Keith Olbermann

[hentob]

It doesn't matter what you think, all you can do is vote. The proposition was lawfully put on the ballot, lawfully voted on and lawfully passed. There wasn't any violence or intimidation or fraud, it was a vote and you lost. Get over it and work on trying again. That's all you can do.

Yes. Get over it.

Remember the days when people would vote if blacks could participate in all of life's activities The majority believed that blacks should not vote or be free or go to school with their precious white children.

Hey but majority ruled, right

 

[hentob]

What amazes me is why a Gay couple would want to get married in a church that does not want them there to begin with.

No need to be amazed. Not everyone gets married in a church

Also, many, many churches welcome gay people with open arms. They welcome divorced (also a "sin") people too

 

[meeskamouska]

NIV Genesis 19: 4-5 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom- both young and old- surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Seems pretty clear to me.

And Lot offers up his daughter's in there place. If this were about homosexuality why would Lot think women would suffice??

 

[Purseval]

Yes. Get over it.

Remember the days when people would vote if blacks could participate in all of life's activities The majority believed that blacks should not vote or be free or go to school with their precious white children.

Hey but majority ruled, right

Hehe, if only you could get the blacks to buy into that line of reasoning. They voted in large numbers (posted in this thread) for Prop 8. But it does sound good

 

[Purseval]

Because I want to be as miserable as the married folks out there.

Well you can keep trying, there's nothing stopping you. But you have to realize there also isn't anything stopping people from pushing for amendments that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. As long as it's done legally and peacefully you have to live with the results.

 

[LuvDuke]

I could not hire someone based on the color of their skin right now, nothing requires me to hire anyone, it is at the sole discreation of the people doing the hiring.

Excuse me? It is illegal to refuse to hire someone based solely on their race. Don't believe it: Put an ad in the paper saying "whites only". See how that works out for you.

Your fearless leader is against gay marriage.

So?

Are you under the impression I follow in lockstep with Obama? Really, you people have to get over that BS.

 

[Master Mason]

Excuse me? It is illegal to refuse to hire someone based solely on their race. Don't believe it: Put an ad in the paper saying "whites only". See how that works out for you.



So?

Are you under the impression I follow in lockstep with Obama? Really, you people have to get over that BS.

On the first, I didn't say I could advertise it, but I could certain exercise it when doing the hiring if I was so inclined.

On the second, the point is your (general you not you specifically) are criticizing the republicans about something that your own leaders feel the same way over.

 

[LuvDuke]

On the first, I didn't say I could advertise it, but I could certain exercise it when doing the hiring if I was so inclined.

On the second, the point is your (general you not you specifically) are criticizing the republicans about something that your own leaders feel the same way over.

FYI, many Democrats do not follow in lockstep with every Obama opinion. And the Democrats weren't the ones who used this issue to energize their base. Some Democrats did vote for prop 8 and prop 2, but they were not part of the Democratic agenda.

 

[Master Mason]

FYI, many Democrats do not follow in lockstep with every Obama opinion. And the Democrats weren't the ones who used this issue to energize their base. Some Democrats did vote for prop 8 and prop 2, but they were not part of the Democratic agenda.

I'll agree, and on the flip side, many republicans also didn't support prop 8 or prop 2 or whatever it was in AZ.

But when people toss out the republicans for being evil, they should also be carefull because there are a number of democrats that feel the same way. That's the point. This really isn't a partisain issue, people on both sides of the isle come down on both sides of the question.

 

[audrabolster]

I have read several pages of the discussion here and quite frankly I find some of it quite amusing.

First let me say that I have no problem what so ever with Gay Unions. I support it. If two people love each other and want to spend their life together I say go for it. Secondly, believe it or not I am a faithful Christian and still have those beliefs. Sure the Bible speaks against gays, but then again it talks about women subgegating themselves to men and slaves, but I don't agree with either one of those ideas either. Now where I do differ is that I did not say Gay marraige. That's because I do hold that that is in fact between a Man and a Woman. What amazes me is why a Gay couple would want to get married in a church that does not want them there to begin with.

I think what a lot of people don't realize is that gay marriage and a civil union is not the same thing, and with a civil union, you do not get all of the same rights. separate is not equal...

 

[brerrabbit]

I think what a lot of people don't realize is that gay marriage and a civil union is not the same thing, and with a civil union, you do not get all of the same rights. separate is not equal...

Read the rest of my post, I do know the difference and think that states should recognize the civil union in the same way.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I have read several pages of the discussion here and quite frankly I find some of it quite amusing.

First let me say that I have no problem what so ever with Gay Unions. I support it. If two people love each other and want to spend their life together I say go for it. Secondly, believe it or not I am a faithful Christian and still have those beliefs. Sure the Bible speaks against gays, but then again it talks about women subgegating themselves to men and slaves, but I don't agree with either one of those ideas either. Now where I do differ is that I did not say Gay marraige. That's because I do hold that that is in fact between a Man and a Woman. What amazes me is why a Gay couple would want to get married in a church that does not want them there to begin with.


I attended a Life Commitment ceremony over the weekend where two women I have known for years committed to one another for life. For years, they were roomates but we all knew different. They finally gave in and held the party. I wish the state of Texas would recognize the union because they had to pay the additional expense of setting up all the legal documents to do what marraige would recognize.

As far as the earlier discussions went I found it funny that some were saying the California vote was denying people rights (more liberal folks) while others were saying the people spoke with the vote and that's democracy so let it be (the more conservative folks)

I think what a lot of people don't realize is that gay marriage and a civil union is not the same thing, and with a civil union, you do not get all of the same rights. separate is not equal...

Read the rest of my post, I do know the difference and think that states should recognize the civil union in the same way.

Yes, we understand some folks want to separate gays from the Christian view of marriage and you would like us to see your separate but equal stance as a favorable position, but what we are trying to stress to civil union supporters is there are no legal rights or responsibilities attached to civil unions since the federal governnent does not recognize civil unions.

Last year gays in Connecticut experienced major problems when filing income tax returns thru tax preparers because they had no forms that included civil unions, changes would have to be nationwide in order to accomodate a separate status for civil unions. And who's to say churches wouldn't oppose civil unions as fervently as they do marriage, some states already have laws against civil unions but worded as any similarity to marriage.

Thank you for mentioning committed same sex couples have the added expense to convey certain rights that married couples take for granted. Now let me add that most of the other rights married couples enjoy cannot be conveyed by contract, neither party is entitled to retirement benefits of the other, any children of one party is not the child of the other so health insurance effects not only the partner, but also the children. In fact, corporations who do offer domestic partner benefits cannot control the IRS law that taxes those benefits unlike benefits that are granted to married couples.

We have all this hoopla about redefining marriage when some suggest that we nationally adopt civil unions as a legal status with equal rights just seems to beg the question, who are we accomodating here?

People can wish for equal rights for gays under the guise of civil unions, but the truth is separate is not equal and for some crazy reason, gays want equal rights afforded them as tax paying Americans under the legal status of married. Is that just too much to ask?

 

[Tigger Woods]

Yes. Get over it.

Remember the days when people would vote if blacks could participate in all of life's activities The majority believed that blacks should not vote or be free or go to school with their precious white children.

Hey but majority ruled, right

I do find it ironic that you keep comparing gay marriage to the civil rights movement, yet it was African-American voters that helped put Prop 8 over the top. They're not buying into it. You need to find a new angle.

 

[Master Mason]

I think what a lot of people don't realize is that gay marriage and a civil union is not the same thing, and with a civil union, you do not get all of the same rights. separate is not equal...

But they could be equal but equal if the codes were changed to recognize civil unions rather than marriages.

A single law stating that where ever it says marriage in any federal code, it shall now refer to Civil Unions, and any party that currently has a Marriage licence is grandfathered in and their Marrige is now a legal Civil Union.

Done.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I do find it ironic that you keep comparing gay marriage to the civil rights movement, yet it was African-American voters that helped put Prop 8 over the top. They're not buying into it. You need to find a new angle.

Gay rights is a human rights issue, a civil rights issue, an equal rights issue.

We don't want to trick people into believing anything to the contrary.

 

[RickinNYC]

Well you can keep trying, there's nothing stopping you. But you have to realize there also isn't anything stopping people from pushing for amendments that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. As long as it's done legally and peacefully you have to live with the results.

Still bitter about that baseball thing, eh? But I digress.

Actually it's people like you that are trying to stop me. Next question?

And with your own line of thinking that it's the peoples' vote that counts, you would then support that maintaining interracial marriage remain illegal. 80% of the populace voted for it right?

And sweetheart, I can't wait for the day YOU are going to have to realize you are surrounded by gay people, many of whom WILL be married. I look forward to that day big time. Kisses.

 

[RickinNYC]

Gay rights is a human rights issue, a civil rights issue, an equal rights issue.

We don't want to trick people into believing anything to the contrary.

There are those that believe that "the gays" are sub-human, thus they should always remain second class citizens.

I'm still waiting on why Tigger has such a hardcore gay agenda. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Purseval]

Still bitter about that baseball thing, eh? But I digress.

Actually it's people like you that are trying to stop me. Next question?

Well, if you mean because I actually vote I am trying to stop you, you're right I am. Tough for you. If you manage to get something passed, tough for me. That's how the process works. Am I going to push to get a sewage treatment plant named after Harvey Milk because I don't like the outcome of the vote? No.

And with your own line of thinking that it's the peoples' vote that counts, you would then support that maintaining interracial marriage remain illegal. 80% of the populace voted for it right?

You keep trying for some sort of moral equivalency but the only problem is that even the beneficiaries of these polices aren't buying into it. While the activists in California bravely target Mormons the real group who shut them down were black preachers. Get in the face of some little old black lady who could have gang members for grandchildren and you might actually have to face some danger, much easier to stick with the Mormons.

Speaking of little old ladies, have you seen the video of the lady getting the cross ripped out of her hands and stomped on by a bunch of activists? I'm sure that will win over tons of new converts to the cause

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDIV7YZ5-Zc

And sweetheart, I can't wait for the day YOU are going to have to realize you are surrounded by gay people, many of whom WILL be married. I look forward to that day big time. Kisses.

You mean I might see a ****????? Oh my God, does that mean I will break out into a cold sweat and behave irrationally? At least you appear to be one of the people who realize that the term "homophobic" has been overused so much it's totally lost both its meaning and its effectiveness.

 

[WildernessBride]

Go Keith!!! I was very glad to see that Special Comment the other night. This whole argument brought to mind a quote from a man, who although, is not widely read about, was quite influential in American 20th century history, Bayard Rustin. Rustin was the organizer of the 1963 March on Washington where MLK gave his famous "I have a dream speech." Rustin worked all of his life for issues of civil rights and equality, he also happened to be gay. He said before his death in 1987 a wonderful quote......

“Indeed, if you want to know whether today people believe in democracy, if you want to know whether they are true democrats, if you want to know whether they are human rights activists, the question to ask is, ‘What about gay people?’ Because that is now the litmus paper by which this democracy is to be judged.”

I believe this man was a true visionary, he understood that to deny any one particular group of people civil and social rights is squarely against what our democracy is to stand for.

If anyone would like to read more about Rustin here is one article
http://gay-rights-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/bayard_rustin_and_gay_rights
However, I would suggest reading even more he is a fascinating individual.

 

[RickinNYC]

Well, if you mean because I actually vote I am trying to stop you, you're right I am. Tough for you. If you manage to get something passed, tough for me. That's how the process works. Am I going to push to get a sewage treatment plant named after Harvey Milk because I don't like the outcome of the vote? No.



You keep trying for some sort of moral equivalency but the only problem is that even the beneficiaries of these polices aren't buying into it. While the activists in California bravely target Mormons the real group who shut them down were black preachers. Get in the face of some little old black lady who could have gang members for grandchildren and you might actually have to face some danger, much easier to stick with the Mormons.

Speaking of little old ladies, have you seen the video of the lady getting the cross ripped out of her hands and stomped on by a bunch of activists? I'm sure that will win over tons of new converts to the cause

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDIV7YZ5-Zc



You mean I might see a ****????? Oh my God, does that mean I will break out into a cold sweat and behave irrationally? At least you appear to be one of the people who realize that the term "homophobic" has been overused so much it's totally lost both its meaning and its effectiveness.

Not at all. I see that the term "homophobic" is very appropriate when describing your thought process, sentiment and post above.

ETA: As for your second point, you still didn't answer my question and haphazardly tried to distract others, what exactly is your position? You keep saying it was the peoples' vote hence no same sex civil unions in CA and FL. To quote you, "Tough." So, with your line of thinking, you DO agree that because 80% of the population 40 years ago DID vote to keep interracial marriage illegal, it should have been so. As a result, you DO think interracial marriage should be illegal and the courts should never have overruled. It's a yes or no answer, very simple.

Circle one of the following:

A. Yes
B. No