34 AM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

“Whenever I read or listen to Steyn I feel smarter”

I love when he stands in for Rush; I think he’s much better (and I like Rush).


33 posted on 03/30/2013 3:14:39 AM PDT by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic war against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

“To be specific the institution is an increasingly costly and perceptually pointless(due to being hollow out by redefined & striping of function) union. Indeed the only thing that holds marriage together is millennial of cultural momentum & social pressure by folks like us. But the fact is The marriage today is not the marriage of two centuries, or even 50 years ago.”

Economics were a basic reason marriage endured, and sugar-daddy “Uncle Sam” removed that (the effects of this could especially be seen in the breakdown of the black family). Removing children from the equation (or lack of regard for children in a marriage) was the final straw.


34 posted on 03/30/2013 3:19:10 AM PDT by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic war against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hondact200

Dan Quayle is a genius.


35 posted on 03/30/2013 4:55:46 AM PDT by cport (How can political capital be spent on a bunch of ingrates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

There is a third alternative........ the extermination of the queers.

After the first year, the closets will be occupied again


36 posted on 03/30/2013 5:00:16 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
“I’m really getting discouraged.”

You are not alone. Many, many of us are. Rather than giving up, we need to think, discuss real solutions, and map out courses to the future that lead to a world we want our children to have. I'm not being rhetorical here. I think there are tons of constructive and tangible things we can do.

If you were Jewish in Germany in 1940 you likely were more than ‘discouraged’. If you were a colonist during the early part of the American revolution, while they were getting their butts kicked by the British, you were likely discouraged. Point being that there are always ups and downs, and we can't just lay down when faced with a downtime in our history. Don't give up. Everyone of us is needed. I chose my screen name for FR with this in mind. We are all needed and we aren't going to be able to put it all together if any of us go AWOL.

37 posted on 03/30/2013 5:03:29 AM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

“Whenever I read or listen to Steyn I feel smarter.”

No. That’s just you realizing you live in a nation of desperately foolish and idiotic people.


38 posted on 03/30/2013 5:23:29 AM PDT by MarDav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

I call BS. The family isn’t dead, at least not mine.

These kind of articles are over the top.


39 posted on 03/30/2013 5:25:13 AM PDT by gotribe (Limit The Government's Right To Bear Arms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gotribe

Let me offer a bit of context:

I would be willing to wager that anywhere from 30 to 50 percent of the nearly 1000 students at the school where I teach have at least one parent with a different last name.

I would also be willing to wager that, compared to the pregnancy rates of teens when I was in high school (the 70’s), teen pregnancy rates are, what could be considered, off the charts (we have probably had around 30 to 40 teens become pregnant over the past year and a half.)

I have conferenced with grandmothers in their late 30’s.

In any given school year, I can have as many as 12-20 students who live in group homes.

I have countless students who, instead of living at home with their parents, live with their grandparents, aunts/uncles, older siblings.

I live with my first and only wife (of 20 years this October) and our 3 children.


40 posted on 03/30/2013 5:33:48 AM PDT by MarDav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

My daughter works in a nursing home with a lot of residents who have dementia of one type or another. She was telling me last night that one woman keeps saying she is going to call the law on her daughter because she is living with a guy she isn’t married to. I told my daughter that it used to be against the law to cohabit with someone of the opposite sex if you weren’t married. She thought that was pretty funny.

We’ve come a long way, baby.


41 posted on 03/30/2013 5:59:42 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
1. This guy has been married four times.

2. This guy had Elton John play at his last wedding in 2010.

Item #2 should not be overlooked, because it involves two aspects: (A) Limbaugh invited him, and (B) Elton John accepted the invitation.

When I got home I did some research and found some very interesting articles linked in the Google search on "Elton John, Rush Limbaugh." Among other things, Elton John says that Rush Limbaugh is very different off the air ... and he even suggests that Limbaugh (while he will never admit it publicly) is a supporter of "gay marriage."

As I've been pointing out for years, the conservative movement hasn't done well, since Limbaugh has been dominant. It's not all his fault, but I don't think he's helped.

42 posted on 03/30/2013 6:20:03 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

“That would be the most obvious explanation as to why the same societal groups who assured us in the Seventies that marriage was either (a) a “meaningless piece of paper” or (b) institutionalized rape are now insisting it’s a universal human right.”

Indeed. It’s ultimately all about replacing the natural family with the intrusive and totalitarian state.


43 posted on 03/30/2013 6:53:16 AM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Actually, I must admit that the conservative movement has done pretty well since Limbaugh hit the airwaves in 1987, all things considered.

Remember that in his heyday, he was a satirist first and foremost. His great skill was in taking liberal idiocy and exposing it to good-hearted, entertaining ridicule. Once he gets off that track, he's nothing more than a political hack with a great radio voice.

44 posted on 03/30/2013 6:55:59 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

I’ve already been there for years. As the saying goes, once I gave up hope, I felt much better.


45 posted on 03/30/2013 7:02:37 AM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Actually, I must admit that the conservative movement has done pretty well since Limbaugh hit the airwaves in 1987, all things considered.

Bush,Clinton,Clinton,Bush,Bush,Obama,Obama.

YUCK!

46 posted on 03/30/2013 7:06:12 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
If your only basis for assessment is presidential elections, then you'd have a good point. I'm going way beyond that.

If you really want to vomit, just replace your list with the names of the losing candidates in those elections:

DUKAKIS-BUSH-DOLE-GORE-KERRY-McCAIN-ROMNEY

'Scuse me while I clean up this mess here.

47 posted on 03/30/2013 7:36:23 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

The other thing I don’t get about Limbaugh is he likes to live amongst liberal Democrats in NYC and Palm Beach.


48 posted on 03/30/2013 10:11:47 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

“Agreed. No-fault divorce law effectively negated the marriage contract transforming it into a meaningless piece of paper -this while as well giving government free reign over what was at one time individual rights government could not infringe upon unless there was proven some higher necessity.

Now all one has to do is file some papers and the courts step in and start making decisions that in effect cut the matrimonial baby in half before the baby is even declared dead. No-fault divorce is akin to marriage abortion where only one party has a ‘choice’ and all others must simply bend to the will of that imposed by the force of government.”

I don’t support the idea of unending and unconditional unions . But in the case of marriage the union is not unending as it is certant to end with the natural death of a party.

Strictly speaking it could also end with the maturity of the child & grandchild. But that may be more problematic than its worth.


49 posted on 03/30/2013 11:25:33 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross
Um ... he's not really talking about "gay marriage" is he?

After the first few paragraphs it's more about class divisions among the general (heterosexual) population.

50 posted on 03/30/2013 11:50:03 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson