Keith takes the words right out of my mouth...

Although I could not ever imagine being as eloquent.

A disclaimer here - I realize that some of you reading this blog may not agree with me. That's ok. Feel free to flame away. I would never take away YOUR right to do so.

A bit of background here. Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court, in an impeccably written decision, acknowledged the rights of same-sex couples to marry. They acknowledged it as a CIVIL RIGHT. One that would declare any law suppressing such right unconstitutional. I read a lot of legal decisions in my line of work, and I have to tell you, they were prudent yet clear in their logic. They eschewed reference to morality and religion, as well they should. The decision focused on a singular idea - the recognition that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation. Chief Justice Ronald George stated in his majority opinion, "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

The words from Chief Justice George is what is at the heart of the issue for me. Yes, I have close family members who are gay. I have good friends that are gay. But regardless of that, laws outlawing ANY INDIVIDUAL'S right to marry are discriminatory. It is as simple as that. What's the difference between disallowing same-sex marriage and bi-racial marriage? Not that long ago, I would not have been able to marry my caucasian husband. I look at my BEAUTIFUL children and they would not be here if laws like these were NOT declared discriminatory. It's not about religion, morality and the like. It's about LOVE.

So last week, while I was elated with the result of the Presidential Election, I was angered and enraged that the voters of the state of California overturned this decision and rallied to steal BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS from same-sex couples. The campaign run in support of Propostion 8 (the proposition that overturned the Supreme Court decision) was shameful. Some crap about schools teaching kids that men could marry men and what not. Bullshit. You're going to try and get to my vote by scaring me about my KIDS?! And what they might (even though they WOULDN'T) be taught in school? Look, parenting is tough. I get that. But you know what's EASY? Teaching kids YOUR family values and YOUR family beliefs. You don't have to believe that homosexuality is morally "right". You don't have to instill values in your children about homosexuality. What you teach in your home is your business. I'm not going to encroach upon that. So why block another person's pursuit of happiness? Why insist that someone that they cannot have what you have?

It sincerely disheartens me. The whole situation. Because as a parent, when I look at these laws, these decisions, these referendums, propositions, etc., my first and foremost thoughts are of my children. One of my sons may be gay. Both of my sons may be gay. How could I look at them and tell them, "well, you can be grow to be happy...but only to an extent."? We need to fight for the rights of ALL, because you never know if the "someone" they are taking rights from is you...or the one that you love.

But Keith Olberman says it all in this video clip. Love him or hate him, he took the words right out of my mouth. Can I get a what, what?



Editing - you know, this is such an important issue to me that I'm going to post the text of my man Keith's commentary. Just because when my kids read this years from now, video may be dead. LOL. Skip over this if you've already watched the video...

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet 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. 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. 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?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

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.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, 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? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. 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."

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

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."