December 14, 2019

Truth Is Stranger than Fiction

By Chaplain Mike

Just the facts…

  • Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, age 59, married Kathryn Rogers, 33, on June 5 in Palm Beach, Florida.
  • It is Limbaugh’s fourth marriage, after three divorces.
  • Limbaugh’s friend, Ken Hutcherson, a former NFL player, African-American, and outspoken “pro-family” pastor from Redmond, Washington, officiated.
  • When asked how he could perform the ceremony for someone divorced three times, Hutcherson replied, “The Buffalo Bills went to the Super Bowl and they lost a lot of times, but they never gave up. Rush Limbaugh never gave up on the institution of marriage.”
  • The wedding singer? None other than Sir Elton John, gay pop singer, who was reportedly paid $1 million for his evening’s work. That John would sing at the wedding of someone like Limbaugh has raised quite a stir in the gay community and blogosphere.

I thought I might want to say something about all of this.

But folks, to be honest, I got nothin’.

Cue “Twilight Zone” music.

Comments

  1. Rush Limbaugh is Rush Limbaugh.

    Rush Limbaugh’s friends are Rush Limbaugh’s friends.

  2. With enough money, you can buy anything.

  3. Savannah says

    I heard this last week when we were on vacation, and my question was, “Who in the world would want to marry him?”

    But I also know that there is no accounting for taste. Whatsoever.

  4. Elton John is a true capitalist…. I think I read somewhere he was paid $1 million for that gig. I would sing or whatever I could be paid for, for Obama for a million bucks, if I was offered. Can’t stand anything for which that guy stands for, but I wouldn’t pass up one million dollars. Even to be in the presence of someone I particularly do not like. Just sayin’.

  5. Elton came in, sang two songs, and left. A million bucks. What’s there to say?

    • Elton gives much of his proceeds to his AIDS foundation, so people who pay him or attend his concerts (he just played Israel and castigated his fellow artists who want to boycott Israel over Gaza) know they’re also benefitting lots of people when Elton receives $1 million.

      • According to Elton, meeting Ryan White changed and saved his life. Elton realized there was more to life than drugs, money and hedonism and has spent the last 20 years repaying Ryan for showing how to live compassionately for others. Google for Elton John and Ryan White.

  6. By the same token, Henry Tudor (Henry VIII) could definitely be said “Never to have given up on the institution of marriage.”

    He liked it so much, he did it six times! 🙂

    • Mae West had the opposite reaction. She said, “Marriage is a great institution, but I’m not ready for an institution yet.”

    • Christiane says

      King Henry the Eighth
      to six wives was wedded
      one died
      one survived
      two divorced
      two beheaded

      (from an English school child’s rhyming verse)

      So, who’s who ?
      one died: Jane Seymour
      one survived: Katherine Parr outlived Henry
      two divorced: Catherine of Aragon, and Anne of Cleves
      two beheaded: the cousins Anne Boleyn and Kathryn Howard

      Disfunctional family?
      Oh yeah . . .

    • Given all he wanted was a male heir, I don’t know that that one sticks. 😛

      • He got the male heir (Edward) via wife #3 (Jane Seymour, who was a class act by all reports). After she died, he just kept going …

      • Isaac Rehberg (the poster formerly known as Obed) says

        And of course, the biological irony is that it’s the male contribution that determines the child’s gender! His wives had nothing to do with it!

        There was also some messed-up political stuff involved with Henry VIII. For example, Catherine of Aragon was originally married to Henry’s older brother (who was the crown prince) as a way of sealing an alliance between Spain and England. But the brother died a few months after the marriage. Though it was against canon law to have a man marry his brother’s widow, the King of England got papal dispensation for Henry to marry Catherine. However, the legality of this was disputed, and the lack of a male heir from Henry/Catherine was viewed by many in England as a sign of God’s wrath on an “unlawful” marriage. An annulment could have been sought, but that would alienate Spain from England and France from the Papacy (Catherine was related to the French king, and the Papacy was VERY tight with France at the time), so this wasn’t seen to be a good idea. Alternative proposals were that Henry’s pre-Catherine bastard son be made crown prince, but this was viewed to be a poor political choice. Or Mary, the daughter of Henry and Catherine could be engaged to the bastard son, but that was viewed as being even more religiously problematic than Henry marrying his brother’s widow. All-in-all typical yucky religiopolitical crud from that period of time.

