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
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,
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.
Thanks LJ.
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.