Countdown Special Comment On Prop 8: What Is It To You?
By Nicole Belle Tuesday Nov 11, 2008 10:00am
Keith Olbermann asks those who voted for California's Proposition 8 how in the world it should affect them whether gay couples wish to legalize their relationship.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
On a related note, California Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed his disappointment in the passage of Proposition 8, and cheered protesters up and down the state by telling them the "fight isn't over" and said he hoped to that the California Supreme Court overturn Prop. 8.
Transcripts below the fold
Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.
This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.
If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
---
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...
Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.
But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.
"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:
"So I be written in the Book of Love;
"I do not care about that Book above.
"Erase my name, or write it as you will,
"So I be written in the Book of Love."
Login or Register to post comments.
...BAN DIVORCE!
/snark
I like Keith, no matter what the critics say. Yes he talks a lot. Yes he is preaching to the choir. And Yes, he may sometimes appear to be a left version of Bill-O.
But at least Keith cares about love and peace, and frankly I'd rather listen to someone rant and rave about positive, progressive statements than those wack-os who call for the end of Obama and the people who wish the best for this country through a more free, progressive society.
Yeah he may be ineffective to our society as a whole, but he helps remind people like us that we have reasons and we have rights for what we believe in. I don't agree with Keith always, but I know his heart is always in the right spot.
...as far as, perhaps, that they both clearly have taken a side and both rant and rave, but the big difference is that Billo is filthy, pathological liar. Even if Keith stretches a point now and again for comedic purposes, you'd (not you, per se; the proverbial "you") have to show me where he has acted in a similar manner to The Big Giant Head.
I am with ya on the rest.
Keith Olbermann can actually back up what he says.
O'Reilly can only back things up when its already an non-sequitor and then hopes that the brain-damaged right wingers in his audience will correlate a correct opinion on one subject matter to having a more valid opinion on a subject matter of which he either has nothing or very little to support an opinion.
O'Really's an idiot. A very simple, insecure, uninformed bully and idiot.
Period.
Keith is a "left version of Bill-O", of course. That's what he has always been. That's why he exists. That's why we needed him then and why we need him now.
If only he didn't get so sanctimonious and preachy. (He shouldn't yell).
What bullshit. Have you ever heard O'Reilly speak from his soul like that(except when he is angrily spewing hate)?
Bill O'Reilly will go to his grave, never being able to speak out for someone else with such passion.
You knock it out of the park again! Great Special Comment! Pass this one along!
Keith was moved last night, as were my wife an I.
The religious nuts sure know how to make enemies.
Mormons Consider Repeal of Prop. 8, in Exchange for Prop. 696969…
as long as one is oppressed we are all oppressed!
If one of us is oppressed then we all are!
some people don't know how to look at things, they only look the direction that takes them to where they think they want to be.
Some are just unable to think of anyone but themselves.
That is where the problem lies.
Better than his normal (and more vitriolic) comments.
Speaking the truth is now consider "vitriolic"?
Oh my, how we have devolved as a society.
conservatards want to ban gay marriage to keep gay promiscuity alive, so they can still get some on the side
Preferably with a page.
Actually that sounds like a good idea to me too:
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd312/slly...
Thanks, KO, for all you do.
This was one of your best special comments.
Imagine someone in the MSM making a plea for
LOVE. Love.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzJ2NKp23WU
KILL HIM!
(Apologies to The Simpsons) ;-)
... that Keith gets is for admitting he doesn't vote.
But otherwise, his comment is as insightful as ever.
he says that he believes it allows him to say that he is objective, in that he never has a horse in the race...i can respect that
... because the people who would criticize his 'objectivity' are idiots like Bill-O, Hannity, and their ilk. And I'm sure THEY vote.
Olbermann can hardly say that he refuses to vote in order to remain "objective," and so he won't "have a horse in the race." His whole show is one long editorial on the events of the day. And then at the end of the day, he refuses to stand up and be counted? Preposterous.
If he can remain objective while so obviously shedding neutrality on the air(which he does quite well), adding his vote to the official tally that actually makes public policy will hardly affect his broadcasts. He's just being irresponsible.
Imagine if John Amato and Nicole Belle were to announce to us all, after imploring us to vote in certain ways, that they didn't actually go out and vote against Prop. 8 or for Obama. You know, to keep C&L objective. I think we'd all be rightly outraged.
