Prosecute the torture.

November 10, 2008

Keith Olbermann on California's Prop 8


The poetry is from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:
So I be written in the Book of Love,
I have no care about that book above;
Erase my name, or write it, as you please--
So I be written in the Book of Love.
Here's the text.

And Keith asks:
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.
I just got married and I'm very happy. Why do I get that opportunity when so many others can't?

It's only fair that they should.

20 comments:

Heir to the Throne said...

I just got married and I'm very happy. Why do I get that opportunity when so many others can't?
They can do the same. They have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just like you did.
I love the "Why can two people who love each other get married" argument.
Unless the people are related, underage or more than two.

Dave said...

They have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just like you did.

Let's turn your stupid strawman argument around. What if the only legal marriage YOU could have would be to another man even though you were in a long loving relationship with a woman? Would you marry another guy just because that was your only legal option?

I love the "Why can two people who love each other get married" argument.
Unless the people are related, underage or more than two.


It's amazing how quickly the wingnuts drag out the old pedophile strawman (or the polygamy strawman, or the bestiality strawman) every time the subject of same-sex marriage comes up. What we're talking about here is denying the right of two consenting adults to enter into a legally recognized relationship (popularly known as "marriage").

That's what this is about. Not "special rights" (yet another wingnut strawman). Proposition H8 was specifically about legally denying a basic human right to law-abiding citizens. It is legally consigning lesbians and gay men to second-class citizenship.

There are no rational legal arguments against same-sex marriage. All the arguments are based on narrow-minded religious fundamentalism (which are legally invalid since the First Amendment explicitly forbids the state from establishing religion), fear, and bigotry.

I have yet to read or hear a valid argument as to why "the institution of marriage is threatened" by same-sex marriage. No heterosexual marriage is anyway threatened or diminished by same-sex marriage. When Ellen Degeneres married Portia DeRossi and George Takei married Brad Altman, it did not in any way diminish what my wife and I have.

John K. said...

John K: Now isn't this interesting. They had a vote. Both sides made their case. The left lost. Does the vote matter. Heck no, left wingers lost. When left wing kooks lose votes they just riot and find a sympathetic judge. I have been telling you all along, recognize the fact that you are hypocrites and move along.

John K. said...

John K: This Prop 8 has nothing to do with marriage in any form. It is an attempt to outlaw religion. If the tenets of your religion preach that marriage is only between a man and a woman then according to this prop you are preaching hate and could be arrested and your church shut down. I am certain there is something in the Constitution about freedom of religion. Certain of it. Besides, if Olbermouth perfers gay sex what do I care. But he really seems to care that I don't. Left wingers you are really turning into NAZIS.

John K. said...

John K: Left wingers you lost this election. LOL LOL LMAO YOU LOST.

EdHeath said...

I hadn't followed this one. I have no dog in this hunt (I can’t think of a single relative who is gay), except that where someone's rights are diminished anywhere in the US, then we are all at risk.

As I recall, this is mostly an insurance question. Do the health insurance companies have an obligation to cover the partner of a gay person? Certainly not if they are not legally linked. I'll bet this was even more important to the insurance companies when AID’s was more prevalent and less treatable. I think that Sarah Palin/Joe Biden’s suggestion of a domestic partnership bill on a national level is a good initial step. Then the states can add gay marriage or not as they are comfortable.

John K - Nathan Sproul = Republican vote supression.

Heir to the Throne said...

What if the only legal marriage YOU could have would be to another man even though you were in a long loving relationship with a woman?
THIS IS SPARTA!!!1!!!
I would work towards getting civil unions/straight marriages through the legislature and changing peoples opinion.

Instead of having a court dictate it.
Like I am trying to do right now with polygamy.

two consenting adults of the opposite sex.
So if a father and daughter want to get married and are over 18?
Couple in love persecuted [Darleen Click]

They are consenting adults (39 and 61) who can’t understand why people won’t just leave them alone to enjoy their life as a normal family. They are even barred from marriage due to teh hypocrisy!!1!1!

When will we stop this hating? This prudish bigotry?

Since the left is removing the opposite sex part for two people who love each other.
Why not change the number or the rest of the definition for two or more people who love each other?

Dave said...

I would work towards getting civil unions/straight marriages through the legislature and changing peoples opinion.

Instead of having a court dictate it.


Get your facts straight. The California Supreme Court didn't "dictate it", it struck down an existing gay marriage ban because the law discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. In other words, it struck down a law it found unconstitutional, something a state Supreme Court is supposed to do.

two consenting adults of the opposite sex.
So if a father and daughter want to get married and are over 18?


Sorry but that is not only a strawman argument, it's typical wingnut bullshit argument by anecdote. Using the example of a couple of Australian nutcases has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the rights of an entire group of law-abiding citizens can be revoked by what de Tocqueville accurately called the tyranny of the majority.

John K. said...

John K: This prop 8 has nothing to do with the definition of marriage. It is the left forcing their religion down the throats of everyone else. You lost the vote. What part of that don't you understand.

