I'm pretty meh with Olbie lately. It's been a steady decline for what seems about six months or so. At first, I admit, he was a bit of fresh air. But now it's all so fake, I'm just not buying this outrage "special comment" thing anymore.

And people were worried that he wouldn't have anything to talk about after Obama won...

Assuming straight marriages and gay civil unions have the same legal protection, which I'm not saying you can as it is because of the subtle nuances of law, then really it's an argument over semantics. Once it is, really both sides are just being petty.

I wonder why it is that two other states passed an essentially identical measure and yet we continue to hear about what bigots Californians are.

>> ^Aemaeth:
I wonder why it is that two other states passed an essentially identical measure and yet we continue to hear about what bigots Californians are.


I agree in part, since the same measure also passed in three other states. The difference is that the right for gays to marry already existed in California, and that right was removed. In the other states, gay marriage was never legal in the first place.

>> ^RedSky:
Assuming straight marriages and gay civil unions have the same legal protection, which I'm not saying you can as it is because of the subtle nuances of law, then really it's an argument over semantics. Once it is, really both sides are just being petty.


I disagree, it is semantics but it is important. By giving it a separate name you imply, very strongly, that civil unions are inferior. Separate but equal is not equal.

>> ^Hominid:
>>^RedSky:
Assuming straight marriages and gay civil unions have the same legal protection, which I'm not saying you can as it is because of the subtle nuances of law, then really it's an argument over semantics. Once it is, really both sides are just being petty.

I disagree, it is semantics but it is important. By giving it a separate name you imply, very strongly, that civil unions are inferior. Separate but equal is not equal.


Honestly, if I had my way, civil unions would be the only thing you received under law and marriage would be an entirely separate religious component. I just dislike it when Olbermann tries to argue that somehow a love between two people, whether homosexual or heterosexual is defined entirely by the symbolic enacting of 'marriage' and seemingly does not exist otherwise. I can certainly understand your argument of inequity, but I can also see how devout Christians see it as a perversion of the sanctity of their beliefs because they choose to interpret the Bible in a certain way. Of course it doesn't impact their marriage or any of that other nonsense but at the same time it has a certain symbolic impact, much the same as being declared 'married' assuming you already possess existing equality under the law through civil unions.

*election08
*politics
*religion
*gay
*humanitarian

Adding video to channels (Election08, Gay, Humanitarian, Politics, Religion) - requested by NetRunner.

A well written, yet horribly delivered speech.

I'm with RedSky, more or less. I don't think the gov't should recognize marriage at all.

Jasmyne Cannick (a black lesbian) wrote an LA Times op-ed piece on how the gay community did not reach out to the black community in a way that would 'speak' to them. You can listen to her talk about this (quite forcefully and almost abrasively in my opinion) on NPR. Lots of people took issue with this view and I myself find it hard to understand the offense she takes, though I can see her point about the priorities for the black community (i.e., get out the vote, regardless of discord over 'smaller' issues) being different from the national priorities. (I myself have told people just to VOTE even when I know they are not voting for my man. Her point is that other issues that presented themselves as more universal to her race took precedence in the election).

Though she did not see it as such, I think that gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and that opposition speaks more to fear than to an actual belief that it causes a 'threat.'

While more emotionally charged and less objective, I think the Alvin Lau's spoken poetry makes the point more universally.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

One simple law. If it was actually followed, how better a place would the world be?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

He says "I have no colleagues who are fighting perjudice that pervades their life". What about Rachel Maddow?

>> ^RedSky:
Assuming straight marriages and gay civil unions have the same legal protection, which I'm not saying you can as it is because of the subtle nuances of law, then really it's an argument over semantics. Once it is, really both sides are just being petty.


This line of thinking is what made it so hard for the south to let go of segregation. I agree with Hominid, separate but equal is not equal.

>> ^Aemaeth:
I wonder why it is that two other states passed an essentially identical measure and yet we continue to hear about what bigots Californians are.


I agree. We should be hearing about what bigots all the states that passed this are.

....sometimes trying to blow out the fire only makes it stronger

Cualquier manera de amor vale la pena, cualquier manera de amor vale amar.

"Any way of loving is worth it, any way of loving is worth loving."