Keith can't vote on prop 8, so why make an issue out of it on this topic. NY state is smart enough not put issues before the voters. (assuming Keith lives in NY) Keith can only vote for politicians and in primaries he may have to choose between some dems.
Anyway, great special comment. He can't vote on it, but at least he's speaking out.
soundfreak,
True, the issue is not directly relevant to a California proposition, since Olbermann cannot vote in California. So, his abstention is indeed a tangent.
Nevertheless, I find it disturbing that someone so passionate about the direction the country should take decides not to vote so that he may better convey the news and his opinions to those who do vote.
It would've been better had he not had the "My voice is cracking cause I may cry" theatrics. I think he was just a little too dramatic and while his words were fantastic his actions came off just a bit campy!
Late,
QSE32
Is it beyond belief that, in this day, a vote to codify discrimination might bring a man to tears? A man who loves the freedom his country is supposed to represent which appears to be taking a big step backwards?
Maybe, just maybe, something so un-American could bring him to raw emotion.
It's sad how jadded some people have become.
Digi
Watch his eyes... they aren't glassy, he doesn't do the blink really fast thing to keep himself from spilling over, it was just theatrics, understandably so but just a little too much.
Late,
QSE32
it kinda sickens me how many people are commenting here on Obermann's technique but are neatly stepping around the content.
I'd like to read a little more on WHAT he said rather than HOW HE SAID IT. Or is this thread full of people who don't really know any gay people?
I think this kind of thing depresses the shit out of him. It sure does me. I despair of how shitty people are when they do stuff like this, toward people they don't even know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmQVWH9u8Xo
are drawn to the light. To the positive. Keith radiates the positive side of the equation whereas O'Reilly is a black hole of negativity. People are sick of the phobias and fears of the last 8 years. This will be an age of enlightenment if we help to open the doors and windows so the light can get in.
There will always be some people who are creatures of the night and are comfortable being stagnant and in the dark. But we outnumber them and we will overcome them by sheer force of will.
The dawn comes slowly.
Is THIS What Gay Marriage Threatens the Sanctity Of?
The majority of California while tolerant of homosexuality have time after time refused to change the meaning of the word marriage to include same sex couples. They already have Domestic Partnerships, which have all the rights, and responsibilities of a marriage.
seperate but equal, anyone?
precisely. that's all it amounts to. fuck people who think like that. equal rights are equal rights. if it isn't such a big deal then give them marriage.
Some are more equal than others
and it still isn't a marriage.
Both fountains are equally clean and their water is equally fresh. Why can't the blacks be happy with that?
S---. Go do some research, for crying out loud.
Domestic partnerships DO NOT offer 'all the rights and responsibilities of a marriage.' Go look it up. Think. Stop being a moral marionette.
it's the same as this one, but you use that one and I'll use this one. okay?
Oh and by the way, your comment is EXTREMELY bigoted. Please think before posting again...
Sorry you fail...DP is NOT same as a marriage...also the horsesh!t that you are "changing" the meaning of the word marriage is just that...horsesh!t. It has never been defined as being between only a man and a woman. That's garbage heteros came up with out of their collective asses.
anybody who has studied history and anthropology and social culture knows that marriage is one of the most adaptable institutions humanity has devised. It has been used in ways very much to our credit; and also in ways very much to our shame, depending on the "definitions" in use in the particular society being examined.
people who blather about "changing the meaning of marriage" dont know a fuckkn' thing about it and i'm sick and TIRED of hearing it.
TRY READING SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING BESIDE BRITNEY SPEARS before you post here, you ignorant conservative FREAKS.
that is the question
the courts determined that the equal protection clause superceeded prop 22
the question for the courts now, will be, can a simple majority pass a constitutional amendment that overrules the equal protection clause
if so...this is a slippery slope
Uncle Joe McCarthy:
Sadly, I fear it will be a difficult battle in the courts. And if they do decide that rescinding what have been deemed equal and fundamental rights by mere initiative and majority referendum is an appropriate way to alter the California Constitution, it will be a frightening slippery slope.
The Mormons might worry that a mere majority might decide to take away their rights. Even to freedom of religion. They are not exactly a majority either, nor a beloved minority. And yes, there are arguments to be made that such acts would not violate the U.S. Constitution. (Just ask Clarence Thomas!)
their "prophet" Joseph Smith had to run from town to town across New York State because the townspeople kept running him off. Nobody really knows why. Certainly his religious ideas were queer. If you dont know the story of the origins of the Book of Mormon, I suggest Googling it. WHEW!!! I don't know if anyone would say that the Mormons' religious ideas are as queer as the ways I like to use my penis, but from a statistical standpoint, they are certainly queer. And the Good People of the State of New York" didn't like having "that kind of thing around here." And that's how Smith's followers ended up in Utah--they were chased away everywhere they went for being, well, queer.
