The battle continues, and so I conclude my series:

My initial essay here, Mr. Olbermann for the "No on 8" side here, Part 1 and Part 2 of this response there and there, respectively.

Wow. Why do I care so much? At bottom, it has to do with — sensibility, intelligence, dignity in diversity. A host of things that perhaps aren't obvious at first blush.

***

Now, "activists" in Hollywood and Palm Springs are hunting down and "outing" businesses that contributed to the "Yes on 8" efforts... in Palm Springs, we have a name: Palm Springs Mayor Pro Tempore Ginny Foat, who — according to local AM radio reports — supported a movement to :

(1) a complete list of businesses and business leaders in California who according to the California Secretary of State website donated monies to the anti-Marriage Equality Proposition 8 campaign,

(2) a list of businesses and business leaders in the Coachella Valley who donated monies to the Yes on Hate campaign,

When are the vast majority of citizens going to speak out against this sort of tactic? Should I hold my breath as I wait and see if any on the left will publicly protest it?

I thought that my series would be another in a long line of "almost done" projects of mine, but things seem to be getting worse, not better.

And it's all so unnecessary.

The forces supporting the legislation of homosexual "marriage" will win out the day; I have no doubt.

This is, after all, a nation that calls a disturbed woman who thinks she is a man who can get pregnant because s/he kept her uterus and other reproductive organs intact — the nation calls her a "pregnant man," with no irony whatsoever, and buys books chronicling her insanity as a "journey."

How can the forces who abhor definition and classicism as "discrimination" and "hatred" NOT triumph in this world?

***

This is part
(3) OLBERMANN'S CLOSING ARGUMENTS FROM PRIVACY (M.Y.O.B.) AND RELIGION


Olbermann concludes with a few more potshots:

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.

I cannot subscribe to Mr. Olbermann's brand of cynicism, but will not debate it, as it is a matter of opinion. But, of course, as a matter of opinion, I feel no obligation to accept his argument as an argument for general application.

For educational purposes, I will note that Mr. Olbermann's application of population statistics to individuals is erroneous. The chances of *your* marriage will last, until death do you part, is either 0% or 100%, like Schrodinger's Cat. You won't ever know, though, until the box is opened.

And of course, it matters intensely "how much you feel and how hard you work." I am saddened by whatever trials Mr. Olbermann has suffered through to make him feel otherwise.

Sadly, then, his plea "don't you, as human beings, have to embrace that love?" is not going to resonate with everyone. I get the bit about encouraging "love," and maintain that creating civil unions equal in every way, both in rights and responsibilities, to marriages, encourages that "love" in ways many countries, particularly those based on theocracy or atheism, would not.

And without the need to fiddle with the prehistorical meaning of "marriage" as a concept and ideal.

But Mr. Olbermann is not paying attention.

With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason,

I'm guessing this would not be a good time to remind Mr. Olbermann of his core approach to entertaining his audience. No?

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?

There again, his cynicism. And again, this from a man who specializes in fomenting unhappiness and hate for entertainment's sake. Pardon me if I do not buy the argument from him. Or the argument in general. It is just more strikingly absurd coming from Olbermann.

But — to answer the question — what does my religion, my conscience, my heart tell me to do? I will tell you. I am speaking not for others, nor for Mr. Olbermann. He asks the question of *me.* I will go out on a limb and tell him, assuming he asked because he would truly want to know, and not because he thought he already knew.

In the first place, my religion, conscience and heart are three different things and do not always agree. I wonder if he has thought about that at all.

(1) My religion says that "marriage" is between a man and a woman, having dispensed in a previous era with polygamy and having sexual relations with slaves. In all eras, however, that religion has defined "marriage" as heterosexual, as foundational to the definition as "three sides" is to the definition of "triangle."

(2) My heart, when swayed by the emotional nuances of people like Mr. Olbermann — indeed, people like myself — might see things either way, or both, or neither. My heart wants people to be happy. But it also wants them to be "right," or "whole," and my heart has discovered — poignantly — that getting everything you want is not necessarily the path to "wholeness," or "rightness," or even "happiness."

(3) My conscience disagrees a lot of the time with my heart. It makes me tense and sad often, when I want to do or say one thing and another part of me wants me to do or say something else, and the two sides war.

(4) Mr. Olbermann didn't ask, but I'll say it anyways: my mind says, "follow the precepts of history, unless strong evidence presents itself that history is wrong in the main." Why didn't he ask about the mind? Why?

You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents?

Hang on, because we're about to get a lesson in theology from Keith Olbermann —

Then spread happiness — this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness — share it with all those who seek it.

Note his use of "semantical" here, and my previous argument that this is anything but semantical, and that — indeed — if it were semantical, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the homosexuals would be getting civilly hitched by the droves by now. But it is not semantics.

Olbermann dictates to followers of all faiths: to make him and his allies happy, your faith boils down to this: "SPREAD HAPPINESS."

Can I assert that that sort of theology is the shallowest, most vapid expression of worship, not fit even for the worst of the apostate Christian megachurches that preach "name it and claim it" propsperity? It is the faith, not of a child, but of the childish.

But please note that, since I feel Mr. Olbermann is completely out of his depth here, that I do not consider this branch of his argument(s) to be a central one. It is auxiliary, I think.

