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.
Be prepared for “H8” from Corvettephobes.
I can see a new SitCom - “My Cousin, My Wife” this Fall on ABC!
Could we use this to get around the “Death Tax” so to speak...
Imagine this scenario...
You have a Famer and His Wife and his son (who is married).
The farmer is getting older so He and his wife marry his son and his wife in a “Four Way” marriage?
That way the farmer can transfer all of his assetts to his son before he dies and when he does there is little to his name but all of the property is now owned by his “Spouces”?
I dunno, but someone should see if we can use this new horrible ruling to deprive the liberals of their one god which is other people’s money...
“One at a time.”
Which is not compatible with a biblical view of marriage.
Excellent comeback Dear Onyx
I disagree with that.....the last people who should be our spokesman are Rush, Trump, Newt or anyone else who considers marriage a joke. We need true marriage defenders.
If you accept the SSM logic there is absolutely no reason to deny the rights of polygamists or familysexuals or even zoophiles and beyond. None whatsoever. In fact these groups have been and continue to be persecuted far more savagely and are truly powerless unlike the LGBT activist lobby which claims to be a victim while being one of the most powerful forces in modern politics. Will LGBT liberals extend these downtrodden the same rights they enjoy or will they hypocritically deny them equality out of the same bigotry they claim to fight?
It’s not cost effective that’s why. More mates, more kids, more expense on the society as a whole.
The Bible mentions divorce multiple times. Sometimes it is called a sin, sometimes it is called justifiable. Is the Bible inconsistent? Or is God’s real answer “it depends on the circumstance”?
Very good post.
So what’s to stop me from breeding a tribal battalion in my own image?
Once polygamy is legalized, there goes a major weapon in the war against Islam. Non-citizen bigamists and polygamists used to get deported.
Wrong question, troll-boy.
It should be, "How many husbands has he had?"
None. So he's good to comment.
I am talking a C3, 1968 to 1982 GM Corvette.
It wasn’t Government Motors back when men were men and cars were cars.
Hey, I played with Mustangs too, before mine was stolen.
I am bi-manufacturer.
Deal with it.
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.