Rush: Republicans Lost Marriage Debate Once We Modified The Language
An interesting theory, based on a note a friend sent to him
(Rush) The language game, the left really excels at changing the language to benefit them politically, and they do it in such a way that a lot of people on our side have no idea what’s happened until it’s too late and the issue is already lost, which this issue is. This issue is lost. I don’t care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable — and it’s inevitable because we lost the language on this. I mentioned the other day that I’ve heard people talk about “opposite-sex marriage,” or you might have had heard people say “traditional marriage.”
You might have heard people say “hetero-marriage.” I maintain to you that we lost the issue when we started allowing the word “marriage” to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it, because marriage is one thing, and it was not established on the basis of discrimination. It wasn’t established on the basis of denying people anything. “Marriage” is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with. But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way.
Rush certainly doesn’t mean this is the only reason the fight is lost (I heard this myself live); there are others, but he does have a point that Democrats love to play games with language (Affordable Care Act, undocumented immigrants).
….The thing is, discrimination has never been a part of marriage.
It evolved as the best way to unite men and women in raising a family and in cohabitating a life. It’s not perfect. The divorce rate’s what it is. But it evolved with a purpose. It was not a creation of a bunch of elitists wanting to deny people a good time. It was not created as something to deny people “benefits,” but it became that once we started bastardizing the definition. But discrimination is not an issue, and it never was. No one sensible is against giving homosexuals the rights of contract or inheritance or hospital visits.
There’s nobody that wants to deny them that. The issue has always been denying them a status that they can’t have, by definition. By definition — solely, by definition — same-sex people cannot be married. So instead of maintaining that and holding fast to that, we allowed the argument to be made that the definition needed to change, on the basis that we’re dealing with something discriminatory, bigoted, and all of these mystical things that it’s not and never has been.
As I mentioned the other day, there is official government discrimination against those who practice plural marriages embedded in the civil and criminal law. Will these same people who fight for “same sex marriage” fight for those people? Will Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama fight for them so that they are no longer discriminated against?
Of course, once the Democrats switched their position on same sex marriage (yes, they used to be the biggest opponents, and some still aren’t particularly happy with it), it was over. Liberals control most of the news and entertainment industry. They made sure to normalize the situation (something we use in sales intentionally to make a not great situation seem no big deal) and expose the issue in a positive light. They feature it on the news all the time.
Marriage is not a Constitutional right, it is a religious ceremony, and should be left in the hands of the Church. Take all issues of marriage out of the tax code. And….well, too late for those who are against gay marriage.
t’s funny how lefties always consider themselves the more “logical,” the more civilized,” and more “adult” side of the argument.
I was wondering how long this would take, but apparently my wait is over. A recall petition to oust Clarence
Some of you may have missed this story since it was published on the day after Christmas (and a Sunday