Americans Disagree With Rush Limbaugh On Marriage Equality
Rush Limbaugh attacked President Obama today over his support for marriage equality, accusing Obama of leading a "war on traditional marriage" and the Catholic Church while accusing same-sex marriage supporters of wanting "to corrupt the institution." However, polls show that public support for same-sex marriage has been trending upwards over the past several years, including in the Catholic community.
Obama: "I Think Same Sex Couples Should Be Able To Get Married"
On ABC, Obama Voiced Support For Marriage Equality. In an interview with ABC News correspondent Robin Roberts, Obama stated: "[A]t a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that same sex couples should be able to get married":
"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Obama told Roberts, in an interview to appear on ABC's "Good Morning America" Thursday. [ABC News, 5/9/12]
Limbaugh: Obama Is "Waging" A "War" On Marriage, Catholic Church
Limbaugh: Obama "Is Going To Lead A War On Traditional Marriage." Limbaugh repeatedly accused Obama of "waging" or "leading" a "war" on "traditional marriage" on his radio show today:
LIMBAUGH: We've arrived at a point where the president of the United States is going to lead a war on traditional marriage. You want to call that winning? Your side is winning when the president has to lead a war on traditional marriage?
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Obama and people like [caller] are trying to turn traditional institutions on their head. And people like me who are minding their own business all of a sudden have to stand up and defend these traditions and institutions from people like you, and now the president who's waging a war on traditional America.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Marriage is a word. It has a specific meaning. And all of a sudden, some people came along and said 'well, we want to change the definition.' No, you don't want to change the definition. You want to corrupt the institution is what you want to do. 'How dare you say that? We don't want to - we want in on the institution.' Well then, marry a woman. Or marry a man. That's what marriage is.
LIMBAUGH: There's no other way to characterize it, Barack Obama is leading a war on gay marriage, just like he's leading a war on the Catholic Church, the war on stay-at-home moms.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: It's official. Obama supports gay marriage after talks with his wife and daughters, gay service members, and others. Pink smoke coming from the White House chimney. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/9/12 via Media Matters]
Most Americans Support Marriage Equality
Gallup: More Americans Support Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage. From a May 2012 Gallup poll:
[Gallup, 5/8/12]
Pew Research Center President: "Acceptance Of Gay Marriage Has Grown Steadily Over The Past Eight Years." Pew Research Center president Andrew Kohut recently wrote:
Acceptance of gay marriage has grown steadily over the past eight years. By 2008, support for gay marriage had risen to 39 percent, while opposition had slipped to 52 percent. And in recent years, support has markedly increased as opposition has ebbed. Today, the latest Pew Research Center survey finds a 47 to 43 percent plurality favoring gay marriage, with as many Americans saying they strongly favor (22 percent) as saying they strongly oppose (22 percent).
Much of the growing support for gay marriage is generational. Majorities of the millennial generation, who were a very small share of the electorate in 2004 when the gay marriage issue rallied the conservative base, have grown in number and have consistently favored. But also, many older Americans have changed their minds. Since 2004, support for gay marriage has increased from 30 percent to 40 percent among baby boomers, and even among seniors (from 18 percent to 32 percent). (On balance, though, most members of this generation remain opposed, at 56 percent.)
A good deal of increased support for gay marriage reflects growing public acceptance of homosexuality. In 1994, when the Pew Research Center first began asking the public about societal acceptance, Americans were evenly divided as to whether homosexuality should be accepted or discouraged. However, views changed markedly over the next 17 years. By 2011, 58 percent of the public said it favored acceptance while just a third (33 percent) continued to favor discouragement.
While there remains a huge partisan gap on acceptance of homosexuality in general and gay marriage specifically, the political prospects for the issue are far different than they were two election cycles ago. It has become a lower priority issue for voters, and the partisan intensity gap is not as overwhelmingly one sided as it once was. Today there are almost as many strong supporters of gay marriage among Democrats (34 percent) as there are strong opponents among Republicans (40 percent). [The New York Times, 4/16/12]
Public Support For Gay Marriage "Has Accelerated Dramatically In The Last 2 Years." A July 2011 poll from the Benenson Strategy Group and Voter Consumer Research found that support for marriage equality "has increased over the years and that the rate of increase has accelerated dramatically in the last 2 years."
