Posted on 06/29/2015 12:32:57 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: So I checked the e-mail during the break, and I can tell you I need to further explain why I think the court decision leads to polygamy. And, by the way, I could easily do that by simply reading to you some blog posts that I printed out from people that are already gonna agitate for it, that they want it, and they think they know that this opens the door for it. Look, folks, you can think all you want, but there's no legal basis to stop it now. There is no intellectually honest way to distinguish the reasoning on gay marriage from applying the same reasoning to supporting polygamy.
Because it was all rooted in self-esteem and dignity and not being denied things that make you happy. The Supreme Court decision on marriage was not about any particular number of people in a relationship. It did not assume, in other words, that marriage is of two people. It did not accept that limit, in other words. That limit is not specifically there. They've rewritten what marriage is now, is the point here, folks. Marriage was what it was as ordained from the ancient biblical texts.
Want me to read it to you from Genesis? Maybe that would help. Maybe this will help. Actually, well, Genesis does. It's Genesis 2:23-24: A sacred union between one man and one woman. It's also the New Testament. Jesus Christ reaffirms the biblical definition of marriage. Jesus said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so no longer two, they're one. What, therefore, God has joined together, let no man separate."
Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 through 6. I didn't write it, so don't get mad at me. But there it is. It's in Genesis and the New Testament as well. But it's been rewritten now, and it's been written not under any sort of constitutional purview but rather some people out there that were denied something and it's not right. A lot of people had something and those people didn't and then those people want it so we think they should have it. Their self-esteem and their dignity is tied up into it.
Well, if now a guy comes along and says, "I want two wives," fine. I mean, my only point is the ruling in this case does not give anybody the right to tell 'em "no." Marriage has been redefined, folks. It's not been "expanded." It has been redefined. Marriage had a specific definition. Words mean things. And now it's become something entirely different by virtue of the Supreme Court. You wait. There will be attempts to expand on this in ways that you can't even conjure.
The other thing in the e-mails from people, "What do you mean, this is happiness and self-esteem?" I think a lot of this -- I think a lot of liberalism, folks -- is rooted in the misery and unhappiness of being in a minority. And I'm not... Take any minority you want -- could be a numerical minority, could be a behavioral minority -- and along with that unhappiness is a resentment of the majority, a resentment or an envy of the majority. So the motivating mechanism here is to be what the majority is, to have what the majority has, simply because it's not fair that some people have it and some people don't.
So you can take something as specific and lofty and meaningful as marriage and reduce it to a thing or a benefit that some people get and some people don't. And that isn't fair, and it's not democratic. "How can you have that in a country like America?" Okay, so the reason the quest for happiness will never be met is because the reason for the happiness -- the reason for the misery, the self-loathing, whatever you want to call it -- the void that people have, is they mistaken we think that getting what the majority has is gonna make 'em happy, and they're gonna find out that it doesn't.
And it won't.
That's why we keep coming back for more. It's why nothing is ever enough. No matter how much of their demands are met, it's never enough. I have noticed this my entire adult life analyzing these things. It's just never enough. And the reason it's never enough is because the whole reason why or the... There's a misunderstanding of why there's misery in the first place, why there's unhappiness in the first place. You can reduce and say, "The grass is greener. People think it's happier on the other side of the fence."
They find out when they get there it isn't. All this is wrapped up in this, and in the process it has become political and the majority is attacked vividly, belligerently and often. Because it is felt that this happiness is being actively denied people in the minority because the people in the majority are reason. They're racist, they're sexist, whatever. It's their fault, they're denying all this to us. So the quest is to take it away from them or to become what they are and water down what they are.
But that never results in satisfaction.
It just never does.
So the continued effort here at happiness/contentment will continue to evade because the real reason for it's not even being addressed. I mean, the unhappiness born of envy and resentment is never, ever mollified. That's why all of the great philosophers have warned people, "Do not act on vengeance, do not act on envy, 'cause you're not gonna like what you get. It's not gonna give you the happiness you thought."
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Mike in Allen, Michigan, as we start on the phones. Great to have you, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hello, Rush. Thank you for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: It's a great honor. My point is, I read a op-ed that Allen West wrote on the 27th about ruling on the gay marriage, now that it opens up to other issues with some states for, like, concealed carry. My concealed carry permit here in Michigan is now valid in all 50 states, including Washington, New York City, Chicago, Illinois, everywhere now.
