Olbermann's Powerful Special Comment on Proposition 8

[ultraist]

Run time: 00:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21xdFUp-vVU   Posted on YouTube: November 11, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 11, 2008 By DU Member: ultraist Views on DU: 2683

 
Transcript:

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.

If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.

[redirish28]

1. It made my wife cry. She has a few close friends who are gay and I thought

Olbermann himself was about to breakdown. It was very powerful,

[Athelwulf]

2. Thank you so much, Mr. Olbermann.

You are one of the smartest, most eloquent men I know of. I sincerely thank you for speaking so forcefully and unequivocally in defense of my rights — all of my rights. My already deep respect for you has deepened all the more.

Again, thank you.

[HeresyLives]

3. I NEVER CRY!

:cry:

[frogcycle]

4. He moved me.

I have been one of those promoting doing away with the term "marriage" as a government-sanctioned relationship. make it not "separate but (un)equal" but, rather, equal under the law without the inflammatory word that riles the fundies.

Screw that.

Between Thom Hartman this afternoon and KO tonight, I've seen the light.


Governments have been sanctioning legal arrangements they called "marriage" for a long time, and using bigoted, discriminatory rules for who could participate. Time to fix that. Screw finding a way to slip it by the fundies. Time to slap them silly.

As far as semantics is concerned, KO got it right. Pick the new word for the religious service. Dropping it for the legal arrangement, while potentially equitable if it could be accomplished, is a bit like Lucy and the football. It would be like saying, "ok, you win, you get the legal rights, but we are going to deprive EVERYONE now because of you whiny babies." Kind of like schools in the South in the 60's that dropped basketball rather than have to play against integrated teams.

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. Yes, Keith gets it. Very powerful words - and more, emotions.

[ihavenobias]

6. Excellent.

What more can I say?

[Athelwulf]

7. Please DIGG this!

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Video_Olbermann_s_Special_Comment_on_Proposition_8

[cooolandrew]

8. Keith has endurable integrity. It was the best expressed sentiment on the topic so far.

[Aslanspal]

9. Keith hits a home run

Thankyou Keith for taking up for a minority that has been scape goated by a majority.

[Lost-in-FL]

10. BRAVO MR OLBERMAN!!!

:applause:

[The Brethren]

11. Thank you Keith!!!!!!!

[KatyaR]

12. Damn, Keith, just--damn.

If you were here, I'd give you a big, big hug. :hug:

My greatest hope is that this defeat propels us into action to fix this horrible situation. We need to treat all humans the same, with no excuses. The sorrow and grief that has been verbalized on DU in the past week has really made me see that we still have so far to go in this country before we are all truly equal.

[hisownpetard]

13. I love this man. Thank you, Keith. Beautifully said.

5th K&R.

[LynnTheDem]

14. I live now in Vancouver, Canada, where gay marriage is so taken for granted

the only thoughts provoked over news of an impending gay marriage is...WTF to get the happy couple for a wedding gift.

(And can I find a ride so I can drink my arse off...)

[geekgrrl]

15. Thank you, Keith. let's post this far and wide people!! nt

[gtar100]

16. KO absolutely got to the heart of the matter

For those who support banning gay marriage, I agree with Keith - just what is it to them? I'm so sick of the sanctimonious bullshit about "protecting marriage". I've visited a few websites that are about "protecting" marriage. Their protection of marriage was nothing but bible verses intermixed with words like fag, queer, and dyke. Yea, shows real concern for marriage alright.

Prop 8 is the beginning of the end of this kind of prejudice.

[mondo joe]

17. Most moving commentary on Prop 8 I have seen. I'm stunned. NT

[smiley]

18. it's a shame this man isn't listended to by all americans on a major new network.

I live in Denver and you have to have direct tv to get MSNBC. The only way I get to listen to him through the internet. His commentaries are spot on.... IMO

[tavalon]

20. I can agree because many people don't get their news and commentary from the internet

but I decided against television about 10 years ago so I'm quite content to hear this mans stuff on the internet.

[PATRICK]

19. Evil propositions

Yes, I am making the issue the gaming of the process. It is California which especially made famous the "moral revolt" wedge by getting people to think they could make a direct vote on "no taxes!". Since they they dumped a governor in a recall and put up other such propositions, sometimes liberals who always went up against big money that could blow their propositions easily out of the water or scrap them like the forced electric cars.

In perspective these "movement and morality" propositions don't get anywhere. The long trail of tears for the ERA fizzle was probably the most successful national movement. Political capital rose and sank in that battle while the diabolical clock simply ran out

So what was Proposition 8 crafted for? It was clearly part of the early program to game California toward the GOP by splitting our base and uniting theirs. They had tried to game "electoral reform" with the help of zealous, dumb Dems to divide the state's electoral votes "proportionally" but the illusion collapsed when they couldn't stop cheating to get more than their fair share. They tried to put in more cheat machines but the size of the state was not ideal for hiding the multi-abuses and dangers of the damned things. Etc.

In the debris of victory this should REMIND us, as with the stubborn GOP efforts of the fraud apparatus to salvage seats, that the efforts, though swamped, were there and worked as intended but with little national result at all.

Apparently many here insist on making sure that they continue to work as intended as to encourage more GOP or other abuses in the crafting of election bending propositions in their future revival. Short cuts like having the SCOTUS or a proposition do an end run around a failed legislature may be satisfying or dramatic in the short run, but the democratic sounding ballot proposition problem will persist. Any ballot controversy that sends DU morphing into muddled crankiness ruins this forum from its next possible step into the framing the REAL legislation of OUR new Congress. Are we going to be fault finding spectators lining up for our introverted firing squads or are we now going to take some responsibility engaging in what we fought for?

As with the virulent Hillary/Obama splits this too should probably pass and maybe we are wasting too much time in the sucker breast beating and blame threats in re-enacting a failed play, "Dem Loser" Act II that does not exist this year by an overwhelming mandate.

Victory seems to imply what it is not. People were still fooled, suckered, led by their issue noses into self contradictions and the dangerous sucker swamp. The MSM is STILL doing it to everyone, including us, happily using the one, miserable dirty success(empty of its purpose to help elect McCain) they could pick out of the garbage of their dark dreams.

As for the temporary limited success of these anti-gay propositions, yes, they will go down to defeat in history too, and we can be damn sure there is no picture book perfection of American moral judgment
to highlight it. It is a disgrace like Jim Crow, slavery, jingoism, libertarian anti-government lunacy.

And you know what? Ignore the whimpering pleas for this small victory over the American people and their best ideals from the discredited corporate media, because nationwide the whole ball of evil is melting down- if we do not get distracted or discouraged by GOP phony "successes".

There are discussions that be had on issues and engagements with the sometimes ugly spread of popular opinions. Yet on controversies such as this remember the source and purpose HAS been defeated. This empty shell of shame merely reminds us of our wounded nature, which is one political constant we must never forget.

[tavalon]

21. Yeah, I've been thinking this too

They have won a small battle, but the wars end is on the horizon and they will lose that war. Our society is becoming more tolerant of diversity and there is nothing the homophobes can do to stem the tide. And I also think that we should basically stop throwing money at this travesty (prop 8) as it will be knocked down by the California Supreme Court. I think it's okay in these weeks before we have to get to work watching Obama's back and putting his feet to the fire, that we protest this travesty and protest it hard. We might just push the change to happen that much quicker and besides we need to teach the religious fundies that bad behavior has consequences. But, I think in the long run, we can't chase every single wedge issue that the Rethugs dangle in front of us. Now, mind you, I support my homosexual brethren and I'm angry that the American people are so damn manipulateable but that's just the same as it ever was. I don't think we should have a counter prop though - I think this needs to go to the courts - to do otherwise is to throw good money after bad. Actually, come to think of it, given the confusion in some people's minds about what a yes and no vote meant, the better approach might have been to encourage abstaining from a vote on that prop based on it's unconstitutionality.

I feel really bad for all the Californians who got married to their same sex partners and now feel like that's been ripped away and I hope they come to understand that this was sound and fury, signifying nothing. They are just as married as they were last month and nothing the fundie whackadoos and the misguided electorate does will change that. Likely in less than a decade or certainly not much more than that, marriage equality will be the law of the land.

[Catsbrains]

22. I loves me some Keith!!!!!