Comments on: Keith Olbermann’s Passionate Oratory on Gay Marriage

By: Avesta

Avesta — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:45:53 +0000

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.

By: Michael Lang

Michael Lang — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:47:23 +0000

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

By: H8 Speech

H8 Speech — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:16:54 +0000

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.

By: Michael Lang

Michael Lang — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:47:26 +0000

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

By: Sonny_Amou

Sonny_Amou — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:13:13 +0000

Admirable in spirit, but Keith didn’t vote.

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

By: Michael Lang

Michael Lang — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 04:35:04 +0000

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

By: Carmelo Junior

Carmelo Junior — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:18:09 +0000

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?

By: Carmelo Junior

Carmelo Junior — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:11:21 +0000

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

By: Michael Lang

Michael Lang — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 06:49:22 +0000

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

By: Bob S

Bob S — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:59:38 +0000

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.