Keith Olbermann on Prop 8

Keith Olbermann makes special comments on Prop 8. I'll let the video speak for itself.

In the Wake of Prop 8

In the aftermath of California's Prop 8, amid all of the protests and such, I have come across a few blog posts that raise interesting points. It's nothing too earth-shattering, but they're good representations of some creative thinking on the subject. While I am almost always a proponent of creativity, in many situations--and this one included--the simplest, least creative solution is the best one.

Consider the following passage from a post on "the little cog":

"No state or government entity should issue “marriage” licenses at all. Instead, marriages for none, civil unions for all. It creates a system of equal protection under the law."

I truly appreciate this perspective. First of all, it is perhaps more accurate to describe marriage as a religious institution than a legal one. If we made this simple distinction, we could go a long way in pacifying many people who would object to gay marriage being lumped together with their own marriage, which they may see as a sacred religious institution.

If it's the symbolic state sponsorship of gay marriage that bothers people, then doing away with state-recognized marriage altogether could preclude any outrage over the state's legitimizing of "the gay lifestyle". Marriage would instead be limited to private life, whether conceived through religious ceremony or not.

There is a problem with this, though, which has a lot to do with the endowment effect. (The endowment effect is the tendency for people to value something greater once they feel they have secured a right to it.) Many people--whether religious or not--would feel a great sense of aversion to the loss of marriage. Add to the situation the fact that marriage has been an important state-supported institution in America (for heterosexual white couples) for as long as the country has existed, and you can get a feel for the type of backlash that even such a benign proposal would receive. Many people would feel that such a move would be a clear swap between heterosexual marriage and gay marriage--that the state is eliminating the right to heterosexual marriage and condoning the gay lifestyle in one fell swoop. This might be too much for some people to handle.

So, what might be the simplest--and best--solution is to allow gay marriage. We can extend civil rights to a sizable minority of the US population without having to redefine what is a sacred institution for many Americans. Sure, it won't pass without protest, but it's the simplest solution to a difficult problem. It's a band aid that we must simply rip off. After it's over, it'll hurt a lot less. I promise.

--------------

Now, let's consider the following passage from Chris Ford's blog post found on Brazen Careerist's website in which he refers to sensitivity toward religious leaders who would oppose marrying gays and lesbians:

"Now, I realize that these [religious] figures can refuse or "turn down" the opportunity BUT this can create a backlash and lead to unfavorable PR for that person and their church and that is basically unfair. Unfair because we go to these places of worship expecting them to abide by their teachings. The other point would be that, obviously, some churches can choose to do the ceremony while others stand aside. This is the perfect timing for this article because government offices are feeling what churches are sure to feel in the near future in CA if they refuse to wed couples of the same sex..."

In all fairness to Chris, he does support civil unions and all the ancillary rights and privileges associated with them. However, he does oppose gay marriage because he believes it puts religious leaders who refuse to marry gays and lesbians in a bad position.

My response: So what?

It's not that I'm insensitive to people's beliefs. I certainly don't think the state has any right to obligate someone to marry a couple in his or her church, synagogue, or mosque. But to say that we ought to deny people basic civil rights because of the negative PR that some religious denominations might get is ludicrous.

Let me tell you, religious leaders face scrutiny every day from all angles. Ask an Evangelical Christian how often she has to defend her faith. Ask a Muslim leader how often he has to defend the Koran or the treatment of women in the Islamic world in the face of harsh critics. To think we ought to deny gays and lesbians their civil rights because religious leaders can't handle a healthy theological debate is an odd stance to take.

As for Chris's fear that religious organizations will eventually feel the same pressure the state is feeling now, I will admit that I fear it, too. When the state starts forcing religious organizations to marry gays and lesbians, I'll come out against that right away. However, in the meantime I'll treat gay marriage itself as a separate issue.

¡Change!

¡Sí, se puede! Yes we can!

Congratulations to American voters. We did it! Not only do we get a voice of reason in the oval office to help navigate these troubling geo-political times (knock on wood), but I also get to enjoy using this domain name for another four years!

On a more serious note, though, I was encouraged by the post-election rhetoric. McCain was very gracious in defeat and Obama was very inspiring in victory.

----------

Going forward, this blog will not simply become a ridiculously premature 2012 campaign mouthpiece for Obama. It will be a place where I raise different political topics for discussion. I will freely give my own opinion, regardless of which party it supports.

"Why even call the blog 'Obama in 2012'?" you might ask. Well, first of all, it's a sweet domain. I had to jump on it when given the chance. More importantly, it has everything to do with wishful thinking. I'm optimistic that he will be a good--if not great--president. (Knock on wood, once again.) So, the same way I anticipated an Obama presidency, I also anticipate a successful Obama presidency. Although my support of Obama in 2012 is no foregone conclusion, I must admit that he is an engaging figure that has me feeling good about where our country is going. (I will explain this in future posts.) So, call me naive, but I have the "audacity of hope" that seems to infect a large percentage of Americans, even in the face of some very serious challenges. Even if you don't agree with Obama on all of the issues, you must admit that the ability of a president to inspire people does count for something.

Anyway, I look forward to future posts when I have some real presidential actions on which to comment.