I personally think that Smith was bi-polar, and that that accounts for how the Book of Mormon came to be written. It would make sense with other things known about him--including his freaking people out and their chasing him away. It would make sense that his followers would take his mania as a sign of a prophet driven by the Word of the Lord (so to say); and his depressive side as the introspection of a holy man. I imagine that all those farmers in upstate New York and across the Midwest took his mania as a sign that they'd better lock up their daughters.
Anyway, despite what I regard as the patent absurdity of the tenets of the Latter Day Saints ( I mean, for christ's sake, they believe that when you die, if youre a good guy, you get your own planet for just YOU AND YOUR FAMILY--doesnt really account for inlaws, does it? but it kinda fits in with the cosmology of, say, average non-educated 19th Century people who can't read and don't get to cities much, dontcha think?--and that special underwear they're supposed to wear! COME ON!! Altho' it sure looked hot on Patrick Wilson in Angels in America) uh, despite all that, I think Mormons should continue to be allowed to be an unmolested part of the American social, historic, and cultural scene. I'm willing to let them have their dreadful buildings and dehumanizing religious ideas. So why can't they just return the favor and leave ME alone? After all, I dont want to marry one of their sons. Well, maybe if I knew one...they do turn out some pretty cute guys. And speaking of that, just think how hard all of this is for their gay children!
the words "domestic partnership" and "civil union" do not have the social, cultural or (where desired) religious/spiritual resonance that the word "marriage" does. In terms of a public declaration, those phrases rather reduce the thing to a bureaucratic nicety like designating someone "handicapped" or a "senior citizen," making them eligible for special fares on the bus and a 15% discount in certain restaurants.
Not really how you see your own marriage, is it?
Special Comments I've seen yet. Hoping to work with some Californians on the freeways against this...
Some new signs.
the religious right is all about hate and denial.
they will defend britney spears' right to marry a man for less than two days but will deny a couple who has been together for twenty-thirty years the same thing. it's disgusting.
How can people reject gay marriage? I know many heteros who are in sham marriages, or just staying in their marriage because they can't afford to get divorced. In a society where divorce is epidemic, who are we to judge?
The thing is, apparently there is a confusion between marriage and duck-hunting licenses. To judge from the anguished rants from the religious right, if gays are allowed to marry, then there will be fewer marriage licenses available for straights. How else could it possibly affect them? Of course, those seeming to believe most in heterosexual marriage also are the most expectant of the second coming of Christ. Perhaps it would put their hearts at ease if JC Himself presided over their renewed vows, and did the honors for their kids. Would that make it OK? Especially if JC Himself started doing gay marriage rites?
The ignorance of people is infinite. No matter how much you try and talk reason, they will not listen. Its not that they cannot, its that they WILL not. Exact quote from a comment on a note of mine on facebook:
"I disagree with "if it makes them happy, it should be a right," because that is a VERY bad argument to make. Something else could make someone else happy, and they wouldn't/shouldn't get a right too it."
It pissed me off, but someone beat me to the rebuttal before I could say anything:
"when has anything in the bible stopped religious groups from doing whatever the fuck they wanna do. even the koran teaches to unconditionally love brothers and sisters of the faith. it verifies itself that one with a select few statements can make the believers of those statements do whatever."
And also:
"Of the religions of the eastern world, Tibetan buddahism led by the Dalai Lama, states that homosexuality is not a natural biological occurance. He states to his followers that "Tibetans should not be homosexuals, but if it is what the heart desires, and it does not tresspass on others and their duties to Community, Tibet, and Enlightenment, who am i to say no?""
I'm with the more recent statements and with KO. Who is anyone to deny equal rights?
It is the oddest thing that in California...
.... the Republican Governor opposes the Proposition which conservatives all across this land are working to make permanent on a national level.
.... the turn-out for Obama may have worked to pass Prop. 8, mobilizing voters who supported change at the national level, and still feel some measure of discrimination is justified.
And at the national level, the President-Elect (and VP-elect) have indicated they are opposed to Gay Marriage as well, though they were also (quietly) opposed to Prop. 8.
I think us leftists have plenty to criticize and more importantly, analyze.
ahnold was against prop 8 because he holds the state constitution to be sacrosanct
he felt this prop makes a mockery of the state constitution and poses a dangerous precedent...he is right
obama and biden did not wish to make gay marriage an issue...i know that kerry did not have this feare in 2004, but there was no need to give the right another wedge issue
while the turnout of minority voters did assist prop 8 in passing...it was the despicable campaign run by the proponents that put it over the top
they lied....there wasnt one campaign commercial or flyer that had an iota of truth in it...as much as the obama campaign stamped out alot of the repug based fear tactics...the prop 8 people proved that fear still sells...especially when it comes to peoples personal beliefs and religion
With almost three weeks before Thanksgiving Day; We are blessed that Keith Olbermann is still around to speak the truth and rekindle American's conscience that has been lost in many of today HUMAN SPIRIT.
I will think of this most compassionate commentary as I thank GOD for the many overlooked gifts GOD has given to us. LOVE is supposed to be abundant that is deserving to ALL of US; even to those whose hearts are full of hate. May GOD bless them, for they have lost the true meaning of unconditional LOVE.
Thank YOU!, Mr. Olbermann
Keith lost me at "if you voted for this," when he started to call out people who voted for 8.
For whatever reason, Keith doesn't vote, and seems proud of it.
I have no idea why it matters who gets married. It just doesn't.
But I think that someone who has the right to vote, who doesn't vote, needs to get off his moral and ethical high horse in a discussions like this one.
Not voting out of laziness is a tragedy.
Not voting to make a point, or to take a stance is exercising freedom.
KO is not lazy, he's just the opposite; he's very engaged and has made his career out of political analysis and commentary. Me thinks he falls into category two then.
Besides, he's in NY isn't he? So he didn't have a chance to vote on Prop. 8 either way.
Digi
His stance/point about journalistic objectivity is senseless. Since when have we not known where he stands on issues? Voting is private. If he could maintain objectivity on his own, how he votes wouldn't matter.
Sorry, I don't understand not voting to make a point...
C'mon, use your noggin here!
It isn't a matter of privacy, it is a matter of action. Keith makes the choice not to vote because by not voting he can remain objective and not have a distracting vote stand between him and his job of objective journalism. Whether we the people know who he voted for is not the question. It is the fact that we know he DID NOT vote therefore does not have a personal stake in the election.
Make sense yet?
No.
We ALL have a personal stake in each election, even if we don't vote. Even Keith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efKguI0NFek&fe...
;o}
I saw "if you voted for this" as being directed at the people of California, not saying "I didn't vote at all"-and yeah, unless he's registered to vote in California, whether or not he actually voted is irrelevant to Prop 8.
Some people online can really over think everything.
He has stated he doesn't vote.
Not over-thinking - it's a simple concept that really bothers me despite his explanation of why - (He wants to remain an objective journalist, and can't be seen as such if he is distracted by considering his vote.)
I've said this many times, but it's once again appropriate.
These anti-gay fanatics need to go ahead and blow a guy and get it out of their systems.
Seriously, why deny the pursuit of happiness?
- Some old codger named Leviticus wrote that homosexuality is abomination. (Of course, Leviticus also talks about not associating with one's wife while she's menstruating, and other fun tidbits.)
- God clearly intended Tab P to fit into Slot V only for the purposes of procreation. God wants us to be happy, but not happy like that, even though the physiological and emotional responses attendant to sexual activity MUST be a part of His Design.
and its why i despise people like mahr
you dont want to believe in god or religion...fine
do not mock those that do
mock those that wish to take their religion and cram it down your throat
Which is exactly what happened here.
Uncle Joe McCarthy:
Nothing should single religion out as so special that it is beyond mockery. It should be discussed, debated and mocked like any other subject.
And no, doing so is not what causes the kind of backlash that passes Prop. 8. Hardly. People have used religion to discriminate since religion was embraced by our species. Indeed, not calling out the religious on what they so often do and say is what lets discrimination like Prop. 8 pass.
As I always make clear, I respect religious people. And I respect their equal rights, and will fight to the death for their rights to practice their religions freely.
But I do not respect the religious beliefs themselves, and I do not have to shut up about that.
When I was growing up, my mother used to shake her head and tell us how Catholic schools used to teach apologetics - how to argue/defend the faith as a necessary part of a healthy church.
Apparently, this has come to mean 'STFU! Bible says so! Nyah!' for the religious right.
Faith should inform one's thinking, not replace it.
if what they do doesnt impose on you, why do you choose to mock the practices?
if it does (as the bush administration and others have attempted to do) mock away
do you think its absurd that observant jews choose to refrain from any work on their sabbath...and this includes turning on and off lights, cooking food, etc? fine...but it isnt something that should be mocked
however, when christians or others decide that only they can determine when life begins, and therefore have the right to impose this view on others...mock the fuck away
what you are saying is that you dont understand the belief system, therefore you can mock it...i disagree
Uncle Joe McCarthy:
I don't mock only what I see as an imposition on me. I consider faith and religion to be societal ills in general. I don't seek to outlaw them, but I do speak out against them, sometimes seriously, and sometimes satirically.
I also think it's a bad idea to make such topics off limits for debate and mockery. Doing so only gives cover to those who do want to impose their religions on everyone else. After all, their faith, which they are not allowed to question, commands them to impose it on everyone else. That inability to question, and faith itself is a problem. To implore us only to mock the imposition, and not the faith itself gives cover to the idea that faith is good, even when faith commands the imposition.
Sure it is. I was raised Jewish. And all of those traditions were passed down to me. I do think they're absurd. I'm sure there are people who think the way I live is absurd. They can mock away, for I am not insecure about my life.
I'm not saying that at all. I study the belief systems, and gain a pretty good understanding of them. And I was raised in one of them myself.
I mock what I think is absurd and harmful.
"Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed his disappointment in the passage of Proposition 8"
Yet, he endorsed Lumpy Grumpy for Pres... makes no sense.
I started to well up with tears which passed about halfway into his special comment. I have spent so many weeks/months asking myself "what is it about us gays that terrifies everyone so much? what is it I do that is so gawd-awful and scary that a constitutional amendment was necessary?"
After seeing this comment, I have stopped asking those questions and will be joining the protests planned for this Saturday. Please go to www.jointheimpact.com to see if you have one planned in your town this Saturday no matter where you are in the U.S.
simple...because they arent comfortable with their own level of belief
I thought this was one of the best special comments to date and put perspective to this issue better then I've ever heard it done.
Admitting that he has no gay friends or relatives or gay stories yet still finds this appalling says a lot.
I gather he became a hero to that community overnight!
If his cracking voice was theatrics it worked on me because I really felt it.
Really. I mean ... why the fukk do they care.
I know the answer having been one of them but this sure must have made whoever may be watching ask themselves that question.
In my ass-backwards state of Florida we passed Amendment 2, which officially outlaws gay marriage. But, in all of our sick, twisted zeal to stick it to the gays we also completely screwed over ALL unmarried people by denying basic rights such as power of attorney and visitation to all unmarried couples. I wonder how long it will take before the younger, unwed, knee-jerking idiots who didn't bother to give a thought deeper than "gays = icky" realize they just voted their own rights away as well? Probably never.
Way to go Florida!
The only reason I even continue to live here is because this state looks so damned good in blue on the electoral map and I feel obligated to stay here and try to keep it that way.
*sigh*
It's also America's wang.
That would probably go a long way to explain the outright hatred in this state: A bunch of repressed, self-hating gays living in America's wang.
Pillow Pants?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcNUx0-XEfw
Pillow Pants:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX01Lna0OI8
i think it was minnesota that attempted to pass a similar law
then elderly unmarried couples came out of the woodwork and explained how such a law would send them into the streets totally impovershed
the law was voted down by a wide margin
I wish they'd ban "my marriage rights" then my girlfriend will stop pressuring me!!!
Just kidding
To relieve the pressure, tell her you wanna be on top.
I can't stand that "gays are trying to impose their definition of marriage" line. people are free to believe what they want in this country. you can't impose a definition on other people. if one doesn't believe that gays are truly married in gods eyes, then they are still free to believe so. but to restrict peoples rights, now THAT is certainly an imposition.
to people who oppose gay marriage: If gays are allowed to marry, MY marriage won't fail. Will yours? And if so, then you have other issues that you need to deal with.
I wish I could stop thinking pompouz azz when I hear his voice even when he is making good points.
Figure this out for yourself; is he ever self-agrandizing when he speaks? No. He speaks the way that he does to get impact. As do all people who work in the communications arts, don't they?
But...but... Keith, The great and powerful magical being has said it is a sin to lie(fuck) with another man or animal, "it is written" in his holy word. We are only trying to save you from hell and being damned. Is the "hell on earth" price you pay, because of our ignorance,discrimination and hate, not worth it in the end?
I don't profess to know what(if anything) is after death, I do know that waving your hands in the air, with closed eyes and begging a magical being not to do anything bad to you is no way to live your life and most of all does not give you exclusive license to push your so called "intelligent designs" on others. You, the "magical being" followers are using terrorism and hate, along with lies and violence to spread your "enlightenment". Spare me, just mind your own fucking affairs and hallucinate somewhere else. The minions of the magical being have killed more people than smallpox, yet we have managed to rub out smallpox(for the most part) in the world. Ignorance is expensive, so is blood. Please magical being, don't hurt me for writing this, it was those evil gays getting married that made me do it.-CEO,citizens,eyes,open. ps, I have a question* when the magical being said "let their be light", who was it talking to?, who wrote it down and what with? this just preys on our minds.
Tell the Mormon Church that they cannot push their beliefs on others and in other states with an expensive ad campaign filled with lies.
Boycott all Mormon run businesses.
I have set up a simple website to list some of the larger Mormon run businesses. Please visit it and spread the word. www.boycottmormonbusiness.com
former 49er qb steve young and his wife gave to the no on 8 campaign
however, former sf giant and current fucking bum, jeff kent, the wannabe texas cowboy from belle california...gave to the yes on 8 campaign
boycott jeff kent
when he takes the field next season, pelt him with eggs...i hate that smarmy racist and biggoted fucker
Applying pressure on the Mormon church, via their purses, may make them think twice before messing with other people's civil rights.
Let's not use the exception to excuse the rule, OK?
Its like when Puff the Magic Plumber agreed with some random goit who said that electing Obama would mean the destruction of the Israeli nation. Now, I dont favour BAD things to happen to people (bad things as in destruction, although Vai Sikahema's beating the crap out of that baseball player made me laugh, but mostly because im from Philly), but it does beg the question...why would an average run-of-the-mill 'Joe Sixpack' CARE (unless he was Jewish)?!
But what really drives me friggin bonkers (yes, i know i sound british, but ive just been watching game reviews by Yahtzee on TheEscapist.com) are the people who say 'We need universal health care, a responsible end to the war, and we need to curb these massive stockholder ripoffs giving 7-8 figure severance packages to CEOs who got fired because they did a lousy job...but theres no way im voting for Obama because hes black'....
you cant punch these people hard enough, not that i would discourage the effort.
DISCLAIMER: dont actually punch these people. yes i realize that some jackass could go on the news and say 'somebody online was speaking irrationally', but ive already said and theres nothing i can do about it now...except for press the 'delete' button, which im not going to do.
LET THE HEALING BEGIN!
...um... unless yer gay *cough*...
PRAISE UNITY!
Keith was incorrect when he stated that the country redefined marriage, thus allowing blacks to marry whites. What the Supreme Court decided in Loving v Virginia, was that anti-miscegenation laws, prohibiting the mixing of the races, were unconstitutional. The legal definition of marriage was never adjudicated.
I too wonder, "what does it matter to you?" when I hear people so supportive of Prop. 8. However, that said, I wish someone had made it illegal for ME to marry.
Religion is the root of the MOST evil and the foudation of self induced learned stupidity.
They have the patent on not only stupidity but psychotic delusion as well. That which does not retain the burden of proof is putty in the hands of morons. Nice (albeit, dramatic) comment from KO. I assume that this vote again will be overturned as unconstitutional. I hope so, this is the second time my "gay marriage" has been annulled. How many people do you know that have married the same other person 3 times?! Their god can suck my ass.
As much as Olbermann irritates me at times, I applaud him for sticking his neck out on this.
I thought he spread the emo on a bit too thick in spots, but it was quite a good editorial nonetheless. Go Keith!
Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed his disappointment in the passage of Proposition 8,
See? There are some things to love about the Governator, after all.
Keith never disappoints but I think this was his finest moment.
He articulated this beautifully! Thank you Keith!
First of all KO or anyone else should not be asked if they voted. That is no ones business. He was asked the question sometime in the past and gave an answer. He could have lied and said yes but he didn't. I could say the same to everyone out there that if they did not serve their country in the armed forces that you are not patriotic. I served. But I know that is a ridiculous statement. But it would be considered a valid point by some. So get over it.
http://www.kpsplocal2.com/global/video/flash/...
