RUSH: Here's Lisa, Morristown, New Jersey. Hi, Lisa. Great to have you on the program. Hello.
CALLER: Oh, it's an honor to speak with you, Rush. Thank you so much for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: The point I wanted to make is Barack Obama, in his inaugural address this past January -- you can Google it -- made this statement reflecting that we should accept gay marriage, "that their love and commitment should be considered just as equal as anyone else's love and commitment." Namely the heterosexual communities.
CALLER: Well, based on that statement, he's just reducing and diminishing the entire definition of marriage because then anybody could come into the fray and say that my love and commitment is as equal to anyone else's, and that's where this is heading down this slippery slope, because -- in fact, Antonin Scalia, back in a case in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas -- I'm reading it from an article -- it says, "If the high court removes one natural parameter for one special interest group, then that equal protection under the law would require that it removes all natural marriage parameters for all special interest groups." And that's why the next natural thing that's going to occur if they would make gay marriage the law of the land, is that every single group, from polygamy, from minor to adult relationships that are consensual, they'll all be considered having to have equal protection under the allow.
RUSH: Now, wait a minute, wait a minute, everybody knows that's not what Obama meant. That says what these people would say to you. Obama didn't mean that an adult man could get married to a 14-year-old boy simply because there's love. He didn't mean that. But what you're saying is, wait a minute, once the legal boundaries are gone or obliterated, anything fits the definition of love.
CALLER: That's right. And the other thing is, everybody's missing this point. I've been following and researching this issue because I'm so angered by this phony civil right framing that they've done and they've been successful at it. You have to look at what the criteria is. Marriage is a legal contract. Being a black person or getting a civil right simply because you're a person, that's a dignity of the human person. A marriage, if you ask a matrimonial lawyer, involves criteria being met, and societies -- or, rather, government got involved from the get-go overseeing and regulating marriage for the protection of generational continuity, meaning that you had the propensity in your marriage union to bring forth children. So, as you were saying earlier with Justice Roberts bringing out that point that now we would have to really remove the entire definition and reconstruct it. And if you're really equal you would be able to be equal, two people, and satisfy all the criteria which gays cannot do because they cannot procreate. So when they cry marriage equality, you can't give it to them not because you're biased. Because they don't satisfy all the criteria. If you look up the word equal, they have to have abilities. Everything has to be equal, and they're not, so right there it's an unbiased way of telling a gay marriage proponent--
RUSH: When you put it that way you are losing everybody under 30. When you talk about it that way, you are encouraging support. I'm not saying you're wrong. Just in discussing it, when you say they are not equal, you're creating sympathy like you cannot imagine.
CALLER: The person is equal. They have rights. The gay person should have rights. They're a person. The dignity of the human person is recognized as a true civil right. But now we're talking about union status. That's what's up for the question, not whether a gay person --
RUSH: The civil right vanishes once a choice is made. People don't have a choice being black, being female, being whatever, they don't have a choice. Marriage is a choice. And you do. It is a contract that you enter into and nobody's denied that. There are certain ways that adults can get married. The definition is what it is, and it's in the process of being obliterated. But I am just saying that even though you are within the concept of the law a hundred percent right, when you characterize it as -- and you get in their face, say, "You are not equal because you cannot fulfill one of the requirements, i.e., procreation..." "You're not fair! You can't say people are not equal! Not fair! They are equal, they're human beings and they love people (crying)," and the argument is advanced. Anyway, I appreciate the call. I know exactly what you're saying. This is simply a matter of semantics and we're at a point now where low-information people are involved, and emotion trumps all kinds of reason, fact, law. None of that matters in this.
I gotta take a break. We'll be back. Don't go away, folks.
RUSH: She was talking about contracts, folks, just so you understand, and we all are equal in the ability to make contracts. Everybody can contract with a member of the opposite sex to marry them, but her point was if same sex fits the bill of the contract, then everything fits the bill. And at some point, who's to say you cannot have sex with a child, at some point? I mean, if love is involved.