Keith Olberman destroys you Prop 8-supporting
- Thread starter caff
- Start date
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
msnbc.com
updated 8:13 p.m. CT, Mon., Nov. 10, 2008
Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.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."
Anchor, 'Countdown'
msnbc.com
updated 8:13 p.m. CT, Mon., Nov. 10, 2008
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."
LOL
Maybe they don't like gay people? Maybe the don't want to be forced into changing their defintion of marriage? Who knows, why do you care?
Since there is no inherent law of the land that governs this planet indefinitely, we live in a place where the majority of people get to decide what the laws are (in simple terms).
The majority of people in this situation did not want gay marriage. Get over it. Maybe they are homophobic/racist/oppressive/ but none of that matters.
Who made you the judge of what are human rights, and what are not, and what is bigotry and what is not? Should you, Keith Olberman, dictate what is right and wrong for all of us, or can we decide for ourselves?
You have every right to campaign against prop-8 and the mentality behind it, but it does not make any logical sense to question why this matters to supporters when it obviously matters equally to opponents.
Maybe they don't like gay people? Maybe the don't want to be forced into changing their defintion of marriage? Who knows, why do you care?
Since there is no inherent law of the land that governs this planet indefinitely, we live in a place where the majority of people get to decide what the laws are (in simple terms).
The majority of people in this situation did not want gay marriage. Get over it. Maybe they are homophobic/racist/oppressive/ but none of that matters.
Who made you the judge of what are human rights, and what are not, and what is bigotry and what is not? Should you, Keith Olberman, dictate what is right and wrong for all of us, or can we decide for ourselves?
You have every right to campaign against prop-8 and the mentality behind it, but it does not make any logical sense to question why this matters to supporters when it obviously matters equally to opponents.
Im not even for gay marriage, but this is true....not only that, but not all people get married because they are in love...people get married for several reasons, which Im sure wasnt in the initial idea of marriage...
I love how people trick off their marriage, cheat on their wives/husband, beat thier spouse, etc...but when it comes to gay marriage, its "no, we want protect the sanctity of marriage"...Like they TRULY give a f--k about how special marriage is...Like I said im not necessarily FOR gay marriages, but I do see the major holes in this issue...
I love how people trick off their marriage, cheat on their wives/husband, beat thier spouse, etc...but when it comes to gay marriage, its "no, we want protect the sanctity of marriage"...Like they TRULY give a f--k about how special marriage is...Like I said im not necessarily FOR gay marriages, but I do see the major holes in this issue...
People say "marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman"..most people got that from spriritual beliefs, which probably doesnt agree with divorce either but people get divorced up the ying yang...the fact is, people SHOULD never give their spiritual beliefs as reason to be against something like this.....because chances are while that person is saying "God said marraige is between a male and female", they are also out getting drunk and having sex outside of marriage(which im sure is not in compliance with their beliefs)...religious people pick and choose what parts of their religious beliefs they will follow depending on their own benefits and desires....kind of selfish IMO..
just like there might be a husband cheating on his wife or a wife cheating on her husband
there might also be people having homosexual or lesbian relationships outside of their marriage.
but what does that have to do with anything?? :ermm:
if a husband cheats on his wife, it's ok???? everybody should do it too?
Mr nice guy said it the best, people voted no, because they aren't ready to accept those lifestyles Gays want to "make normal", the same way most religions cant force anybody to abstinence or joining their religion
Keith Olbermann is no different than a cracked out priest, but i guess he does it for the publicity
there might also be people having homosexual or lesbian relationships outside of their marriage.
but what does that have to do with anything?? :ermm:
if a husband cheats on his wife, it's ok???? everybody should do it too?
Mr nice guy said it the best, people voted no, because they aren't ready to accept those lifestyles Gays want to "make normal", the same way most religions cant force anybody to abstinence or joining their religion
Keith Olbermann is no different than a cracked out priest, but i guess he does it for the publicity
I dont know what ur talking about..that is not what I am saying..I said its one thing to not support gay marriages because you arent feeling two niggas being together, but its another to not support because your religious beliefs say's its not ok, especially when you are clearly not truly following your religious beliefs anyway....only when its convenient for you....
Thats what I've been saying.
The funny thing is- All I've been seeing on the Siccness the past 5 months or so, were people bitching about people possibly not voting for Obama because he's black, then they go and vote for this.. Ahh well.. Nothing you can do about it now I guess.. Until it comes up again.. Because it will.
The funny thing is- All I've been seeing on the Siccness the past 5 months or so, were people bitching about people possibly not voting for Obama because he's black, then they go and vote for this.. Ahh well.. Nothing you can do about it now I guess.. Until it comes up again.. Because it will.
Prop 8 lost because of its messaging, especially in the black community. When it ran the commercials about the gays being discriminated like blacks, it didnt fall well, blacks believe they were truly discriminated against compared to gay people.
They also lost big because they failed to counter attack the ads claiming it would harm children, as soon as it became that, then it became even more dangerous. 2 of the campaigns people were fired, and 4 republican men were brought it, and they failed as well.
I talked to the campaign managers of No on Prop 8 last week at a meeting we had, and you can tell they felt like shit, it was kinda sad.
They also lost big because they failed to counter attack the ads claiming it would harm children, as soon as it became that, then it became even more dangerous. 2 of the campaigns people were fired, and 4 republican men were brought it, and they failed as well.
I talked to the campaign managers of No on Prop 8 last week at a meeting we had, and you can tell they felt like shit, it was kinda sad.