RUSH: Yeah, I read that whole thing. I saw that story last week. It was on Allen West's blog, and it was one of these stories, "Hey, you people on the left? You better be careful what you wish for," one of those deals. The point was made, "Okay, since the Supreme Court said that since gay marriage has been recognized in 36 states, the other 14 have to recognize it, too." The point on the blog was, "Well, hey, I mean, the same thing could be true now the concealed carry permits.
"If they're legal in one state or some states, they have to be legal in others." This was the theory, the point made. Because the way the court reasoned gay marriage, it can supply the same thing to concealed carry laws. I don't know if that's true. But to me, it's no mollification. It doesn't mollify me at all, for the way the Constitution's been bastardized here, which it has been. The Constitution's taken a huge hit here. Just because it may allow things which anger the left here or there, that's not just... That's my whole point. That doesn't make me happy, just 'cause the left might have to deal with a concealed carry permit.
well the ruling from the so called judges stated that the homosexual sham falls under the equal protection, thus it can mean now polygamy.
in trying to make sense of it all .... it makes no sense at all .... twin peaks? and two erected fingers in the air!?!
Great way for a frat or sorority house to get gov’t freebies.
I want to marry my Corvette.
Don’t tell me I can’t/.
Have you proposed to Girls Generation, yet?
next question to be considered by the supremes shall be ... When did you consider yourself a ‘family’?
I think I read there is already a case headed for SCOTUS.
Polygamy is currently illegal in the United States. On December 13, 2013, a federal judge, spurred by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups,[137] struck down the parts of Utah’s bigamy law that criminalized cohabitation,[138] while also acknowledging that the state may still enforce bans on having multiple marriage licenses.[138]
In the U.S., the Libertarian Party supports complete decriminalization of polygamy as part of a general belief that the government should not regulate marriages.[139] Individualist feminism and advocates such as Wendy McElroy and journalist Jillian Keenan also support the freedom for adults to voluntarily enter polygamous marriages.[140][141]
In an October 2004 op-ed for USA Today, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley “argued that, as a simple matter of equal treatment under law, polygamy ought to be legal. Acknowledging that underage girls are sometimes coerced into polygamous marriages, Turley replied that banning polygamy is no more a solution to child abuse than banning marriage would be a solution to spousal abuse.”[142]
In January 2015, Pastor Neil Patrick Carrick of Detroit Michigan brought a case Carrick v. Snyder against Michigan that the states ban of polygamy violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[143][144]
There is another, more “conservative” case for polygamy, too: “By legitimizing polygamy and allowing its practitioners to join mainstream society, we can monitor and regulate the practice, thereby reducing any problems. On Big Love, for example, one polygamous wife won’t visit a hospital for fear of alerting the authorities. Legalize polygamy, the argument goes, and marriage and divorce law will protect polygamous wives, instead of scaring them into hiding.”[142]
Stanley Kurtz, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, however, lamented the modern arguments made by intellectuals calling for de-criminalizing polygamy. Kurtz concluded, “Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one’s partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that’s not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family.”[142]
“What, therefore, God has joined together, let no man separate.”
How many wives has Rush had?
The Constitution.... “IS”....whatever “5 people” think it “IS” at any point in time!
That’s what this ruling has proven!
Libs may claim the gay marriage question did not open the door to polygamy, but it most certainly does.
#1: The Gay ruling removes any deference to religious tradition.
#2: The Gay ruling removes any deference to civic tradition.
#3: The Gay ruling pays no deference to the Natural law that says gay relationships are not favored by nature because they cannot be self sustaining (they cannot self-reproduce)... and polygamy can!
Simply put, what legal claim can be made against polygamy that was not rendered moot by SCOTUS last week?
I argued that some will want incestuous marriage next. An acquaintance told me that won’t happen because “everyone knows it is wrong.”
I replied, “Who are you to determine what is wrong?”
I disagree with Rush on one key point. Marriage hasn’t been “redefined” at all. It has been rendered completely meaningless, from a legal standpoint.
Just because you may have fallen short in living up to an ideal or standard in your own life does not mean that you cannot still support and defend that ideal and standard. And doing so does not make you a hypocrite. If it did, no human could ever talk about living a holy life, since we have all fallen short of that standard...
A platonic “incestuous marriage” actually makes a lot of sense as an estate-planning measure to avoid paying estate taxes.
Now if Rush was holding himself up as an example of what God intended marriage to be, THAT would be hypocritical.
One at a time.
You could at least have chosen a non-Government Motors spouse.................
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.