        • I don’t get why the church opposed Henry marrying his brother’s widow. In the Old Testament men were required to marry the widow in order to give her an heir. So, why did the Catholic Church decide to cancel that law and make it a sin…..of course, that is the problem with Catholics and exactly why the reformation occurred.

          • Quick reply: considered incestuous, within the degrees of consanguinity. Man and wife become one flesh, so your brother-in-law is like your blood brother, or the other relations in Leviticus (the relevant verse being “16: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.) That was the basis on which Henry sought the annulment; he was actually agreeing with Canon Law by saying that his marriage to his brother’s widow was illicit.

            Took until Victorian times for the English to draw up the law permitting a man to marry his sister-in-law (sister of his deceased wife) so it wasn’t just the Catholics who found it problematic.

            Besides, having obtained one dispensation (not an annulment) to marry Catherine, the Crown was now arguing that the arguments they had made in the first place didn’t apply and that the Pope of the time had been wrong to grant it. In effect, they wanted the Pope to say that a Pope had been wrong, which just was not going to happen 🙂

            Agree on the political front – Charles V was Catherine’s nephew and he was leaning on the Pope not to disgrace his aunt.

            But as well, the court hearing for the dissolution of the King’s Marriage was depending on the “he said, she said” evidence; Catherine swore under oath that she was a virgin when she married Henry and so had not consummated her marriage with his brother, therefore she and Henry were legitimately married and there were no grounds for annulment. Against this, they put up the testimony that Prince Arthur (as was at the time) had told an attendant “‘Willoughby’, he had ordered, ‘bring me a cup of ale for I have been this night in the midst of Spain’.”

            Henry, so far as I know, made no reply to Catherine’s claim. Whether you think he was keeping his mouth shut so as not to perjure himself or not to embarrass his brother’s memory or not to call her a liar is anyone’s decision 🙂

            Whether you think Catherine was lying or not… well, again, that’s up to everyone. But historically it’s true that she was well-liked by the people and the new marriage to Anne Boleyn was unpopular. I also like Catherine’s speech at the divorce tribunal:

            “Sir, I beseech you for all the love that hath been between us, let me have justice and right, take of me some pity and compassion, for I am a poor woman, and a stranger, born out of your dominion. I have here no friend and much less indifferent counsel. I flee to you, as to the head of justice within this realm . . . I take God and all the world to witness that I have been to you a true, humble and obedient wife, ever comfortable to your will and pleasure . . . being always well pleased and contented with all things wherein you had any delight or dalliance . . . I loved all those whom ye loved, only for your sake, whether I had cause or no, and whether they were my friends or enemies. This 20 years or more I have been your true wife and by me ye have had divers children, although it hath pleased God to call them from this world, which hath been no default in me. . . And when ye had me at first, I take God to my judge, I was a true maid, without touch of man. And whether this be true or no, I put it to your conscience . . . Therefore, I humbly require you to spare me the extremity of this new court . . . And if ye will not, to God I commit my cause.”

            The irony is, after all the turmoil to get a male heir, Edward himself died without issue and it’s his half-sister Elizabeth (whom Henry had declared illegitimate!) that is remembered as the great Ruler.

        • Isaac–And of course, the biological irony is that it’s the male contribution that determines the child’s gender! His wives had nothing to do with it!

          No kidding.

  7. Rush has never allowed his politics to interfere with his personal tastes. I remember him playing Mannheim Steamroller music on his show, even though they’re liberals. But he liked their music, so he played it. I suspect it’s the same with Elton John.

