Congrats to Limbaugh on his fourth traditional marriage

[Ben]

Congrats to Rush Limbaugh on his fourth traditional marriage (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/06/marriage/index.html)

By Glenn Greenwald
Rush Limbaugh, October 6, 2009 (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100609/content/01125111.guest.html):

Look, we found another Obama oddball. Obama's nominee to become commissioner for the equal opportunity employment commission is Chai Feldblum. She's an outspoken gay rights activist, Georgetown University law professor, and she has praised polygamy and contended that traditional marriage should not have privileged status.
MSMDC News, yesterday (http://msmdcnews.com/rush-limbaugh-getting-married-for-a-fourth-time-pop-eater/6065):

Conservative radio man Rush Limbaugh is taking a fourth stab at marriage with a weekend wedding to Kathryn Rogers, an events coordinator 26 years his junior, according to various reports. Limbaugh, 59, will reportedly marry the 33-year-old Rogers at his Palm Beach compound. . . . The childless Limbaugh's first two marriages were over by the time he rose to national prominence. His third wedding, to Marta Fitzgerald in 1994, was officiated by his friend, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. They divorced in 2004. Before beginning his courtship with Rogers in 2007, Limbaugh was romantically linked to then-CNN anchor Daryn Kagan.



Continue reading (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/06/marriage/index.html)


So as Newt Gingrich does while standing next to his third wife (who, as was true for Gingrich's second wife, was previously known as his "adulterous mistress"), Rush Limbaugh will now crusade for Traditional Marriage with his fourth wife (and counting) at his side. As is so often the case, the Traditional Marriage movement is led by people who discard their wives and get new, younger replacements the way most people change underwear. That's how so many Americans sit on their sofas next to their second and third spouses, with their step-children and half-siblings surrounding them, and explain -- without any recognition of the irony -- that they're against same-sex marriage because they believe the law should only recognize Traditional Marriages. And it's how Rush Limbaugh can hide from his followers that, by demanding state recognition for his fourth "marriage," he himself believes "that traditional marriage should not have privileged status." As usual, all of the actual rules of Traditional Marriage (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/why-arent-texas-christians-voting-on.html) are casually discarded when it comes to the law (all that dreary, annoying stuff about "till death do us part" and "in sickness and in health (http://lonestarbear.blogspot.com/2008/09/newt-gingrich-who-left-1st-wife.html)" and "for as long as we both shall live") and the only one that's maintained is the one that is easy and cost-free for most Traditional Marriage proponents people to fulfill (the one about needing "a man and a woman").
As the gay Wired writer Steve Silberman wrote yesterday (http://twitter.com/stevesilberman/status/15500120539): "Between them, Gingrich and Limbaugh have had 7 marriages. And they want to abolish my one." On that note, The Boston Globe highlights how this Traditional Marriage hypocrisy is not merely vile in its own right, but breeds serious oppression for countless Americans, as it reports on the harrowing experience (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/04/gay_couple_get_a_boost_in_winning_bid_to_reunite/) of an American citizen who has been barred from living in the U.S. with his foreign national same-sex spouse (as a result of the Defense of Marriage Act's ban (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/03/16/immigration) on granting the same federal rights to same-sex couples which opposite-sex couples are entitled to receive, such as immigration rights). The latest "marriages" of Gingrich and Limbaugh (as well as their 5th, 6th, and 7th ones which, if history is any guide, will take place as soon as their most recent "wives" age a bit) will receive the full panoply of rights under American law, while -- as a result of this twisted, self-serving definition of "Traditional Marriage" -- gay Americans are denied all such rights even for their first marriages.

[BrendaQG]

To be honest I have listened to Rush for a long time. I have no doubt that if a caller called up on "open line Friday" and wanted to talk about gay marriage he would come down against it. The thing is I have never heard him mention it at all. He has had openly gay callers before too and never said anything untoward to them. (probably because they are also republican and conservatives on all issues but DADT and marriage.)

The thing to be angry about IMHO is the fact that so many who are hardcore against gay marriage listen to him and are mostly not critical of his own escapades. It is as if being queer has a special place as the vice of vices the worst and most unforgiveable of sins.

[bte]

I listen to Rush too and I don't think I heard him talk about gay marriage. At least not to my knowledge, granted I do not listen to him daily for the whole 3 hours that he is on the air.

Its just that Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin and is wrong. I turned to a Christian radio station and they were talking about DADT and I had the turn it off. It made my ears bleed (not really) with their ignorance. Congrats to Rush, everyone should be happy and marry their significant others, even though Rush and other Christians do not believe that homosexuals should have the same happiness.

[trish]

http://streetsavoirware.blogspot.com/2009/03/rush-limbaugh-on-gay-marriage.html

[bte]

Well there he is talking about gay marriage, I stand corrected. Thanks Trish for link.

[Ben]

http://streetsavoirware.blogspot.com/2009/03/rush-limbaugh-on-gay-marriage.html

Thanks Trish.
It's interesting to here the likes of Limbaugh talking about conservatism. Here is Noam Chomsky's take on actual conservatism. (Chomsky is a conservative. A conservative is one who believes in morality and traditional values. And we must remember that conservatism comes out of classical liberalism... which challenged authoritative structures.)

Here's Chomsky:

"The political policies that are called conservative these days would appall any genuine conservative, if there were one around to be appalled. For example, the central policy of the Reagan Administration - which was supposed to be conservative - was to build up a powerful state.
"The state grew in power more under Reagan than in any peacetime period, even if you just measure it by state expenditures. The state intervention in the economy vastly increased. That's what the Pentagon system is, in fact; it's the creation of a state-guaranteed market and subsidy system for high-technology production.
"There was a commitment under the Reagan Administration to protect this more powerful state from the public, which is regarded as the domestic enemy. Take the resort to clandestine operations in foreign policy: that means the creation of a powerful central state immune from public inspection. Or take the increased efforts at censorship and other forms of control.
"All of these are called "conservatism," but they're the very opposite of conservatism. Whatever the term means, it involves a concern for Enlightenment values of individual rights and freedoms against powerful external authorities such as the state, a dominant Church, and so on. That kind of conservatism no one even remembers anymore."
—Noam Chomsky (1928 - ····) Interview by Adam Jones, February 20, 1990—