RUSH: We start in Milwaukee today. Jerry, you are up first. Nice to have you on the program.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. I agree with this Republican-appointed judge. The judiciary, one of the most important aspects of it is to ensure that the rights of the minorities are protected. Obviously people have the right to pass laws, the majority, but the Constitution -- of not just the federal government but of state government -- ensures that the rights of the minority, even in a dislike minority are protected. In terms of... At one time, the right to vote, Rush, was only men marrying or men could vote.
RUSH: Sir, it's sad people like you that are helping the left destroy the country.
CALLER: The left is destroying the country?
RUSH: It's uninformed... Well, the minority is not allowed to break the law. The minority is not allowed to rewrite the Constitution to the federal bench. The minority is not allowed to look at the Constitution and say, "I don't like this," and simply write parts of it out. Besides, the minority in this case is not even really concerned about equal rights. The minority in this case is trying to bash and destroy the US Constitution, and it's ignoramuses like you who don't know what you are talking about who help them get away with it. You call here and you read a prepared statement as a caller, pointing out it's a Republican judge. It doesn't mean anything who appointed this guy. His ruling is what matters. Anyway, take it to some other show. Maybe you'll have better success there. Jean, Columbia, Missouri. I don't have much patient for these people today, folks. Just a warning. Jean in Columbia, welcome to the program. Nice to have you here.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. It's an honor to be able to speak with you.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: I'm calling because I don't know if the election is even going to solve the problems in this country. I'm very conservative, but I don't think... You know, look at what's happening in California. Let's say that most of the conservatives win reelection in midterm elections. They don't have to accept it. There will be other judges. I think it's already too far gone.
RUSH: Well, okay. If we're too far gone, then what are you going to do?
CALLER: I think the states may be be looking at secession, maybe another Civil War -- and tell you the truth, I'm ready for it because I'm so hopping mad.
RUSH: You know, this is --
CALLER: I'm mad every day.
RUSH: I know. You're mad.
CALLER: I'm mad at the --
RUSH: You are mad every day. Other people are depressed every day. Look at what people in this... This is a reasonable woman and she's talking about secession, Civil War! She's not alone, folks. This is not the rantings of extreme kookism anymore. Minorities do not... You know, if we give way to the minority every time, we got minority rule -- which is what we've got, by the way, and look where it's taking us. Minority rule. So, "The midterms aren't going to matter. We need a revolution. We need secession." She's mad. A lot of other people are mad. (interruption) Well, some might say the Civil War's already on, a nonviolent one with no arms that have been taken up, but some would say a Civil War's going on. Not started by us. If you're of the opinion that the Civil War is underway, it's been started by the American left years and years and years ago and is just now intensifying.
RUSH: Snerdley, when I say "minority rule," I'm talking about minorities, lesser numbers, the left in this country. The left is a minority. We're being ruled by a minority. We had this caller, this guy in Milwaukee talking about the rights of the minority. If the minority gets everything it wants all the time, then we have the minority ruling, and that's not a representative republic. I'm not talking race here at all. Talking politics, the American left. We are being governed and ruled by a minority. Here's Drew in Long Island. Drew, welcome to the EIB Network. Great to have you here.
CALLER: Thank you for having me, Rush. I think you are a great man.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: The wait was wonderful. Listen, I wanted to ask you: Do you believe that two people of the same gender should be afforded the same rights -- maybe not to be called marriage but to be afforded the same rights -- as two people inter-gender that would be married?
RUSH: You know, in California they already are. They already are in California. You are talking about the civil unions. In California gay people already have the same rights that married people have in the context in which you are speaking, which is benefits, right?
CALLER: Exactly, yeah.
RUSH: Benefits, right. Because everybody wants benefits. Nobody wants to do anything on their own. Everybody wants "benefits," and in California they've taken care of it. The civil union has been established. You don't have to be married to get the same quote-unquote "benefits," visitation rights and all that that married people have.
CALLER: Well, "benefits" in terms of, you know, healthcare and insurance premiums --
RUSH: Oh, yeah. Right. Yeah, yeah.
CALLER: -- are less when you are paying for more than one person.
RUSH: Right. Yeah, I know.
CALLER: You know, these are the things that, in the eyes of the people that are pushing for the unions, the gay people out there -- because I have a lot of gay friends.
CALLER: In their eyes this is about those rights, but behind the scenes the politico's eyes as you said is to, in my opinion is to destroy the constitutional rights that we have.
RUSH: Yeah, and that's why I said earlier in the program that I think these... Most gay people are not gay activists. Most people are not.
CALLER: No, they're not. No, they're not.
RUSH: They are being used.
RUSH: They are being used as the latest battering ram against the Constitution.
CALLER: But do you believe that gay people should have the right to have a civil union? Do you believe that they should be, you know -- that their wishes should be respected just as anybody else choosing a life partner?
RUSH: Well, you know, it doesn't matter what I think in this case. It exists. Civil unions have come up as a way of mollifying. People wanted to say, "Look, marriage is what it is. Let's not bastardize it. I mean, if you want the benefits, if you want visitation rights, if you want to be able to be on the insurance policy, do it with civil unions," and notice it didn't satisfy. It did not satisfy. Granting everything they wanted on the benefits side did not satisfy the judge or anybody else here. So it's a false notion.
RUSH: I was in California in the early and mid-eighties during the zenith, the modern era zenith of the rise in popularity of gay rights movement. What I remember back then was they said, "Just leave us alone." That was one of the major mantras of the political gay rights movement: "Just leave us alone," and now they don't want to be left alone. At all. If marriage is not between a man and a woman... I've raised this before, but I think it's a valid, logical conclusion. If marriage is not between a man and a woman, then what should the definition be? If we're going to say that marriage is codified homophobia, that marriage between a man and a woman only exists because men and women, heterosexuals, have been homophobes and the way they sought to discriminate against gays with as to not allow them to get married and define marriage as only between a man and a woman and now that's out the window, the judge has taken care of it.
So what is marriage? Is it between two adults? Is it between two consenting beings, two consenting objects? Where does it stop? Why two adults? Why not three? What if three adults decide that they want to get married? Well, some of you might get off on that. Some of you might like it, especially if two of them have health benefits and you don't -- which is a strange reason to get married, but I guess there are all kinds of reasons for it. If the adults are loving and responsible, why not three in a marriage? Why not? Or more, for that matter. I mean, if the marriage is not a union of a man and a woman, what's a family? We can define that however we wish it to be defined. Who am I? Who are you? Who are you to tell anybody what marriage ought to be?
As far as the judge and who should decide, the judge should decide everything it appears. If the people cannot even be trusted to define marriage, how can they be trusted to define anything else? This goes to the core of our country, the core of our existence. Self-government, but we can't be trusted to self-govern ourselves. If we can't be trusted to define marriage, then how can we be trusted to define anything? If we are bigots because we are heterosexual, then we're bigots for all purposes. (interruption) Of course I realize how irritating it is, but that's what this judge said. This judge said he has codified marriage as homophobia. So we're not trusted. The people can't be trusted to define marriage; what can we be trusted to do?
According to this judge, nothing. According to the left, nothing. They are God. They have to do all the defining. Now, if the heterosexuals are bigots because they're heterosexuals, then they're bigots for all things, right? If they're bigots for all purposes, then they are not rational. They are not capable of self-government, right? Ergo, that's how you get a decision like this. It's sick. These seven million voters of Prop 8 were put on trial by this judge and found to be incompetent, bigots, homophobes, and that's why what they did had to be overturned. Well, once you go down that slope, anything we vote can be overturned because we're not competent. Walker's ruling makes it very clear, ladies and gentlemen -- the judge here makes it very clear -- that marriage is simply homophobia.
Why...? Why do we think that a two-person marriage is morally superior? Where did this come from? Why does society...? I don't care what country you go to, and I don't care what era you cite. Marriage has always been two people, a man and a woman. How did that happen? I'm asking rhetorically. You don't need to shout at the radio and tell me. I know what you're saying. How did this happen? Where did this kind of "bigotry" begin, that a two-person marriage is morally superior? "Prejudice" is mentioned sixteen times in this guy's ruling. Fourteen times you'll read the word "fear" in this judge's ruling.
RUSH: Tom in Mentor, Ohio, you are next on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hello, Rush, how are you doing?
RUSH: Very well, sir. Thank you.
CALLER: Congratulations on your marriage. Wish you nothing but happiness.
RUSH: I appreciate that, sir. Thanks much.
CALLER: Now, I have a question for you. You've been talking about, you know, minority rule, minority rule. I've been thinking about this for months. Isn't this like apartheid in South Africa where the minority, not that it's race, but the minority liberals and the viewpoint of the way Americans think now are ruling and jamming down the throats of all the conservative thinking people?
RUSH: In South Africa, you mean the minority are the blacks?
CALLER: Yeah. I mean, it's just like reversed. Not reversed but it's --
RUSH: I wouldn't compare this to apartheid because apartheid was racial. What's happening here is not racially based.
CALLER: No, that's what I mean. It's not racial but it's the minority is ruling over the --
RUSH: Precisely, by ignoring the Constitution.
CALLER: Right. Right.
RUSH: By bastardizing it, by rewriting it.
RUSH: By ignoring the will of the people, not only ignoring the will of the people but telling us that we're not smart enough to govern ourselves every which way from Sunday.
Mark in Charlotte, North Carolina, great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, thanks for taking my call. Mega dittos.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Listen, one of the things that you've taught us so effectively over the years is to follow the money.
CALLER: And when I listened to this discussion about the marriage and defining it, you know, one of the things that's being eliminated or at least they are trying to eliminate is the estate tax exemption. However, the marital exemption is unlimited and so this could be a scheme. I don't know, Rush. I thought I'd run this by you. Is this some scheme to once again avoid taxes in perpetuity perhaps?
RUSH: Well, I don't know. I mean, I'm not sure what you mean by the -- what is the marital exemption?
CALLER: Well, when you have a husband and wife, and let's say they have an estate, doesn't even have to be as big as yours, Rush, but, you know, they've got a significant estate. When one of them passes away, the estate goes to the spouse.
RUSH: Oh, yeah, tax-free, that's what you mean.
CALLER: That's right, there's no tax on that from an estate tax standpoint. It's an unlimited marital deduction is what they say. So would that be part of this, too, because if we redefine marriage then they'll be eligible for this as well, this unlimited way to pass on money.
RUSH: Well, I don't doubt that that has been used as the benefits side of this, people being discriminated against, not being permitted to have the same benefits as married people, therefore there's discrimination. And I would assume that that's being used to fuel the fire of those who think they are being discriminated against, but I really think that the big picture here, that what this is all about is destroying the United States, destroying the US Constitution. Ripping and tearing apart the traditions and institutions that have defined the country. There's no question that you can get them all fired up by saying, "Look at what you're missing here! You can't get married and so you're missing out on a free inheritance when a partner passes away." No doubt that's been used. Seems like same thing with health care benefits and all the other. But the main objective is the United States. That's what's in the crosshairs.