    The only thing that bothers me is how Rush is practically worshipped by the “Religious Right.” Or at least he used to be – I haven’t listened to him in years, so I’ve kinda lost touch, but I suspect that’s still the case. One would hope that we would know better by now, but knowing how “we” tend to lock arms with a “brother in arms” I suspect that many of us are still more than willing to overlook his little pecadillos, just as long as he continues to espouse the “party line.”

    • YourName says

      Someone needs to compose a “Hail Rush” prayer that can be said with the rosary. He is way more influential with Christians than the mother of God.

      Hail Rush, full of grace
      The Lord is with thee.
      Blessed are thou among Americans
      And blessed is the fruit of thy mouth
      Holy Rush, on God’s TV
      Pray for us sinners
      Except for liberals
      And bring quickly the hour of Obama’s death
      Amen

      • He is way more influential with Christians than the mother of God.

        Maybe that’s because Rush is still alive to influence his still-living Christian listeners.

        • Christopher Lake says

          Mary is as (or more) alive in eternity as any living, breathing Christian down here on earth. Moreover, she can intercede (pray) for us. I would say that that is, at least in a sense, “influential.” The reality of the communion of saints, we’re surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, and all that.

          • Maybe.

          • Where in scripture does it state that Mary intercedes for us?

          • Patrick:

            I don’t think you’d be able to find the idea of Mary’s intercession in Scripture because there is no reason to believe that Mary died before the last NT book (or at least the last epistle) was written.

            I.e., if she even has an intercessory ministry (and I don’t believe she does, or if she does, no more so than any other believer who has already passed), to look for it in Scripture is looking in the wrong place.

          • EricW:

            I agree, I do not think Mary does, nor anyone else, simply because it is not referenced anywhere in scripture that any dead person intercedes for us. It does state that Christ, who is alive, does intercede. To look anywhere other than scripture would be a dangerous thing unless the other writing relies solely on scripture as a basis for what it is teaching.

            The best example would be teaching on what day is the Sabbath (Sat or Sun). Very good, Godly, Christ centered ministries disagree, based on scripture, on which day it is. Since it is not an argument on the means of salvation or the Trinity then either is okay in my opinion, although I firmly believe in one of the days is the correct one.

            As the old saying goes, “show me in the Bible”.

      • While that’s amusing, I have to say that I’ve listened to Rush’s show for many years, and do not believe for one second he wants President Obama to die “quickly”.

        On the other hand, I heard a LOT of calls for former President Bush’s assassination coming from our local “progressive” talk station. In fact, I heard one host celebrating the death of conservative pundit William F. Buckley, and wondering why “the rest of those right-wingers” wouldn’t just hurry up and die too.

        Hatred knows no political boundaries. 🙁

        • That’s a pretty one-sided view of the matter you have there Christine.

        • Richard Hershberger says

          Your description of that “progressive” station is far afield of my experience with liberal radio over the past few decades. The only thing close I have heard might be Pacifica radio (which I find with a quick Google does indeed still exist, with five–count them, five!–stations). I would be interested, if only as a curiosity, to look up a station calling for Bush’s assassination. What are its call letters?

          • dkmonroe says

            Richard,

            Give a listen to Mike Malloy sometime. He pretty much wants everyone to the right of him dead.

            And you can’t deny that people on the left were very comfortable with the idea of Bush, Cheney, and others meeting early deaths. There was even a movie fictionalizing a Bush assassination, “Death Of A President.”

            If you want to see examples of people on the left celebrating the death of prominent conservatives, visit Democratic Underground and look at threads about the deaths of Buckley and Tony Snow.

            What Christine is describing is real, and nothing Rush Limbaugh has ever said holds a candle to it.

          • Really DKMonroe? You believe we should seek out these sources as proof of your theory? Why not simply declare it all un_Christlike and be finished with it? Why keep stirring the pot to finally declare once and for all who is the worst among us, liberals or conservatives?! God have mercy on us!!

