he was making a statement that he does not have a one sided view
Yeah well it didn't work because he does have a one-sided view. I don't see what relevance his sexuality has to anything - oh alright then... I haven't got a big hooter myself but people with big hooters should be considered just as good-looking as people with normal hooters.
Someone in the media is actually making Americans aware of the great injustice of Prop 8 ... and you're knocking him because he's making a point that this is a civil rights issue and not the f'ing gaysex (fear-for-your-kids) propaganda that won, sexuality was made part of the issue that consumed the campaign for its passage ... KO's making the point that the issue is all inclusive and should have all of our support because it's about love and commitment.
You need to chose your battles. KO is on the right side of this issue and I'm thankful he used his media platform to spread the word.
My wife and I have attended two anti-prop 8 rallys in the last week. The last one had well over a 1000 people. At both rallys the speakers repeatedly thanked all of those straight people who have come to support the gay community and stand up in opposition to the passage of prop 8.
If activitists in the community that are mobilizing people on the street in protest can call out 'straights' in appreciation of their support, I find no reason to question the motive of Keith Olbermann for mentioning that this is not a gay or straight issue, and making the point that straight people are in support of G&L citizens and that this is not a "gay" issue.
We're attending another big protest tonight .... estimated to have over 2000 attending.
Attended a large rally and march tonight to protest Prop 8. The rally began with a tape of this Keith Olbermann Special Comment played on a large screen ... the crowd cheered in approval throughout. His comment at 17 seconds into it, the one that Keymaker finds such an insult, about "I don't have a person investment in this, I'm not gay ... yet to me this vote is horrible..." was met with loud applause by a crowd that was probably 90% gay and lesbian.
So the word from the street tonight, among the activists and a large slice of the gay community that marched , many who the state of California will no longer allow to marry, KO's words were heartfelt and spot on.
My wife and I have been married sixteen years, and I can't imagine if at any time the law told us we were not allowed to be married. My teenager daughter joined us, we marched along with several of our dearest friends who had planned to get married soon until this Constitutional revision changed all that ... we were proud to march along side them through the crowded downtown street tonight chanting "Gay! Straight! Black! White! Marriage is a civil right!".
It was until 1968 that blacks and whites could not marry in many states in this country, it was against the law. If at that time a white newscaster had made the comment on the airwaves that "I'm not black ... but this law is just horrible" I would, as a white American, have applauded him then too.
you're knocking him because he's making a point that this is a civil rights
Well. he's expressing an opinion that's it's a civil rights issue and trying to suggest that the argument is stronger because he's straight than if he had been gay. In reality his personal viewpoint and sexualtiy are irrelevant because the argument is just as strong, or weak, when made by a gay person as a when made by a straight person - it stands, or falls, on merit. In fact; talking about his personal sexuality is a counter argument because it draws attention to the fact that his is a minority viewpoint amongst straights. That being so there must be some other reason for him saying it - like the fact that he doesn't want anyone to think he's "one of them" - that came across loud and clear - no one in his family is either.
In my opinion he's getting confused between civil rights and equality. Men don't have a civil right to compete against women in the 100 metres because equality is achieved by having separate events for men and women. A gay person doesn't have a civil right to marry because others have signed up to a specific meaning of the word but equality can be achieved by same-sex civil unions. A blind person doesn't have a cvil right to do what ever job he wants because his handicap impacts upon others but when it doesn't he has equality in the labour market... oh alright then, from now on all blind people should have equal opportunities to become air traffic controllers and those who object are optophobes.
I guess we should go with your logic because [KO Special Comment Voice]You, sir,[/KO Special Comment Voice] virtually own the "Single-Sided View".
Though not the Olbermann fanboy I used was, I've gotta say that was one of his best, most impassioned and most straight-down-the-laser-beam-to-target SC's ever. There was more logic and empathy in those few minutes than months of debate could ever muster. "WTF is it to you?" Dead on. But woooosh! Right over your head again because you can't get beyond outmoded attitudes and prejudices masquerading as law. Yeesh!
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.