RUSH: Yesterday on this program I asked a very important political question and I did not provide the answer because I wanted to see what kind of answers I got. Sort of a status report, kind of, to figure out just how up to speed some of you in the audience might happen to be on something that’s important. On this program some time ago, within the past year, it might have even been last December, I ran into a story that said most Millennials, most of the people under 35 in this country think that the gay population of the United States is 30 to 35%.

I remember being stunned by that, because it’s never been 35%, and it’s never going to be. But yet the Millennials thought so. And when a thought like that exists, I mean, you can understand, then, a lot of sympathy for so-called discrimination against said people. My gosh, 30%, that’s a minority, but that’s a lot of people. We’re telling them they can’t get married, gee, that’s not fair, come on.

For the Millennial generation, gay rights and gay marriage is a big deal. It’s all part of equality and fairness and they think the country’s messed up, that people are mistreated, so they’re all for gay rights. They fall for this stuff based on the incorrect percentage. I thought the percentage was a number that I was wrong about, too. I thought the gay population was five or six percent and I had to consult my own transcript to find out that the actual gay population of America, of 243 million adults, the actual percentage of homosexuals is about 2.3%, 2.3 of 243 million is about two million people.

But then we had to make that number even smaller because not all of them want to get married, and not all of those who do are political activists. So the number keeps getting smaller when you ask what percentage of the adult population in the country is actually politically motivated and activist on the issue of gay marriage. You’re now talking about fewer than a million people, which is a lot of people, but expressed as a percentage of 243 million, it’s tiny.

Okay. The question thus was, how can such a small number of people come to so dominate the American political system? How can less than a million people cause the havoc that they caused in Indiana recently? How can so few people end up closing down businesses, like flower shops or bakeries or photo shops or what have you. It’s an interesting question because we are a majority ruled country, but yet this is significant achievement.

I mean, let’s just use the population at large. Let’s pretend they’re all political activists just to make the point even more profound. Let’s say two million people, and not all of them vote, either. They’re like any other subset of people. They’re not monolithic. They don’t all think the same way. They don’t vote the same way. They don’t all vote. But let’s assume they do just for the purposes of this question. How is it that 243 million people have allowed two million people to push ’em around on something as age-old as the definition of marriage? How does that happen?

I posed this question yesterday. And now let’s use the real number. Two million people, roughly two and a half million people represent the gay population of America. Now, you think that’s tiny probably because you are under the impression it’s much larger, like the Millennials are, and this goes to answering the question, by the way. But I’ll ask it again.

How can a million people, how can two million people who are not monolithic, so it’s not even that full number, succeed in getting to the highest court in the land the proposition that the thousands-of-years-old definition and structure of marriage is wrong? How does that happen?

Now, the short answer to this is that this could not happen unless these people were sponsored and represented by a political party. If they didn’t have the Democrat Party championing their causes and running interference for them and the like, then they wouldn’t have anywhere near this kind of power first. That may seem obvious to you. But secondly, they wouldn’t have the ability to effect all of this fear and intimidation, which they have succeeded in doing.

Now, why do you think, the people in the audience, think the population of the country that is gay is much larger than two and a half? Those of you who might have believed it was 30 or 33%, why do you believe that? It is not hard to explain, because if you go to a smaller area of the country and take the percentage of the population which might be gay there, then you’re gonna have an entirely different picture.

You go to Hollywood where television shows and movies are written, produced, directed, paid for, starred in, you will find the homosexual population is much, much larger than 2%. It is much larger, and therefore control of the media or having a fair amount of control of the media is paramount to achieve what they have achieved. You can’t turn on a television show now in primetime, you really can’t, without seeing some form of homosexual love, relationships and sex. You can’t miss it. It’s everywhere now. And it’s been creeping up with more and more prominence over the years.

It’s so prominent now that it is being made to appear in many ways as normal as anything else is, which will then lend credence to the idea that the gay population is 30%. And if people end up thinking that, combined with both the subliminal and conscious realizations that you have by media exposure, then you can come to believe that there is a much larger number than there really is with much more power than they actually have.

Then there are added societal pressures that are added on to all of this that genuinely result in people caving and acquiescing and not standing up for what they believe in, because the Democrat Party’s also the media. And without the Democrat Party and the media — and, by the way, the gay population in the media would be much higher than 2%. The activists in the community have long known where to seek careers and jobs in order to effect this kind of change. So the illusion has been created that it’s much greater than 2% or 2.3%. Then you slap on the guilt and the threats and the fear, and you have people basically acquiescing to it, and this is how it’s happened.

