This is from Rush Limbaugh.com.

While the left is attacking Christianity, they will not be able to destroy Christianity.

Matthew 16:18King James Version (KJV)

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

RUSH: This is the Christian Broadcasting Network, CBN, chief political correspondent David Brody interviewing Marco Rubio late yesterday.  Question:  “Does your deep faith drive public policy decisions on social issues like traditional marriage.”

RUBIO:  We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech, because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.  So what’s the next step after that?  After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech and that’s a real and present danger.

RUSH:  Do you think Rubio’s got a point there?  You better. I tell you, you better not sweep this away, folks. You better not think this is a little bit over the top.  He is right on the money.  In fact, I would even go further.  I think mainstream Christianity is the target and has been for I can’t tell you how long.  Before I was born.  Christianity has been the biggest enemy of the American left — well, any left.  Organized religion in general, but Christianity is the number one enemy of these people.

You notice they’ve made friends with militant Islam.  The left will not stand for any criticism of militant Islam, right?  You start drawing cartoons of the prophet, they’re the first to jump on your case, right?  Democrats and the left, they are out condemning any criticism of Islam.  They’ve sidled up.  Why?  Well, Islam has an enemy.  In their mind, their enemy’s Christianity.  So there’s a commonality there.  And I don’t care — folks, maybe this is another one of those things you’re just not supposed to say, but I’m sorry, it’s undeniable.

Okay.  Okay.  Tell me I’m wrong when I say that the left has formed an accord with Islam, tell me I’m wrong.  Militant Islam says you can’t draw pictures of the prophet.  The Democrat Party:  You can’t draw pictures of prophet, you can’t criticize Islam.  And they go out of their way not to.  We can’t call ’em terrorists.  You know the drill.  Christianity, it’s open season.  You can say anything, you can do anything, you can mock anything.  And Christians are just supposed to take it, and the reason we’re supposed to take it is ’cause we’re the majority.  The majority has to understand minorities feel offended, always hit on and ripped apart, so forth. You just gotta take it, part of being the majority.

And that is a relevant fact.  I mean, majorities are hated by the people in the minority.  The problem for us is that the minorities that we’re talking about here, most of them are really tiny, and yet they’re winning.  They’re bullying their way around, it’s incredible.  And Marco Rubio here is right on the money.  Look at Ireland and gay marriage.  What was the final vote there?  Was it 60%?  (interruption)  Over 60% approving.

Now, I have to tell you something.  As best I’ve been able to ascertain, Ireland just didn’t do this on its own.  There was a lot of American money moving the issue. There were a lot of American activists over there pushing the issue.  Nevertheless, they won, they made it happen.  And the pope, I don’t think — somebody correct me if I’m wrong — I don’t think the pope said anything about it.

Let me tell you where is next, then.  Italy is going to be next, by design and on purpose.  Gay marriage forces will target Italy, and by targeting Italy, they will target Rome.  And they’ll also go to Milan; fashion central is already the way paved there.  Maybe a little bit Florence.  Might even mess with Venice, but certainly Rome and the Vatican.  Marco Rubio: Christianity facing a real and present danger in the US due to a growing acceptance for gay marriage.

It’s not just gay marriage by the way.  It goes back to this Gallup poll celebrating the fall of morality, celebrating the fall of conventional morality.  It’s not just gay marriage.  It’s all kinds of things that constitute the fall of age-old morality, which the left has targeted as long as I’ve been around.  So Rubio said, “We’re at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.”

You will support it.  And not only will you support it, you will embrace it and you will love it.  It’s their own version of Sharia, if you want to know what Sharia is like.  Just like with Obamacare.  You will participate in Obamacare, and you will like it, and you will promote it, and you will not criticize it.  You will support gay marriage.  You will promote it.  You will love it, and you will accept it.  Anything less and you will be attacked.

Rubio said the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech.  And that’s a real and present danger.  Now, he said earlier this year also in an interview with the Christian Broadcast Network that it’s ridiculous and absurd to believe that there’s a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  “Fifty-eight percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, according to a Quinnipiac University poll earlier this year.  Fifty-nine percent of Republicans are opposed to it.”  Companion story — (interruption) what is this?  Oh, the pope did weigh in.  Oh, I’m sorry, it’s not the pope.  Well, okay, the pope hasn’t weighed in.

I said something earlier today — I got a note from somebody about this, about the next target area for the militant gay marriage crowd being Italy.  And pope’s gonna have to speak up.  And I stuttered and I stumbled, I thought, “Do I really want to tell ’em what I really think?”  Don’t be surprised if this pope eventually comes out and supports it as part of the global warming agenda.  It’s a different pope here.  He surprises you issue to issue.

Anyway, from the UK Guardian, the headline:  “Vatican Says Ireland Gay Marriage Vote is ‘Defeat for Humanity’ — Vatican diplomat seen as second only to the pope insists Saturday’s referendum result shows ‘the church must strengthen its commitment to evangelisation.’ A senior Vatican official has attacked the legalisation of gay marriage in Ireland. The referendum that overwhelmingly backed marriage equality last weekend was a ‘defeat for humanity,’ he claimed.”

