RUSH: TIME magazine, latest cover shows two men kissing and has the blaring headline, "Gay Marriage Already Won." Two men are kissing. There's also another cover with two women kissing, same headline, and it reminds me of the Newsweek cover that said, "We're All Socialists Now." It reminds me of the old TIME Magazine cover when they learned that men and women are actually different, they did a cover story on that.
So there is a guy at CNN. I forget his name. He's one of their opinion writers. I never heard of him, doesn't matter who it is, writing a piece based on the TIME Magazine cover. You know what he says? (paraphrasing) "Hey, since Limbaugh said it, that's it. Limbaugh said gay marriage is inevitable, it's inevitable." That's not this guy's problem. Since I said it, gay marriage is gonna happen. But his problem is when. He said if the Supreme Court does not have a sweeping ruling and make gay marriage legal in all 50 states, what happens between now and the time Limbaugh's right? Limbaugh says it's inevitable, it's gonna happen, but when is it gonna happen? And what happens in the interim? So even when they think they're on the cusp of victory, they have to find something to worry about regarding it.
How about this? Somebody -- I don't remember who -- wrote this or it might have been a blog post, whoever it was was speculating. But in an era where fewer and fewer people seem to value marriage, period, in an era when fewer and fewer people want to get married, the gay community is making tracks to get married. So whoever it was that wrote this post had a question: Is it possible that marriage relationships could do more to upset the balance of nature in the gay community than anything else by stigmatizing those who aren't married? In other words, this guy -- I wish I could remember who it was, but it was one of these posts which had the theme: be careful what you ask for, you might get it. It was sort of a warning to homosexuals, are you sure you really want this?
Well, no, not that they're gonna be miserable being married, but not all of them are gonna get married, and what about those who don't but continue to have cohabitating relationships? Will there be a stigma attached to them, either they're not advancing the cause or some such thing. Or in the case of the old days when heteros lived together but didn't get married. It was frowned upon at one point in our culture, parents didn't like that, the old shotgun wedding. Shacking up, it was called. So this guy, it might have been a woman -- I can't recall -- was wondering if homosexual marriage will segregate the gay community in ways they've never pondered being segregated. I have no idea. I thought it was an interesting thought pattern to have. Because there is, in the gay community, this headlong push to get married.
Now, I know, I know, I know, I know what some of you are saying, probably shouting at the radio: "Rush, it isn't about marriage. It's actually about tearing it apart." I understand you. It's about redefining things so that more and more is considered standard, ordinary, everyday normal. It's not that there's this desire to get married because marriage is great. It's because of the achievement here of breaking down another barrier. But even so, even if that's relevant, there are gonna be gay couples married and gay couples who aren't married. And will there be any kind of a stigma attached to either side of that?
Well, I remember back when John and Yoko got married, the big question that they were always asked was, "Why'd you bother to get married? It's so unhip and so uncool." And John and Yoko said (paraphrasing), "Yeah, I know, marriage is a joke, but we like the ritual." You remember that? Yeah, after the sleep-in. They had Tommy Smothers sitting there strumming on the banjo in the bed, "All we are saying, is give peace a chance. " All I could say is, "Has anybody changed the bed sheets lately?"