Rush Limbaugh Talks to Caller Intimidated by Door-to-Door Gay Rights Activist
August 8, 2012 at 12:00 pm
RushLimbaugh.com:
CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's so good to be on your program today calling from beautiful Lakeville, Minnesota. And I'm calling because I am a conservative Christian stay-at-home mom who believes in liberty and freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Three nights ago I had a gentleman come knocking at my door wanting me to sign a petition that would be against the voter amendment which will appear on Minnesota ballots in November that defines marriage as one man and one woman and then also the voter ID. And when I told him that I could not sign that petition because I, as a Christian, believe in one man and one woman as the definition of marriage, this young man literally went berserk. He flipped out and got so angry to the point where, even his countenance, I felt like I was just looking at a very evil person. And then he started accusing me that I was for the suppression of women and just going way off the wall. It was profound.RUSH: What? What? How in the world is that --
CALLER: And then I came back to him and said, "You know, I do support your right and your liberty to express your viewpoint. And then I also have my viewpoint." And then he really went off the wall and started yelling and screaming and shouting and waving his arms. I started to fear for my safety, and I told him promptly that I was gonna have to end this conversation. And I'll be really honest, Rush. I mean, I'm a former schoolteacher, and I can spot a bully a mile away...
24 Comments
Fascists are merely irritating, until they get the power to rewrite the laws.
When they get the power to rewrite the laws, they become dangerous.
The gay fascist movement will get the power to rewrite the marriage laws if Obama is reelected.
Vote accordingly.
And liberals wonder why people are never fully onboard with their movement.
But how is flipping out on the woman supposed to win her to your side?...SMH
The more these sorts of incidents pile up, the worse the ssm lobby will look.
Although the idea of offering door-knockers fake Chick-Fil-A cards is pretty funny, I think when someone goes nuts at your doorstep because you oppose redefining marriage, it's probably best to end the interaction immediately. You don't want to fuel the behavior of unstable people.
This particular door-to-door sham marriage advocate was obviously unbalanced. First off, what's the point of a petition? The marriage amendment is on the November ballot. No stupid petition is going to stop that.
Secondly, while offering this poor fellow a Chick-Fil-A gift card would be an interesting experiment, it would also be likely to send him completely over the edge. I can tell you from personal experience that you'd better be out of arm's reach if you merely disagree with this type of marriage redefinition advocate.
I'm not saying they're all psycho, but you never know.
"Suppression of women," eh? And this from an individual who wants to create a marriage paradigm in which two men can discriminate against a woman, by excluding one of her sex from the PUBLIC institution of marriage. Delicious irony.
>>...literally went berserk. He flipped out and got so angry to the point where, even his countenance, I felt like I was just looking at a very evil person. And then he started accusing me that I was for the suppression of women and just going way off the wall....And then he really went off the wall and started yelling and screaming and shouting and waving his arms...
All hallmarks of those with a reasoned defense. LoL
To me, it brings up questions that so many SSM proponents get upset. It just doesn't seem right if they are supposedly arguing for rights, King and Ghandhi did not do things like this.
This is ironic behavior, the homosexual special rights advocate and the outrage directed at Chick-fil-A after Cathy spoke.
A huge marriage re-definition campaign involves people -- that oppose marriage being the unique union of a husband and wife -- putting duct tape over their mouths, and writing No H8 on their cheeks. Maybe *we* should put duct tape over *our* mouths.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=%22No+H8%22
I suspect this lady was the last in a long line of people who would not sign his petition and he just went off on her. It's tough when your deliusion of inevitability runs smack up against a CFA-like rebellion.
This phenomena is one reason that SCOTUS may lickly rule in our favor. The realize the specter of giving homosexuals the "whip hand" of anti-discrimination laws will end in ceasless litigation and supression of religious liberty and free speech.
The same court that goes through the legal gymnastics of redifining marriage dosent want to end up having to litigate the myraid of cases that will erupt after it has been decided.
@ Fitz #8:
Dear God let it be so.
If SCOTUS decides that thirty three elections in favor of retaining what has been the universal practice of the human species since before the founding of our nation can be ignored on the basis of some "constitutional right", then we are well and truly finished here in the USA.
All over but the arrests.
Rick DeLano:
Not completely. The case of Oregon v. Mitchell spurred the passage of the 26th Amendment.
