And for the Christian Reich. . .

Your Jesus gave you a new commandment, one which was to show you how to interpret all of the inconsistencies of the Old Testament and to teach you the very spirit in which you were commanded--COMMANDED--to live your life.

Olberman cites it here. It's the old "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

Not, "Try to seize power and then use it to spread small-mindedness and bigotry."

Another Jesusism we could toss in? "Judge not lest Ye be judged."

Those things go hand in hand quite nicely.

Your god told you to mind your own business, take care of the poor and downtrodden, and do all things in the spirit of love.

How Prop 8 fits into that, I haven't a clue.

One last thing--I am sorely disappointed at the numbers reported showing that huge numbers of African American and Latino voters lumped right in with the whitebread Mormons on this one. They should be ashamed to cast a ballot for Obama with one hand and to slap gay people with the other.

Prop 8 is a citizen-on-citizen hate crime, no better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thank you thank you for saying the things that need to be said; out loud and to the public. i am sure that i would have not been so ... nice about it.

every one needs to hear these things. maybe, if enough people agree publically, those who think that legislating hate will think twice.

you can hold the opinion that gays should not be treated equal, but you cannot impose those opinions on others by way of legislation.

shame on those who try.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.

#@!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

…and this video is no exception!!! However, like most of his rants, he is just too long winded. In my eyes, this makes him less credible…well, credible may not be the right word, but he could easily have said what he had to say in 2 minutes or less, rather than 6:29 minutes.

JMHO

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I found this Why The LDS Attack Is Different.

The Mormon Prophet commanded that every California member give time and money to pass Prop 8. Each member was then contacted by a church authority to make sure the orders from Salt Lake City were obeyed. Mormons were organized into groups to canvas neighborhoods, knock on doors, distribute yards signs, and otherwise organize against gay marriage rights.
Sounds like standard civic participation, right? But remember, Mormons are not allowed to dissent.

This explains why all my Mormon neighbors had yard signs up. Usually they seem so unpolitical, it was weird. I was tempted to walk around the neighborhood and talk to them, I KNOW how my gay neighbors feel about it.

I saw yes on 8 paired with Obama signs, making the Obama sign look like a plea for understanding...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why do we expect the people of California to be better on this issue than the Democratic party is?