John K. said...

John K: Did that loon Ed Heath say vote suppression? LOL LOL The same voting system that gave Calif to Hussein Obama had vote supression on this one issue. LOL LOL LMAO You are one funny dude Ed. LOL

John K. said...

John K: Olbermouth didn't vote. LOL LOL LMAO He has no say in anything. Just another loud mouthed loon.

EdHeath said...

"The same voting system that gave Calif to Hussein Obama had vote supression on this one issue."

No John, what I was saying is that Nathan Sproul is a Republican operative who tore Democratic voter registration forms up in 2004, and worked on this election as well. This is a reference (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aSftN8jhfqTo&refer=home).

Prove your statement, about vote suppression.

Meanwhile, are you actually saying that the California Proposition that defines marriage as between a man and a woman is a liberal attempt to destroy religion?

Dave said...

An update in response to this line:

I would work towards getting civil unions/straight marriages through the legislature and changing peoples opinion.

Scott Lemieux over at Lawyers, Guns, & Money points out that the statute banning same sex marriage which was overturned by the courts had, under California law, the same affect as a constitutional amendment and could not be amended by the Legislature. The only way the statute could be overturned was through the courts.

Dumb Anguish said...

You know what I propose? A constitutional amendment that says once you get divorced, you can never be allowed to marry again…ever. Sounds kind of silly, huh? But I could frame it the same way, how we need to protect the sanctity of marriage. And these creepy people with the divorces are making a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage. And how they are teaching their children that marriage is some willy-nilly thing you do at the drop of a hat…And something that you turn around and bring to an end when you get the wandering eye. We can’t have that kind of reckless deviant behavior in a God-fearing country!!

These are scary precedents. How long will it be before they decide they don’t like the fact that a same-sex couple is living together in their neighborhood? They could frame their arguments in the same manner. How it is ruining families and so forth. How long will it be before they decide to pass a law that says they can’t live within 1000 feet of a school? Or heterosexual neighborhoods? They will not be happy with their victory of banning same sex marriage. They will not leave it at that. If you believe they will, you’re crazy.

Matt H said...

Keith is wrong on this one.

Leslie said...

John K: you clearly missed the whole point of the editorial. Doesn't surprise me, most religious freaks aren't that bright. Prop 8 should have NEVER been on the ballot. period. Shame on all who voted yes on it. That's all I will say on that.

Brian said...

Even though I never watch MSNBC, they have a fairly good news website. I normally do not view any of Keith Olbermann's videos but I decided to tonight because of the national interest in the California Prop. 8 case. I can officially say, I am cured of ever watching Mr. Olbermann again. How is this guy on TV as a supposed "serious" news anchor? Hey Keith: It's time to go back to sports. Your try at news is not working.

Leslie said...

And especially shame on all the black people who voted yes on Prop 8, that is completely apalling and disgraceful. I can say that, i'm black, but anyone could say that and i would not be offended, black people voting to revoke rights of another group - that's just disgraceful.

Heir to the Throne said...

Opie and Anthony Savage Keith Olbermann! (Thursday Recappers Thread)
Enjoy the hetronormative bashing of Olbermann.

Shartorius said...

I'm a Republican. I'm not gay, and I have been happily married to the greatest woman in the world for ten years. So having set my own "parameters", here's my take.

It seems tragic to me that in this country...in this age...when we have so many more pressing things at hand, we're wrapped up in things like who "other people" are allowed to marry. Who "other people" are allowed to have sex with. What "other people" do within the hallowed privacy of their own homes.

For those of you who supported Prop 8: Say what you want. Tell the world that homosexuality is an abomination against God. Go so far as to point to various passages in the Old and New Testament; the Koran; whatever.

But do not--under any circumstances--have the audacity in this country...in this age...to respond to a gay person who asks, "Why can't I marry the person I love?" by slapping a copy of YOUR Bible in their hands and say, "Because God says so."

For those who are under the mistaken idea that votes count in an issue such as this, consider: As late as the mid-sixties, black people were banned from public schools that taught white kids. They were legally prohibited from using the same restrooms, and were obliged to surrender seats on a public bus to white people.

Does anyone in this forum believe for a second that the "enlightened" white populace of Mississippi would have hesitated, through a popular vote, to keep those disgusting laws on the books had the Supreme court--and President Kennedy--intervened?

Keith Olbermann is a Democrat and I don't agree with many of his political "Special Comments", but he nailed this one. His impassioned argument centers around a phrase I absolutely support: "What's it to you?" I believe in my heart one of the biggest problems with this great country is that we spend far too much time; too much money; too many resources in general worrying about what "other people" do.

My marriage to my wife wouldn't be any less sacred if men married men and woman married women. I don't look at my successful, happy marriage and take comfort that others can't based on their sex. If anything, I think it tragic and beyond reason that we seek to honor marriage by creating laws to prevent other human beings in love.