Olbermann on Prop. 8 November 12, 2008 Jill He occassionally gets on my nerves, but when he’s good, he’s good:
I know what you mean about sometimes getting on your nerves, but DAMN, that was beautiful. I loved the way he called on the central tenet of Christianity (well, what I take to be the central tenet, anyway) – love for all others, regardless of their “sinful” or otherwise nature in your eyes to make his case, I wish a preacher would stand up on a pulpit and make exactly the same remarks in church, because that WAS a Christian sermon that he delivered, in my opinion.
Well, he’s preaching to the choir with me, but I hope he made someone question their views. I confess it gave me a little tear.
I’m one who generally finds KO smug and insufferable—even when we agree, which is usually—but I’m glad he took on this appalling amendment. Credit where credit is due. (One caveat: Perhaps I’m just predisposed to finding KO condescending, but I DID grow weary of the repeated “these people….” to refer to The Gays. It strikes me as distancing and vaguely patronizing. Still, props.)
Of course KO’s arrogant — he’s a newscaster competing with Bill O’Reilly. I prefer Rachel Maddow myself, but KO’s been an absolute tonic these last miserable eight years when I need someone to intelligently and sarcastically dismantle the Bushies. But you’re right: when he’s on, he’s really on. Bless him for this.
FundamentallyFlawed, how else should he have refered to them as? He was talking about gay people. Not about people as a whole, but a specific group of people — gay people. There’s no real other way for him to say it.
littleapples – For me, when someone says, “these people” or “those people”, it sounds like they also think all their audience is also outside of that group. Obviously, KO knows that to not be the case, but it would still make more sense to me if he’d just said “gay people” in place of “these people” or “those people”. As a woman, if I were in the audience of someone talking about women’s rights, and they said “those people” in reference to women, it’d make me want to raise my hand and be all, “hey, I’m here! That’s not a “those people”, that’s me!”. I probably don’t have a water-tight argument for this, but it’s just the way it hits my ear. I’ve never watched KO – I only see him in transition before Maddow’s show – but maybe I’ll check out his show tonight!
I agree that “those people” is a condescending and fairly othering term. He could have said “gay people”; though “gay” isn’t as invisible a word as “those,” it might have come across better.
Several of my students forwarded this to me. KO got his start in sports broadcasting — an environment that oscillates between the apolitical and the reactionary — and he still carries some “masculine cred” with young men who remember his ESPN days well. And I’ve heard from a few of these lads that they adore KO, and they are more open to progressive perspectives as a result of taking him seriously. It’s frustrating that it takes a straight white man with solid sportscasting credentials to generate that kind of interest, but I’ll take it.
Agree with both the irritation and the “…but this was awesome.” Also, it was nice not to see him yelling. I loved the whole “really, people, what’s it to you?” because some days I feel like that’s what a lot of arguments basically boil down to (in my own circle not about gay marriage so much but sometimes about trans issues) thing and I liked that he WASN’T yelling, his primary emotion wasn’t anger but, well, love and sympathy. Because I feel like that too–for every bit of mad I am that this passed, I’m a lot more sad for the people it affects.
My biggest issue is that he’s equating being gay with slavery. While I do have a strong amount of sympathy for the far from perfect inter-racial analogy, stretching the analogy to slavery is too much if you ask me. It is important that we not forget that detail, but even though my marriage may not be recognized in my state, I will never have my wife and family ripped away from me as so many slaves did, not to mention all the other tragedies of slavery. Being trans, being gay, these things are difficult in this society. But I am not a slave, and I will not lessen the memory of the tragedy that was slavery by equating my problems with theirs.
polerin, I think people tend to equate the two because it’s all we really have, as a comparison and an analogy. It’s a civil rights issue. I think it also tends to get people to think and to become emotionally involved, and go, “Oh … I guess it really is a civil rights issue.”
Well, I appreciate him not saying that it was just gay people seeking these rights. I’m bi, and I want to make sure that I have the right to love who I love, male or female. So, this does not just affect gays, and I am glad he unwittingly acknowledged that. It may sound a little harsh, but I doubt he did that on purpose, and he is only trying to help us.
Polerin, you may have an issue with KO using slavery as analogy, but I have an issue with gay community using civil rights as an analogy because you can remain out in the open with your white skin and blend in and enjoy all the trappings of society. But as a woman of color with a family, we don’t have that luxury. You will always notice me and my kind.
marilove, it’s not really all we have as analogy, I’m sure. It’s also a great way to turn people off whose ancestors were actually slaves. I think the piece was pretty good. Touching to be sure. It’d have been nice before the election, but now is better than never I guess. I do wish more people (including the no on 8 campaign) had been, or were, talking about the fact that this initiative allowed a straight majority vote to deny constitutionally guaranteed votes by amending the state constitution. If this right can be eliminated, why not yours? Love is all well and good, but marriage does not equal love. How about “in a society where 51% of voters get to decide if fundamental rights are recognized, what razor thin majority keeps yours from being eliminated?”