-Milton Nascimento

we give different names to dogs and cats. are dogs inferior to cats, or vice versa?

a word doesn't indicate inferiority. if marriage is a civil union between a man and a women, then why shouldn't there be a word for a civil union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman?

how about "garriage"?

the inuit have 5 words for snow, no type of snow is any more "inferior" than the next. given the many possible types of civil unions, maybe we need to add words to the english language to better describe them.


>> ^Hominid:
>> ^RedSky:
Assuming straight marriages and gay civil unions have the same legal protection, which I'm not saying you can as it is because of the subtle nuances of law, then really it's an argument over semantics. Once it is, really both sides are just being petty.

I disagree, it is semantics but it is important. By giving it a separate name you imply, very strongly, that civil unions are inferior. Separate but equal is not equal.

>> ^notarobot:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
One simple law. If it was actually followed, how better a place would the world be?


what if you are a sadist masochist? that law isn't a very good one. how about:

"Treat others as human beings. All human beings have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by the very nature of being human."

*edited to use the proper term. sorry I'm not up to speed on my S&M vocab

here is my solution:

1. dissolve the legal term "marriage"
2. permit civil unions between all individuals
3. let society come up with descriptive words for different types of civil unions [i.e. marriage (man and woman), garriage (same sex), parriage (polygamy) ]
4. those who want to shun homosexual civil unions can do so...philosophically...with their freedom of speech. they can still protest, complain, etc. but they should not be permitted to legally intervene.

there is a difference between what someone can do and what someone should do.

every human should be able to enter into contract which establishes a civil union. at the same time, every human should be free hold the opinion that humans shouldn't marry the same sex, even if they are legally allowed to do so. the latter is an opinion, and it must be legally protected by the freedom of speech in the same way the that freedom to marry (garry, parry) whomever you chose must be legally protected.

the idea that someone shouldn't marry the same sex is no more "bigoted" than the idea that someone shouldn't eat at mcdonalds. it is an opinion, and it would be "bigoted" to claim that someone's opinion is invalid.

it is important to distinguish between stating your opinion (philosophical attack) and forcing your opinion (legal attack). the former is not bigotry, but the latter would be.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^notarobot:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
One simple law. If it was actually followed, how better a place would the world be?

what if you are a sadist? that law isn't a very good one.

Sadism is the polar opposite to masochism...

ie. inflicting pain doesn't mean you like to have pain inflicted on you.

Not that I disagree with your following sentiment, but if you're going to thrown down on "do unto others", you should come up with at least a relevant counterpoint...

I wonder what the fundies would think of my marriage? No church, no mention of god or whatever. Actually, as a matter of fact, we changed the vows specifically to say that marriage is between two people who are in love, instead of a man and a woman who are in love.

What? It was our wedding, we got to change it how we wanted. We also deleted any mention of children.

Oh wait! No, I actually don't wonder what fundies would think. I don't give two shits about their opinions.

>> ^imstellar28:
here is my solution:
1. dissolve the legal term "marriage"
2. permit civil unions between all individuals
3. let society come up with descriptive words for different types of civil unions [i.e. marriage (man and woman), garriage (same sex), parriage (polygamy) ]
4. those who want to shun homosexual civil unions can do so...philosophically...with their freedom of speech. they can still protest, complain, etc. but they should not be permitted to legally intervene.

This is the best way really. If the government were performing marriages for same-sex couples, the government would be instituting social change (NOT a change in legal rights, because in California, at least, domestic partnerships carry all the same benefits and establish the same rights as marriage). This is really a fight over the word "marriage," and the government is caught in the middle and being used as a weapon in a culture war.

What a phony that guy is. I believe in his message, I'm just not so sure I believe in his sincerity.

>> ^djsunkid:
I wonder what the fundies would think of my marriage? No church, no mention of god or whatever. Actually, as a matter of fact, we changed the vows specifically to say that marriage is between two people who are in love, instead of a man and a woman who are in love.
What? It was our wedding, we got to change it how we wanted. We also deleted any mention of children.


Well I guess you're a real man now. Or is it woman. Or transvestite. Well maybe just an it. But, you're something special!

*length=06:29

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 6:29 - length declared by cricket.