Dittos, 

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon
ADVERTISEMENT

EIB WEB PAGE DISGRONIFIER

Republican Consultants Sign Up to Help ACLU Push Gay Marriage

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Get this, folks.  This is classic.  This from The Daily Caller today.  "Shortly after the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, announced a new initiative aimed at," wait for it, "winning Republican support for gay marriage at the state level."  Are you listening? "The ACLU’s campaign will be led by Steve Schmidt, a Republican consultant who held senior positions in the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and John McCain. Schmidt also managed Arnold Schwarzenegger’s California gubernatorial re-election campaign.

"Additionally, the ACLU announced the hiring of GOProud co-founder and former Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia. LaSalvia’s task will be outreach to gay conservatives, according to a statement released by the group. The two Republicans were hired as part of a broader initiative challenging state legal and constitutional provisions that restrict marriage to a man and a woman." So what's happening here is Republicans are being brought aboard at the ACLU for immigration, and now gay marriage. 

The left is hiring Republicans (or co-opting Republicans) into advancing the left's agenda so as ostensibly to... I know what the thinking here is, and you do, too.  "Well, look, we gotta get the gay issue behind us. Gays hate us! We can't be opposed to gay marriage. I mean, love is love, and marriage? Marriage is all about love! It's not about sexual orientation. Who can oppose love? The Republicans won't get anywhere if they're opposing love!

"I mean, everybody loves love. Everybody wants to be in love. So the Republicans can't be seen as denying love! If it's two people of the same sex that love each other, the Republicans gotta be supportive." So the Republicans have to, in order to survive... (chuckling) In order to survive, the Republicans have to throw away their position on gay marriage now.  In order to survive, the Republicans have to throw away their position on illegal immigration.  What's gonna be next?

Well, there's a War on Women being waged out there, and what do you bet that there is an effort probably...? Well, we know this effort has been underway for a long time. Republicans for Choice used to be headed up by a Republican woman by the name of Ann Stone back in the nineties. It's been around for a long time.  But that will be the next area the Democrats and the left attempt to co-opt the Republicans under the guise of helping them. 

So, yeah. "The Republicans gotta do this in order to have a chance at gay money. In order to have a chance at gay votes, Republicans have got to do this. They have got to come out and gotta put this issue behind them," and pretty soon there isn't going to be a Republican Party.  This is one reason why I predicted two or three weeks ago that Chris Christie will seek the Democrat presidential nomination in 2016.  There isn't gonna be a Republican Party. If these folks get their way, there isn't gonna be a Republican Party as it's now known.

I mentioned to you yesterday or the day before, I touted, one of the great blogs that we use here in show prep every day, the Morning Bell from the Heritage Foundation. Their post today: "The Supreme Court's Marriage Decisions by the Numbers -- The morning after two important -- and troubling -- Supreme Court decisions in the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases, here's the lay of the land. The important takeaway: The marriage debate is every bit as live today as it was yesterday morning ... and that means it's time to redouble our efforts to stand for marriage across America.

"Some key numbers following the decisions..." I'm doing these stories back-to-back on purpose.  Because here we have The Daily Caller story on the ACLU. Two Republican consultants have gone to work for them.  (I don't mean to be shouting.  I'm trying to be emphatic.)  Two Republican consultants have been hired on, gone to work at the ACLU to win support for gay marriage in the Republican Party at the state level. One is Steve Schmidt.  Okay, there's that story.  Here's the Morning Bell blog:

"Some key numbers following [yesterday's] decisions: "50 -- The number of states whose marriage laws remain the same after the Court’s marriage decisions." In other words, the decisions yesterday did not affect the law on gay marriage in any state.  It didn't change.  "38 -- The number of states with laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That includes California, where the scope of [the] Prop 8 decision beyond the specific plaintiffs will be the subject of ongoing debate and, most likely, further litigation.

"12 -- The number of states that can now force the federal government to recognize their redefinition of marriage. The court struck Section 3 of DOMA, which means that it must recognize same-sex marriages in states that redefine marriage. 1 -- The number of sections of the Defense of Marriage Act struck down yesterday (Section 3). Section 2, which ensures that no state will be forced to recognize another state’s redefinition of marriage, is still law. 0 -- The number of states forced to recognize other states' redefinition of marriage."

Zero!

So the point of the Morning Bell post here is that nothing really changed yesterday from state to state in terms of the "number of states whose marriage laws remain the same," is 50.  "The number of states with laws defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman," is 38. No change.  "The number of states that can now force the federal government to recognize their redefinition of marriage," is 12. No change.  One, "the number of sections of DOMA struck down yesterday."  It was Section 3.  Section 2 is still law. 

