cvuecphqpqy.jpg

I happened to see this last night on mute with closed captioning subtitles and knew that it was great. It’s even better with sound.

(via FourFour)

I think there’s something to take heart in about this beyond the simple fact that it’s a nice, and CORRECT sentiment well-expressed. The fact of the matter is that this moment seems extraordinary because of the rarity with which mainstream media figures and/or journalists come out publicly in favor of gay rights. BUT, at the same time, because a mainstream media figure is willing to come out publicly in favor of gay rights is a signal, however subtle, and however slow acting, of the tonal shift of the entire issue. As my friend Scott was always fond of saying, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle, and I think that’s true. Unless America slides into a nightmare totalitarian state, the march of progress always continues forward, at least in the larger sense. That doesn’t mean that there is never any backsteppipng or sliding, or that the march isn’t sometimes painfully slow, but tolerance spreads. We can argue about how it’s insane that even in 2008 there was still concern over whether a black man could be elected president, and that’s a fair argument to have, but at the same time, a black man was elected president, so things are at least heading in the right direction. I guess my point is just that the passage of Prop 8 was a sad reminder of the work that’s still to be done in this country, but at the same time, Keith Olbermann’s urgency on national television in favor of fundamental equality in a fight in which he has no personal stake is a reminder that the work does continue. We’re doing it.

Comments (52)
  1. I know you’re the reigning King of Farts and all, but I really love it when you go all seriousbusinessgum.com on us. Thank you for putting into words the way I felt about this video because I got stuck on “guh” and couldn’t move forward from there.

  2. well said. i was all choked up when i saw it. keith o is the best.

  3. AJ  |   Posted on Nov 11th, 2008 +2

    I watched this video this morning and hoped that you guys would cover it. Keith’s eloquence is always amazing to watch, but even better when it’s clear how passionate he is about the subject.

  4. amanda  |   Posted on Nov 11th, 2008 +1

    yes! and sad horribleness of prop 8 (and amendment 2 – that passed in my home state, and whatever the arizona one was called) aside, I take great comfort that as a cynical right wing strategy – it was a resounding failure. the game isn’t won, but it’s definitely changing.

    • shayne  |   Posted on Nov 11th, 2008 +3

      unfortunately, it was a right wing strategy. race issues aside, the people who put these props on ballots knew that black voters would be out in record numbers, and they also knew that a majority of black voters were against gay marriage. they exploited the situation for their own ends. sick, weird, and wrong.

  5. I love Keith. And thanks for talking about this, Gabe. You’re right; we are doing this, no matter how slowly.

  6. I enjoyed the clip also. I wasn’t blown away by the speech or the fact of someone standing up in the media. The Countdown is notoriously liberal and he is often diametrically opposed to key Republican views.

    These propositions in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, and California didn’t pass by landslides. Well, technically they did and FL is just embarrassing, but it isn’t like we’re alone wanting equality. 9.5 million people voted not to deny rights to gays. That is very optimistic, and like you said, in the direction of social progress.

    The reasoning is easy enough understood as Keith deftly avoids directly attacking it: it is about religion.

    These ballot measures were even solemnly categorized on CNN election night as a generational issue. And, suggested by one of the 20 analysts, that with the younger generations voting more, homosexual discrimination would diminish.

    Obama didn’t extend himself on the issue to say it was a disgrace to deny homosexuals equality. He even officially stated that he did not support gay marriage, which means he would of voted to pass a ban on gay marriage.

    • Jason  |   Posted on Nov 11th, 2008 +2

      Actually, even though Obama did say he does not support gay marriage, he did say that he opposes Proposition 8 and other similar amendments. I live in California and we even received a pre-recorded phone call from Obama and also one from Schwarzeneggar asking us to “vote no on prop. 8.” So there’s that!

  7. I saw this last night and thought it was fantastic. A couple thoughts though for you Gabe:
    1) You mention in your post, “tolerance” and in general I agree. The one problem I see in our culture though, is that tolerance has been redefined. When people say someone in intolerant these days what they sometimes (obviously not always) mean is that that person doesn’t agree with them, therefore they are intolerant. I think that is a dangerous and fairly stupid definition. Tolerance is the ability to have completely differing opinions (morally, ethically, religiously, politically, ect) while still being able to view that person with complete respect and as a human being who has the freedom to make those choices.

    2) The problem with Prop 8 is that it is intolerant, not because it disagrees morally with Gay Marraige but because it lessens the humanity of homosexuals by saying basically, “Its all well and good that you are gay, but we as society legally think that you shouldn’t have the rights that all the rest of us do”. As a Christian in ministry who opposesed and continue to oppose Prop 8, I understand it is important for someone to use their worldview (in this case religion) and moral compass when voting. What is dangerous (and un-Biblical i my view) is to legally lessen the humanity of a group of people. In a society that has put sex on a pedastle and made it a cheap and sullied version of what it truly is, its ironic that many Christians have done the same thing, putting the sin of homosexuality near the top of the “worst” list whilst ignoring anger, the poor, the needy, and the simple command of Jesus to love. Do you know how many times Jesus talked about homosexuality? ZERO. And while I would be the first to point out how the genuine Church that I love has done amazing things and continues to, on this issue we have greatly erred. Prop 8 reduces people that need like anyone else to be loved, to be a part of a community that supports them, to be a part of the greater good, to be accepted as people, and it reduces them to an issue, an orientation, a political hot topic. Not only is that wrong, but yes, I’ll say it, it is totally un-Christlike.

    sorry to go on so long…

    • you are my favorite. I literally couldn’t agree more. As a Christian, it often sickens me how seriously men take their own law, while easily brushing off God’s.

      I know this topic isn’t a religious or spiritual one for most people, especially on this site, but i appreciate the discussion. I hope that everyone out there can understand that not all Christians hate homosexuals – just because we think they are sinning, doesn’t mean that they have to be dehumanized the way that they are. I sin every day, but I still have rights. If I had the authority, I would apologize for Christians everywhere in regards to this issue.

      • memoo  |   Posted on Nov 11th, 2008 -1

        i love that you are all nice and friendly and then say “just because we think they are sinning”

        See, that’s where the fundamentals of it are all effed up, when you realize that two consensual adults no matter what sex, performing intercourse is NOT a sin, then we can talk

        • i mean, you’re not going to convince me that its not a sin, nor anyone else who believes scripture. my point was, sinning doesn’t and SHOULDN’T deny rights. people are denied rights for breaking the law (man’s law), that is why people go to jail for murder. people don’t go to jail for being gay.

          i believe murder is a sin, but that has nothing to do with why i think a murderer should be denied rights.

          i don’t pretend to understand how homosexuality works – i have friends who are gay (yep, i am using that in my argument) and several of them are christians, and they find themselves constantly at odds with the church because of their lifestyle – it sucks. i try my best to be their friend and be a voice of acceptance in their life.

          i think it is unfair that gays are treated like this in the church when sinners literally fill the church – because EVERYONE on the earth is a sinner. i’m sorry if that sounds religious and archaic, but it is what I believe.

          that is why i am against legislation like prop 8. I don’t think anyone should be denied rights for being a sinner, because if that happened, no one would have any rights – and that literally doesn’t make sense.

    • shayne  |   Posted on Nov 11th, 2008 0

      amen. and amen.

  8. America has a new Awesome O (Oprah, Obama…) in Olbermann.

    “Tolerance” needs to be swapped with “acceptance.” The idea that I would be “tolerated” by someone because I like dudes is silly. One tolerates rashes and long lines, not a person who causes them no harm, threat, or damage by wanting equal rights.

  9. Why doesn’t Keith Olbermann get to be my boyfriend????

  10. Chris Packham  |   Posted on Nov 11th, 2008 0

    That’ll do, Church of Latter Day Saints. That’ll do.

  11. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

    • I was a journalism major in college, and we were taught that many journalists don’t vote because they attempt to remain non-partisan. Obviously, in our day of Fox News versus MSNBC, objective news is somewhat of a joke, and Olbermann isn’t being entirely objective in this clip. But my point was, the reason many journalists don’t vote isn’t because they don’t care, it’s because it’s common in the profession to abstain from elections.

  12. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

    • Marriage is a secular, legal relationship, too, Elliott, not just religious. That is why when people get divorced they go to court. So, the argument that this is only an imposition on the church and not about equal rights is patently ridiculous. The legalization of gay marriage means that states have to recognize the legal rights of those couples, not that bigoted churches must perform the ceremonies. As if gay people would want to get married there anyway. So, basically, no.

