The Famous Keith Olbermann Special Comment on California's Prop 8: Response , Part 1: Are FEELINGS a Good Basis for Law?
See the post, below, for the original arguments against the passage of Proposition 8 in California.
Set aside the "day late and a dollar short" aspects, if you will. Set aside your surprise (if you are anything like me) that the proposition passed at all, let alone convincingly.
Mr. Olbermann's commentary is obviously resonant with very, very many opponents of the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage.
And were the losers acquiescent, I would go no further, likely.
But now the battle is rejoined, again, after state legislation and proposition alike were summarily overturned by five men — Mayor Gavin Newsom and 4 court justices — versus a minority of three. EIGHT people making decisions already made by the state's citizenry, and deciding they knew better than a state-full of people, the difference being two people, total.
Another vote. Another result. Still, it is not "good enough," and one knows that it will never be "good enough."
And I am further in love with the old man, Don Quixote. And so, I tilt again at the windmill:
What are the main thrusts of Mr. Olbermann's feelings and arguments for the overthrowing of the traditional law? And how might someone disagree with Mr. Olbermann — and not be a "horrible! horrible!" person? How might they so disagree with rationality and emotion at least the equal of his?
Put another way, is Mr. Olbermann's side the only, obviously correct side? Do he and his allies fight against injustice so obvious as to render its adherents ignorant, or evil?
I have possible answers to his questions! :
(1) THE ARGUMENTS FROM FEELING, AND THE DENIAL-OF-RIGHTS
- I will start with a positive: I like Mr. Olbermann's tactic of attempting to elicit Shame in his opponents (among whom I must count myself). Shame is a good & useful emotion, too rarely taught and nurtured these days. I am encountering more and more students, at younger and younger ages, who seem genuinely and innocently puzzled when they are reprimanded for doing "something wrong;" it's almost as if the concept of Shame is beyond them. So to Mr. Olbermann, I say, "salud." Thank you for bringing Shame back into the spotlight from which it has been of late so thoroughly removed.
Of course — this would be a far more effective as a tactic, were it almost anyone else attempting to invoke Shame, for Mr. Olbermann, sadly, has made his daily bread for years by being Shameless.
Nonetheless. We will divorce the man from the message, and ask ourselves: is the shame something our side should take upon ourselves? Ought we to be ashamed?
"... 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."So, from the get-go, Mr. Olbermann is asserting lack of understanding of ANY PERSON who VOTED FOR or SUPPORTED VOTERS WHO VOTED FOR or SUPPORTS ANY REASON FOR VOTING FOR the proposition.
Does anyone realize how many millions of people that is? Does Mr. Olbermann realize that he has just confessed to a prejudice far more sweeping than anyone suffering from a prejudice against homosexuals?
Secondly, are laws really "about the human heart?" Is that what we as a society want as the basis of our laws? Feelings?
What Mr. Olbermann fails to explain: how homosexual couples are being denied the "same chance at permanence and happiness," the "chance to be a little less alone in the world," and what "legal right" is being taken away."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."
If state-sanctioned civil unions are authorized, and the rights of married couples extended to homosexual couples — all rights — what right is being denied or taken away? What right? The right to have medical coverage? No. The right to adopt children? No. The right to pay joint taxes? No. The right to visit a loved one in prison or in the hospital? No.
What right is being denied? Who can answer this?
Our neighbors to the East, in Arizona, have a far more pressing problem, for they have just passed a law denying homosexual couples the right to adopt. THAT is denial of a right.
The opponents are calling it a semantic battle: "just let us use the word. It's just a word..." But that sword cuts two ways. It's just a word. Lighten up.
But, if the word means something to you, then maybe — just maybe — it means something to the others, too. Maybe, Mr. Olbermann, you should attempt to understand that. Understand the thoughts and reasons and feelings of your opponents, instead of automatically elevating your obviously better ones over their obviously inferior ones.
"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?"No; supporters are not saying homosexuals have to remain single, living in their sad little apartments, alone — which seems to be what Mr. Olbermann wants me to think of when he says supporters are saying "you can't marry."
What supporters of the amendment are saying is closer to, "You can have a permanent, loving, legally-bonding relationship equal under the eyes of the law in every way to 'marriage.' "
In much the same way, although I admire having a Day of Rest every week, and try (and utterly fail) to keep a Sabbath, nevertheless, I would be an idiot to call what I do a "Sabbath," and my Jewish friends — even the Reformed ones — would laugh at me for thinking I keep shabbas. Should I then get all mopey and demand they amend the definition of Sabbath to include my rather shadowy imitation of the Law? Should I?
Should I rail against the Jews for not extending the definition of Sabbath to include my gentiley traditions? Why? Why should I? Am I being denied the seventh day? Am I being denied any freedom to use it as a Day of Rest? What right am I being denied by the Jews, who won't let me use their word?
Next part:
(2) THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE "RE-DEFINING" OF MARRIAGE
Posted by WryMouth at 12 Nov 2008, 6:35 PM 
Categories: Californianing, Religion, Personal, Re-edjication, Politics, Philosophy
Categories: Californianing, Religion, Personal, Re-edjication, Politics, Philosophy
In response to your Part I- I recommend taking a class in formal logic. If you have, I'd recommend looking back on your class notes. You would make many less silly invalid arguments and it would do service to those who read your page.
That aside, let me make a crazy tautology which might help: People are people. They're people still if they're women, they're people still if they're black, they're people still if they're gay, and they're people still if they disagree with a mainstream opinion. Our history is replete with examples of bigotry, where we haven't been ready to recognize that everyone is in fact a person, and denying some from being part of society is the norm. It's fueled by an argument that gets angry too fast, rarely looks at the logic of what's being said, and almost always ends with the one favoring oppression quipping "Lighten up." Because, you aren't getting denied equal rights and status in this country. So you can afford to be jocular about the whole thing. I'm a straight white male, and I when I say I don't understand why you'd want to deny gay marriage, it's not because I'm that thick or obtuse--I mean it in the way Olbermann means it--I don't understand how YOU could take a position of hatred or smug semantics, when conceeding the point will not have an impact on straight relationships, while making gays equal as they ought to be, and happy, as we all ought to be.
It really comes down to this: Standing in the way of gay marriage isn't about preservation or protection, or moral duty. It's about denying someone something for no other reason than that you just don't want them to have it. Good work.
Reply to this
Thank you for posting, dylan! Especially because, if one thinks one is posting to a potentially adversarial "host" on the host's website, I think that takes a certain amount of moxie. I like to think that that is what blogging, to some degree, is about for me: if you note the postings of my major blogging partner, Cogito Ergo Dem, you'll see that I value differing opinions from mine.
So it was with some excitement that I read the beginning of your post:
"I recommend taking a class in formal logic. If you have, I'd recommend looking back on your class notes. You would make many less silly invalid arguments..."
because I thought that what would follow would be a short primer, perhaps, in formal logic. Or, perhaps, a critique of several points I allegedly "made" to my satisfaction, but not to the satisfaction of the systems of logic.
It is true that my training is in mathematical forms of logic (Boole, for example, and Bayes) and not philosophical logic, with which I am acquainted, but not familiar.
Sadly, I waited in vain for such a development. Could you please expand upon this promising opening, if you chance to come this way again?
What I read instead was:
"let me make a crazy tautology which might help: People are people. They're people still if they're women, they're people still if they're black, they're people still if they're gay, and they're people still if they disagree with a mainstream opinion."
this was striking to me in a couple of ways, but mainly, in that it missed the body of my post entirely. I had never argued that any sort of person does not possess "personhood." I had not argued that homosexuals were any less human than me myself. I had not argued that women were not people, nor Blacks, nor Black homosexual women. Nor had I argued that I (who disagree with the mainstream opinion) am not a person.
Perhaps you meant to reply, "sexual characteristics are indistinguishable in the male and female of the species," or less stringently, "sexual characteristics are of little concern in matters of sexual relations." Or more simply, "men are men, men are women, women are women, and women are men."
Those sorts of "tautologies" would be more on the mark, I think.
You said,
"I don't understand how YOU could take a position of hatred or smug semantics"
which is fair, but I can't find out where my posts contain the stated hatred or smug semantics. You don't know me; so, I am not going to ask you to show me where the hatred is in my life or among my friends. That wouldn't be fair to you.
So, please: show me. I'll be happy to edit my writings and/or beliefs; indeed, I have done so on more than one occasion.
You end with:
"Standing in the way of gay marriage isn't about preservation or protection, or moral duty. It's about denying someone something for no other reason than that you just don't want them to have it."
And, frankly, I found that baseless and hurtful.
All *I* am saying is, heterosexual sex is different. And
How is that hateful? Is being able to distinguish between different things hateful, now? Is calling a person White, or Black, hateful? Is calling a person a woman, or a man, hateful? Is calling a sexual union homosexual or heterosexual hateful now? Is being able to tell the difference between Black and White, Man and Woman, Homosexual and Heterosexual automatically an act of hate?
Well. Perhaps I am in need of that formal logic class.
Thanks again for the stimulating post. I hope that my reply has clarified my position for you a little more.
I think pregnancy is reserved for women; I think Black skin is reserved for African Americans and their ilk; I think flying is reserved for creatures possessing the ability to fly (or having prehensile thumbs and large brains). I do not wish to call hopping "flying," nor men "women," nor bowling balls "footballs." Ditto calling sexual intercourse among a single sex, "sexual intercourse between the sexes." I just think that's silly.
Reply to this
nice straw man, dylan.
I see you remember your notes from logic class.
now, go ahead and address the arguments put forth.
oh - and no one cares what goes on in your bedroom, so don't bother ginning up some fake moral ground next time.
I personally don't care what goes on in any bedroom, really. No, really really. I'm just not sure who in today's America is denied the right to a pursuit of happiness.
Marriage? Any non-minor except the mentally infirm can get married. Even gays and lesbians can get married, no one anywhere denies them that.
Co-habitation? Anyone can play house or something more serious. Happens all the time... gays and lesbians get to co-habitate with benefits: full legal rights conferred on married people, including hospital visitation and right-to-die issues.
Don't argue with anecdotes: for every person you've heard about who was denied hospital visitation (quite possibly in violation of benefits and legal policies), I've got a story about a hundred who were not.
You foist a straw man on me and mine, so I will assign one to you:
I think it is the height of immature spite to insist on a ceremony to call marriage when there is no call for one. And it is the weakest inferior emotional state that invests so much into being counted with the outcasts when there is no chance of enduring the real or imagined slights of the cast-out -- you male, white, hetero you.
Unless, of course you need a mascot or something to look up to you for your insightful, self-denying broad-minded gregarious effort to lift up those fallen below you to a acceptable plane. Near you, but not too near, I'm sure.
Yes, I agree 1000% with you: tokens are important... tokens with which to decorate your emotional living space.
How else can you get some emotional importance back, and a little moral superiority to balance the inferiority you've suffered these years?
Now comes the test. Can you read these words without the irresistable compulsion to set me straight? You see, *I* truly don't care what you think of *me* because I know you not only know not of what you speak, but you don't care to find out any truth, only wallow in your suppositions and ill-conceived perceptions: such is the way of lazy intellect.
Reply to this