×

Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu




Listen to it Button

RUSH: So I checked the e-mail during the break, and I can tell you I need to further explain why I think the court decision leads to polygamy. And, by the way, I could easily do that by simply reading to you some blog posts that I printed out from people that are already gonna agitate for it, that they want it, and they think they know that this opens the door for it. Look, folks, you can think all you want, but there’s no legal basis to stop it now. There is no intellectually honest way to distinguish the reasoning on gay marriage from applying the same reasoning to supporting polygamy.

Because it was all rooted in self-esteem and dignity and not being denied things that make you happy. The Supreme Court decision on marriage was not about any particular number of people in a relationship. It did not assume, in other words, that marriage is of two people. It did not accept that limit, in other words. That limit is not specifically there. They’ve rewritten what marriage is now, is the point here, folks. Marriage was what it was as ordained from the ancient biblical texts.

Want me to read it to you from Genesis? Maybe that would help. Maybe this will help. Actually, well, Genesis does. It’s Genesis 2:23-24: A sacred union between one man and one woman. It’s also the New Testament. Jesus Christ reaffirms the biblical definition of marriage. Jesus said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning 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 no longer two, they’re one. What, therefore, God has joined together, let no man separate.”


Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 through 6. I didn’t write it, so don’t get mad at me. But there it is. It’s in Genesis and the New Testament as well. But it’s been rewritten now, and it’s been written not under any sort of constitutional purview but rather some people out there that were denied something and it’s not right. A lot of people had something and those people didn’t and then those people want it so we think they should have it. Their self-esteem and their dignity is tied up into it.

Well, if now a guy comes along and says, “I want two wives,” fine. I mean, my only point is the ruling in this case does not give anybody the right to tell ’em “no.” Marriage has been redefined, folks. It’s not been “expanded.” It has been redefined. Marriage had a specific definition. Words mean things. And now it’s become something entirely different by virtue of the Supreme Court. You wait. There will be attempts to expand on this in ways that you can’t even conjure.

The other thing in the e-mails from people, “What do you mean, this is happiness and self-esteem?” I think a lot of this — I think a lot of liberalism, folks — is rooted in the misery and unhappiness of being in a minority. And I’m not… Take any minority you want — could be a numerical minority, could be a behavioral minority — and along with that unhappiness is a resentment of the majority, a resentment or an envy of the majority. So the motivating mechanism here is to be what the majority is, to have what the majority has, simply because it’s not fair that some people have it and some people don’t.

So you can take something as specific and lofty and meaningful as marriage and reduce it to a thing or a benefit that some people get and some people don’t. And that isn’t fair, and it’s not democratic. “How can you have that in a country like America?” Okay, so the reason the quest for happiness will never be met is because the reason for the happiness — the reason for the misery, the self-loathing, whatever you want to call it — the void that people have, is they mistaken we think that getting what the majority has is gonna make ’em happy, and they’re gonna find out that it doesn’t.

And it won’t.

That’s why we keep coming back for more. It’s why nothing is ever enough. No matter how much of their demands are met, it’s never enough. I have noticed this my entire adult life analyzing these things. It’s just never enough. And the reason it’s never enough is because the whole reason why or the… There’s a misunderstanding of why there’s misery in the first place, why there’s unhappiness in the first place. You can reduce and say, “The grass is greener. People think it’s happier on the other side of the fence.”

They find out when they get there it isn’t. All this is wrapped up in this, and in the process it has become political and the majority is attacked vividly, belligerently and often. Because it is felt that this happiness is being actively denied people in the minority because the people in the majority are reason. They’re racist, they’re sexist, whatever. It’s their fault, they’re denying all this to us. So the quest is to take it away from them or to become what they are and water down what they are.


But that never results in satisfaction.

It just never does.

So the continued effort here at happiness/contentment will continue to evade because the real reason for it’s not even being addressed. I mean, the unhappiness born of envy and resentment is never, ever mollified. That’s why all of the great philosophers have warned people, “Do not act on vengeance, do not act on envy, ’cause you’re not gonna like what you get. It’s not gonna give you the happiness you thought.”

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s Mike in Allen, Michigan, as we start on the phones. Great to have you, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. Thank you for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: It’s a great honor. My point is, I read a op-ed that Allen West wrote on the 27th about ruling on the gay marriage, now that it opens up to other issues with some states for, like, concealed carry. My concealed carry permit here in Michigan is now valid in all 50 states, including Washington, New York City, Chicago, Illinois, everywhere now.

RUSH: Yeah, I read that whole thing. I saw that story last week. It was on Allen West’s blog, and it was one of these stories, “Hey, you people on the left? You better be careful what you wish for,” one of those deals. The point was made, “Okay, since the Supreme Court said that since gay marriage has been recognized in 36 states, the other 14 have to recognize it, too.” The point on the blog was, “Well, hey, I mean, the same thing could be true now the concealed carry permits.

“If they’re legal in one state or some states, they have to be legal in others.” This was the theory, the point made. Because the way the court reasoned gay marriage, it can supply the same thing to concealed carry laws. I don’t know if that’s true. But to me, it’s no mollification. It doesn’t mollify me at all, for the way the Constitution’s been bastardized here, which it has been. The Constitution’s taken a huge hit here. Just because it may allow things which anger the left here or there, that’s not just… That’s my whole point. That doesn’t make me happy, just ’cause the left might have to deal with a concealed carry permit.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: About that “polygamy is inevitable” thing. A lot of people are writing about this. A lot of blog posts are theorizing and philosophizing about it. A lot of activists in the politically active gay community are talked about it as well. Here’s a reading from the chief justice, his dissent on the gay marriage case. “Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective ‘two’ in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not.

“Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority [i.e. Kennedy, et. Al.] is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”

That’s from the Chief Justice John Roberts. It’s apparently a day where he felt like actually being a judge. So we have here the chief justice warning about polygamy just as… You remember the Texas sodomy law? When was that? That was back in 2003. So 12 years ago the Supreme Court overturned a Texas law on sodomy. Texas prohibited it, and the Supreme Court said, “You can’t do that, you bunch of backward hayseeds!”

It prompted Justice Scalia to openly predict that the court would someday down the road very soon be hearing a case on the constitutionality of homosexual marriage and any number of things, and he turned out to be exactly right. So just as Scalia warned gay marriage was coming, as a result of overturning Texas’ anti-sodomy law, Chief Justice Roberts is warning that polygamy is right around the corner because of the way this decision was written by Anthony Kennedy.

What’s gonna be the argument against it?

Let’s say that you’re worried about this. You don’t think that marriage should be anything about two people. It could be interracial, now it can be same sex, but it shouldn’t be more than two people. You understand, folks, that that whole definition’s been thrown out now? The whole concept of marriage and what it was has been tossed out now, and it’s a brave new world and an entirely new definition for all intents and purposes was written. Ad the way it’s been written as the chief justice says, you can’t find a way to not permit polygamy if somebody brings this case before this court.

And he predicts that that will happen. Somebody’s gonna bring this case up here. Now, some people have claimed that we’ll never have polygamy because if you let a guy marry two women, then that’s placing women in a subservient role; that would be wrong. “I mean, let one guy have control over two women? You can’t do that!” That’s not gonna hold water. But that argument would take place under the tenets of feminism. You’d somehow discriminate against women.

“We’re not gonna have two women in a marriage to one guy. No way, Jose! We’re not permitting that.” Well, what if it’s two women who want to get married to one guy? I mean, feminism argument there doesn’t exist. It’s out the window. In fact, it may even be amplified. What happens if a woman wants to marry four guys? Let’s say that the Shawskank prison guard up there wanted to marry those two prisoners and two others after this. I know you’re saying, “No, no, no. Marriage is two people. You can’t.”

Folks, you’ve gotta understand here: Supreme Court decisions create a lot of things. Precedents, new rules. Now, animals? The one thing about animals is that even though a woman in the UK did marry her dog, animals cannot give consent, so that’s not a legitimate thing. An animal can’t consent to a marriage to its master. An animal doesn’t know… I’m thinking that the line would be drawn there. Actually, who the hell knows anymore. But there’s nothing to limit the number of people in a marriage with this ruling, with the dignity and self-esteem and benefits.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This