Keith Olberman prop 8 special comment

[Markkink]

I know Keith can be full of himself and a bit of a blowhard but he really hit out of the park tonight with his special comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChanTFSmqao

[Randy]

yawn

yet another liberal trying to belittle people in the media because they didnt get their way. wha friggin wha .. if this was actually as clear cut as he is trying to make it, the bill would have passed. It WAS NOT just about gay people wanting to be married. If it was that simple it would have passed.

the bill would have passed if the language wasnt so general in nature. the proposition as written would have made it possible to prosecute main stream churchs, synagogs, and mosques as hate organizations or organizations promoting hate speech because they disagree with same sex marriages. THAT is the provision that got the measure defeated.

if the extra language was not included, the bill would have passed with no hassles. The people promoting this poposition got greedy. They couldnt be satisfied with being allowed to marry. They wanted to make sure that nobody else could voice their opinion about their marriage or lifestyle. It is OK for them to have an opinion, but if anybody else has one they MUST BE SILENCED at any cost.

[MissDee]

Randy is right that there is a LOT more to this than it seems in a simple "can gays legally get rights as married couples do". Fact is that in CA, with the domestic partner laws, there is a legal parity. there is an issue about the definition of MARRIAGE- the proposition 22 passage about 8 years ago, reaffirmed the "one man-one woman" nature of the word "marriage". This in no way affected the existing and subsequent domestic partner laws. Prop 8 came about because the CA Supreme court and its activist judges decided to negate a constitutional amemndmen (prop 22) from the bench. THis is not the pervue of the judicial branch, and the ruling of the supreme court basically set up anyone disagreeing with gay marriage on the basis of religious or moral grounds to be treated as a hate criminal.

What's really interesting is this though- so far we have the GLAD people and their supporters out raising hell in front of Moromon temples and even Saddleback church, but the tipping point in the passage of prop 8 was overwhelmingly by African Americans- over 78 percent in CA voted FOR prop 8- that's 25 percent more than the general population. However, in the new liberal regime, it's obviously not politically correct to go and disrupt services at black churches.

More liberal hypocrisy, strom trooper tactics, and basic denial of freedom in the pursuit of special interests. with all the "owesies" that Obama has to groups like the ACLU, moveon.org, and other far left organizations, this will only get worse.

[StretchMania]

I had to quit about 2 minutes in but got the idea of where this is going. I can't watch and NOT see this guy as a Eugene Levy lookalike.

And then want to see if he has two left feet, like in Best In Show.

[dontpmme2002]

I'm so proud seeing Kieth gallantly hold back his tears in this clip. I wonder if he has slept since Obama won the election.

[Mad Mike]

The guy is a low life! A liberal who wants to tell others how they should vote.

[Shinsei]

The guy is a low life! A liberal who wants to tell others how they should vote.

Maybe I'm dense, but could you explain to me, perhaps, how that's worse than trying to dictate who should be allowed to marry and/or have civil union status? Or perhaps who is qualified to raise a child? Or have an abortion?

Constitutional amendments have traditionally been used to grant rights, not take them away. The "institution" of marriage (ask Britney Spears about that one) is an entirely religious concept. Let individual denominations decide whether or not they'll choose to perform a marriage between two members of the same sex.

I'm not going to get into a big argument here, but seriously, quit using "liberal" as if it's a dirty word and have a care for hypocrisy, if you please.

[Mad Mike]

Maybe I'm dense, but could you explain to me, perhaps, how that's worse than trying to dictate who should be allowed to marry and/or have civil union status? Or perhaps who is qualified to raise a child? Or have an abortion?

Constitutional amendments have traditionally been used to grant rights, not take them away. The "institution" of marriage (ask Britney Spears about that one) is an entirely religious concept. Let individual denominations decide whether or not they'll choose to perform a marriage between two members of the same sex.

I'm not going to get into a big argument here, but seriously, quit using "liberal" as if it's a dirty word and have a care for hypocrisy, if you please.

Well look at what we have here!

I will be more than happy to explain my position! The people who supported this Amendment want one thing and one thing only, and that’s to define marriage as a union between 1 man and 1 woman.

This does not preclude gays or lesbians from having a civil union if they want. (I Google searched it to be sure)

As for gay or lesbian adoption, California as well as New York has allowed that for years, so there’s no one stopping that either. (Also I Google searched this)

As you said the "institution" of marriage (I will ask Britney Spears that next time she and I get together for a beer) is an entirely religious concept, and most churches don’t want anything to do with gay or lesbian marriage, so it would have to be done by a court anyway.

As for the word liberal, I think I will continue to use it as a dirty word until the far left stop trying to force the point of view on me and try to convince me and others of their open mindedness.

