(CNN) - Conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage must accept that they’ve “lost the issue,” radio host Rush Limbaugh argued Thursday.
“This issue is lost,” the conservative firebrand said. “I don't care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable - and it's inevitable because we lost the language on this. “
Limbaugh went on to assert conservatives “lost the issue when we started allowing the word ‘marriage’ to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it.”
“Marriage is one thing, and it was not established on the basis of discrimination,” he continued. “It wasn't established on the basis of denying people anything. ‘Marriage’ is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with. But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way. “
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the legality of same-sex marriage earlier this week.
Another notable conservative, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, said on Tuesday that same-sex marriage advocates have a more convincing argument than opponents, who do nothing but rehash scripture to make their point.
"The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals," O'Reilly said Tuesday on Fox. "That's where the compelling argument is. 'We're Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.' That's a compelling argument, and to deny that, you have got to have a very strong argument on the other side. The argument on the other side hasn't been able to do anything but thump the Bible."
O'Reilly has previously stated he takes a libertarian view on the issue, and repeated Tuesday night that it's a decision that should be left up to the states. "I support civil unions. I always have. The gay marriage thing, I don't feel that strongly about it one way or another."
'serna – but not so from the Quran, the only proven scripture with a built in mathematical super human code that cannot be duplicated by humans or computers.'
yes dear, now run along and play .
The problem is simply that the federal, state and local governments provide special benefits to married couples, ranging from tax incentives, write offs, rates and exclusions. These benefits are obviously denied to 'couples' who cannot legally marry. In effect the government is discriminating against a class of people and that discrimination is not based on the necessity to correct a previous wrong perpetrated by government. The alternative solution would be to eliminate all such government benefits and make the playing field equal and fair to everyone ....
Government should not be used to encourage or discourage the relationships between people ... what's the sense of having a 'free will' if government is used to define what one can or cannot do?
Marriage is a social contract. Society changes–and so does the contract....
Marriage is a religious term. The government should not recognize ANY marriage per se; only the civil union created by that marriage. Civil marriages performed by non-religious officials should now be called civil unions. There should be no "married" tax bracket; it should be replaced by a "civil union" bracket. All previous rights and benefits of marriage should be passed along to civil unions. The government should protect the right of any two people to enter into a civil union regardless of race or gender. Churches are free to perform marriages within the bounds of their beliefs and are not required to marry two people of the same sex if it is against their belief. No state should be able to "outlaw" a church from marrying two people of the same sex if the practice fits their belief system. This approach guarantees equal rights for all citizens, does a better job of separating church and state, and protects religious liberty.
I feel the same way when evolution gets compared to intelligent design. there is no basis for science and religon to be one the same footinh there. Creationism is not science. Evolution is. They lost this one because they only see equality relating to themselves. bible thumping rhetoric is the only thing they have...not logic.
If the courts allow this. The same courts that recognize corporations as people. Can a person marry a company? Can two companies marry to keep from testifying in a trial? Can they file taxes jointly?
This is the problem with the conservatives of today. Notice he says "we lost the argument", and not, "maybe we're wrong here."? It never occurs to them that they might be wrong. Just flat out wrong, like the banning of interracial marriages was wrong. Until conservatives start questioning their positions and not the delivery of their message, they are doomed to continue on the path towards irrelevance.
The outstanding reason why a person's human and civil rights and dignity such as gay rights cannot be left up to the voting public in the states is that the overwhelming majority of those people are straight therefore, cannot make an unbiased decision to include parity for those who are in the minority such as gays. The majority should never be placed in a position to decide the civil rights of a minority. Period.
Americans lost the marriage debate when divorce became the norm.....all Americans lose because strong marriages build strong families that launch responsible, moral adults. Kids need a mom and a dad, but we've cast that reality out the window in the name of self(ish) fulfillment. Now marriage is meaningless in our country, and we're all guilty of accepting that social shift , either through our apathy or our silence.
No, it's inevitable because american history shows a pattern of groups of people being denied their rights, struggling to attain those rights, and overcoming discrimination in the end.
According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, pharmaceutical companies spent $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry. During the same period, they donated $89.9 million to federal candidates and political parties, giving approximately three times as much to Republicans as to Democrats. According to the Center for Public Integrity, from January 2005 through June 2006 alone, the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $182 million on Federal lobbying. The industry has 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. 
Understand the truth of the creation of a human being involves developing memories, knowledge, logic, beliefs, reasoning, experiences, and skills in your brain/mind (a neural network) by learning in school or through life's experiences.
Psychotropic drugs do not repair these structures that develop in the brain/mind while they are being sold to public as medicine.
Who has more guilt in corrupting our species? Our Creator's Creation if you are religious?
"Creationism is not science. Evolution is."
Both require faith.
Rush, Marriage was around long before Christianity, stop trying to define it.
Though deplorable and devoid of value as a human being, Limbaugh isn't blind. He just notes the obvious.
Rush married 4 times. That is family values
now he can come out together with Rove and George W.
Every child born in this world has a biological mother and a father. EVERY single one. Our laws should do everything they can to allow that child to grow up with those two people, and science shows us that kids do best when brought up with those two people.
gay marriage does not encourage this. Rather, it encourages a woman (for example) to get pregnant with a man she doesn't know, never meet him, then raise her child with another woman who is in no way biologically related to the child. If the child is a little boy, not only will he never know his father, he won't even have a male role model in the house- definitely not one who is his father.
Come on people. This is not good. You don't need a bible to see that.
Limbaugh knows, too.
He almost single-handedly turned "Liberal" into a 4-Letter Word !
Simply put, the majority in a state must never be placed in the position where state voting decides the fate of the civil and human rights of a minority such as gays unless the voters are broad-minded. The minority will always end up on the losing end. Period.
What kind of name is Limbaugh ?
What's amusing to me concerning this article is that an over-weight, college drop-out, prescription pain-killer addict whose now on his 4th marriage is lecturing the American public about the subject of marriage.
Mr.Limbaugh come out of the closet. Mom, Rush Limbaugh won't come out of the Closet!
yeah, just need to "change the message", rushie, mm hmm that'll work
why oh why is every comment awaiting moderation?
Limbaugh went on to as sert conservatives “lost the issue when we started allowing the word ‘marriage’ to be bast ardized and redefined by simply adding words to it.”
Excuse me, but who was it that added words to it? It used to be legally defined as a formal union between two people. Then the Republicans pushed DOMA through in 1996 and redefined it as a formal union between a man and a woman. It was the Republicans that added words to it, and "bast ardized" it.
If Republicans did not intend to discriminate by redefining the definition of marriage in order to prevent gays from having the right to get married, then we would not be having this conversation in the first place.