About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Discussing Obama and DOMA, Limbaugh litters monologue with anti-LGBT innuendo

June 16, 2009 12:45 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

From the transcript of Limbaugh's June 16 Morning Update, as posted on his website [subscription required]:

A filing by the Obama Justice Department last week surprised hardcore supporters. Despite candidate Obama promising the gay community that he would work to overturn the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), his lawyers urged dismissal of the first same-sex-marriage case to reach federal courts.

The plaintiffs are two guys who tied the knot when same-sex marriages were legal in California. They claim DOMA violates the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause, the "due process" clause, equal protection, their free speech rights and right to privacy.

Obama's legal beavers attacked. They cited Catalano v. Catalano, involving a man who married his niece in Italy and sought to have the marriage recognized in Connecticut. The courts told him to stuff it. They cited the case of an Indiana marriage of an underage woman that New Jersey courts red-lighted. The third cite involved the marriage of first cousins in New Mexico, which got blown out by Arizona courts.

The Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexers, and Transgenders are fuming that Obama is not dismantling DOMA -- and are livid that his beavers would cite cases involving incest and people marrying children. They're also furious at Obama's limp action on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Look, boys and girls (and undecided): right now Obama's getting busy... finishing off the economy and destroying heath care. So for the moment you have to bend over and grab the ankles. But don't doubt him. Your turn is coming. (So to speak.) He's a flaming lib, and he's on your side of the aisle. I promise! You just have to be patient; you're not yet a priority. How does it feel?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (June 16, 2009 12:54 pm ET)
      2  
      Well, I look at it this way; Gay rights will progress much further under Democrats than they ever will under Republicans, even if Obama is moving slower than we Liberals would like to see.

      So, Rush, you and your fellow Troglodytes can STUFF IT.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 16, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
      4  
      El Rushbo gets so excited when he gets to start dishing out his "grab your ankles" imagery. What a lucky man, being paid millions to do what many people pay good money to do; get on the shrink's couch and unload years of repressed sexual energy.

      I'd guess that Boss Hogg's biggest objection to gay marriage is that it might reduce the number of single gay men in the population. Flying to the Dominican Republic can get expensive.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (June 16, 2009 2:01 pm ET)
        1  
        I'm starting to think that limpaugh chooses potential topics from the perspective of fitting into the "grabbing the ankles" meme.

        The maharushi's kama sutra is only a single page, apparently.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by robyn20094113 (June 16, 2009 4:32 pm ET)
           
        Awhile back he was asking why he could not get and keep a woman. He is so repulsive in public, just imagine in private when he lets his hair down. Beautiful picture ain't it? Even all that money doesn't make the imagine any prettier.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (June 16, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
         
      It's interesting that Rush is so lackadaisical about gay rights, seeing as he was once arrested in the company of a male prostitute in an area of Pittsburgh known for gay activity. This happened when he was working as a Top 40 DJ under the pseudonym "Jeff Christie".
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 16, 2009 4:17 pm ET)
         
      Until the last paragraph, I have to admit the rest of it is basically right, though obviously not for the reasons Rush implies. Personally, I would hate to see a gay marriage case go before the courts right now, because if it sets a bad precident that could set the whole movement back 20 years. And you know there will be 4 votes against it no matter what arguments are made. So all it takes is a no-vote from Kennedy and gay marriage will be a 1-state-at-a-time slog, with some states NEVER granting it. (And more have already passed laws against than for, so you can see what an uphill climb ti would be.) Unless they have some inside info on Kennedy's leanings the movement (though obviously not all individuals) would be better off waiting a few years and seeing if they might get another solid liberal votes to replace one of the 4 Theocrats or Kennedy. If they get ruled against, it could easily be decades before the majority of states accept it, and some (Alabama, Alaska?) might never; at least not without court order.

      I just think the court is too close to risk it right now. If Gore had won in '00 and Rehnquist and O'Connor were replaced with two reliable liberals? We'd have had gay marriage before he was done with his 2nd term. (And who knows? Maybe we'd all be here complaining about President Huckabee right now!) But I wouldn't risk taking it the courts right now.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by northely (June 17, 2009 9:41 pm ET)
         
      Ah, Rush. You always provide such comedy. I'm wondering if you actually think before you speak, or, if you're back on the meds again?
      Report Abuse