Proposition 8: Keith Olbermann Big on Theatrics, Low on Heart

Keith Olbermann is very entertaining, although I seldom agree with him. When it comes to things he doesn't know much about, his feigning of passion and emotion are little more than theatrics. In a recent monologue, he's become a fine shill for the "H8" lobby. If he really cared about homosexuals he would get his facts straight.

Some people watch the follow video segment

"In a time of [the] impermanence and fly-by-night relationships" that Mr. Olbermann clearly observes (along with the rest of us) in society, Mr. Olbermann apparently thinks it's okay to have more of them.

and try without success to hold back tears. I watch it and I try without success to hold back mountains of dismay. Is Olbermann mixing the issues--as well as the truth with fiction--so flippantly in an effort to garner ratings for his show?

Conflating "Homosexual Marriage" with Civil Rights. The issue-mixing shell game is the oldest trick in the homosexual lobby's trick book. Olbermann begins his monologue about "homosexual marriage" by saying that he can't think of anyone he knows who is gay, and that he has no personal stories of friends who are fighting prejudice against their civil rights. But....I thought this was a monologue about homosexual marriage...?

It baffles me how anyone can think that a vote against "homosexual marriage" can be interpreted as condoning the vilification of homosexuals or a violation of their civil rights. In the minds of the vast majority of Mormons (and I suspect of others as well) who voted for Proposition 8, "homosexual marriage" and civil rights are two completely separate issues. Somehow, though, Mr. Olbermann's first monologue salvo is to imply that just because we don't support "homosexual marriage," we would somehow commit or condone violent acts against homosexuals. How heartless.

"I Do Not Understand--Why Does This Matter to You?"
Mr. Olbermann asks this question at the height of his theatrics. Mr. Olbermann doesn't understand because Mr. Olbermann has never sought to understand. "In a time of [the] impermanence and fly-by-night relationships" that Mr. Olbermann clearly observes (along with the rest of us) in society, Mr. Olbermann apparently thinks it's okay to have more of them. Did it ever cross his mind, by the way, what kind of devastation such impermanence and fly-by-nightery have wreaked on each succeeding generation? It takes a heartless person to discount the importance of children having a safe and nurturing environment to grow up in.

"A Little Less Alone in the World" Olberman's second most specious claim is that homosexuals can't be together and love one another simply because they cannot be married. Homosexuals have always had relationships, and Proposition 8 can never stop that. Most

Did it ever cross anyone's mind, by the way, what kind of devastation such impermanence and fly-by-nightery have wreaked on each succeeding generation? It takes a heartless person to discount the importance of children having a safe and nurturing environment to grow up in.

people don't care if homosexuals have relationships, or if they can give their domestic partners hospital visition rights, retirement benefit rights, etc. This has nothing to do with being alone. To claim as much is heartless.

The Oft-Told Lie that Prohibition of Interracial Marriages Equates with Prohibition of Homosexual Marriages Olbermann's worst lie is the impossible comparison between interracial marriages and "homosexual marriage". The banning of interracial marriages as well as earlier marriages between slaves was a travesty in the United States. Such marriages were banned because blacks were thought of by whites as subhuman. That problem has been rightfully fixed.

Although some people may have such feelings that homosexuals are less than human, this is not the reason that thirty different states now have constitutional amendments prohibiting "homosexual marriage". The reason is because marriage is supposed to be a relationship between a man and a woman who together create and nurture life--in love for one another as well as for the life they have created. This is why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches that "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." Because children reared by such mothers and fathers are most likely to be happy and successful and loving in life. Not because Mormons somehow are supposed haters of homosexuals.

It does not require the skill of a rocket scientist to uncover evidence that loving nuclear families provide the best opportunity for the rising generation to succeed in life. That evidence is plentiful. Although such evidence is garnered as much nowadays in the breach as in the observance of natural laws, this is no reason to tip the scales further toward the side of social failure.
. . .

Do homosexuals really want to have "that feeling" of marriage as Olbermann goes on in his monologue to claim? Or do they just want people to love and respect their differences? Love and respect from others is not too much too ask. It's also not too much to ask for Keith Olbermann and others to stop mixing the issues, so that we can get down to the real problem. Homosexual couples just want other people to treat them as they themselves would wish to be treated.

The real problem is that, as blacks once were (and in some cases still are), homosexuals are treated as subhuman. This is wrong. Homosexuals should have the same civil rights that anyone else has, whether man, woman, or child. The real problem will not be solved by giving homosexuals the right to marry. But the whole problem will be solved by a greater outpouring of love from everyone.