But it’s amazing to me nevertheless. It’s quite an achievement, folks. I mean, you have to admit that less than two million people — and I know some of you are disputing that. “Rush, it’s gotta be more.” I’m just going on numbers from the Gallup poll, folks. The source for all of these numbers is the latest Gallup survey. There have been many besides Gallup. I do know that the 2.3, the 2% number is accurate in terms of the percentage of the entire country population that is guy. The gay population on TV shows is over 40%, however, according to GLAAD, the Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. The gay population on television shows is over 40%, meaning over 40% of the characters on TV in prime time, throughout the day, are gay.

Here’s the actual stat, 2014 from GLAAD. Out of 813, 813 prime time broadcasts scripted series regulars, 32 will be LGBT this year, 3.9. So I left out a decimal point. It’s 3.9% as opposed to 2.3, and it is climbing. But if you concentrate it all in prime time, it appears to be even more. But forget the characters. Now you gotta look at the issues, the subject matter of these shows like the Sunday night episode of Madam Secretary that I described yesterday. Don’t worry. I’m not gonna get into it all again today. Suffice it to say if you missed the show, Madam Secretary, if I could explain it to you in one line, gay rights and gay issues is more important than the state of the Israel and the safety of the Middle East, was the subject of the show.

Forty prime-time shows feature gay characters, gay storylines. But then House of Cards did the same thing that Madam Secretary did. The plight of gay people was more important than our policy with Russia, more important than defense policy and so forth, and you gotta give it to ’em, they’ve taken over these industries and they’re using it to politically promulgate and promote their political power and project it. That’s what it’s for. Anybody can do it. They are.

So that’s why such a small percentage can effect so much major change. They’re willing to try, they’re willing to use it, and others are being docile and relying on somebody else to do their opposition for them or what have you. Can I take you back to Indiana, for example? This is likely to infuriate some people but I just want to use this as an example. We talk about Sharia law on this program quite a bit, as it relates to militant Islam. And Sharia law, people warn about it constantly, about what militant Islam intends and how militant Islam intends for people to live. Sharia law supersedes all other. It’s Sharia law that allows women to be stoned for not wearing face cover.

Sharia law is what permits homosexuals to be stoned to death in Iran. Sharia law, believe me, you wouldn’t want any part of it. I mean, it is basically the seventh century religious beliefs as the law of the land on a daily basis. I mean, it is a giant constriction on freedom. What happened in Indiana when this whole notion of “would you serve pizza to a gay wedding,” you saw the reaction on Twitter, Facebook, all of the social media. You saw the media descend on these businesses, thrust microphones in innocent people’s faces, people that had not done anything, and ask them, “Would you cater a gay wedding with your pizzeria?”

“No, my religious beliefs state that I cannot,” and the whole country descended on that little pizzeria in a town of 2,000 people, and they didn’t know what hit ’em. All they were doing, all that young woman from that family was doing, was telling people what her religious beliefs were. She was standing up for her own. You saw what happened. That is a great example of how Sharia operates. “You will do this. You will think this. You will like this. You will behave the way we’re gonna tell you to behave, and you will respect it, and you will like it, and you will profess that you like it. And if you don’t, then this is what’s gonna happen to you.”

Sharia does not permit freedom of any kind. It has its requirements, its law, its guidelines, and if you’re caught in violation, that’s too bad. And there’s no court per se. So to me it’s fascinating to watch all of this happen. Now, one of the things I do, I’ve often said I live life by watching other people live it. I mean, I have my own life, too, but I observe life in many ways by living it, vice-versa, live life by observing it. I’m fascinated by how people win elections, fascinated by how people gain power politically, particularly minorities. And it takes two to tango.

I mean, take any political minority you want that’s seeking majority status even though they are not the majority. They can use all the intimidation tactics in the world they want. As a victim they’re entitled to break the rules because they’re the aggrieved and so forth. It’s fascinating to me to watch it transpire and watch hardly any opposition rise up against it. It’s the only way it can happen. No push-back. And it’s exactly what is happening. We are being run, this country is being run by a veritable minority, and that is of liberalism.

Liberals are a minority of thought. The percentage of the country that’s liberal is less than 50. It’s not a majority. But, where are they? They are in the classroom. They’re running colleges, universities, high schools, school systems. They’re running the media, news, movies, books, television shows. So the impression, particularly with the control of the media, the impression is that they are much larger in number than they are, much more widespread than they are, and much more powerful than they are. Well, they are powerful, because they own those institutions.