[Freedom to Marry, 7/27/11]
Pew: "Broad Declines In Opposition To Gay Marriage." From a 2012 Pew Research Center study showing large declines in opposition to same-sex marriage, including among Catholics:
[Pew Research Center, 4/25/12]
Limbaugh Has A History Of Engaging In Bigoted Attacks Against LGBT Community
Limbaugh: Marriage Equality Is "Ripp[ing]" Marriage "To Shreds." During the February 24, 2012, edition of his show, Limbaugh commented on a judge ruling the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional:
LIMBAUGH: Just took it upon himself to say that a piece of legislation is unconstitutional. Defending traditional values is not modern? It's off topic? Attacking them is modern and good politics? That's what we're to believe here? All we're doing is defending traditional values. All we're doing is defending the institutions and the traditions that have made this country great, and apparently that's what you're not supposed to do? "No, no, don't do that! Mr. Limbaugh, you're just gonna make people nervous. Women aren't going to understand." You wouldn't believe the emails. "Rush, women's brains can't compute this way. You're making a big mistake here by just bringing this up." Oh, so we can't defend all these great traditions, but the left can attack them? The left can attack them and rip them apart and tear them down, and that's good politics? Is that what we're to believe? We're supposed to sit by while great traditions and institutions like marriage are ripped to shreds. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/24/12]
Limbaugh Denigrated Slain LGBTQ Teen For Exploring His Sexuality. On the November 22, 2011, edition of his show, Limbaugh claimed that Larry King, a 15-year-old openly gay student who was killed by a reportedly homophobic classmate, was exploring whether he needed a "chop-a-dick-offa'-me operation," stating:
LIMBAUGH: He was showing up in school dressed as a woman -- was wearing dresses. He was bothering the other boys. His mother called the school. She was worried about her son's behavior. She asked the school to keep a sharp eye out for him, that she was worried that his behavior was going to cause something unfortunate to happen to him. We're talking 14-, and 15-, 16-year-olds here. Her son dresses up as a woman, goes to school, and starts lavishing attention on other boys.
When she told school officials about this, she says, again, that school officials told her that there was nothing they could do. That her son had a civil right to explore his sexual identity, meaning he had a right to come to school dressed as a girl. He had a right to come to school dressed in female attire -- he was wearing dresses. He had a right to explore whether or not he was a woman in a boy's body. He had the right to explore whether at some point he was going to need a chop-a-dick-offa'-me operation. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/22/11]
Limbaugh Ridiculed Gender Reassignment Surgery. On the January 19, 2011, edition of his show, Limbaugh called gender reassignment surgery an "add-a-dick-to-me" procedure, saying:
LIMBAUGH: Let me put this in perspective for you, folks. The Democrats and the media put forth this challenge -- oh, what are you gonna cut? You're saying you're going to cut spending -- what are you gonna cut? What are you gonna cut? And then we hear that the city of Berkeley is going to start paying for chop -- add-a-dick-to-me's. Sex change operations. And they -- what do we want to cut? Well, I ask you. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/19/11]
To see more attacks Limbaugh has leveled at the LGBTQ community, click here
What's the matter, don't you think civil rights to be an importasnt enough issue?
Joeseph, this is called an "assertion." If you seriously want people to believe it, you must be able to back it up with facts- first of all, by showing that you even know what the phrase "civil rights" means (it's evident to me from the oxymoronic nature of your statement that you don't- prove me wrong). Otherwise, it's just an empty talking point you've heard somewhere, and are repeating without understanding here.
But, based on your posting history here on this article, where you haven't answered one single comment that answered one of yours, you'll run away from trying to answer this one. The only thing not clear to me is whether that's because you're really as stupid as you appear, or because you're just a coward (a little of both, I suspect). Is "hit and run" your usual style in real life?
And I see you've claimed here to be an atheist. The basic idea behind atheism is to neither accept nor espouse any belief without evidence to back it up. Since what you are saying here is in total contradiction to that premise, I have to say- you're no atheist, pal. You simply believe in a different god.
