Glen Greewald makes some interesting points about Rush Limbaugh and his costant push for "Tradional Marriage" (El Rusho pictured here with new wife (#4).
.
As always happens when this issue is raised, there are several people in comments and elsewhere confusing the point. The issue here is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when someone preaches "nobody should do X" and then proceeds themselves to do X -- such as preaching that "nobody should break the law or consume illegal drugs" and then proceeding to consume huge quantities of illegally obtained oxycontin. That's hypocrisy. That's not what this is.
.
Hypocrisy occurs when there's a disparity between the actions one advocates and the actions one undertakes. Here, the disparity is between (a) what same-sex opponents such as Limbaugh claim they advocate (the law's recognition of only Traditional Marriages) and (b) what they actually advocate (having the law recognize completely untraditional marriages, such as Gingrich and Limbaugh's multiple, serial unions). They don't really advocate the law's recognition of Traditional Marriage, as they claim; rather, they only advocate that the law bar the untraditional marriages they don't want to enter into (same-sex marriages) while recognizing the ones they do (multiple, serial "marriages"). The point is that one cannot oppose same-sex marriage on the ground that the law should only recognize Traditional Marriages, while simultaneously demanding that the law recognize third, fourth and other multiple marriages following divorce: at least one cannot do so coherently.