Alex Blaze

Rush's fourth marriage proves that he has "sex only within marriage, marriage for life"

Filed By Alex Blaze | June 07, 2010 12:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Media

The NY Times profiled lesbian conservative Eve Tushnet, and she had this to say about same-sex marriage:

But same-sex marriage, she wrote in The New York Post in 2007, "can bring one of three outcomes: A two-tiered marriage culture, where heterosexual couples are asked to do the hard things (sex only within marriage, marriage for life in most circumstances) and homosexual couples work out their own marriage norms; reshape marriage into an optional, individualized institution, ignoring the creative and destructive potentials of 'straight' sex; or encourage all couples to restrict sex to marriage and marry for life, and hope that gay couples accept norms designed to meet heterosexual needs."

Heterosexual couples are asked to "do the hard things"? I don't think anyone told this guy:

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. Though he hasn't confirmed the news, the host asked the media to respect his privacy during this "very special" time in his life.

Like most sexual moralizers, he rants against the sex lives of people different from him knowing he can't follow any sort of moral code, sexual or otherwise. While he rants about gays wanting to destroy the institution of marriage, he cheats on his wives and divorces every few years to get a newer model.

I have no idea if he rants against sexual immorality because he's insecure about his own ability to control himself (like George Rekers) or if he's just that sort of guy and he's willing to say anything to make the kind of scratch he makes. Heck, for an estimated $35 million a year I'd spout stupid shit all day too.

But it struck me as I read about Tushnet in the NY Times that, while she can't seem to land stable work at a conservative publication, she really has a key conservative trait down: the ability to be utterly delusional about the way people actually live their lives, or at least pretend to be. Straights stay married to the same person "in most circumstances"?


And they don't have sex before marriage?

More than nine out of 10 Americans, men and women alike, have had premarital sex, according to a new study. The high rates extend even to women born in the 1940s, challenging perceptions that people were more chaste in the past.

"This is reality-check research," said the study's author, Lawrence Finer. "Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades."[...]

The study, examining how sexual behavior before marriage has changed over time, was based on interviews conducted with more than 38,000 people -- about 33,000 of them women -- in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey of Family Growth. According to Finer's analysis, 99 percent of the respondents had had sex by age 44, and 95 percent had done so before marriage.

Even among a subgroup of those who abstained from sex until at least age 20, four-fifths had had premarital sex by age 44, the study found.

I'm sure that 90% is just a few special exceptions to the rule. Waiting for marriage is obviously the norm.

Now I don't have any problem with divorce as a moral issue; destruction is simply the other half of creation and sometimes ending a relationship can help people grow and be happy more than staying in one. And premarital sex, well, obviously....

It's to the point now that it isn't even news that a conservative would base her opinion on facts that are so easily proven false. And, yeah, she's a lesbian too. Wow. Like we always say, we're just like everyone else, which means that some of us will be living in Conservative Candy Land too.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

I completely believe in lifelong, exclusive marriage - and I know perfectly well that is, and always has been, a minority practice among people of all orientations. Nobody lives that way because of societal expectations or legal discrimination, nobody coasts into it because of some apparent societal blessing - it's going to happen by heartfelt personal choice, or not at all.

And yeah, Rush pleading demanding privacy for his own family life while he makes his living attacking everybody else's... well, I'd condemn him, but there's no need, since it looks like he builds his own private hell.

Remember that the other argument for maintinain marriage for straights only is that the couple must procreate. Thank goodness that Rush has not managed that feat yet in any of his many marriages. It is interesting that former Congressman Bob Barr, Republican, also had a long string of marriages, and he authored DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal benefits to married gay couples. Barr has now become a liberterian and has changed his position, but his damaging legal legacy is still there.

friday jones | June 8, 2010 3:44 AM

Those zany heterosexuals and their rampant promiscuity were responsible for all that tertiary syphillis out there. We should seek a cure for heterosexuality in order to improve public health.

There's a big difference between morals and moralizing, and the second is easier than the first.

Maybe when Rush starts advocating for a ban on opposite-sex divorce, I'll start listening to him on the sanctity of marriage...