My marriage is not a statistical gamble. Lasting marriage is a matter of character, not mathematics. 27 years and counting.
But the question was asked: What is it to me? It might be stated more specifically as "What difference does Proposition 8 make to me (or my friends or anyone else)?"
The question deserves to be answered. It is two things.
1) It is the problem of additional centralization, with the definition of marriage moving from common law to judicial fiat. For anyone who does not appreacite that thrend, the Prop 8 was, in principle, a good thing.
2) It is familial protection. In Mass. two things happened.
(a) The Parkers were denied by the school & courts the power to affect their children's moral education when the school system contradicted their wishes. The reason form the court was that, if it is legal, then it is not controversial. And so sexual education was taken completely away from parental involvement.
(b) The situaiton in Mass. also restricted religious liberty by restricting accomodation of relgious beliefs wrt foster care participation by the RC church. The state chose not to accommodate the RC church; could have, but didn't.
There are both legal and moral matters involved. It is not about all the feeling that this post emphasizes.
The issue here is NOT gay marriage - it's political power of Churches and Religious organizations. The Prop8 is just a test and proving ground.
The Mormon Church, an out of state (not in CA) Utah based political power, donated $20,000,000.00+ to Yes on 8. Obviously they are a PAC (political action committee). Last time I checked, that means they are no longer eligible for being a tax-exempt entity.
1) Using their financial power, untaxed, they managed to influence the legal and political structure of the State of California. For that alone - they must be immediately stripped of their tax exempt status.
2) POWER - political power - do we want to allow Religions to create, influence, peddle their mess to us? I thought the The Constitution of the United State of America, something my relatives have defended for 5 generations, mandates separation of church and state. WTF - this influence peddling violates the constitution.
Watch out people - we, the free, have just lost more freedom.
Now that they have been allowed to
1) act as a tax exempt PAC
2) violate the Constitution
there will be more and more Churches and Religious Empires getting into the act.
Nice. That's an amazing point,... why isn't someone taxing the Mormons today?
Neither the IRS rules nor the Constitution prohibit it.
It's a free country -- until speech is taxed.
The First Amendment only restricts the Government.
501(c)(3) rules are here:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/artic...
Issue interaction is allowed.
CRB - thanks for the link
Now I have read page 5 of
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
"■
they must not devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation,"
and
"A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative
body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation."
"limit is generally
based upon the size of the organization and may not exceed $1,000,000."
I'd say 20million bucks is PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL.
I'd say the ACLU or a private lawyer with time on his/her hands should take them to court.
Time for Boston Legal to do an episode too, and out this fake religion for what it is.
Also, I'm sure there are "good" Mormons out there that oppose what their Church did - I'm waiting for them to stand up.
-DM
mormonsstoleourrights.com
that Olbermann doesn't vote, I've moved on. I don't care if he speaks for me or not, he's not even a part of the electoral process. Maybe someone can rationalize it for me and I'll see if differently, but for now I don't give a damn about him.
So, let me get this straight, just because he's made a personal decision not to vote (if that's true) suddenly everything he says has no meaning? Or impact? That's just plain old silly. After all, his job isn't to be a part of the voting process; his job is to be a journalist. Tons of people in this country dont vote either. If someone you personally knew didnt vote, a friend or family member, would you now not give a damn about them either simply for that reason?
MN
KO does occasionally get on my nerves, but he was dead-on here. Bravo. I don't know if I'll be attending any of the Prop 8 protests out here in CA, but I certainly stand with them in spirit. Especially the glitter-throwing gay taliban.
Whether homosexual or heterosexual, the passage of 8 is a strike against all of us who truly love the country and what it is supposed to represent. no real separation of church and state. quote the bible. self righteousness all of these are the tools of the throwbacks. But I thank God for people like KO who are still willing to put it on the line. and yes, thank you arnie for standing up for what's right. geez, I wish Maria could slap some sense into you and have you join the other side. I really think that deep within you have the makings of a strong liberal, other than your concrete stand against immigration. To me that's kind of like Andrew, gay andrew, still supporting the Republican Party and its stand against gays. Can't understand either one of you.
{Deleted, Flamebaiting.What's wrong with equal rights for everyone? SiteMonitor}
There is no minimum age to get married in Ca. Domestic partners must be 18. Wouldn't like to see 16 year old boy married to 27 year old man. Just my thought
What a drama queen.
Login or Register to post comments.