      And not to get really obvious or patronizing in my frustration over this, although it’s difficult not to be obvious and patronizing when the FAIR and CORRECT moral position, WITHOUT QUESTION, is so painfully clear, but it is weird how otherwise decent people who want to defend this type of legislated bigotry always bring up the legal equality of civil unions in such blatant Jim Crowe terminology. Separate but equal has plenty of historical precedent, none of it noble, generous, fair, or equal.

      • I’m not really arguing with anything you’re saying. I don’t want anyone to live in a world where they are treated differently, for anything other than personality. AND EVEN THEN.
        It just seems to me easy enough to get the states to recognize their rights, without calling it “marriage.” To break a civil union, must one not also go to court? I come from a land where gay marraige is legal so i don’t claim to know the intricacies of the issue, nor proposition 8. (from what i understand this proposition is more of an ANTI homosexuals as opposed to a PRO marraige, so i wouldn’t be supporting that.) But if we can create something entirely equal to that of marriage with the ONLY difference being a name, than i’m not entirely sure how that’s not a good option. Or is it an issue of symbolism? Because you can punch an asshole in the face and tell him to stop being a jerk, but while he may stop for awhile he’s still going to be a jerk.

        • Well, I guess the simplest way to put that question into perspective is to consider a law where heterosexual couples were allowed to get civil unions and all the rights that those entailed, but were barred from ‘marriage’. Even if “marriage” is simply a symbolic determination, and that could be debated, a lot, it is nevertheless a right extended to all heterosexual couples. If it were not a right we would not be able to craft legislation around it. So it’s simple equality. Everyone should be entitled to the exact same opportunities to build whatever life they want for themselves, legally, symbolically, and otherwise, and to deny someone that right is unjust. The end. Everything else is just nit-picking arguments about how best to skirt around being awful.

      • Oh also, segregation of people is entirely different from the segregating of terms.

        • Elliot, the “segregating of people” was based on the “segregating of institutions” (i.e., schools, public transportation). It didn’t mean you couldn’t go to a black guy’s house if you’re white. It was based around SEGREGATING INSTITUTIONS. Marriage, my friend is an INSTITUTION.

    • the evil genius of the marketing campaign for prop 8 was truly something to behold.

      by reframing prop 8 as a freedom of speech/religion isssue they gave millions of people a just-believable-enough excuse to vote in favor of something they would otherwise be (rightfully) ashamed of supporting. all these hollow claims of personal affection for gay people that simply MUST be set aside for the Greater Good are so blatantly rationalizations by people who hope you won’t judge them for being homophobes. sorry, closeted homophobes: doing the wrong thing is fucking dumb, even if it’s for the mildly less repulsive reason. this isn’t choosing not to vote for a poorly written environmental bill. this is taking away an already granted right from a group of people that you don’t even belong to. guess what! you’re a jerk!

      i don’t begrudge anyone their religious beliefs, even when they are completely repellent or hilarious to me, and i don’t think that anyone could realistically say that religion isn’t a very real, understandable basis for decision making. if your life is lived guided by your religious beliefs, then it makes sense to me that you would vote accordingly, and i think faith isn’t worth arguing with people about. but to try to pretend that this decision makes any kind of sense for a reason NOT prejudice- or faith-based is a fucking tough sell. sorry. i can’t/won’t argue with your silly, nonsensical religion because i understand that’s real to you, but i can totally argue with your non-religious, allegedly logical, actually completely hollow and hate-based reasons.

      to base your vote on a PROVABLY false premise (i.e. churches could be forced to perform marriages for gay couples or get sued for refusing; we’re messing with the sanctity of marriage; preaching against homosexuality will become hate speech) is the worst kind of responsibility shirking. the most minimal bit of critical thinking reminds you that any church is allowed to refuse to perform ceremonies for people not of their faith, including divorcees. anyone can say or do whatever weirdo, hate-mongering religious stuff they want to on their private property, like hold a KKK rally or vocally wish that gays would burn in hell forever with all the liberals and jews, and no one can stop them. THAT is what freedom of religion is about. do your thing, hate who you want, handle poisonous snakes and indulge in some good old fashioned glossolalia! the government won’t try to stop you. but hate people on public property, or ask for funding to support your hater-based religion, and the government says ‘nah, brah.’

      as gabe so astutely stated, marriage is not solely a religious ceremony. you can get married at city hall and never set foot in a church and you’ll be legally married, but the same can’t be said for getting married in your church and never sending in your paperwork to the state. if a church wants to take itself out of the gay marriage loop, there is no reason why it shouldn’t be allowed to do that. but prop 8 is forcing every secular agency to deny marriage to gay people, too, and forcing religious belief on the government and a whole state full of non-believers. that’s not freedom of religion, and that certainly does seem to cross the line when it comes to separation of church and state. so we’re not allowed to force churches to do stuff they don’t want to do but we should be totally fine with the church keeping us from being allowed to do what we want to do? um, what?

      if civil union is so awesome and separate but equal, why don’t we just get rid of marriage all together and just get those instead?
      it’s just as good, right?
      so get one yourself!
      no?
      oh, why not?
      because there is a special legitimizing-our-relationship-in-the-eye-of-society element to marriage that you feel would be lacking in your civil union?
      oh, really?
      huh.

      i would be totally fine with

      • You won’t see me in protest lines for either side. I’m just proposing the other side of the argument. I really hope you are just making a more general observation as opposed to directly accusing me, as I don’t have the SLIGHTEST idea about the marketing campaign of proposition 8 outside of the videos posted here.
        Also i’m not religious in the slightest, so it’s okay if you want to avoid an argument on that front. I wouldn’t have much to offer. It is definitly kind of annoying however how i am keep being accused of hate and the like, when i am just trying to understand the issue. (videogum comments is not exactly the forum for it, but whatever).
        You guys are not doing a very good job of selling me on how a civil union with all the same rights as marriage and the like, is any worse than marriage. All i am really getting is “But it’s NOT the same because people look at it differently.” which to me seems an equally hollow argument, considering that these people are not going to change their views on homosexual relationships just because the government has. I wouldn’t feel any more legitimized for being in a marriage than i would in a civil union (assuredly one that is completely equal, rather than the unequal ones currently floating around). To me at least, it seems people are getting upset about marriage as a symbol (of sorts) which is logical considering that would be the only argument left if the two unions were equal in every way. So i feel like getting mad about a symbol is kind of ridiculous. Why can’t we just let the crazy bible thumpers have their little marriage thing? (from what i understand this is completely against prop 8. i am just arguing generally now, i guess)
        As for making all churches not have the power to choose whether or not to perform ceremonies… with a more flexible religion such as Protestantism, that is a very valid point and entirely convincing (seriously). Considering they are the most vocal I suppose i’ve been looking at it with a Catholicism/Mormon lens, which i perceive as a much stricter religion that does not allow for deviation. And i think perhaps it’s because of that, that the issue is as complex as it is.
        As to your last point, i think we SHOULD get rid of marriage. It’d make the whole goddamn thing a hell of a lot easier. Proposition 9, maybe?

        • i agree that it seems like in some ways the symbolic meaning of marriage is what causes some of the problems. no matter what kind of rights we attach to civil unions, it’s NOT marriage and there will still be the message ‘our marriage is only for us, not for you.” it doesn’t really matter if we feel like the symbolic differences are silly or not because it matters to the gay community and it obviously matters to the pro-prop 8 community. it doesn’t really matter if we feel like the whole “civil union is not marriage” argument is a weak one because it is The Argument for the people to whom it really matters, on both sides. the gay community wants the right they were granted then denied and the pro-8 community wants to keep that specific right privileged.

          i also agree that maybe we should just let the wackjobs have their marriage and have everyone in california get civil unions from now on, in a show of solidarity, but that wouldn’t change the fact that i, who don’t feel especially strongly about marriage, could get married if i wanted to just because i’m straight, but a gay couple, who does feel strongly about it and wants it more than they want anything in the world, can’t get married because they happen to be gay. i don’t think using reverse psychology (fine, keep your stupid marriage! we don’t want it anyway!) is going to solve the problem for either group.

          if the institutions are separate, they are inherently unequal. there is no way to make them equal if our reason for creating something ‘just as good’ is to keep marriage out of reach of some people, for whatever reasons.

          i also think that maybe the biggest problem with prop 8 was that it takes away a right the gay community had already been given. it wasn’t trying to preemptively bar them from getting something they might get sometime in the future. even if i had a problem with gay people getting married (and i don’t) or felt like the difference between civil unions and marriage is such a slight symbolic sliver that we’re really squabbling over semantics (whoa alliteration and i don’t) the fact that a group of people just had a portion of their rights taken away from them, on purpose, makes me feel very uncomfortable and sets an alarming precedent. though i guess that people who are big fans of guns and feel they should be allowed to own uzis and rocket launchers would say the same thing about anti-gun legislation, which is totally idiotic to me, but is a very real issue for them.

          (sorry if my initial response was more heated than seemed necessary. i got into a gnarly email discussion about this with some friends-of-friends who were pro-8 and it was really annoying and maddening. it’s possible i had an eensy-weensy bit of pent up steam over it.)

          • that’s cool, man. i recognize it’s a heated issue, and i don’t begrudge anyone in the slightest on getting all worked up. the ONLY reason i’m not, is that i don’t have any real vested interest in all of this. and the only reason i really thought to bring this side of the argument up, was because i think the issue is generally seen on the left as so clearcut, intrinsic and indivisible from human rights. which just oversimplifies the whole thing.
            i think the problem with the argument you just raised, regarding the concept of marriage being something that is seen as withheld from the gay community… is that marriage (as tied to government as it is) is still largely under a religious ownership. And to me it doesn’t seem like it’s the government’s place to just ascribe the title wherever they choose. I admit there’s not much value in religions withholding a term and keeping it to themselves, but all the same… it’s theirs? (but this also kind of defeats my argument in a way because as i hadn’t registered until a post ago, marriage is not exactly a strictly catholic thing)

  13. Selena  |   Posted on Nov 11th, 2008 0

    My State has made me sad, but what makes me happy is that although prop 8 passed, for those of us who have worked so hard aaginst it, now there’s just a firmer resolve to see it through.

    If we flip the script, and really look, the many people who marched and “came out” against Prop 8 – is truly a brilliant thing and slowly but surely our numbers will only grow.

  14. Studies find, Gabe, that you are right.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/07race.html

  15. It’s terrible that people take the Bible at face value and try to abuse it to make some things illegal. The whole “separation of church and state” thing? Yeah, according to pro-Prop 8 voters, it doesn’t exist. The only negative arguments against Prop 8? Bible quotes.

    It’s sad, because a friend of mine posted an anti-Prop 8 bulletin on his Facebook and got into a two-on-one argument with some fundies I know. They called him a “cafeteria Christian” because he picked the ideals he supports instead of following everything. The sad thing is, he’s the better person for being a “cafeteria Christian” instead of blindly following a 2000-year-old archaic book. You’re supposed to form your own opinions and follow them justly… that’s how religion works.

    • jacob  |   Posted on Nov 12th, 2008 +4

      what floors me is how truly easy it is to refute any bible quotes people throw at you.

      “man lying with man as if he were a woman is an abomination.”

      -in the beginning of this chapter, it defines abomination as an terrible but forgivable thing. not a sin. not a sin at all.

      even if it were a sin, two sentences later, it says that its an abomination to eat shrimp and to mix linen and cotton. if you feel the bible advises against homosexuality, don’t eat shrimp, or shut up. forever.

      people also argue that even if it isn’t a sin, why would they advise against it? when the bible was written, the jewish population was weak and they needed make sure all marriages procreated. same reason spilling seed was a sin.

      io cant finish npow, but also, in pauls letter ot the corinthinas he directly tells them that they dont need to follow ANY OF THE RULES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

  16. y  |   Posted on Nov 11th, 2008 +1

    It definitely shouldn’t have anything to do with politics, but should gay marriage really have anything to do with someone’s religious beliefs? If you boil this argument down to its simplest form possible, it is a case of certain people being denied a right that all other people have. This is America, I thought that meant you can’t just pick and choose who gets certain basic human rights and who doesn’t. It’s insanity, blatant discrimination.
    While I understand the whole seperate-but-equal, same thing under a different name argument, it is also unfair. If someone wants to get married under the name “marriage”, it is their right as a human to do so. No one should be able to take that right away from someone, and it’s frightening that in this country so many people are allowed to do just that.
    Atheist couples, as long as they are heterosexual, are allowed to get married (if for some whatever reason they want to), but a Christian couple who happen to be the same sex (and yes, there are homosexual Christians out there) aren’t allowed to.
    No one should put up with this ban on marriage. At it’s core, the anti-gay marriage movement is un-Christian, and especially, un-American.