First thing: The people voted. This is as democratic as it gets. What can you say when the people have a chance to vote and they do. You can’t say anything about it because thats how this government works and what makes it unique. Its not minority rule, its majority rule by vote. Second thing: How come he didn’t come down so hard on Arizona and Florida?
God loves all people. This is true, but God doesn’t love every behavior of humans. Even if gay marriage eventually is accepted by all people of the world as valid, it still doesn’t mean that God accepts it. His ways are not are ways. But God loves you so much that He sent His one and only Son, so that whoever believes in Him will have everlasting life. Thank you Jesus. 🙂
To Polerin and Angela: Why is it worse to be black and “stand-out” then it is to deny who you are in order to blend in? Why is being beaten and/or murdered for being gay not as bad as being murdered as a slave? Why is not being able to openly love another person not as difficult as being black? Why is it that so many black people want to make sure that everyone knows their oppression is worse than everyone else’s? Is that really true today? Aren’t gay people the most oppressed group of people in today’s society?
This is not the oppression olympics. This is us calling out gay-haters. You people who are saying that gay rights aren’t civil rights should be ashamed of yourselves. You are the enemy of individual liberty and when you minimize gay oppression you sound like a bigot.
Out Wrong — I was referring to Unapologetic Feminist. There is no oppression olympics in saying “gay rights is a civil rights issue.” There is oppression olympics in saying “gay rights is more important than x other civil right issue,” or vice versa.
Oh, and Benjamin, if “democracy” means “the dominant group gets to vote to take away the rights of oppressed groups,” then I say fuck democracy. Also, by your own comment we live in a democracy — not a theocracy. So stop bringing your god into it as though it (either god or your interpretation of god) means something to the rest of us.
Cara, please forgive me if I upset you. You sound like you have a hurting heart, and I’m grieved inside that you’ve rejected your loving heavenly Daddy who formed you in your mother’s womb and loves you so intimately that He numbered the very hairs on your head. I Just wanted to encourage you and speak some truth into your life, not lies, just some real truth. Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. God bless you Cara. -Benjamin
In response to the “gay vs black people/slavery” responses that have started popping up, I would like to say two things. First, everybody take a chill pill. Breathe… Alrighty then. Second, Mr Olberman’s point was regarding one of the main tenets held by the people who voted in favour of Prop. 8, that they do not want to change, redefine the definition of marriage as it currently stands. He was pointing out that the definition of marriage has already been changed at several points in America’s history and used these two changes -letting black people be legally married at all, and then, in 1967, allowing for the legal marriage of interracial couples- as examples to support what he was saying. The equation of slavery and the denial of rights to gay people is not as far-fetched as one might think. In both cases, the common thread is that a certain group of people was denied basic human rights because they were not considered fully human. It may sound raw, but whenever anyone singles out a group of people for whatever trumped up reason you may concoct and say to them ‘You! Yeah, you weirdos over there! You see this? Everybody else has it, but you can’t get it because you’re not good enough!”, they are denying that group’s essential humanity. And that is always, always, unjust and heartless.
Oh look, Benjamin’s on moderation. It’s Jill’s post, so she can figure out what to do with him. I don’t take condescension or people trying to “save” me with their religion very well, Ben, and I take people trying to justify their bigotry with religion even worse.
KO articulated much of what I’ve wanted to say in the past few years; in my (very red) Southern state, not only was gay marriage outlawed by voters 70% to 30%, the governor at the time (fucking Huckabee) developed something called Covenent Marriage, where the only way you can divorce your (presumably) male spouse is if physical abuse has been WITNESSED and proven. Some of my gay friends went to protest this group marriage thing (sounds like Rev Moon to me) and heard some of the most filthy words come out of the mouths from these supposedly “Christian” (it was limited to Protestant Christians). The only funny thing to come out of it was that a local businessman and his wife ran ads on television supporting the event, and he’s known in the gay community to be gay (visiting rest stops, parks, certain restrooms).
Did anyone else feel like his analogies about slavery and mixed race marriages came off like he was scolding blacks who voted for prop 8? Like he was especailly frustrated at that little chunk of the yes vote? This is the only clip of him i’ve seen so i don’t know what his track record is. And I think he made a good point that marriage has been “redefined” in the past and it was a good thing. But he was also talking directly to people who voted yes for prop 8 which made it seem like he was using the analogies to also point out hyprocricy. And maybe he’s right. But aren’t blacks who voted yes like 7% of Cal voters? What about polygamist fucking mormons who funded the whole thing. Aren’t they a little bit hypocritical too?
I didn’t mean to soudn anti-mormon or polygamist. I just think its really ironic for a church that spent so much of its history defending its marriage practices to weigh in so heavy on prop 8.