Name one person who is unaffected by a government that denies civil rights.
What we need is the public's awareness of what our constitutional rights actually are!
You don't think gays are discriminated against? Tell it to Matthew Shepard.
That's true. Black folks in the 1940's could legally get married. Do you ever think before you type? I think not.
As for what the founding fathers "wanted" in the Constitution- I doubt gay marriage was even on their radar, one way or the other. What was on their radar was the possibility that future generations might need to deal with problems they themselves had no conception or awareness of. This is why they included a provision for these things called "amendments."
Now this is the part where you explain exactly why the unequal application of marriage law to gay people is not a civil rights issue. Don't just keep saying the same thing over and over- explain it. Go.
(Oh, who am I kidding?)
I got married about ten years ago. In those ten years, I've not taken one vacation to Europe, I go to one game a year, watch most of my movies on DVD, see a concert every couple of years, and am in debt. Some benefits.
Donald Trump welfare?
Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh economics?
Is THIS Billy Graham's "Christianity"?
Chuck Colson's?
All this misses jaydough's point, by ignoring the very important word in front of "right" that you left out- "constitutional." The Constitution guarantees all its citizens equal application of, and protection by, the law- that is the basic right of all US citizens. Whether you like it or not, gay people are citizens, and as equally entitled as anyone to that guarantee. So when laws regarding marriage are not applied equally, across the board, to both straight and gay folks, then the very real Constitutional rights that you've tried so hard to handwave away with semantic hairsplitting, calling them "privileges," are, in fact, violated.
Your whole thing about "The state bestows certain benefits upon the institution of marriage because society has a compelling interest in perpetuating itself. Therefore it is a privilege." is self-serving garbage- it's exactly the thing I mean when I say "privilege is the right to define itself as privileged."
"The entire gay marriage issue is a made up issue by a segment of people who want their abnormal condition normalized."
There you go- you get to define what is normal and abnormal, right? Is that your "right," or is that a "privilege" you're taking? The issue isn't "made-up" by them, any more than black people pushing for their civil rights in the 60's (and having to continue today, to our shame as a civilized nation) "made up" their issue. It wasn't the privilege of white folks then to deny black folks those rights on the basis of "they ain't white like us," and it's not your right today to deny gay people their rights on your privilege-assumed basis of "they ain't normal like us."
One final point- you, like most far-right non-thinkers I've run across, seem to assume ("...the financial benefits which are bestowed upon traditional marriage") that all this is some sort of zero-sum game- that if gay folks get the rights and those benefits, there will somehow be less left for you, or that those benefits will be somehow less meaningful. This is dumb- there's not just a certain, limited amount of rights and benefits floating around, and you better get 'em before they're all gone. There's plenty enough for everyone- in fact, the more people that have rights, the more rights there are. As for whether they're meaningful anymore- well, that's up to you, isn't it? It's your relationship to make of it what you will. But don't come around with the lame excuse that someone else's happiness is going to mean your failure.
The state bestowed certain benefits upon white males, such as suffrage, because society had a compelling interest in preserving social hierarchies. Therefore, suffrage was a privilege. There was no law against women and black people pretending to cast votes at home. The entire voting rights issue is a made up issue by a segment of people who want their abnormal condition normalized.
Wonder if our thrasher friend will actually address any of your points? No? Just thumbs down? C'mon, Thrasher- man up!
Good point- thrasher has not (and I suspect will not) explain why the "privilege" and associated benefits of marriage should only be extended to straight people, and not gays. Oh, yeah the "society has an interest in perpetuating itself" thing, right? Does that mean that heterosexual couples who have no intention, or the capability, of having children, should not be allowed the privilege of marriage, and denied the benefits? Maybe I should tell my wife that we're exactly like gay couples, as far as our rights go, and we're not really married at all.
But thrasher won't be back. He's like so many other right-wing internet cowards- drop a comment, then downthumb replies without any attempt to answer them (because he can't).
The rightwing has no idea about how to do anything, well except for creating economic disaster and waging war...