Polls show that most Americans support "domestic partnership benefits" but not necessarily "gay marriage". Maybe that's just semantics, and I think it mostly is. If the Democrats would take a courageous stance on the issue, maybe they could push their supporters. Obama/Biden won overwhelmingly in California. Prop. 8 also won. That means that huge numbers of Democrats voted to ban gay marriage. It was a chance for Obama/Biden to show some leadership, and instead they played it safe. It was sad and disheartening to watch Biden and Palin agree on the issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wow. Over 15 years ago, as a 22 year old coming out to my parents " I love who I love when I love them", to deny me the chance, the choice to legally unite my life with another woman is to deny me the right to be recognized as a parent with my love if she should give birth to our child, deny me the chance to hold my love as she lay dying in a hospital, deny me the right to my home of many years if my love should die before me. A simple declaration of marriage- You have denied me the right to legally love. Keith Olbermann's words are about supporting something bigger than what we know and maybe in sharing his truth more people can hear and see beyond the fear.Thank you, Keith.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keith Olbermann remains a breath of fresh air, along with Rachel Maddow on Cable News networks. These are 2 people with intelligence, and open minds, who don't allow the stifling suffocation of hard core right wing attitudes diminish their delivery,or beliefs. I feel engaged when I watch their respective shows, and the lite touch of comedy provides just enough to take the edge off. There is so much complete bs sloshing around in politics,the business world, entertainment, and the media, with the extreme right leading the way in propaganda, hate, and fear. These people can be beaten at their own game, and I see no reason for Olbermann or Maddow to take the high road. I say get right down in the trenches with them, then show them that they arent even good at what they do, and that they are morally dubious characters who act a little to smug in their righteous indignation and whining about so called progressives. Progressive does mean progres right? Keep on keeping on Keith, and Rachel, I love you both.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am not sure where the argument comes from that gay marriage should be considered a civil right. Civil rights are based on the idea that the law does not discriminate in such matters as race, creed, or national origin. Gay activists want to include add behavior and life style to the list and now label all who do not agree with them as "hateful." But society has always regulated behavior and does not extend civil rights to everyone indiscriminately. A convicted felon, for example, does not have all the rights of other citizens. The law discriminates on the basis of age (one must be so old to vote, or drive a car). The civil rights of convicted sex offenders are limited. Marriage has been defined by 4,000 years of history and by all cultures and all religions in all lands. Gay partners already share in basic civil rights in matters of employment, housing, etc. It would be a fundamental deconstruction of society's understanding of the family as well as the basic understanding of what civil rights are, to declare marriage as something other than between a man and a woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good point on the miscegenation laws.
My daughter asked me why white people and black people couldn't marry back in the 70s when she was in kindergarten and I explained that they could but because of the way society was in the South it didn't happen very much...and I told this story to her class of sixth graders on November 4th as I gave a presentation on Climate Change, to illustrate how much things can change in 100, 200 years. Plus a good way to make it a memorable presentation.
I do have or had friends, family members, and co-workers who are homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (I worked for a very progressive company).
100 years ago women couldn't vote. 41 years ago differently melanin-endowed people couldn't marry in some places in the South. Today same sex marriages are still illegal in some places. Within the next 100 years we will see the first woman President and the first openly homosexual President, based on their merits. Assuming the United States and this government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and, oh yes, the habitable earth for those people, don't all perish within that time frame, of course.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am comfortable in my own skin.
I am who I am.
Any LGBT person is as I am, they are who they are.
I am not threatened by anyone who is gay.
THAT is because I do not at all feel that I have to protect my sexuality.
I am who I am.

These haters are not just failures as caring human beings, they are also AFRAID of questioning their own sexuality.
They are afraid that, if they show compassion to someone different than they are, they will be judged as "weak" and or possibly gay by others like them.
I've hugged gay people in my life.
I am not threatend by that, nor did I "become" gay afterward.

Check out this stereotype:
I'm a straighy guy who is missing teeth due to playing hocey.
I did some bad things during my hitch in the navy.
I played contact sports a lot.
I LIKE WOMEN.
I like my guns.
I voted for my President Obama BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES.
I am fiercely independent.
Now, many of those descriptions are stereotypical of the sort who is homophobic.
Well, I am NOT.

I would much rather associate with some of the gays people I know than with these hateful human buttplugs.

I'm not afaid and/or threatened.
Why are they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

were an overwhelming influence on the passage of this heartless law.

The irony that pervades the universe these days is so ubiquitous that it has become invisible.

Not only is the emperor not wearing any clothes but the intolerant masses are not even aware that they too are naked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I couldn't agree with you more or have said it better myself...

I was at an anti prop 8 rally last week in Los Angeles.(Silver Lake) And I was so moved by all of the families there. There were so many people pushing their kids in strollers. When ask why they were protesting most said that they did not want their kids to grow up in a place where discrimination was written into the constitution. I feel the same way about my granddaughter. We want our kids to grow up in a place where people could love and marry who ever they choose.

Many of us Californians were shocked that prop 8 even passed.

The ACLU does have a good case in court.
In order to make a major revision in our constitution there must be a 2/3 majority in the legislature and THEN it can go to the voters. This did NOT happen with prop 8. Therefore prop 8 WILL be overturned.

We really need to ban payment for the gathering of signatures to have a proposition placed on our ballot. In these troubling times many desperate people will collect signatures on propositions that are directly against their own interest. Once the proposition is on the ballot the false and misleading advertising starts. This is not how the ballot initiative was intended to be used. When actual citizens care enough about an issue then THEY should go out and collect the signatures needed to put their initiative on the ballot. They should be collecting those signatures because they are behind that cause. Not because some out of state interest, wealthy corporation, rich bigot or tax exempt religious organization is paying for those signatures...

I look forward to seeing prop 8 overturned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Someone emailed me a link to the video yesterday. I've always liked Olbermann. I love a commentator who figuratively walks into a room, busts shit up and leaves everyone flattened, if I agree with the content of course. After watching this brilliant, righteous, impassioned speech, I wanted to do it with him. Can I say that on Alternet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keith, thank you so very much for having the guts to make this statement. I applaud you and really enjoy your show which I watch every night. Thank you for your support of Rachael as well. Best Wishes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I worship at the altar of the separation of church & state. Civil union is a civil right bestowed by the state; marriage is a religious rite observed by a religion. Any couple that wants to be legally united (so they later can be divorced) should be allowed to do so providing they meet conditions such as health and age. Those couples who have been joined in a civil service that bestows the rights of civil union (inheritance, hospital visits, etc.) may then, providing they can find a church, be married.

If the state didn't want to raise money by licensing marriage, this would never be an issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why there is so much agitation surrounding this whole "marriage" thing. I'm confused about the lesser status consigned to "civil union". why is it that when a hetero couple stands before a JP the resulting legally binding status is "marriage" and it is not the same when a gay couple does it? why are the same rights not acceded to the gay couple? maybe the question is, is marriage solely a religious rite or not? i do not say that i am against gay marriage, any more than i am against hetero marriage. frankly, aside from the legal questions concerning inheritance, parental rights, etc., i see little reason to bother with the institution at all. rather, i am wondering why, if "civil union" is legal in some places, does this "civil union" not automatically confer the same rights as "marriage"? it seems to me it's all a big BS religious scam, and the religious types have a long record of intolerance. why not just start from scratch, redefine "marriage" as a civil union performed by a certified (i could say "certifiable", considering my opinion of religion) religious figure of authority. it doesn't matter what you call a legal union of two people; it's still the same. give everyone the right to make this desired union legal, with all the rights and responsibilities, or take it away from everyone. at base, it's nobody's damn business whom someone else chooses to love and live with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of your best, Keith. One of your best. Amen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The way this law was worded, to "oppose" the right wing-nuts making gay marriage illegal was probably very confusing for people. One had to do a double negative to wrap their minds around what the initiative actually meant.

I'm thinking plenty of people voted "yes" to ALLOW gay marriage and got it wrong because of this confusion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IF THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE "PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" TO ALL CITIZENS, THIS ANTI MARRIAGE PROPOSITION IS BASICALLY "UNCONSTITUTIONAL"!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you Keith for being there for all of us that need the more support like this. We are great people. We are your neighbor, your teachers, your baby sitters, parents, grandmothers and grand fathers. We are working next to you in the office and in the factory and feilds and mechanics CEO's Politicians, mayors, disabled, truck drivers, Cab drivers, medical doctors and specialists.
You dont know who we are. And we work with and for you. We are people you have trusted and will continue to trust.

We have a right to all the same legal rights as a straight couples. We have the right to marry. To have our loved ones put on our insurance. TO see our loved ones in the hospital. After all we are their partner in life. Why should we not be able to see our loved ones in the hospital and be with them during their time of healing. We have all the same spiritual rights as straight couples. We have all the same morals and moral rights as anyone. We have all the same feelings as any one else does. We are people too. WE HAVE THE RIGHT.

I get more more angry as I consider the injustice that is being forced upon a group of people who simply wish to live a normal everyday life. IT IS DISCRIMINTION. GIVE US OUR RIGHTS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oberman has become my new love--he is right on target with everything he says. His abhoreence of Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the Fox puppets is hilarious. And how they HATE him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a radical statement. How can that possibly be? It tells us more about the sanity of the world that we live in than, maybe, we wanted to know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]