11.13.2008

Olbermann on gay rights.

Because I am on a gay marriage and civil rights kick, and because this video has been brought up numerous times, it's time I posted it direct.

Olbermann can be rather abrasive at times, but I was surprised to hear real emotion in his voice. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like he was on the verge of tears.

Watch the video, and read the transcript while you watch it. It's worth it.


Transcript courtesy of The News Hole, MSNBC




Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.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

8 comments:

Belinsky said...

Wow. We posted this about thirty minutes apart, and we said very similar things about it, or at least I was thinking similar things. Olbermann can indeed be rather abrasive at times, which is one of the reasons I don't always like him, but here he seemed very honest; I could hear that he felt a strong emotional connection to his words.

Great minds think alike, eh?

Kyt Dotson said...

I am really saddened by things like prop-8. I love how he manages to drop the boot on people who voted for it by mentioning our President-Elect.

The history or prejudice is a long and dark one in this nation's history. And it is a pretty great nation, indeed, that we have a place to legislate this prejudice out -- and it is horribly hurtful when people feel like enumerating prejudice into law.

Obermann is an impressive orator.

Monkey Suit said...

I love Olbermann as I'm sure you know. And he hits the nail on the head here. The word marriage does and should have different meanings in this context, that a marriage at a church is a religious ceremony but a marriage by the state is a state ceremony. We need to do a better job of honoring the separation of church and state. If a church doesn't want to marry you then thats fine but the state shouldn't discriminate and abuse one of our civil rights gay, straight or whatever.

Anonymous said...

i've never had any problems with olbermann.
no matter how hard the annoying equivocators try to place him in the same revolting niche as those miscreants over at fox, olbermann is a decent human being.
a lot of folks on the left seem to feel that he violated some unwritten rule when he came down against hillary during the primaries.
i was glad he did it, as she (and her asshole husband) ran a disgustingly cruddy and hateful race.
anyway, thanks for posting this.
loj

Anok said...

Belisky - funny isn't it? Olbermann's little speech there though has gone totally viral. I guess it's on our minds, as of late :D

Kyt, I agree - it's sad and a little disheartening. But that partially why I blog. Gotta beat the stereotypes and bigotry out there!

MS - I didn't know you liked Olbermann! But I agree - there is a disconnect in people's minds, I think, with the semantics of marriage. They just don't get that what is legal could be called fiddlysticks, but that has no effect on their personal opinion of the sanctity of what they are a part of. *sigh*

Loj, thanks for stopping in! I've found most of the pundits left and right to be more than I can handle lately, but I do like Olbermann's rants from time to time. Sometimes he just says things better than I ever could.

Andrew Hibbler said...

A good clip, thanks for posting. He was very emotional--it seemed real, to me anyway.


Nice blog, good writing, I am enjoying it (new follower).


Peace,
Andrew

Stuck in my head said...

I was really happy that he stepped up and said this.

Went to the local rally today to stop h8 here in St. Louis. They said there were about a million people gathered nation wide - straight, LGBTQ, allies, black, white, Asian, Latino - it was great.

Hopefully it will lead to change.

jb said...

Great clip. Had only seen snips of it on the news. He seemed very real and into what he was saying. People should marry who they want and it's sad when our personel lives become news. Nice blog really love it.(new follower)

Cheers