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
Roberts will cave.
What a sham. They know Roberts believe it’s “unconstitutional” to ban gay marriage.
Roberts is either GAY or being blackmailed for illegally adoting his two kids or BOTH>
From Wiki...
“Newspeak is explained in chapters 4 and 5 of Nineteen Eighty-Four, and in an appendix to the book. The language follows, for the most part, the same grammatical rules as English, but has a much more limiting, and constantly shifting vocabulary. Any synonyms or antonyms, along with undesirable concepts are eradicated.”
Look around folks, the gay rights movement is forcing schools to push gay sex and transgenderism on kids, and even to keep what goes on in these sexualized schools from being told to the parents!
Johnny will be a girl at school using the girls’ room, and his parents will not be told. This is law in Mass. now.
So imagine how much worse this will get once gay marriage is declared a Constitutional right.
I think its a perfectly fine analogy
And the libtards are going to hate it, so there’s that too
It is absolutely amazing how much power the queers have when they used to hide out in restrooms.
Says you
My first thought was. “So what?”
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,
They are trying to force the gay agenda into everyplace, and then “fellow travelers” in positions of authority will keep promoting each other until the people with no moral compass are totally in control.
Then were are totall screwed
Rush knows a thing or two about getting married. Not as much as Mickey Rooney, but a lot.
I am waiting for one of the Justices that actually have a brain to retort to one of these fag loving lawyers that “gays” already have the same exact right to get married as everyone else in the country. Any queer in this country can go to any Justice of the Peace and marry someone of the opposite sex, just like normal people can. That is their equal right. It is the queers that want separate but equal rights. They want to be able to fornicate with something different and call it “marriage.” Then they call those of us who are against it as homophobes. A phobia is an irrational fear. No one is afraid of some turd pushing nancy-boy. We are simply disgusted by them.
Rogers postured on the Obamacare issue before caved too.
I should have typed, “Roberts will bend over...”
The country is going to hell.
Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg
The left has a problem with reality.
“Chief Justice John Roberts Compares Gay Marriage To Forcing A Child To Call Someone ‘A Friend.’”
Yeah, that crazy talk. Roberts is the MAN!! The MAN I tell ya.... It would be like, passing a law that says something is a “penalty”, but instead we will just call it a tax....
Oh wait.....
That would be a good one. I'd like to hear "Are gay marriages consummated by sodomy which used to be illegal?"
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.