Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Keith Olbermann on Proposition 8

At both of the work-related meetings I was at today a popular topic of conversation was Keith Olbermann’s impassioned “special comment” on Proposition 8, delivered last night on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann program.

I didn’t see the segment in question; in fact, I’ve never seen Olbermann’s show. A quick search of the internet, however, rectifies all of that.

So for others who may have missed it, here’s both the video and transcript of Olbermann’s commentary. As you’ll see and read, it’s powerful stuff.

Transcript of Keith Olbermann’s
“Special Comment” on Proposition 8

Countdown with Keith Olbermann
November 10, 2008

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.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

Recommended Off-site Link:
Nationwide Protests Called for Saturday - Jim Burroway (Box Turtle Bulletin, November 11, 2008).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
In the Aftermath of Proposition 8, a Chance to “Join the Impact”
The Real Sodomites: The Proponents of Proposition 8
Unrest in California Over Passing of Proposition 8
Reflections on the Passage of Proposition 8
Fr. Geoff Farrow on Proposition 8
A Mayor’s Change of Heart


Anonymous said...

Would somebody please define "marriage?"

Michael J. Bayly said...

Hi Mark,

Geoffrey Pullum wrote an interesting piece a few years back in which he maintains that advocates of same-gender marriage are not attempting to revise the definition of marriage. “It’s nothing to do with defining the word ‘marriage’,” he says. “Webster’s has done that perfectly well. It’s about a denial of rights.”

And how does Webster’s define “marriage”?

marriage 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage (same-sex marriage) b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage.
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities.
3 : an intimate or close union (the marriage of painting and poetry – J. T. Shawcross)

You might also find this previous Wild Reed post helpful.



Anonymous said...

Thanks, Michael. But is Webster's a Roman Catholic definition of marriage? I'm not saying the definitions should be, have to be, or must be the same. There are some Catholics who would like to change the religious definition of marriage and/or the civil definition of marriage. I'm kind of leaping ahead a little bit, but there is a tendency her to mix up some related questions:

* Should the RC definition of marriage change? That's one question?

* Should the civil definition of marriage be synonymous with the RC definition of marriage. That is another question.

There are doubtless other ways to slice this:

* temporally - the changing definition of marriage over time.

* culturally

* religiously

You get the idea. Its simpler to focus on what's happening in the U.S. right now. That's not to say you don't need to look very broadly into other dimensions of this topic in order to have a comprehensive discussion.

Michael J. Bayly said...

Hi Mark,

Those advocating same-gender civil marriage are not concerned with changing Roman Catholicism's (or any other religion's) definition of religious marriage. The separation of church and state ensures that religious bodies are free to decide for themselves who they will and will not allow to marry. Thus some churches allow gay marriage, others do not.

It would seem, however, that some churches don't want it to work the other way, i.e., they want to dictate to civil society who can and cannot marry. Given this, I can understand the anger that many are feeling in California and, indeed, across the country.

The U.S. is not a Roman Catholic country so, no, the civil definition of marriage is not (and some would argue should not) be the same as the Roman Catholic Church's definition of marriage.