On his radio show Monday, Rush Limbaugh addressed the "inevitability of polygamy" after the historic Supreme Court decision codifying same-sex marriage as a "fundamental right" protected by the Constitution. Citing the dissent of Chief Justice Roberts, Limbaugh declared that Friday’s ruling leaves "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," concluded Limbaugh.
In his discussion, Limbaugh quoted the following passage from Justice Roberts' dissent, which notes that the arguments used in the majority opinion for mandating the legalization of gay marriage could be used "with equal force" to defend polygamy:
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.
Pointing out that Justice Antonin Scalia (who also strongly opposed the majority opinion) had predicted the challenge against traditional marriage, Limbaugh said that no matter how much people can’t bring themselves to imagine marriage involving more than two people, the polygamy battle’s already been lost, and even feminism can’t save it—indeed it might actually throw its weight behind it:
LIMBAUGH: 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?
Transcript via RushLimbaugh.com.