I don't have the time to respond to each of the absurd comments posted above, so I'll just point out that one unverified anecdote about one random guy throwing one fit in one place on one night is hardly reason enough to declaim against a movement as a whole. Neither would two anecdotes be enough, nor 3, nor 4, nor 100, because there are unsavory people involved with every side of every issue -- the guy who gunned down the abortionist in Kansas a few years ago, for example. Has that one guy discredited the pro-life movement? Not at all.
If you believe what you believe, you don't need an obscure incident like this to give you the opportunity to voice your thoughts.
The same-sex civil marriage advocates go house to house in order to intimidate. Very simple solution: You tell them, this is private property, and you get off my property or suffer the consequences.
Since most people are nice to them and let them go off on their rants, they become that way. They are spoiled. But sooner or later they will face someone who is confrontational, and they'll learn the hard way.
With all the news about crazies shooting numbers in a cinema and in a Hindu temple, people should really cautious when someone comes to their home's door. They do not have a right to intimidate your family in your own private (or rental) property. We spoil them by treating them nicely when they do not deserve it. Our liberties won't be there for long, if we don't protect them actively and resolutely.
The typical Gaystapho, free speech for them, but not the righteous.
She is a very brave woman to stand up for the American ideal of free speech and true tolerance.
God Bless!!
Frankly, his behavior probably stemmed from a mental disorder. If anyone goes berserk on my porch, I'm calling 911 for my safety and his. It's only prudent.
Better keep your dog in the house he would try and kick it too and don't tell him where your kids go to school he might go and talk them into signing it !
Hrmm. This sounds like a person with a very convenient story.
Someone comes to your door. You don't ask them their name, or what group they are working for? You don't take a picture of them or file a police report. They get confrontational, and you keep talking to them instead of slamming the door in their face.
Is there any collaborating evidence that this even happened?
Cuz, Christians go berserk all the time on my porch. I fear for my safety too. But as
Sharron engle put it there are 2nd amendment remedies for anyone who threatens my family.
"Sharron engle put it there are 2nd amendment remedies for anyone who threatens my family."
>> It is a pleasure to see that we agree, at least, on something.
"Someone comes to your door. You don't ask them their name, or what group they are working for? You don't take a picture of them or file a police report. They get confrontational, and you keep talking to them instead of slamming the door in their face. "
'Hmmm. This person is going beserk on my porch. Let me run and get my camera phone.' :/
She might not have been able to get the organization's name, or his name. He might have blurted it out in the beginning and started rambling about the petition. At that point his and the organization's names are easily forgotten by many people.
None of this means that she is fabricating the story. A reasonable person can understand why she didn't take a picture of this man on her porch, and why she didn't remember (or choose to mention) his name.
I recommend that you give people the benefit of the doubt when they are a victim of a bad experience. Accept the fact that there are unstable people on the pro-ssm side of the debate who are so intolerant of the opinions of others that they go "beserk" when someone doesn't want to sign a petition.
But if you choose to reject her story, then so be it. Others will hear her out.
Even though I was being a bit snarky, the point I was making is still valid.
"I recommend that you give people the benefit of the doubt when they are a victim of a bad experience. Accept the fact that there are unstable people on the pro-ssm side of the debate who are so intolerant of the opinions of others that they go "beserk" when someone doesn't want to sign a petition."
If a friend came to me with this story, or a co-worker, or a neighbor. Sure, I could give them the benefit of the doubt....also they could give me more than vague details.
But we're talking about Rush Limbaugh's show, where people are always looking for 15 minutes of fame. An ounce of skepticism is in order about almost anything this guy airs on his show.
I don't reject the story. I want to know more, because it smells fishy to me.
It's not hard to understand that there are bad people in the world, and that some of those people agree with NOM and some agree with equality advocates.
Rick DeLano
If SCOTUS decides that thirty three elections in favor of retaining what has been the universal practice of the human species since before the founding of our nation can be ignored on the basis of some "constitutional right", then we are well and truly finished here in the USA.
(not just finished Rick, America is then doomed and along with America all humanity is doomed)
Marriedgaychristian?
(Does not sound right, you must be, marriedgayantichristian)
MGC you contradicted yourself:
"I don't reject the story. I want to know more, because it smells fishy to me."
You do reject the story; or you want to know more so as to decide whether or not your nose has led your wrongly.
In other words, you take the default that you reject the story until convinced otherwise.
Now, what if this was a far-too-common occurence especially during election campaigns that involve state marriage measures? Or even during the petition signature-gathering process? Because I can tell you that this is much more common than your pose of skepticism merits.
No matter. You made your point, such as it is, and we can all move along now.