Let's look at how many jobs President Bush created...hmmmm
Let's look at how much President Bush spent...hmmm
Let's look at his success on national security...hmmm
We can do this with every Republican president back to Nixon.
When you deregulate and let Goldman Sachs crash the world economy...and then you let them get free money...it takes time to fix it.
Allowing people to have rights they are garanteed by your Constitution seems like a non issue....unless you don't likle the Constitution??? lol..
The dittoheads eat up the pap anyway
You should be aware that your representatives at the federal level may not like either of these things, and for quite selfish and predictable reasons.
Anyone who claims to be defending the "sanctity" of traditional marriage by arguments denying it to others, based on a moral position, puts himself at risk of being labeled a hypocrite when his own past belies that "sanctity" and his right to that moral position. So, yes, his past is quite germane.
"...Obama and others trying to force homosexual marriage as acceptable...is."
Guess what? No one is going to force you to accept homosexual marriage, either for yourself or others. Don't want a gay marriage? Don't have one. Don't like gay people? Don't associate with them- nobody's forcing you to do so. Those are your personal moral choices, and you're as free to make them as others are to make other choices. But, see, here's the thing... you don't get to impose your moral choices on others, or to insist that your personal morality should be the basis for discriminatory public policy. You just don't, ok? And I don't care if you think your view is a majority opinion (it isn't, BTW)- the very basis of civil rights is the idea that they cannot be defined or limited by majorities.
Does it infringe or in any way impede on anyone else's rights?
Is it detrimental or damaging to anyone else's rights?
Does it get in the way or obstruct anyone else's rights? And more pointedly in the context of traditional man-woman marriage, does it in any way damage, disrespect, deteriorate or undermine man-woman marriage?
The answer to all these questions is, No. "Traditional" marriage has actually been disrespected by straight consenting adults for decades, divorcing and remarrying on a whim with little to very little regard for the institution. They can't blame that on gays.
Monogamy and commitment strengthen society, that is about as conservative a value as I can imagine.
Yes, and these are real values that count, not mere abstractions. The thing is, the far-right make them abstractions, when they use them as empty talking points against gay marriage, claiming it "weakens society," when they cannot, concretely, show that either a) gay folks lack those values, or b) that gay marriage has any effect on those values held by straight folks.
You really think we're going to force heterosexuals to enter into homosexual unions?
If you're a homosexual, but don't think that homosexual marriage is okay, then don't get married. No one is going to force anyone, gay or straight, to participate in homosexual marriages. What a ridiculous argument.
It probably would be. It also would be a concession to homophobia. Another version of separate but equal.
What I don't understand is what the purpose of The Constitution is when a simple majority of voters can change it to remove the rights of a minority. How then is The Constitution any different from any other law?
When majorities first started saying they supported "marriage," it was treated as a watershed, but that's misleading. The word "marriage" has always driven down support in polls; it's just one of those weird quirks a lot of people have that they didn't like using that word to describe gay relationships, or were more comfortable using a different description. A lot of those who said they were opposed to "marriage" supported "civil unions," which is basically the same thing by a different name.
Way back in 2004, the CBS News poll started asking respondents about this, offering both "marriage" and "civil unions" as options. Even back then, a majority of the public favored one or the other. In March '04, 55% favored some form of legal recognition. CBS asked the same question in 15 subsequent polls, to date, and the number either remains relatively steady (sometimes it drops a hair, but never much) or goes up. Support is always high. In March '05, it was 57%. In March '07, it was 60%. In April '09, it was 67%. In Aug. '10, it was 70%, and, by then, 59% of Republicans were, for the first time, endorsing legal recognition (and "legal marriage" has been favored, by respondents, over "civil unions" since May '08).
So often treated as a radical proposition, this has actually been the mainstream view in the U.S. for at least 8 years, now. Some people are still uncomfortable with the word "marriage," but they're not at all hostile to official recognition. The yeas, in polls that only deal with "marriage," are being undercounted, while the nays in those same polls are inflated--and, the better polling suggests, inflated significantly--by this bias.
I'd like to see MMFA give a little attention to this.
