MSNBC Keith Olbermann on Prop 8, Marriage

[Older lifter]

Who says we are supposed to get married anyway,,,,,,any of us.
It should be what is natural not legal that counts

It takes a man and a woman to have kids, natural
Man and man can't have kids, natural

Other than that i don't care if they want to marry, won't understand why they would want to do that, but people do a lot of things i don't understand and don't want to.

If you marry you will just feel more guilty when you cheat so why add the stress.....

[Coop77]

Keith Olbermann is a douche nozzle.

The people of California have spoken so what's the argument? If you don't like how the government of California works, move out. There's nothing anyone can argue.

By the way, I'm indifferent about the subject. If it came on my ballot I would likely not register any vote either way.

The argument is whether or not equal rights for the minority are something that the majority should even be deciding. Think women would have been given the right to vote if it was on the ballot, for men to decide? Think the people of Alabama and Georgia would have given blacks civil rights in the '60s if it were on the ballot?

[SMCengineer]

The argument is whether or not equal rights for the minority are something that the majority should even be deciding. Think women would have been given the right to vote if it was on the ballot, for men to decide? Think the people of Alabama and Georgia would have given blacks civil rights in the '60s if it were on the ballot?

You're a Democrat, right?

[T3/T4 GSR]

Whats funny is that if it wasn't for all the legal benefits of marriage we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation since most people gay and straight probably wouldn't even want an official marriage in the US if they weren't religious.

[JDawg1536]

Whats funny is that if it wasn't for all the legal benefits of marriage we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation since most people gay and straight probably wouldn't even want an official marriage in the US if they weren't religious.

Still, it's the issue of equality that's at hand. What if they gave a 50% tax cut to all couples engaged in a domestic partnership? How many people do you think would be getting married? How many of those christian hypocrites jumping around like morons with their "Yes on 8" signs do you think would be taking part in domestic partnerships? Then what if a law was passed that heterosexual couples could only get married and weren't allowed to take part in a domestic partnership? Think there would be some uproar?

[FallenWyvern]

Keith Olbermann still comes off weird to me. I thought he was gonna cry. I found the message lost in the theatrics.


He should go back to doing sports.

[DSM4Life]

Give us the same benefits and we will go away. You want to save face then call it something other than "marriage" but make sure its 100% equal rights.

[Flagg]

Give us the same benefits and we will go away. You want to save face then call it something other than "marriage" but make sure its 100% equal rights.

This is why the HUMAN RACE fails as a whole. We will never be united all the while some people think they belong to exclusive clubs.

[thegodfather]

Ok, I'd like to put the nail in this coffin on this topic once and for all...

In the Bill of Rights, we have what are called negative freedoms. That means they are freedoms which doesn't require the obligation of a 3rd party in order to provide them, you are able to exercise them while infringing on no one elses rights. In contrast, in Europe, they have things known as positive freedoms, which means they consider things like a job, housing, money, food, & healthcare as "rights."

Marriage, is a negative freedom. You are obligating no one else in the process, but you do however need licensure. This is no different than the way that you need a license in most states to purchase/posess/carry firearms, it is a right, but the SCOTUS has ruled that some regulation of it is acceptable.

Banning "gay" people from marrying would be tantamount to the state saying that although the 2nd amendment is a negative freedom, which all law abiding citizens are entitled to, we are going to regulate it in a manner to exclude certain groups, like blacks, hispanics, and them squinty eyed little yellow fellers! Can you start to see how absurd and bigotted that sounds?

Now, although the legislation CAN be passed in the House of Representatives (an arm/voice of the people), it is up to the Supreme Court of the United States to DECIDE whether or not that legislation violates the constitution or not. Any legislation at any level can be challenged, Federal, State, & Local. Usually, the legislative bodies in these states are smart enough to know not to pass legislation which will directly violate the civil rights of another person.

Our country is set up in such a way, that we are "A nation of laws, not of men." This means, that we have a set of written laws, which are NOT UP FOR A VOTE! You will not see a California Proposition 10 proposing that the 1st Amendment is void and we dont need freedom of speech anymore, and you wont see a Proposition 14 that says we should just nix the 4th amendment because if your not doing anything wrong you dont need privacy. Those things are not up to the majority, under any circumstances, EVER! That is because it is not a 100% true democracy. It is a Republic which democratic traits and strong points, but it is also a nation of written laws and rights, which cannot be taken away from anyone under any circumstances.

