RUSH: Did you know this? Steve Malzberg, our old buddy from the old WABC days, was interviewing Larry King. It's sad what's happened here. Larry King says (King impression), "I have never seen bias. Doesn't exist. I don't know what you're talking about. There aren't any meetings. We don't sit around and say, 'Okay, we're gonna destroy this guy today or build that guy up.' I don't know what you're talking about. Bias? I've never seen it."
And then Malzberg said, "Well, what about Juanita Broaddrick?"
(King impression) "What do you mean, Juanita Broaddrick? Are you telling me Clinton's been accused of rape? What kind of conspiracy --" Larry, Lisa Myers, NBC, did a whole 30-minute segment, 60 Minutes did -- "It's a crock! Are you telling me Clinton was accused of rape? You people make everything up?" It was just amazing. Yeah, I just came across that this morning. It's sad, but it is what it is.
RUSH: Planned Parenthood is running ads that, in effect, say, "Will you be my birth control on Valentine's Day?" The Maryland affiliate of Planned Abortion "tweeted a picture of a colorful condom in place of a ring in a box. 'Will you be my birth control?' the caption on the picture reads. 'Happy Valentine’s Day from Planned Parenthood.'" A condom.
RUSH: "In a federal court ruling echoing decisions reached elsewhere in the U.S., Virginia on Thursday became the first state in the South to overturn a voter-approved prohibition of same-sex marriage." So, once again something that was voted on by the people has been overturned by a judge. The judge obviously thinks that she's Obama.
"US District Judge Arenda Wright Allen issued a stay of her order while it is appealed, meaning that gay couples in Virginia still will not be able to marry until the case is ultimately resolved. Both sides believe the case won’t be settled until the Supreme Court decides to hear it or one like it."
Now, this judge does not know the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence. I have here, I'm holding in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, the very first page of Judge Arenda Wright Allen's ruling, and she mixes up the Declaration with the Constitution. She claims that the Constitution says that all men are created equal, and it doesn't! The Declaration says that.
Now, it's one thing for an average, ordinary citizen to get that wrong, but this is a judge writing an opinion that apparently is reviewed by clerks. It may have even been written by clerks, but this thing is not fastened together and thrown out there in a matter of seconds. It's written, and it's reviewed, and you've got a federal judge who released an opinion claiming that she was finding in favor of the Constitution's guarantee of all men are created equal clause. And there's no such thing in the Constitution!
She wrote: "A spirited and controversial debate is underway regarding who may enjoy the right to marry in the United States of America. America has pursued a journey to make and keep our citizens free. This journey has never been easy, and at times has been painful and poignant. The ultimate exercise of our freedom is choice. Our Constitution declares that 'all men' are created equal. Surely this means all of us." I mean, this is embarrassing. This is a federal judge writing this! "While ever-vigilant for the wisdom that can come from the voices of our voting public, our courts have never long tolerated the perpetuation of laws rooted in unlawful prejudice. One of the judiciary's noblest endeavors is to scrutinize laws that emerge from such roots."
So basically here's a woman who thinks it's the Constitution that says all men are created equal. And then she has (paraphrasing), "by the way, we assume they meant everybody there, not just men." Unbelievable. She gets that wrong. And then she goes on to say, yeah, we let people vote here, but sometimes people don't know what they're doing, and we smart judges have to move in and save the day. We've gotta protect people from the mistakes they make even though their intentions are good and honorable and all that.
"One of the judiciary’s noblest endeavors is to scrutinize laws that emerge from such roots." And the roots are wisdom that can come from the voices of our voting public. Well, there's not too much wisdom here. Now, the marriage law, do any of you think that whoever invented marriage intended discrimination to result from it? I think the way this judge and the entire left looks at marriage is cockeyed and wrong. They look at it like everything else, that it is the result of prejudice and discrimination from the white power structure that founded the country.
So you get these prejudiced roots here that she talks about. She can overthrow a law passed by citizens 'cause it could be founded in prejudiced roots? And obviously this judge believes that whoever wrote the law of marriage was discriminating against people, and we can't have that. There's no discrimination in marriage. If you want to get married in this country, you can. Anyway, there's another ruling out of Utah that makes this one pale in side-by-side comparison, and that one basically is permitting polygamy.
Folks, it's deteriorating rapidly out there all across the fruited plain. You know, sometimes people, when they're speaking, confuse things. This is a written opinion, took a while to write, it's obviously been reviewed, and everybody that looked at this did not know that the Constitution doesn't talk about all men being created equal. And she's citing the Constitution as the reason for her ruling! She's citing something that isn't there! She's a federal judge. We are so screwed.