Don’t worry about an argument I don’t want that either and I don’t think its hypocritical to have what seems to be a honest opinion about this liberal dick head!

My point of the original post was that Keith Olberman is a narrow minded fool! He preaches tolerance to gays or lesbians and clearly has no tolerance for those that have a different opinion than his.

This is a classic liberal!

[Mad Mike]

This is the kind of shit that drives me mad!

A radical gay group disrupts Christian church service

Posted: 13 Nov 2008 01:07 AM CST

So much for tolerance. And these folks don’t understand why they aren’t taken seriously. If you act like children you are treated like children. A demonstration like this will do nothing for their cause. It will only make them look like the spoiled little brats they are!

A radical gay rights organization – Bash Back — is claiming the responsibility for a protest last Sunday at Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan. Protesters infiltrated the church and surprised the congregation when they stood up during the service, threw fliers at churchgoers and shouted slogans such as “It’s OK to be gay,” and “Jesus was a homo,” among other things.

It frustrates me that Christians are always labeled as “intolerant” on these issues. Gay couples have not been denied ANY civil rights whatsoever; they simply cannot call legal unions “marriage.” Marriage is a sacred institution to not only Christians but by many other religions in the world. Labeling different types of relationships with different terms is not intolerant.

This meltdown by Bash Back was unconstitutional – a violation of the 1st amendment to use an act of aggression to disrupt the free assembly of others. What these protestors did was similar to how the Klu Klux Klan terrorized the black churches decades ago.

Of course, this outrage stems from the recent propositions in California (Proposition 8, 52% voted for Yes); Florida (Proposition 2, The Marriage Protection Amendment, 62% voted Yes); and Arizona (Proposition 2 - Marriage Protection Amendment, 56% voted Yes). I understand their disappointment but they really should grow up!

The insanity doesn’t stop there. The Mormon Church is now being targeted for their support of Prop 8, including arson. And, a California Art Director from The California Music Theater in Sacramento, Scott Eckern, was pressured by gay groups to resign because of his personal beliefs about marriage. Seems to me that he is now a victim of intolerance and persecution. I am just waiting for the day when my employer asks me if I voted yes or no for Prop 8. Where is the ACLU when you need them?

I wonder if Bash Back plans on protesting outside of a Mosque, since homosexuality is forbidden by Muslims. That would be interesting. Ahh, who knows … maybe they’re just mad at the Christians

[Mad Mike]

When I was in South Bend there was a Priest up who was 6'6" and weighed 325lbs and I guarantee you that these jokers wouldn’t have pulled that shit on him.

[Mad Mike]

Here is another

Cross-Bearing Woman Says She Was Attacked by Gay Marriage Supporters, May Press Charges

An elderly woman who attended a gay rights protest carrying a cross to voice her support of the new California ban on gay marriage says she was attacked by demonstrators and now may press charges.

Palm Springs Police Department spokesman Sgt. Mitch Spike told FOXNews.com no arrests had been made as of Thursday evening and added that victim Phyllis Burgess still is deciding whether she'll press assault charges.

"The investigation is proceeding as it should," Spike said.

Asked if the charges could be elevated to include hate crime penalties, Spike told FOXNews.com, "That's a possibility. That's one of the things we're looking at."

Carrying a large, foam cross, Burgess, 69, showed up at a rally last Friday against Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage approved this month by California voters.

She was there to show her belief in traditional marriage, she said.

Within minutes, however, angry protesters swarmed around the Palm Springs resident, yanked the cross from her hands and trampled on it, as seen in a video of the incident posted on YouTube.

"I guess I didn’t see the gravity of the whole thing and how it was being portrayed to the public," Burgess told The Desert Sun newspaper. "People are incensed. They seem to want some kind of justice."If charges are filed, Spike said prosecution could be difficult because the alleged suspect or suspects seen in the video have yet to be identified.

"We haven't been able to identify everyone in that video,"
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H_ZvPR09N4Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H_ZvPR09N4Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

These assholes look very tolerant!

[Shinsei]

Well look at what we have here!

I will be more than happy to explain my position! The people who supported this Amendment want one thing and one thing only, and that’s to define marriage as a union between 1 man and 1 woman.

This does not preclude gays or lesbians from having a civil union if they want. (I Google searched it to be sure)

Right, but again, the definition is religious and/or "tradition" in nature. As for the civil unions, you're absolutely right, BUT... why does this need to be legislated or put into a constitution? Just let the church decide who it will marry, but require public officials who can marry people to do it. Government is non-denominational and this allows churches who are vehemently opposed to homosexuality to refrain from performing services, which also preserves their religious freedom. Only the really nutty people are the ones expecting that churches should be forced to marry people against their belief system.

