Jesus, who is God and the only way to Heaven, is recorded as saying that marriage is between a man and woman only and no divorce from the beginning. However, Jesus goes on to say that because of the hardness of man’s heart, Moses allowed divorce:

Matthew 19:3-9

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?"
He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."
They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?"
He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”

So, both Moses and Rush are hard-hearted evil-doers defying God's will?

moral relativism...a fake conservative's keystone.

Wow, that is some weak justification...

Yes, the Fake Conservative (like Paul's) keystone, indeed.

That, along with projecting such criticisms (moral relativism, unsupported partisanism, blind love for their own, etc.) onto their opponents.

It's now largely assured that one can simply apply whatever a Fake Conservative asserts about his oppostion onto the Fake Conservative themself.

If they say it about us, undoubtedly, it's clearly a pre-emptive strike to try and keep the same criticism from being given (appropriately) to them. A style that Rush invented, Sean perfected, and the legions of Rightwing Echo Chamber Attack Monkies happily apply regularly on the Internet and elsewhere to their foes.

Transparency defined.

We are talking marriage and divorce not "fake conservativism" and I believe it is "moral absolutes" not "moral relativism."

No, it would be "moral relativism" that you are attempting to use to somehow justify Rush's behavior. I'd think you'd be well familiar with the phrase since he uses it all the time. Go ahead and use your 24/7 membership on his website to look it up and see how he enjoys using it as a way to attack "Liberals".

You are now using it in precisely the way he would hypocritcally decry.

It's little wonder you don't actually understand the phrase.

Here's a little primer for you from the "Liberalism Resurgent" website's essay of why Moral Relativism is actually *not* wrong. But only gets pointed out when *you* use it to hypocritically justify something, since the idea of "Moral Relativism" itself is so often decried by your Echo Chamber Attack Monkey clones.

"In closing, we should point out that for all the conservative condemnation of "moral relativism," one of the biggest practitioners of moral relativism are conservatives themselves. Richard Nixon once said of a murderous dictator who happened to be an ally: "He may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Moral absolutism leads conservatives to oppose the murder of innocent fetuses, but moral relativism led them to support the potential murder of millions of innocent Russians in a nuclear defense of America. Jesus told the rich to sell what they have and give to the poor, but conservatives today believe that the best way to help the poor is to do the opposite: redistribute what little wealth they have upward, by slashing taxes on the rich and cutting federal aid for the poor.

We should not be surprised that any philosophy that preaches moral absolutism is destined to have lots of hypocrites."

Sheesh, Paul. Beating up on you is not fun anymore.