The Famous Keith Olbermann Special Comment on California's Prop 8: Link by an Old Dinosaur Who, To Judge From the Outcome Nov. 4, Still Has Some Bite Left in Him Afterall
Many of my students, among others, are now upset that Proposition 8 (limiting California's recognition of "marriage" to that between one man and one woman) has passed.
Now? Where were they before the election — sitting on their hands, awaiting the guaranteed rejection by the unified citizenry?
Well. Water under the bridge, I suppose, but I have to admit this Old Dinosaur, who'd posted his soul-searching reasoning earlier in the week, was as surprised as anyone to find the Proposition passing, and then passed after all.
But of course, in California, such issues aren't over, ever, until some segment of the population has their way.
So now — now — I find myself raising up again, once more into the breach. To arms; to fight a fight I thought was lost a few times over already.
But, the evidence suggests, I have many more allies than ever I suspected. Indeed, we seem to be in the majority.
Many of my high school students have posted a link to Keith Olbermann's touching editorial regarding Proposition 8's passage. Olbermann's commentary may be viewed as something of a gathering-place for the arguments of the anti-8 forces. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, Mr. Olbermann is passionately against any so-called "preservation" of the classical definition of marriage:
Additionally, a transcript of Mr. Olbermann's message may be found here, at the Huffington Post.
h/tip to my high school students and their Facebook profiles!
Posted by WryMouth at 11 Nov 2008, 9:14 PM 
Categories: Californianing, Religion, Personal, Re-edjication, Politics, Philosophy, Science
Categories: Californianing, Religion, Personal, Re-edjication, Politics, Philosophy, Science
I couldn't watch more than one minute of Olbermann when he did KTLA 10:30 sports (this is a guy who can't report a boxscore accurately, much less offer a cogent argument on something. Trust me, I've seen it. But he does know how to use big words correctly - a very good ruse, I use it often.)
In the first 60 seconds of this he does something pretty common.
Ever notice how these passionate defenders of homosexuals and their right to impose their lifestyle on America always need to make it perfectly clear that they are NOT homosexual?
Do they find the homosexual lifestyle so distasteful that they will not countenance the possiblity that they might be counted among the homosexuals?
I'd say "yes." These defenders fall into the "friends like these" category. I've seen a compatriot of KO, Bill Mahr, rail on the Catholic Church for forcing homosexuals into the clergy where they have no choice but to prey on altar boys.
The problem? Billy doesn't realize that homosexuals are NOT pedophiles. Yet he is quick to label them as such in order to attack someone conveniently. He's another guy who will declare from the hilltops his heterosexuality in order to distance himself from those he wishes to defend.
Just sayin.
Reply to this
I purposefully let this stand pretty much on its own, and deferred my analysis ("fisking?") of the editorial for a separate post.
Posts, as it turns out.
There are so very many "straw man" arguments on the anti-heterosexual-is-different side and such a hailstorm of specious arguments, that I wanted to -- again -- stop, take a breath, and think about the issue for myself, from first principles.
I think I am getting ahold of why I feel the way I do.
I am not even saying I am right... but I am saying I *own* my position, now. My opponents feel the issue is an important one; important enough that they APPROVE of a handful of men lording it over millions -- in a representative republic.
I thought I'd honor their passion by clearly detecting, then explaining, my position.
In order to do that, I felt it reasonable to grant the opposition a voice, and one that many* respect.
* on the anti- side.
Reply to this