Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage

[oceanenvy]

I'm really tired of this being compared to race and the hardships minorities have endured.

Why is that?

 

[XCALIDEM]

This guy was great sports broadcaster in a local channel in L.A. about 20 years ago. He's now the biggest biggot on TV and he wants us to believe his comment..... Please!

 

[Rhodri]

Why is that?

Because I don't find them related.

 

[Libsmasher]

You have a link supporting your assertion that a protestant church in San Diego had its tax exemption removed when it refused to marry a lesbian couple? That doesn't sound right to me.

My mistake - it was in New Jersey.
http://bobingle.blogspot.com/2007/09/church-loses-tax-exemption-over-civil.html

When Olbermann asks.."what is it to you?" he asks a question that befuddles me as well..I mean whats the big deal? How is allowing homosexuals to marry going to negatively impact you or your marriage?

This stuff is all over the net - go read. Lib lawyers agree that there is an unresolveable clash coming between gays and the church. Does losing your tax exemption count as an "impact"??

BTW Libs, to suggest that those with a different sexual identity than yourself aren't "normal" is rather neanderthal...don't you think? Unfortunately, you are far from the only person who thinks that way..I suspect the real reason prop 8 didn't pass is because of a mass outbreak of homophobia.

Get off your high horse - I put quotes around "normal", indicating it was shorthand for mainstream, accepted by the majority in a certain context. get it now?

Be assured though that it's only a matter of time until Gays achieve the ability to marry...exit polls showed that young voters of all stripes opposed the measure, in fact if those above 65 hadn't voted prop 8 would have gone down.

I'm all for people deciding democratically how they should live, as decided by the majority. But that's not how libs do things - as in this case, they went to the hyperlib authoritarian california supreme court and smashed the will of the people. Also, lots of completely clueless young people support all kinds of liberal crap when they're in college and not responsible for anything. But when they get in the real world, and see their paycheck looted, see the door of opportunity slammed in their face if they are a white male, and see their church close down because it won't change it's 2000 year old doctrine and lost its tax exemption, they'll have second thoughts about libs and their corrupt ideology.

 

[Popeye]

My mistake - it was in New Jersey.
http://bobingle.blogspot.com/2007/09/church-loses-tax-exemption-over-civil.html



This stuff is all over the net - go read. Lib lawyers agree that there is an unresolveable clash coming between gays and the church. Does losing your tax exemption count as an "impact"??

As usual, you have that story from New Jersey all wrong..the only question that remains is whether you've done it on purpose or if it's just a case of you believing whatever some extreme right wing outlet feeds you.

No church lost it's tax exempt status, only the boardwalk pavilion that a Methodist organization owned lost a real estate tax exemption which it had previously attained under the state of New Jersey's Green Acres Program.... which is designed to encourage the use of privately owned lands for public recreation and conservation. By denying two lesbian couples the right to hold their civil union ceremonies at the pavilion the organization no longer met the standards for a real estate tax break under the program.

The state commissioner of environmental protection, Lisa Jackson, had this to say when denying the Methodists group's request for a renewal of their real estate tax break for the pavilion..... “And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs.”

This story was floated out there by the yes on prop 8 campaign, conveniently leaving out the pertinent details, most notably that no actual church lost it's tax exempt status.

The fact that you would repeat what is obviously a lie tells me one of two things about you Libs...either you yourself are not above lying in an attempt to get your point across or you're too lazy to search for the truth, preferring the comfort of being told what to think by Faux News or right wing blogs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

[oceanenvy]

Because I don't find them related.

I find them very much related. They both are born who they are.

 

[Rhodri]

I find them very much related. They both are born who they are.

Believe that if you like...but please don't say it as if it were fact, because it isn't.

 

[Pandora]

Most African Americans get upset at the idea of comparing Homosexuals and their struggles in life to being African American.

I am neither homosexual or African American but Ill take the African Americans word for it.

 

[vyo476]

- He says they took away homosexuals "right" to marry - there has never been such a right.

Marital rights appear nowhere in the Constitution, this is true. I don't believe that any marriages should be matters of legality - heterosexuals shouldn't need the government to justify their unions any more than homosexuals.

- He says "What is it to you?". Firstly, people realize that it's an attempt by gays to usurp a 10,000 year old heterosexual institution for the purpose of "mainstreaming" themselves, or forcing people to look at them as "normal".

Oh dear, hoping for tolerance is terrible, isn't it?

People who exist outside of "mainstream" society's norms are always looking for acceptance. Do you think there's a concrete reason they shouldn't be accepted?

But an even better indication of "what is it to you" was when a protestant church in san diego had its tax exmption removed when it refused to marry a lesbian couple.

My mistake - it was in New Jersey.
http://bobingle.blogspot.com/2007/09...ver-civil.html

Oversimplification. This isn't a church being penalized for not marrying homosexuals, it's a matter of specified use of property that made that property tax-exempt in the first place.

- The king of smear talks emotionally about love - who is trying to keep homosexuals apart who are in love? Nobody - bogus straw man.

But creating a dichotomy where unions resulting from heterosexual love are recognized and endorsed by the federal government while unions resulting from homosexual love are specifically and methodically not recognized by any level of government does kind of send a message.

- He brings in the bogus argument about race. But blacks' rights were guaranteed after the civil war by the
14th and other amendments - there never was such an amendment for homosexuals.

No, the proposal is to create such a law.

When a new law comes up, do we say, "This law has never existed before!" and then it is defeated? No, that's completely illogical.

The references to race were meant as comparison - that it used to be illegal for blacks to marry whites in many states, but in the interests of egalitarianism that was changed.

The majority of california voters, mostly liberals, got this one right.

It was an irrelevant question. The future of unitary equality for couples of all sexual persuasion is in the deregulation of marriage - in essence, taking marriage out of the government's hands.

 

[Rhodri]

Oh dear, hoping for tolerance is terrible, isn't it?

No, the proposal is to create such a law.

.

The word 'tolerance' is terribly divisive, could you please be more tolerant of millions who believe marriage is sacred and exclusive to a man and a woman?

And go ahead and create your own law. Create your own union between partners as well and quit forceing what many don't appreciate on them. Be civil and respect others.

 

[Libsmasher]

As usual, you have that story from New Jersey all wrong..the only question that remains is whether you've done it on purpose or if it's just a case of you believing whatever some extreme right wing outlet feeds you.

No church lost it's tax exempt status, only the boardwalk pavilion that a Methodist organization owned lost a real estate tax exemption which it had previously attained under the state of New Jersey's Green Acres Program.... which is designed to encourage the use of privately owned lands for public recreation and conservation. By denying two lesbian couples the right to hold their civil union ceremonies at the pavilion the organization no longer met the standards for a real estate tax break under the program.

The state commissioner of environmental protection, Lisa Jackson, had this to say when denying the Methodists group's request for a renewal of their real estate tax break for the pavilion..... “And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs.”

This story was floated out there by the yes on prop 8 campaign, conveniently leaving out the pertinent details, most notably that no actual church lost it's tax exempt status.

The fact that you would repeat what is obviously a lie tells me one of two things about you Libs...either you yourself are not above lying in an attempt to get your point across or you're too lazy to search for the truth, preferring the comfort of being told what to think by Faux News or right wing blogs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Bottom line - a methodist church lost a tax exemption because it wouldn't allow gays to marry on its property.

I didn't quote Fox News, stop the moronic defamation.

There's plenty of stuff on the net which anyone can easily find which makes it clear that the gay lobby and ACLU will go after churches' tax exemptions, which some of them would like to remove anyway, if the gay lobby agenda succeeds.

 

[Popeye]

Bottom line - a methodist church lost a tax exemption because it wouldn't allow gays to marry on its property.

I didn't quote Fox News, stop the moronic defamation.

There's plenty of stuff on the net which anyone can easily find which makes it clear that the gay lobby and ACLU will go after churches' tax exemptions, which some of them would like to remove anyway, if the gay lobby agenda succeeds.

Oh, so now it's down to a Methodist church lost a tax exemption, a real estate one at that, when previously you had stated.."a protestant church in San Diego had its tax exemption removed when it refused to marry a lesbian couple."...that's quite a bit of difference.

Lets review, the incident took place in New Jersey, not California...it had nothing to do with gay marriage, the ceremonies under question were civil unions...and the church did not lose it's tax exempt status, it lost a real estate tax break for it's boardwalk pavilion that it had received under the state's Green Acres Program.

In conclusion...your original statement was totally and completely false. I should think it would be in your best interest if you admitted your mistake (or lie) instead of attempting to cover it up with speculation as to what MIGHT happen. The point here is, despite what you or other right wing homophobes have claimed, no church has had it's tax exempt status removed for refusing to perform a gay marriage.

 

[Libsmasher]

Oh, so now it's down to a Methodist church lost a tax exemption, a real estate one at that, when previously you had stated.."a protestant church in San Diego had its tax exemption removed when it refused to marry a lesbian couple."...that's quite a bit of difference.

A methodist church IS a protestant church, einstein, and I got the city wrong - well excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me.

Lets review, the incident took place in New Jersey, not California...it had nothing to do with gay marriage, the ceremonies under question were civil unions...and the church did not lose it's tax exempt status, it lost a real estate tax break for it's boardwalk pavilion that it had received under the state's Green Acres Program.

"blah blah blah" - it boilds down to the methodist church not wanting lesbians to marry on their property - anyone can read the original article and get past your smoke screen.

 

[Rhodri]

Marital rights appear nowhere in the Constitution, this is true. I don't believe that any marriages should be matters of legality - heterosexuals shouldn't need the government to justify their unions any more than homosexuals.

Ahh...the scorched earth policy. If I can't have what I want then destroy it for the vast majority who prefer the system stay as is. No democracy, no majority rules.

 

[vyo476]

The word 'tolerance' is terribly divisive, could you please be more tolerant of millions who believe marriage is sacred and exclusive to a man and a woman?

Be tolerant to intolerance? Sure, as far as that can be stretched.

Is it "intollerant" to ask why a "sacred" institution must be legislated and regulated by the government? Would it somehow make your marriage less "sacred" if it was no longer a legal contract?

Please remember that "tolerance" is not directly related to having a legal marital institution - as I stated I don't think that marriage should be the government's business one way or the other. I don't think it's intolerant to say that homosexual marriage shouldn't be litigated by the government - so long as one realizes that no marriage should be litigated by the government.

And go ahead and create your own law. Create your own union between partners as well and quit forceing what many don't appreciate on them. Be civil and respect others.

What exactly am I trying to force on you? Acceptance of homosexuals as equal human beings? You didn't answer the question - why is that a terrible thing? Just because it's something you don't already believe?

As for being civil - how am I not?