It's unfortunate that Keith Olbermann is in the vanguard of the heartless charge against heart-felt logic.


  1. I'm actually a pretty recent convert. Before the Prop 8 fiasco in California, I used to think that civil unions were an OK compromise. Now I agree that marriage is the only way to guarantee equality.

    The act of taking away a state-level constitutional right, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, was such an outrage that it seems to have changed a lot of minds.

  2. “There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.”

    --Elie Wiesel

  3. That's a great quote. I just don't think it fits with the current topic.

    I'm unclear, though, why you think civil unions are no longer an OK compromise.

  4. Frank-- Let me explain better. The California Supreme Court ruled that equality means marriage. Then the LDS Church and other groups mobilized to take that right away. That changed my mind.

  5. I understood that part. If I were you I'd be incensed that 4 of 7 members of the California Supreme Court pulled a rabbit out of a freakin' hat!

  6. I'll agree that Keith Olbermann missed it on the fact that Gay People can't be together if they can't be married, but I think he was dead on with the rest of what he said.

    There is definitely evidence that children do well in a traditional family, but I would suspect that the same would be true for children raised in a loving home by parents of the same gender. There will be exceptions to that, but I would suspect that like traditional marriages, they would be the minority of cases, and due to factors other than the sexual preference of the parents.

    Despite being told by my Stake President that I am now an enemy of the Church in his eyes, I must agree with the Elie Wiesel quote shared by RMWarnick. I don't condone the protests at temples, but at the same time I think the Church brought it on itself by becoming involved to the extent that it did. My Stake President also spoke about 'Cloak Holders'. Men who would hold the cloaks of others who were stoning someone for various violations of the law. I don't want to be a cloak holder. One who stands by while injustices were performed. I may not agree with your opinion on the matter, but have the utmost respect that you aren't sitting by idly while this goes on either.

  7. UK,

    Some children may thrive as children in a homosexual marriage, but the evidence points to the fact that a loving mother and a loving father are much to be preferred. This, I think, is why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints encouraged its members to get so involved.

    I'm unclear about what your Stake President said. Did he call you a cloak holder because of your opposition to Prop 8?

    I don't think that the Church warranted any of the vitriol that anti-Proposition 8 people have thrown at it. It simply encouraged its members to stand up for what they thought was morally/socially correct.

  8. He didn't call me a cloak holder directly. He talked about members of the Church needing to follow the prophet in causes such as Proposition 8 and that there are some within the Church that are attacking from within by opposing it. He said that those who do not get involved in defense of thing like this are cloak holders. I guess in that light, perhaps he views me as more of a stone thrower. I think the implementation of the Prop 8 direction in our stake has been more 'militant' than other stakes, based on what I've heard.

    I have no problem with a Church coming out, encouraging it's members to consider the issues and vote with their conscience, but I think it needs to stop there. I think the Church crossed the line when it encouraged political donations to a specific campaign, donated itself (albeit a small in-kind donation) and mobilized its membership to promote Prop 8. I'm not defending those who are turning their anger and frustration against the Church, in fact I think they are doing more harm for their cause than good, but at the same time, politics is dirty and so you need to expect some backlash if you get involved. You've seen the things I've been called for sharing my opinion - I'm not complaining about it, since it's the risk I took.

  9. And a few points here:

    Why do you keep insinuating that homosexuals are less serious about or committed in their relationships than heterosexuals, that homosexual marriages would simply result in more “impermanence and fly-by-night relationships?” I thought we’d agreed that homosexuals are just as likely to be truly committed in their relationships as heterosexuals? If so, to imply that permitting homosexuals to marry would result in more superficial relationships is demeaning.

    I believe there is more comparison to interracial marriage than you suggest: both are relationships people found disturbing, and about which they propagated lies (blacks just want white girls as trophies, etc).

    Why isn’t it a civil rights issue? Because it can’t be proven that homosexuality isn’t a choice? So what? Civil rights aren’t just about genetics. If a law banned a Muslim from marrying a Christian, wouldn’t that be a civil rights issue, despite the fact that both parties choose their faith?

    While the passage of Prop 8 will not prevent homosexual relationships, let us be honest; Prop 8 and all other anti-homosexual marriage legislation are attempts to marginalize homosexual relationships. By enacting such legislation, proponents hope to discourage such relationships. If the proponents, including the LDS Church, had their way, there would be no homosexual relationships. And they have a right to discourage those relationships if they wish by persuasion and religious exclusion (excommunication). But if we really stand for freedom of conscience, we have no right whatsoever to codify our religious beliefs regarding marriage into law.

