During his show today, the former pain-pill-popping host declared that gay marriage was inevitable. As with most things Rush Limbaugh says, there was a caveat to this announcement.
According to Limbaugh, gay marriage was inevitable ever since the left bastardized the word marriage. The following excerpt is taken from his website:
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 then went on a slightly incoherent tirade about the Obama's which ended in him giving his listeners a lesson about why it's important to stand up for definitions. "Just trying to point out what happens if we lose definitions, which is why we are where we are here. People refuse to stand fast on the definition of something."
Who knows, maybe Rush is still upset that the definition of the word voter has been changed to encompass more than just white, land-owning males aged 21 and over. Rush seems very afraid that definitions will be used to expand rights to people who he believes do not deserve them. That, however, isn't the way definitions have historically been used. They have almost always been used to limit the rights of individuals, not expand them. As far as I can remember, standing fast for the definition of something was not a problem Americans had. Perhaps Rush is forgetting the Civil War where, oh about half of the country stood fast to defend the definition of something?
The only thing permanent about language is that it is constantly and irrevocably in flux. Language is nothing but a reflection of the culture and people who use it. Our vocabulary is a representation of our progress. Stagnation of language is a harbinger of a societies downfall. Contrary to Rush's opinion, nothing is lost with the evolution of the definition of marriage, only inclusiveness is gained.