          • Debra,

            It’s not a “theory”, it’s a fact. There’s some real ugliness on the left, far beyond anything Rush Limbaugh has ever said. If you’re so into not being “one-sided”, then you should be at least a bit curious, not dismissive, as if I’ve somehow crossed the line by bringing it up.

            Christine said, “Hatred know no political boundaries.” I agree. That’s not one-sided. If you interpret that to mean, “Conservatives are all squeaky-clean and holy and liberals are entirely evil”, then you’re not really comprehending what we are saying.

          • No dk….it seems as though you missed my entire point. I find it interesting that you latched on to the word “theory” and pounced. Very predictable….and sad.

          • dkmonroe says

            Debra, I’d say that you noticed me offering substance to Christine’s allegation, and pounced. It’s interesting that nothing drew your ire in this thread save the implication that people on the left might be guilty of the same sort of thing they imagine Rush Limbaugh is guilty of.

    • This reminds me of another weird situation regarding conservative Christians and politicians. I remember the shock and outrage of several very conservative Catholics I know when Gerald Ford chose Nelson Rockefeller as his VP. As one friend said: “But he’s a divorced man!” And yet none of those people raised an eyebrow when Ronald Reagan, another divorced man, was elected President; in fact, those very people voted for Reagan.

      Don’t look for consistency in these things; there is none.

    • Back when he was still a local phenomenon (I grew up around Sacramento, where Rush first had his show), Rush’s theme music was the opening riff from The Pretenders’ environmental anthem “My City Was Gone.” So there’s always been a gap between his musical and political tastes.

      • If I’m not mistaken (I haven’t listened in a couple of years) Rush is still using “My City Was Gone” as his opening theme.

  8. ahumanoid says

    “The only thing that bothers me is how Rush is practically worshipped by the ‘Religious Right.’ Or at least he used to be – I haven’t listened to him in years, so I’ve kinda lost touch, but I suspect that’s still the case.”

    It’s definitely the case where I live. If Rush were just an advocate for conservatism and didn’t have such a special position in the hearts and minds of many Evangelicals, I don’t think the wedding circumstances would be too much of an issue. However, many Evangelicals look to Rush as a spokesman for their own agenda. This leads to an Evangelical pastor (a strident supporter of the sactity of marriage) officiating the wedding, without a whisper of protest from most Evangelicals.

  9. Limbaugh is an entertainer, and cultural war is his shtick. None of it has to make sense, because none of it is real. E.G. Marshall was a far more convincing radio dramatist. Shock/Talk radio is today’s radio theater and its talking heads are merely characters in the script performed by paid actors. Back in 1938, people thought Orson Welles’ radio performance of “War of the Worlds” was real, too. The problem is, ditto-heads don’t understand that it’s just an act and actually do and believe what he says. The same could be said for televagelism. It’s all modern burlesque for bored, affluent, gullible Americans.

    • If Limbaugh had any integrity, he would tell the ditto heads what William Shatner told to a group of trekkies: get a life!

      No offense to trekkies. I know you’re out there.

      • The dittoheads I’ve heard on the radio do indeed seem to have a life (I don’t listen to Limbaugh much, though). They know that what Rush discusses is real-life/real-world stuff, unlike some Trekkies who seem to live in the Star Trek universe (the Trekkies movie was weird but interesting).

        I believe Rush has more integrity than some of those he skewers on his show.

        • Neuropuck says

          “I believe Rush has more integrity than some of those he skewers on his show.”

          I don’t.

      • OK, one more time. Get it straight: William Shatner is a hollywood huckster who has capitalized shamelessly on his uncanny resemblance to Captain James T. Kirk.

      • Closer than you think, dumb ox 😉

        (never actually owned a pair of Spock ears, but it was a darned close thing).

        I think we also have a furry here?

  10. A million dollars for a six hour gig.

    I know I never turn those down.

    Rock on, Rocket Man.

  11. Never liked Rush Limbaugh anyway.

  12. For a completely satirical look at this, check out “Cheaper Than Therapy” and his Onion-esque press release “Family Research Council Celebrates Rush Limbaugh’s 4th Marriage”:
    http://djword.blogspot.com/2010/06/family-research-council-celebrates-rush.html

  13. Rick Ro. says

    Limbaugh may be a conservative, but I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard him espouse to being a Christian.

    I guess maybe I don’t not share the same amount of cynicism of others here (at least regarding this news item), because I find something refreshing about this bizarre gathering of people. Sure, cue the Twilight Zone music, but let’s congratulate this diverse collection of people for getting together, setting aside differences, and celebrating what could potentially be a Godly arrangement.

    What would be interesting to see is…if asked, would Limbaugh attend a marriage of Elton John to a partner? If asked, would Hutcherson officiate a wedding of John to a partner? The answers to those hypothetical questions would expose potential hypocrisy. (And NOW I’m being cynical.)

  14. Why do you people care about this? Judgemental “christians” is an oxymoron.

    • “God must love judgmental Christians, He made so many of them.”

      Abraham Lincoln didn’t say that.

      Neither did Bob Dylan.

    • I didn’t say a thing. I simply stand amazed.

    • Christopher Lake says

      “You people”– filled with love, those words. 🙂

      There is self-righteous judgment which is clearly *wrong* for Christians. Then, there is careful *discernment*, which means “judging” from within the context of clear Biblical rights and wrongs, or in the absence of absolute clarity, the discerning and drawing out of possible Biblical implications. The discernment form of “judging” is needed, and even Biblically commanded, for Christians, coupled with heavy doses of Christian humility.

      • Blah blah blah …

        • Christopher Lake says

          MWPeak,

          How about a reply of some substance (or even, simply, content)? Not very Christ-like either. Think about it. (Btw, I’m no fan of Rush Limbaugh.)

  15. I’m not at all embarrassed to state that I’m a fan of Mr. Limbaugh’s show. He’s always entertaining, has a great sense of humor, and plays terrific bumper music. No, I don’t always agree with his opinions, but so what? I know good radio when I hear it.

    And who knows? Maybe Mr. John appreciates the fact that Rush promoted his records, way back when he was “Jeff Christie”, spinning platters at KMBZ in Kansas City, Missouri. Friendships can blossom in the most unlikely soil. 😉

  16. Is this wedding available on video? I’d give good money to see Rush go all teary-eyed while Elton sings “Hold me close, now, tiny dancer.”

  17. Well said, Christine!

    Rush Limbaugh and Elton John are two of the most original performers humanity has ever seen. Love them or hate them, they know what their customers want, and we are about to enter the second dip of a worldwide recession… Maybe we could learn something about value creation and avoiding the long slide to being replaced by robots? Do it for the kids?

    And, like it or not, they are both created in the image of God.

  18. I recommend what Michael Spencer had to say about Limbaugh’s influence in a post he wrote in March 2009

    https://internetmonk.com/archive/the-limbaughization-of-evangelicals

  19. “Let those without sin cast the first … oh, wait. That’s Rush Limbaugh. Get ’em boys! And I’m first! Che, where are you?!”

    Internet Monk again reveals that it is not above hating its enemies. Sigh.

    • No hate here. I just found the whole thing strange and wondrous.

      • All of this blather is because Americans (yes, and others) are celebrity obsessed. We follow their every move, we want pictures of their dead bodies, we love to catch them doing something that is out of character or (God Be Praised!) hypocritical according to their political, religious, or sexual orientation, ad damned infinitum!

        Find something worthwhile to write about.

        • Savannah says

          It was just a pretty straight-forward observation. I guess I am amazed that people take the time to comment nastily on something they claim not to be worthwhile or they claim not to care about. If you don’t care, why wouldn’t you just move on to something that interested you more?

        • I think Rush’s detractors are more “celebrity-obsessed” with Rush Limbaugh than his fans are. ROCDS = Rush Obsessive-Compulsive Derangement Syndrome.