I am curious as to why there's been such a gigantic push the past few years, though... and I wouldn't call it the "mainstream view" just yet. Let it settle in for awhile now that we have a POTUS onboard and a major political party using it as part of their platform in a general election. For now, I think just saying it's the majority view works. That's powerful enough in and of itself, and now the entire "wrong side of history" argument is even stronger.
If support is 63-70%, that's the broadly-supported mainstream view by any reasonable definition of "mainstream."
---
Left Hook!
http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/
Yup- always gonna be that hard-core group of die-hard reactionaries that you just will never reach. Kind of like cockroaches (is that unkind?)
classicliberal2- adding my thanks for the information, and the good points. I hadn't considered that angle either- that's it's as much an issue of perception of reality as it is the reality itself.
Firstly, there is no threat to religious belief or religious practice posed by same-sex marriage. Individuals and religious organisations are still entitled to do things the way they have always done. The only change is in the circumstances regarding de jure marriage.
Secondly, de jure marriage historically has had nothing to do with religion, reproduction or, for that matter even, love. The function of marriage at law is to give statutory force to the sharing of both property and responsibility between the parties.
My wife and I were married by the mayor of our university town many decades ago and remain married. Many of our friends with big church weddings divorced.
Is it that the message of The Sermon On the Mount and of the Gospel Parables doesn't pander enough to their prejudices or maybe that a message of love and forgiveness is too difficult for them to aspire to?
It's so much easier to hate and call down hellfire on the 'sinners' than to get to know people with different views/lifestyles to theirs.
Voters don't want it, anyone saying that is not true please explain why it is voted down in New York, California, and anywhere else it goes to the voters.
I also heard that the ammendment in North Carolina was worded in a way to specifically skew voting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_York
And your justification for this is?
It's interesting to me that you make a distinction between "100% wrong," and "sickening." C'mon now, 'fess up- they're really the same reason, aren't they? You think it's wrong because you think it's sickening. Do you really think a personal aversion is a good basis for deciding something is "100% wrong"? I think cauliflower is sickening, absolutely 100% wrong- do you think we could outlaw it on that basis? Or, if by "wrong" you mean "morally"- even as an atheist, I know that you can have morals; but surely, as an atheist, you realize that morals are not absolutes, not yours, not anybody's, and so can't be applied absolutely, "100%"?
And please explain why you think majority vote is a good way to define civil rights. You do realize that, as an atheist, you're in a distinct minority (about the same as gay folks, IIRC); and there are people with moral convictions about atheists similar to those you hold about gay folks, who would love to vote down your civil rights as an atheist?
So in other words, you would deny equal rights to a substantial portion of the population, because it offends your tender sensibilities.
You sicken me pal. You're a disgrace to atheism. if you were religious at least your dogma would be telling you to oppose this. But no, you want to be a bigot because you find homosexaulity to be icky.
Go to hell bigot.
He is religious. He just has a different dogma telling him to oppose it, and probably just calls himself an atheist because he thinks it sounds cool.
Why didn't the president make his case that this should be a federal law? I wish he had given a more robust defense of the gay community's desire for this right. We can't let this one for the states to decide.
I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, ideally, it should be a federal law, now, enforceable on all the states, to forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity. After all, this would only reinforce what the Constitution already says, that all US citizens are entitled to equal application of, and protection by, the law (14th Amendment- "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States")- and denying gay people the equal application of the "privilege" of marriage laws, whether by the states or federally, certainly contradicts that. (A certain commenter above seems to be denying that principle, by defining "privileges" extra-constitutionally- appealing to a "higher law" of privileges and rights, it seems).
OTOH- there is something to be said for the political reality requiring a "baby steps" approach right now. The Republicans are, as Shep Smith said, on the "wrong side of history" here, no doubt. This equality will come, for all their reactionary thrashing about. In fifty years, maybe less, folks will be wondering what all the fuss was about, and laughing at the folks who stirred it up. BUT- history takes time.
Traditional marriage?
Mormons defend our institutions.
Ever hear of Warren Jeffs?
Before it sponsored FRush Limbaugh, CLEAR CHANNELS sponsored Howard Stern.
Moral leaders?
No, he didn't.