« Idol Top 4: Choices Get Clearer | Main | Idol Top 3 »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Dear Mark,

your argument (and composure) on the radio this morning were superb, and your writing reflects what you said today, and more. Thank you for elevating the discussion to the place of reason, and logic, rather than wallowing in some political or emotional pit.

In this issue, as with all other conservative issues, we must *make the argument* clearly, and as winsomely as possible. You do that, and are an example to me for how the battle of ideas is to be waged.

Thanks so much for consistently doing what you do so very well.

You're in my prayers, all my best wishes for you and the family (including the new pup).


Mike Dougherty


You've rightly identified the tactics of those who support same sex marriage. They've muddled the issue by feigning that they have been denied rights that heterosexuals have. In fact, any homosexual who wishes can get married and enjoy the same status under the law - more than one gay man has taken a wife. And, I suspect more than one lesbian woman has taken a husband. And either can do so freely in any state of the union today.

No, fundamentally, the movement seeks to re-define marriage, making a homosexual union equivalent to the historical and cultural understanding of the institution. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a married couple is one of the most basic units of our society - and is fundamental to how we're organized. If we undermine that institution, we have undermined much of our foundation.

Your comment about polygamy is spot on. For that matter, why not incest? What if a mother and son or a brother and sister love each other as consenting adults? Who are we to deny them their rights? Hopefully, people read that idea and recoil.

They used to do the same with the notion of a homosexual union. Now, look where we are.

Free love forever!


You did an excellent job filling in for the Great Missourian today! I especially appreciate your tact in dealing with the difficult caller while keeping the conversation on track. You are an exemplary ambassador of conservatism.

Phil Smith

Hey Mark,
I moved to TX last year, I am gay, and I listened to your show everyday. May i first say, It was great to hear you back on Air today. I just wanted to say you handled the one caller great. I may not completely agree with your point of view, but you know how to make a point and have a discussion about it! Your logic on gay marriage can't be argued in how you explain it. It obviously isnot the same, but i would argue just as a white person not the same as a black person and a couple that can not conceive is the same as one that can or even a 80 year old marrying a 27 year old the same as a same aged younger couple that marry I would argue they all deserve the same marriage rights. I just wanted to express that and say we miss u on the air!


Mark, great to hear you on the radio again! I find myself wishing that Rush will take more vacations and win more awards and be inducted into more halls of fame so that he'll call on you to fill in more often.

I think you nailed the gay marriage issue square on the head, by dividing it up into its 3 components. I am in the libertarian camp with those who hold that the "legal" leg is BS and all we need are the 2 remaining legs (social/religious), in which case everyone is happy. But what about the hospital visitation and inheritance? We already have those covered by other means. Inheritance can be handled by having a will, and all you need for hospital visitation is to tell the hospital who is able to visit you (and if you're unconscious, just put a card in your wallet with the list of names of approved visitors and oh by the way which medicines you're allergic to).

My point in writing though is to say that the whole gay marriage issue, like the war on women, like so many other issues brought up by the liberal media and the Obama administration, is a SMOKESCREEN.

We have the federal government selling illegal guns to Mexican Drug Cartels, and people are DYING as a result of it. Can you imagine the outcry if Nixon's Watergate scandal had gotten someone killed? Why are we not running Obama out of town on a rail due to this Fast and Furious scandal alone? Let alone the record debt he is throwing us into, generational theft. There are a dozen more urgent and important issues than the diversionary tactic issues being foisted on us through the media. I wish you would have given it the required 30 seconds it deserves and gone into some of the bigger more pressing issues of the day, and don't take the bait in the future. Don't let them distract you by the smoke.

Looking forward to hearing your next radio show...


Linda Matinez

One point I wanted to expand on was to ask the question, "Would you want YOUR child adopted by a 'gay' couple?" This brings the question directly home to people. They may say they would never puit their child up for adoption, okay, what about your grandchild, who legally you would have no control over. Or foster care? What if you are out of the country (climbing Mt. Everest or whatever), you return to the country to find that much of your family has been killed or injured and for the last month, your children have been living in a same-sex-marriage foster home.
These are not unheard of scenarios. Was it nearly 20 years ago, a young mother placed her baby for adoption, not with a specific couple, but with an agency she trusted. Later she found that the agency placed her newborn in a same-sex couples home. The Birth-mother had already signed away her rights and could not prevent the adoption.

1. Anita Bryant was right.
2. Phyllis Schlafly was scorned for claiming that homosexuals would someday demand the right to get married.
3. Why not polygamy? It has FAR more precedence than same-sex marriage.


Hi Mark! I'm a regular listener of the Rush show and enjoy when you substitute. I consider myself to be a conservative, however I believe that gays should be able to marry and I'm pro-choice. I won't get into the reasons why, but those are just my views that haven't faltered over the years.

What I would like to point out is the flaw in your argument. When you argue that allowing a man to marry a man blurs the gender lines, you're making the argument that marriage alone defines ones gender. The fact that I married a man doesn't make me a woman. I was a woman before I married my husband and I'd still be a woman if I never married in my life.

Ones gender is ones gender. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with it. Therefore, allowing gay marriage does nothing to blur gender lines and protections. To say that allowing gays to marry makes men and women the same is only on the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the only way you're able to state gay marriage makes the genders equal. If you take out the thought that marriage is between a man and a woman, rather a union between 2 people be it religious or civil, then no gender lines are blurred.

Two men marrying is still TWO MEN, just as it is with 2 women.

I would really like to hear your thoughts on my comment.

I truly enjoy your intelligence and insights. Thank you for being a great conservative voice out there!

Account Deleted

When someone is such a good speaker, I just gotta say something when they get their English wrong: Please say "equality", not "equanimity". Totally different meaning.

Charles L. Peden

It gets murky...

A gentleman walks into a doctor's office.

"Doc, I want to marry my boyfriend but I'm a man. Give me a gender reassignment surgery so that our marriage will be legally recognized. But don't give me TOO much reassignment."

The doctor agrees and slaps a band-aid on his Fruit Of The Looms and charges him $500 for "gender reassignment surgery". The doctor is happy. The patient is happy. No laws were broken. No drugs were taken.

The man walks into the courthouse and marries his boyfriend as man and "woman". The state then becomes in charge of investigating genitals or, at the very least, is now required to set standards for genitals in gender reassignment surgery.

My question for you, Mark, is do we really want government in our pants?

Generic Viagra

I love the way you write.I love this kind of the information.Please keep such kind of the information in the future also.I will tell my others friends to visit this site!!!!!


resilient Erotik mit dem versauten sexchat little girl Strump Livecam Fotze, scharfer Sexchat von 1 zu privat. sexcam Nutze nun deine Zeit meine sexchat Frauen zu bestaunen. sex chat Damit bringen solche sexchats unrecorded aus. http://www.fick-sexcam.com/ camsex unrecorded sexchats erfreuen sich dauernd gr??t m?glicher Beliebtheit. :-)


this is something i have never ever read.very detailed analysis.

The comments to this entry are closed.