  10. Even if homosexuals are as committed in their relationships as heterosexuals, that has the potential to unleash havoc on at least half of any children that have, through homosexual marriage, become members of yet another family that adds to the statistics of divorce. It may not be true, but I have read statistics that indicate that homosexuals are much more likely to have multiple relationships than heterosexuals are, so the problem could be even worse.

    You are correct that lies have been propagated about interracial marriages as well as homosexual marriage. The fact that children deserve both a loving father and a loving mother is NOT one of such lies being told about homosexual marriage.

    In your attempts to not marginalize homosexuals you seem to not care that you are marginalizing children.

    You say:

    If...the LDS Church, had their way, there would be no homosexual relationships.

    As stated, I don't think you really mean that. The LDS Church wishes that there were no homosexual relationships, sure, because it teaches that only heterosexual relationships will continue in the next life. But to say (I think you're implying it anyway) that the Church would, if it could, force homosexuals to separate--this flies directly in the face of agency (freedom of choice).

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. You say:

    It may not be true, but I have read statistics that indicate that homosexuals are much more likely to have multiple relationships than heterosexuals

    I'd be very skeptical about that statistic. If it were true, do you think the fact that those relationships are considered inconsequential and invalid might contribute something to that?

    We most certainly should be concerned with children, including those who are already part of same sex families. Some may have ended heterosexual relationships in which they conceived children, and entered into homosexual relationships (I know of at least a few homosexuals who married, trusting that God would cure them for their faith, only to eventually decide that they could no longer live the lie). Others have been granted adoptions by private organizations willing to do so, and still others use artificial conception (this isn’t just about sex; despite what many claim, the desire to create a family is not foreign to them). Do we not owe it to the children in those relationships to guarantee their rights as much as we do those of heterosexual relationships? Or do we take them from their same sex parents because we think they might be less fit? As a homosexual acquaintance of mine put it:
    You do not have to help us find relationships, cement them in bonds of love and commitment, or have children. But because we do those things, we qualify to receive the same societal rights, benefits and protections for our spouses and children which are guaranteed to you, your spouse and your children by way of CIVIL marriage. We don’t want to force your church to marry us in your churches or temples. That’s not the goal here. This isn’t in the least about forcing churches to grant sacraments to people they think are sinners. This is about protecting children who lose a parent. This is about protecting elderly people when they lose their spouse. Basic, simple, loving things that we as a society do to support other citizens in times of need, whether we particularly like them personally or not, whether we approve of everything they do or not, whether we think they are sinners or not.

    you say:
    The fact that children deserve both a loving father and a loving mother is NOT one of such lies being told about homosexual marriage

    Which implies that this is a fact. I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) that you’ve suggested research and statistics back this up. I submit that you are jumping to conclusions. Yes, there is a great deal of evidence suggesting that two parent households are better for children. But given how small the percentage of families with two parents of the same gender, I have a difficult time believing that there has been any substantial study comparing heterosexual parents to homosexual parents.

    I do believe that in the most ideal circumstances, families would have two parents, one of each gender. But then, in “ideal” circumstances, people would not grow up with same-sex attraction to throw a monkeywrench in their lives and society, for reasons we have not yet been able to understand, and which we have yet show any real ability to change. It isn’t an ideal world. There are plenty of heterosexual parents out there who are miserable parents. You can’t fix that by preventing them from divorcing. You can’t legislatively force them to love their children--indeed, I think by trying to legally force couples to stay together when one or both are not willing to work on a truly nurturant relationship, you probably do more to hurt the children than help them. Nor, to get back to homosexuals can you force people into more reproductively productive relationships by restricting marriage.

    I do mean exactly what I said about the Church. Given their prior attitudes towards homosexuality, I do believe that they would like to pressure homosexuals to either “change” or live celibate. Their determination to block marriage shows that they are not truly committed to allowing them and other religious organizations free agency in that sense.

  13. What i do not understood is in truth how you are not really a lot more well-appreciated than you may be
    now. You're very intelligent. You recognize thus significantly when it comes to this topic, produced me for my part consider it from a lot of various angles. Its like men and women don't seem to be fascinated unless
    it is one thing to accomplish with Woman gaga! Your own stuffs great.
    At all times deal with it up!

    Look at my site -


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog