This hour of the Limbaugh Wire brought to you by marriage in California -- safely “de-gay[ed]”
By Simon Maloy

Steyn got the final hour going with some more jokes about Obama and Dijon mustard that were of the same caliber as the previous hour's zingers, saying that he resented, as a “foreigner,” Obama crashing in as the spokesman for Dijon mustard, which was usually reserved for British actors. He does a great job appearing normal, Steyn said -- he goes on dates with his wife, and Michelle wears dresses, just like humans do.

Then it was on to Miss California, who we're still talking about for some reason. Steyn said that she has the same position on gay marriage as Obama, and yet she's being vilified as an intolerant monster. What's happened, said Steyn, is that the courts have made it possible for Democrats to move slightly to the right on gay marriage, thereby making gay marriage the norm, which renders those who oppose gay marriage “extreme” homophobes. So, Steyn said, Obama can get away with saying he supports full rights for homosexuals but not marriage because a) people know he's lying, and b) the courts are too his left, so he appears to be a moderate centrist. Steyn then wondered why, if gay marriage is allegedly such a loser for Republicans and social conservatives, Obama doesn't come right out and support gay marriage. It's not in his interest, Steyn said, because he wants to appear moderate.

After the break, Steyn professed his admiration for Obama's refusal to pretend to be rural, saying that he's “very urban with his Grey Poupon.” Then he took a call from a man who professed to know why Obama has the position he does on gay marriage -- because he's a “crypto-communist,” but Saul Alinsky told him to look like a moderate. Steyn said he's right, Obama has to appear as a moderate in order to do all the radical things he wants to do. We have to add at this point that if Steyn and his ilk are upset that they're being labeled extremists while liberals are called moderates, it's best not to agree with people who refer to the president as a “crypto-communist.” In fact, we should probably credit the much-maligned caller from the first hour who made that exact point for us.

Anyway, Steyn explained that liberals have been able to co-opt the English language to the point that now you can't talk about immigration or gay marriage without being called a racist or a homophobe. In fact, Steyn said, terms like “homophobe” and “Islamophobe” were designed to make it seem like those on the receiving end of these terms have a mental disorder. It's a way of making intelligent discussion unnecessary, said Steyn.

Another break and Steyn was back with a caller, this one claiming that the reason Obama is getting a pass from liberals on gay marriage is because the black population “as a whole” do not support gay marriage. Steyn said he thinks she's right -- in California there were “gay-black rumbles” in the streets over Proposition 8 “because the black turnout that came out in November to vote for Obama also stayed in the voting booth long enough to support Proposition 8 de-gaying marriage.”

Steyn's next caller said that the argument “they” -- meaning homosexuals -- are using is that they can do marriage “better” than heterosexuals, and if that's the case, why not get rid of corporations and just form partnerships? Steyn said this caller was right, and that there is actually opposition to gay marriage from inside the gay community because marriage is viewed as “straight.” This is all about “put[ting] fundamental societal institutions up for big, broad redefinition,” Steyn said, adding: "[T]here's no real argument against polygamy once you've approved of gay marriage." Why stop at polygamy, Mark? The pros like Bill O'Reilly take the extra step, prophesizing marriage to goats, ducks, and dolphins. Polygamy? That's bush league.

Steyn took one more caller before the break who said that there is no such thing as a moderate position -- it's like “yin and yang,” and trying to get the Republicans to act like Democrats destroys the “balance” of yin and yang. Steyn responded: “Right, that's what we were talking about earlier.” Actually, no, that's not what he was talking about earlier. Earlier, Steyn specifically derided the Eastern notion of “balance” as stupid and something for a “child.” Regardless, Steyn noted that the caller was from California -- “gay marriage ground zero” -- and that the state has learned that when they have a governor who professes to be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, the fiscal conservatism disappears because social liberalism is expensive.

One more break and Steyn was back, talking up a BBC news report that an “expedition team which set sail from Plymouth on a 5,000-mile carbon emission-free trip to Greenland have been rescued by an oil tanker.” Steyn said this is a “metaphor” for “eco-fetishism,” and that we don't move forward by taking steps backward, like relying on wind and solar power. Then Steyn noted that when he gets to the final hour of these guest-hosting gigs, he's often deluged by inquiries from listeners who want to know if the great American experiment is over. We view this as a logical outcome, given that Steyn has spent a great deal of the show saying that Obama's policies will unravel the fabric of the nation. Steyn said that his listeners have to read Alexis de Tocqueville, who said that “the strength of this country is in trusting its people and in trusting its -- the natural competition of a federalist system.” Steyn said he had no objection if individual states like California wanted to destroy themselves, but "[w]here it all gets very dangerous is when you have a president and a Democratic Congress who are essentially committed to federal annexation. Federal annexation -- ensuring that there's a kind of one-size-fits-all model across the country is going to put a big question mark over America."

So we guess his response to those concerned listeners is: “almost.” Very reassuring.

Well, we've made it through another Mark Steyn extravaganza relatively unscathed. Hell, we actually learned something today -- Dijon mustard is “urban” and not “regular.” We plan to test this theory in a matter befitting a liberal elitist -- by sending an intern to a Food City in rural Virginia to see if they carry Grey Poupon, while we remain safely inside the Beltway eating brie-stuffed lobster. We'll report back tomorrow, just in time to listen to Mark Davis' turn behind the golden microphone. We hope you'll join us, and, until then, please take a gander at Media Matters' slightly granular and moderately spicy Limbaugh archives.

Highlights from Hour 3

Outrageous comments

STEYN: That's actually why Proposition 8 passed in California; it's because the black turnout that came out in November to vote for Obama also stayed in the voting booth long enough to support Proposition 8 de-gaying marriage.

[...]

STEYN: But I think, at heart, what it does is it puts fundamental societal institutions up for big, broad redefinition. I mentioned here a couple of weeks ago that in Canada, there's a polygamy suit before the Supreme Court now -- working its way to the Supreme Court -- which there's no real argument against polygamy once you've approved of gay marriage.

Basically, every argument you make in favor of gay marriage also applies to polygamy, that there's no end. Once you start redefining societal institutions that predate every nation-state on the planet, then there's no end to it.

[...]

STEYN: If you go back and you read Tocqueville 200 years ago, you will understand that the strength of this country is in trusting its people and in trusting its -- the natural competition of a federalist system. Now I've got no objection if Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to destroy California. If he wants to take the Golden State and turn it into one giant rust bucket, that's between him and the Californian people. And likewise, if somebody in South Dakota, or somebody in Idaho, or somebody in Alabama, or somebody in Maine wants to try a completely different way of governing, that is between them and their electorate.

Where it all gets very dangerous is when you have a president and a Democratic Congress who are essentially committed to federal annexation. Federal annexation -- ensuring that there's a kind of one-size-fits-all model across the country is going to put a big question mark over America.