RUSH: Jerry in Milwaukee, great to have you on the program, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. In my state of Wisconsin, in 2006, 60% of the population voted for an anti-gay constitutional amendment. That’s the same numbers that voted in North Carolina today and we’re a much less religious state than North Carolina. So the numbers show support for gay marriage is going strongly in the direction of those who support equality, ’cause the same support for gay marriage in North Carolina as Wisconsin, that’s amazing change in public opinion. And you cannot deny that, Rush.
RUSH: Wait a minute. I’m having trouble following. Same support for gay marriage in North Carolina, Wisconsin — what’s the change in public opinion?
CALLER: The public opinion is in 2011, numerous polls showed majority opinion, according to some polls, bare majority but majority opinion for same-sex marriage. Ten years ago it was at 30%. That’s 2% change per year. You’re losing, Rush, like the right wing lost on interracial marriage and like they lost on their opposition —
RUSH: Oh, I see what you’re talking about. I see. We’re losing. Right. See, here’s the thing, Jere, old buddy, old pal. It wasn’t very long ago that marriage meant man and a woman. Fine and dandy, nobody had a problem with it. It just was what it was, like two plus two equals four, definition of a word. Then some people came along and said, “We’re not happy with that. The definition of that word doesn’t allow us to be married. We don’t like that. That’s unfair.” So people wondered, “What the hell, we have to start defending this?” So where are we now, Jere? Where are we now? We’ve arrived at a point where the president of the United States is going to lead a war on traditional marriage. You want to call that winning? Your side is winning when the president has to lead a war on traditional marriage, when you’re losing in landslides and you haven’t won a state?
I can see where you think you’re winning because ten years ago, zip, zero nada even thought about this, until you guys decided you were unhappy and wanted to make everybody conform to the way you look at things, even if it meant bastardizing the definition of words. So now we got the president of the United States leading a war on traditional marriage. Is it gonna be like the war on stay-at-home working mothers that you people have led? Is it gonna be like the war on the Catholic Church that you people have led?
See, all these subjects come up, Jerry, old buddy, old pal, because Obama and people like you are trying to turn traditional institutions on their head. And people like me who were minding their own business all of a sudden have to stand up and defend these traditions and institutions from people like you, and now the president, who’s waging a war on traditional America.
I wanna tell you something else, Jerry, old buddy, old pal. At the ballot box, you’re never gonna win this. You can put out all the concocted, fake, phony polls you want. At the ballot box you’re always gonna need a corrupt judge to overturn the vote of the people, Jere, old buddy, old pal.
RUSH: Let me ask you a quick “pregunta.” (A little Spanish lingo there.) If you were “Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm! Mmm! Mmm!” Why would you flip-flop on gay marriage the day after a stinging defeat in North Carolina? I throw that question open to the table. Why would you do that? Why would you essentially flip-flop on gay marriage on the day after a stinging defeat? So now we’ve got John Kerry redux. Obama was against it before he was for it, or “evolved” or whatever. Is this gonna be used as the proof of evolution, Obama’s arrival finally after years?
In 1996, he told gay groups he was for gay marriage. Then when he had national political aspirations, he “evolved” (I should say devolved) into a position of anti-gay marriage. Now, all of a sudden, after a stinging defeat North Carolina, a 32nd consecutive defeat… I loved that lib calling here saying, “We’re winning, Rush.” They do look at it that way. They looked at it and it used to be 100-to-zero against gay marriage. Now it’s 60-40. They do see progress.
But, remember, we’re minding our own business ten years ago or whatever it was. “Marriage” is a word. It has a specific meaning. Then all of a sudden some people came along and said, “We want to change the definition.” No you don’t want to change the definition. You want to corrupt the institution is what you want to do. “How dare you say that! We don’t want in on the institution.” Well, then, marry a woman, or marry a man. That’s what marriage is.
Words mean things, or they used to.
So now we have to stand up and defend all these institutions. We have the president of the United States waging war, leading war on traditional marriage now. There’s no other way to look at this. There’s no other way to characterize it. “Baraka” Obama is leading a war on gay marriage, just like he’s leading the war on the Catholic Church, and the war on stay-at-home moms. So when Obama flip-flops, it’s called “evolving.” When Romney evolves, it’s called “flip-flopping.”
They call Romney a flip-flopper.
“Hey, he used to be believe this and now he believes this!”
“Well, he evolved.”
“No, Romney’s a flip-flopper!”
“Well, Obama believed this but now he believes that. He’s a flip-flopper.”
“No, no! Obama is ‘evolving.'”
But I think, could there be…? I don’t know. Could there be a little panic going on? Here’s another thing. As Ed Henry reported, and I read it this morning, Obama is sitting down this afternoon for an interview with Robin Roberts of Good Morning America. I think some of it is gonna run on World News Tonight. Now, you know and I know that Robin Roberts knows she’s gonna ask about gay marriage.
“Baraka” Obama knows that Robin Roberts is gonna ask about gay marriage. Why don’t they just do a press conference? Why doesn’t Obama just call a presser, call a press conference, and do the evolution, do the evolving? See, he wants this to “evolve” in the context of an interview. He wants to be seen as sitting there pensively in deep, evolutionary thought. Yes, so we can see him struggling with the issue as he’s leading the war against traditional marriage.
He wants us to see Robin Roberts looking on, the eyes wide open inquisitively, waiting for the answer. Not to pounce, of course, but to embrace and applaud when the “right” answer is forthcoming. So Robin Roberts will get the credit — great journalism here — for dragging out what everybody knows Obama has believed for years, as he has been “evolving.”