That is why the idea of having this put up for referendum is such a slap in the face to our Republic. Imagine for a second, a referendum deciding if black people could sit at the same restaurants as white folk. It sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Well that is how GLBT people feel, it is the exact same situation.

I really dont give a flying shit what you have to "tell your kids." The same people from 1900-1960 used the SAME argument "What am I going to tell my kids when they see a white woman with a negro, its unnatural!" Yes, only 50 some years ago, the popular opinion of the country was that race mixing was unnatural, it was against Gods word. The same way that you view homosexuality as unnatural.

If our countrys laws were actually subject to public opinion and conventional ideology of the time we're living in, we would see a host of laws limiting the freedoms of our people, and highly oppressive ones at that. Spare me the ultra right wing hard line religious BULLSHIT. You know what I think is unnatural? Reading a fu**ing story book thats 4,000 years old and killing people, waging wars, mutilating your genitals, donating 10% of your salary, and doing a host of other crazy ass shit because that book said so. The earth was created in 7 days, its only 6,000 years old, and DNA doesn't exist...

[DSM4Life]

Ok, I'd like to put the nail in this coffin on this topic once and for all...

In the Bill of Rights, we have what are called negative freedoms. That means they are freedoms which doesn't require the obligation of a 3rd party in order to provide them, you are able to exercise them while infringing on no one elses rights. In contrast, in Europe, they have things known as positive freedoms, which means they consider things like a job, housing, money, food, & healthcare as "rights."

Marriage, is a negative freedom. You are obligating no one else in the process, but you do however need licensure. This is no different than the way that you need a license in most states to purchase/posess/carry firearms, it is a right, but the SCOTUS has ruled that some regulation of it is acceptable.

Banning "gay" people from marrying would be tantamount to the state saying that although the 2nd amendment is a negative freedom, which all law abiding citizens are entitled to, we are going to regulate it in a manner to exclude certain groups, like blacks, hispanics, and them squinty eyed little yellow fellers! Can you start to see how absurd and bigotted that sounds?

Now, although the legislation CAN be passed in the House of Representatives (an arm/voice of the people), it is up to the Supreme Court of the United States to DECIDE whether or not that legislation violates the constitution or not. Any legislation at any level can be challenged, Federal, State, & Local. Usually, the legislative bodies in these states are smart enough to know not to pass legislation which will directly violate the civil rights of another person.

Our country is set up in such a way, that we are "A nation of laws, not of men." This means, that we have a set of written laws, which are NOT UP FOR A VOTE! You will not see a California Proposition 10 proposing that the 1st Amendment is void and we dont need freedom of speech anymore, and you wont see a Proposition 14 that says we should just nix the 4th amendment because if your not doing anything wrong you dont need privacy. Those things are not up to the majority, under any circumstances, EVER! That is because it is not a 100% true democracy. It is a Republic which democratic traits and strong points, but it is also a nation of written laws and rights, which cannot be taken away from anyone under any circumstances.

That is why the idea of having this put up for referendum is such a slap in the face to our Republic. Imagine for a second, a referendum deciding if black people could sit at the same restaurants as white folk. It sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Well that is how GLBT people feel, it is the exact same situation.

I really dont give a flying shit what you have to "tell your kids." The same people from 1900-1960 used the SAME argument "What am I going to tell my kids when they see a white woman with a negro, its unnatural!" Yes, only 50 some years ago, the popular opinion of the country was that race mixing was unnatural, it was against Gods word. The same way that you view homosexuality as unnatural.

If our countrys laws were actually subject to public opinion and conventional ideology of the time we're living in, we would see a host of laws limiting the freedoms of our people, and highly oppressive ones at that. Spare me the ultra right wing hard line religious BULLSHIT. You know what I think is unnatural? Reading a fu**ing story book thats 4,000 years old and killing people, waging wars, mutilating your genitals, donating 10% of your salary, and doing a host of other crazy ass shit because that book said so. The earth was created in 7 days, its only 6,000 years old, and DNA doesn't exist...

I always enjoy reading your posts

[FallenWyvern]

Nice post godfather.