As for gay or lesbian adoption, California as well as New York has allowed that for years, so there’s no one stopping that either. (Also I Google searched this)

Well, nobody except Arkansas, anyway. Okay, their ballot measure prevents unwed hetero couples from adopting as well (which I'm sure will cause a small bit of a fuss), but the measure was ostensibly targeted at homosexual couples who might want to adopt.

As you said the "institution" of marriage (I will ask Britney Spears that next time she and I get together for a beer) is an entirely religious concept, and most churches don’t want anything to do with gay or lesbian marriage, so it would have to be done by a court anyway.

Key word here - MOST churches. There are some denominations that are very gay-friendly. As I said above, let the churches who want to marry gay couples do it, but preserve the religious freedoms of those who don't by allowing them to decline performing the service. Everyone wins.

As for the word liberal, I think I will continue to use it as a dirty word until the far left stop trying to force the point of view on me and try to convince me and others of their open mindedness.

I feel like you're missing my point here. You're complaining about "liberals" trying to force their point of view on you. Prop 8 and similar ballot measures are forcing a point of view on people and putting it into a constitutional amendment which categorically denies a right to a certain group of people. Again, I'll restate that constitutions have, historically, been a means to GRANT rights, not deny them.

And again, I feel your complaint here is completely hypocritical as the so-called religious right has been busy forcing its point of view on the country for the past eight years through various ballot measures, challenges to Roe v. Wade, etc.

Don’t worry about an argument I don’t want that either and I don’t think its hypocritical to have what seems to be a honest opinion about this liberal dick head!

Keith Olbermann isn't really all that different from Bill O'Reilly. They're both pundits who express views leaning much further to the left or right of the political spectrum than your average person because it gets ratings and pisses people off. While I most certainly classify myself as a social liberal, people like Olbermann and, oh, say, Michael Moore, don't rate very highly in my book because they're totally nuts, especially in the latter case.

Just for the sake of clarification, my definition of "social liberal" for myself is that I'm a firm believer in the freedom to more or less live your life how, when and where you choose and with whom. With that said, I think late term abortions ought to be banned, people who use it as a form of birth control should be smacked and various things along that line. While I can't really call myself anything in terms of politics since I don't vote in the US (lack of citizenship), I'm not a bleeding heart liberal by any means.

My point of the original post was that Keith Olberman is a narrow minded fool! He preaches tolerance to gays or lesbians and clearly has no tolerance for those that have a different opinion than his.

This is a classic liberal!

For those of us on the other side of the fence, there's also such a thing as a "classic" conservative, but I digress. :)

Since I haven't had time to respond until just now, I'm going to address your other posts here too. A little background info first, but this might not go where you'll initially think it's going, so bear with me here...

I'm not a fan of organized religion at all. I think Christianity is full of holes in how things are explained and I personally can't go on blind faith. I think a lot of people who claim to be Christian really have no idea how to follow the teachings of a certain Jesus fellow and use God's name in vain as an excuse for their bigotry. The Christian God I'm familiar with certainly doesn't want people to hate each other because of how they get their rocks off. But then you get into the "God went *click*" crowd who are utterly convinced that the planet is approximately 5,000 years old.

There's an old saying I like to use - if you're having a holy war, whose side is God on? Everyone has their own system of beliefs; it's offensive to me that anyone tries to force their beliefs on anyone else. This goes for everyone.

And by everyone, I mean everyone. Protesting churches over Prop 8 is completely asinine. Yes, religious folk have their opinions and yes, there was a fairly big push by the Morman church for yes on Prop 8. This does not give the "no" folks the right to go fuck with them.

I said above that I'm not a fan of organized religion. While that's true, I also think that screwing with other peoples' faith is utterly wrong. Despite my distaste for the Christian faith, I wouldn't hesitate to go postal on someone for vandalizing a church. Or a mosque. Or a synagogue. Or any place of worship. I don't have faith because it isn't something that works for ME, but I absolutely respect people who can follow that path. The trouble is following that path in a way that is truly in line with the intentions of Jesus' teachings.

The woman who is my direct supervisor at work is a devout Christian and I love her for it. She's one of the most selfless, wonderful people I've met in my entire life and even when things are at their worst, her faith keeps her going and she lives her life trying to help others and do what she believes is right. She is the kind of Christian that the world needs more of - the ones who are truly in it because they believe, not because they fear or resent others.

Obviously I'm making a couple of broad generalizations there, so please don't mistake me for being of the mind that Christians are lousy people - they aren't. There's just a very vocal minority that kind of screws it up for me.

Anyway, I've rambled way too much here - suffice it to say that at this point, I'm pretty sure everyone is full of shit and we should all just get over ourselves and try to make things work, but I don't think we're ready to do that just yet as a society.

[Mad Mike]

Ok I will leave it at that!

[ChrisC]

I also agree they shouldn't be vandalizing churches.