          • Christopher Lake says

            I don’t care much for Rush Limbaugh, in a positive *or* negative sense. I’m basically a philosophical conservative who wishes that more conservatives were as thoughtful as William F. Buckley (and less like Limbaugh)….

    • It is simply assumed that because Rush Limbaugh is a conservative, he is a closet white supremacist , so having a black pastor is odd. It is simply assumed that because Rush Limbaugh is a conservative, he is a fan of the God Hates Fags movement of Westboro Baptist Church, so having Elton John is odd.

      There are serious assumptions about Limbaugh’s heart and character because of his political stances, which is why this is so strange. The liberal mindset (I’m not saying anyone is liberal) holds that conservatives hate blacks and homosexuals, so Limbaugh looks like a hypocrite for having a black pastor and a homosexual performer and the pastor and Elton John look like hypcrites for supporting someone who is assumed to hate them.

      • Google is no-one’s friend. Not even (black-hating, queer-baiting) Rush Limbaugh:

        http://newsone.com/obama/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/

        and “When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult; it’s an invitation.”

        Just for the record. You can keep blaming the ‘liberal mindset’ if you’d like.

        • I rest my case.

        • dkmonroe says

          It’d be nice if the quotes were somehow documented. I do not listen to Rush now (my job situation prevents it) but I literally listened to him, nearly all three hours, every day between the years of 1993 and 2000, and then for at least an hour a day for the next 4 years, and never heard him say anything even close to what these quotes say. And I doubt he turned into a full-blown racist pig, or decided to let loose with it, just in the last 5 years.

          Some of the quotes even have ellipses, which is even more suspect. i’ve had many an argument about ellipsed quotes that turned out, once expanded, to mean entirely other than what was alleged.

          I’ll agree with you on this – Google is no one’s friend. It’s a notoriously unreliable source of evidence.

      • Savannah says

        While I am now a liberal, I was for many years a conservative, and during that time I was not racist or nor did I hate others. Despite my “liberal mindset”, I do not assume that conservatives automatically are racist or hateful. It’s always an error to paint with such a broad brush, for either side.

      • cyborgninja says

        I do have to add: some of the worst racists (and homophobes) I’ve come across are liberal. They have that sneaky way of saying things (see hipster racism) that I sometimes wish I had hammerspace, and a good ol’ skillet to whack their heads with.

        I prefer my prejudices to be clear and blunt, in the case of Rush, than to be decorated with irony and seemingly progressive words.

        • Ditto (head) 😀

          • cyborgninja says

            Haha. I don’t listen to Rush, but I have read his racist and other crazy comments (I’m a woman of color here) and they rub me the wrong way. It’s easier to avoid people once they make their thoughts clear, ya know?

            I guess my point above was: liberals can be racist too — they’re just sneaky about it. 😛

    • MW, I’m not even American, so I’ve never had the pleasure of listening to Rush Limbaugh’s show. I have no idea what his opinions are, other than the impression I’m getting from what others are saying.

      Nevertheless, yes, to me it seems strange that a pro-marriage minister should be delighted to officiate at the marriage of a man who, after three divorces, is now getting married to a woman young enough to be his daughter (twenty-six year age difference).

      I think you can say that that is perhaps not the Christian ideal of marriage without hating anyone involved.

  20. Who cares.

  21. It’s interesting that we all seem to be horrified that Rush Limbaugh is marrying for a fourth time, but I can’t help thinking, “What’s the difference between marrying for the second time, or the third time?” Without any authority within the Protestant church to tell us whether divorce and remarriage is acceptable under this circumstance or that circumstance, how can we judge? Everybody, every minister, every church, seems to have a different opinion over what constitutes a valid divorce and remarriage. Now within the Catholic church, there seems to be an authoritative judgment about these things, if someone is able to apply for that judgment. But since Rush L. is not Catholic, he just does what the rest of us do, which is probably to make our own judgments about divorce and remarriage the best we can, informed largely, I’m sure, by our own emotions. I will say that I don’t think that he was ever the instigator of any of his divorces, unlike Henry VIII.

  22. Terri Watters says

    Interesting that this post got so many more comments than most of the recent spiritual posts. Maybe it isn’t fair to feel this way, but I was really bummed this topic was broached on this site in this context. When imonk commented on Rush, he used it to make a broader spiritual point. I don’t see that there was much point in this approach.

    • Every once in awhile, the craziness of modern culture strikes me dumb, and I like to hear what others think about the zaniness of it all. It wasn’t so much about Rush personally or Elton John personally, or anyone else. The whole situation simply got my attention, and I wanted to see what others might say.

    • Headless Unicorn Guy says

      That’s because this whole thing is a RL South Park episode.

      There’s no other way to describe it except “Welcome to South Park.”

      Never mind checking your closets for Rod Serling.
      Check for Trey Parker and Matt Stone instead.

  23. Well it got alot of comments, how many are Jesus based i’ll leave to you. Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, etc, etc.

    • Then this thread should give Rush several new people and names for him to love and bless.

  24. rasselas says

    I believe the con-servatives need to pass the “defense against marriage mockery act” – you can’t even make it up anymore…everythings a “commodity” – just bizarre and sad

  25. dkmonroe says

    I continue to be truly amazed at the fascination people at this site have for Rush Limbaugh, and the presumably “Jesus-shaped” response to him.

    • Pot….meet kettle.

      • dkmonroe says

        Please point out to me where I am being hypocritical.

        • OK folks, this is getting out of hand. The post was not a personal attack on Rush L or anybody else, just an observation of the strange goings on and mixtures in American culture and evangelicalism. Take the argument about liberals and conservatives outside, please.

  26. I have a buddy who has been married 3 or 4 times. He is a very nice guy but has a bad problem of falling for women who cheat on him, it is uncanny actually. So, marrying (and dedication to it) is not this guys flaw, it is his ability to pick women to date. It could be that Rush is desirous of spending the rest of his life with a lady but has had the same problem, picking women just as dedicated to the man and not the celeb.

  27. I’m a recovering Dittohead. I used to find Rush funny…but I think he became too full of himself and I also became much more politically moderate. Some people need to be told how to think…and Rush does that for those people.

    • Headless Unicorn Guy says

      I occasionally listened to Rush Limbaugh doing “Conservatism as Theater.” Recently, I caught him again after a several-year hiatus. And he seemed to have deteriorated over those years.

      The impression I got was that Rush has been listening to (and believing) his own PR for too long. He’s developed a Messiah complex — True Believer followers and all — reminiscent of Obama’s, except in the completely-opposite direction.

  28. 100 years ago, not a pastor in the world would have officiated a fourth wedding. This marks the pinnacle of evangelicalism’s decent into the approval of sin. He should have been married by a civil authority, not a Christian one.

    • He should have been married by a civil authority, not a Christian one.

      This is true whether it was a fourth or first marriage. Rush is not a professed/professing Christian and therefore shouldn’t have been married by a Christian clergyman in the first place, IMO. Unless his bride requested it. And maybe she did, and maybe she is a Christian. I have no idea.

      Time to move along, methinks.

      • Actually, Rush is a professing Christian- but not a conservative one. He has spoken glowingly of his father’s Christian Methodist faith, adding that Dad Rush did not believe in Hell or the canonical status of The Revelation, and I got the impression that he mentioned that because he agreed with Dad. But the few times Rush has spoken on matters religious & spiritual, he has professed faith in Christ.

  29. Some Guy says

    Obvously gays ruined the sanctity of his last three marriages!

  30. Quite a bit of judgement on the guy going on here isn’t there. Lots of rocks. Lots of throwing. I got hit in the eye. Bono even got hit.

    Sinners, all of us…even those who preach against it. Its a testimony to depravity, not to one individuals public life.