This marriage equality, what is wrong with that?  Do you people on the left really think that whatever number of thousands of years ago some rich, fat, white guy sat around and defined marriage specifically to exclude homosexuals just because he hated ’em and wanted to discriminate against them?  And there has been thus, ever since, a quest for marriage inequality?  Is that what you really think?  Marriage equality?  Marriage has a definition, or it did.  Words mean things.  Marriage is a union of a man and a woman, pure and simple.  That’s what it is.

Now, if you’re gonna allow people of the same sex to get married, you’d better come up with a different term because that’s not what marriage is if words means things.  And words do mean things.  And if you’re gonna change the definition of marriage, then you better be open-minded and permit any change under the umbrella to happen.  If marriage is no longer the marriage of a man and a woman, the union of a man and a woman, then what is it?  “Well, Mr. Limbaugh, marriage is now a union of a man or a woman, or it can be a union of a woman and a woman or a union of a man and a man.”  Oh, okay.

How about this?  How about marriage can be the union of two men and one woman.

“Well, no.”

Well, why not?  You’ve blown the definition up already.  Why can’t it be whatever anybody wants to do, as long as they love somebody.  Words mean things.  Institutions are institutions for a reason.  They’re not designed by a bunch of people who hope to discriminate against people.  The roots of marriage are rooted in decency and goodness and love and child rearing and all of these things that are supposedly to aid society in remaining cohesive and to propagate the race for a whole host of reasons that are important, including bloodlines and everything else.

But once you blow that up, it isn’t marriage.  Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.  Look it up anywhere.  And this whole notion of marriage equality, as though the designers of marriage did so purposely to discriminate?  There wasn’t any discrimination involved here. There wasn’t any hate. It wasn’t as though people devised an institution that specifically and for that reason denied access by others.  It’s not what the purpose of it was.

You know, you people on the left, not everything that happens has had you in the crosshairs.  Frankly, you haven’t been on that many people’s minds through the years.  We haven’t created all these traditions and institutions to exclude you.  It’s always been for other reasons that are far loftier.  They come along and claim that it’s a discriminatory institution rooted in hatred and bigotry and inequality and so forth.

And that’s how you get the young people to support it.  I mean, young people of course embrace the notion of equality and fairness and sameness, and if you go tell these people that just don’t have enough years lived in order to have sufficient experience, if you go portray marriage as something that discriminates, well, they don’t want to be a part of anything that discriminates, ’cause that’s not fair, that’s not nice, and that’s how they’ve done it.

But in the process they’ve blown up the definition of the word, and now it can mean anything anybody wants it to mean if they’re willing to make a cause out of it.  And it’s beginning to happen, predictably so.  I haven’t seen any official — maybe it’s happened and I just missed it — but has there been an official redefinition of the term that now specifies that marriage is either the union of a man and a woman or the union of a man and a man or the union of a woman and a woman?  Has that been codified somewhere?

No, what’s happened is, marriage is not just a union of a man and a woman, and the reason it isn’t is because it’s unfair and it’s discriminatory and it’s unequal.  And all of that is irrelevant to marriage and why it exists and how it came to be and what its purpose is.  But you wouldn’t know that if you’re a young Millennial and you’ve grown up surrounded by never ending assaults on how that’s unfair and that’s discriminatory and that’s inequality and you join the quest to make everything the same, everybody the same, everything equal, and, you know, bye-bye individuality and everything that comes with it.

So, anyway, the Vatican says Ireland gay marriage vote defeat for humanity, but the pope didn’t say it.  It was the biggest diplomat, Vatican diplomat, senior Vatican official.  Cardinal Pietro Parolin: “I was deeply saddened by the result. The church must take account of this reality, but in the sense that it must strengthen its commitment to evangelisation. I think that you cannot just talk of a defeat for Christian principles, but of a defeat for humanity.”

And up next, after the break, leftists push Italy to follow Ireland on same-sex marriage.  And it’s a direct assault on the Catholic Church, mark my words.  It’s next.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here is the Oxford, the old Oxford English Dictionary, I should say new definition of marriage.  Listen to this.  (laughing) This is pathetic.  Classic, but pathetic.  Definition of marriage in the New Oxford English Dictionary.  Quote, “The condition of being a husband or wife.”  Marriage is now a condition. It’s a disease. It’s an assignment.  It’s “the condition of being husband or wife.  The relation between persons married to each other.  Matrimony.  The term is now sometime used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”

That’s what counts.  That’s the money quote in this stupid definition.  “The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”  I wonder if you go back and get a dictionary ten years ago, you look at the definition of marriage, I wonder what you’d find, and it wouldn’t have any of this gibberish in it.  “The condition of being a husband or wife.  The relation between persons married to each other.”  That’s what marriage is, the relation between people married to each other?  I didn’t think you could put the word in the definition.

We’re trying to define marriage, so how do you define marriage by using the word “married”?  That doesn’t help anybody to understand it.  And then matrimony.  Matrimony is another acceptable definition of marriage.  That would not help the people in Rio Linda to know what it is.  Nope.  You have to get down to, “The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”  How is that even marriage?  Long-term relationships between persons of the same sex?  Why can’t you just take the old definition of marriage that used to be what it was, defining a relationship, matrimony, a man and a woman and just say it’s a same thing for two men or two women?  Why obfuscate, why all this dancing around here?

Advertisements