  17. Well, I guess all I can say is yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Very well put, all of you. And Kieth Olbermann.

  18. okay, ben affleck is taking this too far now

  19. incredible comments this time around. nothing to add at this point, but i read through everything and i’m thoroughly impressed.

  20. I think somewhere in the confusion/frustration with the Civil Unions vs Marriage argument is one of the problems with Prop 8 (and a lot of the ballot measures that we voted on in California). The arguments both for and against (actually, just the ones for) Prop 8 overshadowed what was actually on the ballot. The marketing campaigns, the most ridiculous of which were posted here, were just a small fraction of what I saw on TV.
    My point is that voting No on Prop 8 seemed like a no-brainer for a lot of us, and I think that comes out in Olbermann’s speech up there. But there are a lot of people that simply tolerate a gay lifestyle (you know, when they don’t have to see it). These people don’t really know how to react to Will & Grace re-runs, and by the same token they didn’t really know how to vote when they were being TOLD that gay marriage was attacking their own marriage/religion/children/gas mileage.
    As an anecdote, I know someone who voted yes on Prop 8 because they didn’t feel that a gay or lesbian couple could properly raise a well-adjusted child. This is by far one of the worst arguments I’ve heard because gay couples could, and still can as far as I know, adopt children at their leisure regardless of their marital/civil union/domestic partner status (which doesn’t even begin touch on the fact that 50% of marriages will inevitably end in divorce, as Olbermann points out.) Granted, this person was also old, so you can bail out and call generation gap on that if you like.

  21. I’m having conversations about the racial aspect of it with my friends and while it is clearly a huge part there should be a distinction made between blaming communities of color and speaking to them and their culture to understand what the hell is going on. It still remains dreadfully hard to come out to families in people of color communities for many reasons that are historically and deeply ingrained over generations. Gloria Anzaldua writes about this in Latino and Hispanic culture a lot. Most pro-lgbt organizations really don’t cater to these communities because most of these orgs are run by whites with degrees who for the most part have denied it matters (this is also a problem with any non-profit org that is wondering why people of color communities don’t care about their causes). Well now these amendments have passed and I think people are starting to realize that whoops, we should probably look into this and not rely on people just like us to fight a massive opposition that is more complex than ‘God hates fags’.

    Also, within the lgbt community I can say that ‘tolerance’ is not a good thing anymore. It goes further than ‘tolerating the other’ now. It’s 2008, we should be embracing difference.

    • No, rather we should all understand that we’re all the same, which is why everyone should have the same rights. I agree with what you’re saying, but the semantics of “embracing difference” are problematic I think. (I’m straight, fwiw.)

      • Talk about semantics..what you just said is exactly what’s wrong with the movement. People, IT IS NOT THE SAME. Blacks didn’t fight for marriage equality..they fought for a lot more and have been through things that are unbelievably different than the gay movement. By the way, blacks are still struggling and being thrown under the bus like this isn’t going to get blacks on your side. Fuck the Prop 8 protests. The racism and the ignorance I’ve seen go on within the LGBT community is maddening. You cant walk around equating the struggle with a struggle that was so different. It’s all about equality but that’s just the common denominator that links them. I’m so sick of the ignorant opposition people show when their ‘it’s all the same’ arguments get challenged. Obviously that argument is NOT working with people of color communities and it hasn’t been working for years. I’ve seen LGBT organizations over and over again try to homogenize the movement for a quicker and easier path to justice and it has failed. We will see this go back and forth in states forever unless we decided that yeah, guess it’s not all the same to everyone..screw that teaching the world to sing approach..we need to focus on the actual issues these communities face and THEN try to work together for each other.

        • y  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008 +1

          No one is really comparing the gay civil rights struggle to the black civil rights struggle other than the fact that they are instances where a certain group of people is being denied basic rights. Although you would probably be surprised if you researched about the persecutions against homosexuals throughout history, but I’m not going to get into that.
          And I agree that the fact that everyone is focusing on the black voters in the passing of Prop 8 is bad. One group should not be singled out.
          I don’t mean to offend you, but you are doing the same generalization that you are accusing the gay community of doing. Not all gays blame the black community, just as not everyone in the black community voted for Prop 8. God, I hate when people use “communities” to blindly group together people who may or may not share the same views based on such superficial things as race or gender. The media has been great in fueling the fire, hasn’t it?
          Anyways, my point: While each of our histories differ greatly, black or white, gay or straight, male or female, we ARE all the same in the sense that we are all human beings, and we all deserve equal treatment. We don’t need to pretend that the past didn’t happen, and no one should try to. But we should be more focused on what the future will look like. No matter how “peace&love” that sounds, we should see that vision of equality as the goal, and not get bogged down in cynical stuff.

  22. gwai lo  |   Posted on Nov 12th, 2008 0

    Hi Elliot,

    I’m late to the party but I have some facts:

    “As examples of the obvious inequalities between marriages and civil unions, persons in civil unions may not:

    File a “joint” tax return, Receive health benefits from a spouse’s employer in states where civil unions are not recognized, Receive Social Security survivor benefits, Receive citizenship through relationship. Receive military veterans benefits, Receive service-related death benefits, Receive housing and burial benefits, Receive recognition of the relationship in event of transfer to a non civil union state, Receive stepped-up basis on property from inheritance, Receive optional tax deferral on IRA accounts.

    Every single one of these benefits is allotted to a “married” couple but not to those in civil unions. It is painfully obvious that the two concepts are miles apart from being synonymous!”

    So, there’s more than symbolism separating the two.

    • shayne  |   Posted on Nov 13th, 2008 0

      so, they’re not at all the same thing. thanks for that. I keep telling people that this is not a religious issue (I work at a church… lots of old fashioned blue hairs). It’s an equal rights issue because marriage is not just a religious thing. people from all cultures have been getting married for thousands of years. if a group of people are going to be against gays getting married for “religious reasons”, then they should be against everyone else who believes differently being allowed to get married. that’s obviously a stupid idea, so it’s obviously pretty stupid to try to keep gays from getting married. simple logic!

  23. Johnny  |   Posted on Nov 14th, 2008 -6

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

    • Ugh. I’m so sick of hearing these bigots talk about how they don’t hate gay people. You just compared the love between two consenting adults to a man fucking his dog. I highly doubt that you even know what love is.

      Thanks, scumbag, you just single handedly filled my disgust-with-the-human-race quota for the day.

    • The Johnnys of the world will become extinct one day and I’m sure we’ll live to see it.

    • jacob  |   Posted on Nov 16th, 2008 +1

      johnny, wanting to marry isn’t in any way flaunting homosexuality.
      what if two gay women wanted to marry, live alone in the woods and MAYBE ONE DAY have the unconditional right as a spouse to see the other in the hospital, something civil unions don’t offer.

      how utterly. fucking. gay.

    • y  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008 +1

      Hmm after all the wonderful comments on here, I almost forgot about all the flat-out ignorance in the world. Thanks for the reminder.
      It’s one thing to have differing views, even if they are 100% wrong and completely despicable, but to be an absolute prick about it, WOW!
      I just feel sorry for you that, with all the violence and hatred and shit on this planet, you are “creped out” by two humans showing love towards each other. That’s what’s really sad.

    • indigoguy  |   Posted on Nov 19th, 2008 +1

      Dude, you are flaunting a pretty socially unacceptable amount of hatred there…

  24. hoo  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008 +3

    The issue is about a civil right between two consenting adults, so “Johnny” must think humans are no greater than dogs. I wonder what his “God” thinks about that.

    I wonder what Johnny’s God thinks about his arrogance and self-righteousness. I wonder what Johnny’s God thinks about his passive-aggressive hatred. I wonder what Johnny’s God thinks about him using the bible to express his ignorance and intolerance.

    I don’t hate Christians!! There are several in my family, I love ‘em as much as any other family member. They’re awesome!! They do however, creep me out when I am in proximity to their lifestyle via photo’s or outward displays of brainwashed preachiness. Don’t preach Christianity flamboyantly if you don’t want hatred. Don’t flaunt Christianity if you aren’t prepared for attacks! What would it look like if someone openly spoke about his amazing sex with Jesus Christ?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.