Still, he will splash about a bit more:

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."

He wants to quote "do unto others," the Christian variation of the Golden Rule, without daring to bring any of Christ's other quotes into the game. I'll leave it with this: "Love God with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul, and love your neighbor as you love yourself."

This brings the non-human relation, of God-to-man, into the equation. Why so many want to avoid this is beyond me.

Mr. Olbermann seems to be of the sort that can only see contradictions in passages of more than one sentence in the Old, New Testament or any other religious tradition. I disapprove of people who criticize religion without having the guts to examine it (both the "good" and "bad" bits); in the same way I disapprove of non-scientists criticizing scientific theory, or non-writers criticizing literary techniques. It is the worst type of amateurism.

Suffice to say that the answer to this question is, "it may be, Mr. Olbermann, that in worshipping God, which is our highest calling according to the faith, that personal happiness as defined by 'getting what we want' might take a back seat." And that is merely the beginning of the first sentence of the theological reply in just one faith (Christian).

To use a sports metaphor, Mr. Olbermann is throwing batting-practice fastballs and daring any competent theologian, of any faith, not to pound them into the far bleachers.

And THIS IS SETTING ASIDE THE ATHEISTIC, PREHISTORIC ARGUMENTS, OUTLINED PREVIOUSLY, WHICH (in my opinion) ENHANCE ANY RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT.

Let's see if he can finish strong:

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...

I refuse to sound any more of a grump than I have to this point. Has Mr. Olbermann considered what "love" is? Really?

And has he considered what he means by many millions of people trying to "put out" or "extinguish" love between other persons? Because most of us are not wanting to do that. Most of us are four-square behind "love," in this shallow sense, as well as "love" in the deeper, harder-working senses.

We, in the USA, can come up with a legal institution that allows homosexuals all the legal rights and responsibilities of "marriage." Indeed, homosexual civil unions will be able to more accurately mimic "marriage" in legal benefits, in social amenities, in child-rearing options, than the unions available in most countries. And that, without attenuating, without diluting, the power of the ideal of marriage.

But how is that extinguishing love, Mr. Olbermann? How is that quenching love?

Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

That is, if he agrees with Mr. Olbermann.

Mr. Olbermann dredges up his Best Shot, quoting from one of his heroes, evidently, but — as a hero, someone to look up to — Clarence Darrow is sort of a soft pick, no? I mean, you're only going to go with Clarence Darrow as your go-to hero if you are a fan of evolutionary theory (in which case, as noted above, your feelings on Proposition 8 would tend toward the "Yes" side), or intellectual freedom. In which case, you wouldn't be dressing down over half the population for being stupid, unlike yourself.

Well; here goes:

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."

And, of course, Mr. Olberman is quoting Mr. Darrow quoting Omar-Khayyam. Very hip, and cosmopolitan, but one only wonders how the argument went over with the jury, and whether the argument has any weight, whether first-hand or second-hand.

People toss around the word "love" a lot, and sometimes it is done joyously, or passionately or intelligently. But one can't turn one's back on the fact that many people toss it around to obscure the fact that they have no argument handy.

(4) MY CONCLUSION

Mr. Olbermann's strongest argument is not a new one: that homosexual unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Given that, agreeing with that, automatically leads, I think to the conclusion that Mayor Newsom, though premature, tyrannical and illegal, was eventually on the right side of things, and that his immoral act(s) would end at a moral junction: where "marriages" include all sexual intercourses, regardless. And is that such a bad thing?

I maintain, in the USA, that it is not. That one could not argue based on increased insurance costs, or any other such nonsense, that homosexual unions should not be counted as "marriages," nor argue that they should be ignored or devalued by the State.

But.

That first step, ignored by too many in Mr. Olbermann's camp, is a doozy for many, many people. Many, many people do not see homosexual intercourse as equivalent to hetersexual intercourse, and rather see a distinction between "Natural" and "Unnatural" that is obvious and commonsensical.

The only way, interestingly, to see the two types of relationships as "equal" is to set aside the accumulated wisdoms of both science and religion, and sort of put blinders on, and wish that they were "equal."

But I have great faith in the state of California, and in the USA in general: that there are enough people, with enough selfishness and greed, and enough willingness to spread misery until they get what they want, like spoiled children. And that these people, who want "male" and "female" to be indistinguishable and malleable, who want "sex" to be a social construct, WILL GET THEIR WAY SOMEDAY.

I have no doubt. And that day is soon.

The world is turning upside-down. Prejudice, discrimination and definition are no longer useful tools that might be abused or used well, they are the darkest of vices.

I am the dinosaur; I am the wrongly prejudicial. I am the evil one. I am the bigot and the hater and the irrational. And I will be loathed. I will be despised. I will be beaten, and beaten down, and mocked.

I see it.

Mr. Olbermann quotes Clarence Darrow quoting Omar-Khayyam; very well.

I will quote a man nearer my heart, Mr. Galileo, and his reported whispered riposte to the Inquisition:

"Eppur si muove" — "And yet, it moves."

Let the reader recall the circumstances of the tale, and he will know why those words resonate with me on this matter, and in this time.

FIN