Section 2 ensures that no state "will be forced to recognize another state's redefinition of marriage, "and that's still law.  Zero, "The number of states forced to recognize other states' redefinition of marriage." (interruption) No, it's not. (sigh) Legally it's not the same as Roe v. Wade.  That's the point here.  Roe v. Wade was a sweeping essentially constitutional finding with massive change.  Their point here is that despite these two decisions, there really isn't anything that's changed by the numbers, which means that the debate is every bit as live today as it was yesterday. 

Their point is that in the debate no ground was lost.  In the debate on the ground, no ground was lost.  That's their point.  They're trying to stay encouraging here at the Heritage Foundation.  "The important news you may not be hearing is that the US Supreme Court did not redefine marriage across the nation." That did not happen. "That means the debate about marriage will continue. " It does mean that the debate about marriage will continue.

In that sense, yeah, it could be the next Roe v. Wade, meaning a never-ending argument. Once again, the reason Roe v. Wade is so divisive is that it has not been decided by the people.  It's been forced on the people by the Supreme Court, as this looks like it eventually will be, too.  If the court gets their way, if the five justices in the majority had their way, they would redefine marriage and make it constitutional. But they didn't yesterday.  Scalia predicts it's heading that way.

But that was one of the many points Scalia made in his dissent yesterday, which was, "Let the people decide this."  The people of the United Kingdom have voted on abortion, and it's not nearly the divisive issue there.  I mean, they argue about it, but it isn't nearly the divisive, polarizing issue that it is here, and that's because they voted on it.  The people opposed to it had a legitimate shot.  That hasn't happened.  The people opposed to abortion had no chance. 

Nine people wearing black robes said, "This is the law! This is constitutional," and there's been nothing anybody could do about that.  So, as we sit here today, the states are free to uphold policies recognizing marriage as the union of a man and a woman so that children have a mother and a father.  Now, admittedly, they're not trying to falsely spin this. What happened yesterday is problematic.  The court did not respect the authority of California citizens or Congress. 

They overrode that, and they're clearly willing to when given the chance.  The citizens of California who voted twice to pass Proposition 8 should have been able to count on their governor and attorney general to definite the state's constitution.  The only reason this thing with Prop 8 yesterday is because the people that were there defending it were said to have no right to, called "standing." That's because state officials refused to defend it at the Ninth Circus and then at the US Supreme Court. 

The US Supreme Court said the people that showed up to argue didn't have any standing. They had no right to defend it.  So in the case of Proposition 8, the citizens of California voted twice to pass it.  Marriage is that between a man and a woman.  California passed it and it was essentially overridden because the governor and the attorney general refused to defend it, just like Obama said, "To hell with it! I'm not gonna defend DOMA anymore." 

So the will of the people was overridden in California, but in terms of gay marriage, marriage in general across the country, nothing changed by the numbers.  I'm not doing a Pollyanna thing here.  I'm just telling you the way the Heritage Foundation is look at this because the debate's gonna continue, as evidenced by the ACLU hiring these two Republican consultants to now go out and put pressure on Republicans at the state level. 

They're not even gonna mess around with Congress on this. 

These two guys are gonna gin up an organization using the ACLU's power and reach and intimidation to put the pressure on Republicans in all 50 states to cave.  So the Republican Party's being told, "Look, you gotta get this gay issue behind you. You just gotta! You're never gonna get gay donors or any gay votes. You got to get this behind you. You gotta come out for gay marriage." 

Oh, okay! 

"You're not gonna get any Hispanic voters. You're just not ever going to get them, and you're never gonna win the presidency unless you get rid of this business that you oppose amnesty.  You've got to favor this citizenship." 

Oh, okay! 

"And by the way, you guys: You know, the women this country hate you Republicans. You're gonna have to do something about it. You're never gonna get elected president unless you change your attitude on contraception and abortion.  It just is not gonna happen." 

Oh, okay!

So by the time this process ends, the Republicans, theoretically, are gonna be the most loved people ever.  Hee-hee-hee-hee-hee-hee.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Let's go to the phones. We're gonna start with Jeff in Maplewood, New Jersey, you're up, sir, great to have you on the EIB Network.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  Big fan.  I was just gonna call to comment after you made a comment about the Heritage Foundation pointing out that yesterday's ruling didn't really change the law of the land in the 50 states. Although that's technically true, I think as a practical matter it's totally false.  That was a equal protection case yesterday.  Justice Kennedy started talking like it was gonna be a federalism case but in the end of the decision he ruled on equal protection grounds, and if he rules that an equal protection violation at the federal level, then the result at the end of the day is gonna be that it's an equal protection at the state level.

RUSH:  Well, that's what he wants.  I mean, it's obvious, and I think isn't that what Scalia was basically concluding.

CALLER:  Yeah, Scalia was pointing that out.  I mean, they made the blanket statement in there. "Oh, this doesn't pertain to the 50 states," but that's only because the 50 states weren't party to this litigation.

RUSH:  I understand.  Now, you know what the Heritage people are doing here after this decision yesterday. Look, the votes of the people increasingly don't mean anything in this country.  The power is being usurped, crony capitalism, corporatists are taking over the country, it appears, the Republicans are caving and giving away on every issue, and the Heritage people are simply trying to put a little perspective out and say, "Wait a minute. We haven't lost."

"Don't give up yet," is all they're saying.

CALLER:  Yeah, if the idea is to sort of buck up the troops, that's fine. But I'm saying as a legal matter, unless they do a 180 or we get a replacement judge in 2017 or something, you're gonna see the rationale of this ruling be applied to the states.

RUSH:  All you need is another case.

CALLER:  Yeah.  Well, there's ton of them floating out there. There are 38 states that currently prohibit gay marriage, but it hasn't worked through the system to it takes a few years.  But the point is what was really maddening about the decision. Normally these equal protection cases, they usually either say, "Well, in this case sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny or there wasn't a rational basis for the law," and that was sort of the tit-for-tat that was going on in the lower courts.  Justice Kennedy just blew right by that and just basically said, "Nope, the law violates equal protection," but he didn't give any reasons for it.  I mean, he gave a long-winded history of marriage.

RUSH:  Look --

CALLER:  He gave a long-winded diatribe on the fact that marriage was the province of the states.

RUSH:  Look, it wasn't just that.  I mean, you're absolutely right.  He then used the insulting characteristics of opponents of gay marriage as, also, a reasoning for the decision. To hell with anything judicial.

CALLER:  Yeah, I think the statement you made yesterday was so apropos.  He basically acted the way liberals always do about conservatives in the sense that he sort of assumed that the motive behind the law was animus.

RUSH:  Yeah.

CALLER:  He assumed the motive behind the law was evil.

RUSH:  Yeah, the Supreme Court became a prime time cable TV show yesterday in this case.

CALLER:  Yeah, but he didn't lay out and say, "Well, look, here this happened, this happened, this happened. So therefore, we believe that the reason they voted the way they did for DOMA was out of animus."  No, he just sort of assumed it. I mean, there was very little rational basis in his decision to support the contention that it was built on animus.  So the basic bottom line is that any law that simply singles out marriage as being just between a man and a woman, is based in animus.

If you go by the Kennedy decision which is now sort of precedent, they should apply that rule to any of the states. If you had a state case go before a district judge, say, a month from now, he should look at that case and say, "Per Windsor v. US, the ruling was that you can't have a law that singles out discriminatory behavior for marriage based on sexual orientation. It violates equal protection. End of story!" And you would start knocking down each state law, and eventually would work its way up to the court, and if they use the same rationale, all those state laws will go bye-bye.

RUSH:  Right.  Well, sadly, it's by design.

CALLER:  Yeah.  I mean, all they did yesterday in terms of not touching the states was sort of buy a little time, but it's a misnomer that it's not gonna apply to the states.

RUSH:  Well, I know.  The Heritage people are simply saying that it doesn't yet, that what happened yesterday may have represented a desire, but it's not something that's been manifested yet, so don't keel over and cave and think that it's over.  But, again, on the other side of that, who can argue with what a court does?  They're the Supreme Court; they're the final arbiter now.  They determine what is and what isn't legal, what is and what isn't constitutional.  Anyway, I appreciate the call, Jeff. I really do. That's Jeff in Maplewood, New Jersey. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  You read the Scalia dissent, and he said in part, in his opinion, that Justice Kennedy was basically begging someone to bring a case before the Supreme Court that would allow them to decide this on a national level.  Scalia predicted 10 years ago, in a sodomy case, "If this happens, we're opening a door to gay marriage."  He was right about it. He's predicting that what the majority wants now is a case where they can rule nationally that gay marriage is the law of the land. 

END TRANSCRIPT

ADVERTISEMENT

Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show

Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

EIB Features

ADVERTISEMENT: