RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Keith Olbermann’s Passionate Oratory on Gay Marriage

From time to time we highlight Keith Olbermann’s  articulate  and passionate Special Comment which he delivers at the end of his show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

This past Monday he gave us an especially powerful comment titled. “Gay marriage is a question of love, Everyone deserves the same chance at permanence and happiness

The Lang Report is offering both the Video and the transcript below to give our readers a choice; in principle, the same choice that Olbermann, (although much more serious) speaks of.

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8.  And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

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.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling.  With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."


Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Trackback URL

  1. 10 Comment(s)

  2. By Bob S | Reply

    Two people already have full partnership rights to give each other powers of attorney, share ownership of property and create wills leaving their estates to each other upon death. There is no need for them to be legally “married.” I have gay friends that have been togehter for twenty years and have no intention of getting married even if it is legal. They don’t see any reason to be married and being married won’t change anything. You have the right to live with whomever you wish for as long as you wish.

  3. By Michael Lang | Reply

    Bob, thanks for your comment. It is not so much the act of marriage or being married as it is the rights that go along with the legal union. These are the same rights that are often denied without the legal document.
    It is a sad fact that should never have been on the ballot to begin with.

    It is another violation of the separation of church and state….the cause of all of the mischief.

    Michael Lang
    Publisher

  4. By Carmelo Junior | Reply

    I wonder why Keith Oberman’s ratings are always lower than O’Reily’s.

  5. By Carmelo Junior | Reply

    Separation of God and State does not entails the acceptance of non traditional life styles.
    Marriage has always been between men and women. Even the ancient Babilonians undesrtood that natural reality and even when ancient cultures acepeted polygamy.
    Why just not take religion out of our lives, our currency and the constitution? Why not stopping celebrating Christmas? Why are you celebrating Christmas? Why do you take Christmas day off from work?

  6. By Michael Lang | Reply

    Carmelo, I believe you to be a sincere and caring person however you are mistaken on some of the facts.
    I do believe that religion should be a personal thing. If you choose to develop a relationship with a higher power, that is your choice and our Constitution protects you to do so.
    There is little doubt, however, that we, as a nation, would be far better off if we dispensed witht he religious symbols and practices that have been woven into our government.
    I urge you to read the letter sent to TLR from a reader from Belgium http://www.thelangreport.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=2166

    Something else I would suggest is you go see the movie, “Religilous” with an open mind.

    Lastly, your comment about the ratings of Olbermann vs. O’Reilly…what’s your point except to betray where your get your warped sense of things. O’Reilly is entertaining, I will give you that. But factual? NOT EVEN CLOSE!

    Michael Lang
    Publisher

  7. By Sonny_Amou | Reply

    Admirable in spirit, but Keith didn’t vote.

    http://www.girlsdrinksetc.com/2008/11/going-off-on-keith-olbermann.html

  8. By Michael Lang | Reply

    Sonny, I read your rant on your site and agree with you across the board.
    I am an Olbermann fan and was saddened when I heard him say that he didn’t vote. I saw it live and actually thought he was kidding and laughed until I realized he was serious and my smile turned into something very different.
    I have respected Olbermenn and was interested to know his rationale for not voting but then again I have been emphatic in my belief that this election was too important not to vote, whatever the reason.

    Michael Lang
    Publisher

  9. By H8 Speech | Reply

    The religious who have always seen homosexuality as an affront to the family values they believe in are worried that declaring a homosexual relationship a marriage puts it on the same legal standing, and that eventually they could not take a stand against the practice of homosexuality on religious grounds.

    They have a good point. The GLBT fringe has been extremely litigious in moving their cause forward, and there is no indication that even granting full rights of marriage and everything else to gay couples would prevent them from using the courts to try to force religious groups to accept their lifestyle as divine.

    It’s naaive to say things like “my marriage doesn’t affect you at all.” It may not affect people’s right to practice their religion the day after it is made legal, but you can bet that 10-15 years down the road, every church that doesn’t fully admit homosexual members will be labeled as a hate organization, and their tax exempt status will be taken away.

    I know you see this as a good thing, but after they take away people’s right to free practice (not just belief, even China has freedom of religious belief) you’ll realize it was a bad move. Who knows who will be next after the religions. Religious groups should absolutely be able to speak out in the same way that pseudo-religious political groups are able to speak out. You are asking for the end of free speech.

    Eventually gay marriage is going to happen. Religious people are just trying to protect their freedom for 10-15 more years. They know that the end of freedom is nigh. Talk about America becoming a theocracy or something is beyond ridiculous. America will ban free religious practice by 2050. Mark my words.

  10. By Michael Lang | Reply

    H8, you make some excellent points.
    Any action taken in either direction has its implications, short and long term. They both put us on “slipping slopes” of varying grades.
    My stance is that I must always lean towards “free speech” and the rights of the individual over the crowd.

    Michael Lang
    Publisher

  11. By Avesta | Reply

    H8, your wrong. many gay and lesbian couple are already active in the curch community, the point of Keith’s speech is about how there should be a seperationg of church and state, you can’t expect the church to recognize the marriage but when you personally know the couple in question i doubt that it will make a difference. these couples are just looking to be able to express thier love for one another as well as gain the benefits of a married couple. Churches should never be considered a hate organization, and as for protecting their rights, what about the gay couples? they aren’t asking for a church to perform a marriage against it’s will they can and will be able to find someone else to do it. Your words are marked but i doubt their right.

Post a Comment

 

February 2012
M T W T F S S
« May    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  

This site uses the WP Chameleon WordPress article software to rewrite articles

wp_footer()