Olbermann Kind of Misses the Point

Last week someone I follow on Twitter posted a link to Keith Olbermann’s rant on those that voted for Proposition 8 in California.

Mister Olbermann, makes some good points during his diatribe but I feel that he misses two important points.

1) A person can vote however they choose.

While Keith goes to at great lengths to ask “why” someone would vote in favor of Proposition 8 I feel that he misses the point that people can vote however they want.  There seems to be this growing sense in America where many people think “you can vote however you want as long as it furthers my point of view and if you fail to do that well than you’re a very mean/stupid/ignorant/raciest person” and to me this pretty much misses the point of voting entirely.

The whole idea behind voting is that I have my beliefs and you have yours and when it comes to voting, we can vote how we believe.  We vote based on our beliefs, morals, principles, and what we feel is right.  You will be hard pressed to find a group of people who all believe the exact same thing.  That’s why we vote.

Keith Olbermann’s rant, comes off as a giant statement about why someone who voted for Proposition 8 is “wrong” for doing so.  Maybe it’s his delivery but it seemed very poineted and “how dare you”-ish.

2) When it comes to the Christian faith, it is largely about “hate the sin, love the sinner”

Another thing that Olbermann brings up (quite a bit) is the Biblical principle that we should love our neighbors as ourself.  Granted he gets it right that this is Jesus’ greatest commandment but he leaves out the first one (yes, there were 2).  The first commandment Jesus gave was to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul” and the second was to love your neighbors.

Since most Christians and religious people believe that homosexuality is a sin (and most will point to Romans where Paul wrote that God gave the Romans “over to their sin” as proof of this fact), it makes perfect sense that they would vote in favor of a law that defines marriage as something that can only occur between a man and a woman.

Also, God doesn’t say that because someone sins you can’t “love” them, in fact he encourages Christians to love everyone regardless of sin because (again) Biblically “we are all sinful in the eyes of God” and no one is blameless.  The Bible makes it very clear that Christians are to love others, but despise the sin in their lives.

So while, Olbermann might have thought he was convicting Christians of hypocrisy, he in fact was making an ill-informed statement.  It is not “wrong” for a Christian to vote in favor of a proposition against gay marriage.

I respect Keith Olbermann’s right to say what he says.  But I just think that some clarification is needed as well as a reminder that as individual citizens, it is our right to vote as we want.  For or against a proposition.  It is our right to vote with our hearts, minds, beliefs, ideals, morals, and anything else we hold dear.

So if you voted for Prop8, or against, good for you for taking a stand for what you believe to be right/wrong/whatever.  That is what makes America so great.

Now, to all of you whom are trying to get the fact that Prop8 passed overturned in court with a bunch of lawsuits, you are a blight on this system and should regulate yourself to live with scum.  Should you succeed, you will prove that the whole concept of voting is rendered useless and disenfranchise anyone who takes time to go and vote.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Commentary, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Olbermann Kind of Misses the Point

  1. I think part of the problem comes from the mixing of your religion into our government. Why shouldn't there should be the concept of a “civil union” (for legal purposes) that is available to any two, consenting adults? The church could keep “marriage” and all that entails, and make its own rules accordingly. If it doesn't want to marry gay people, so be it.I am guessing that if a large group of people came together and decided to vote on how you could or could not practice your religion, your response would be quite different than what you posted here. Put aside any excuses you might be tempted to make and put yourself in their shoes for a moment. The process is called empathy, and I see a lack of it from many people who share your beliefs. At least that is how it comes across to me when I read your blog.Scum? Would you say the same to the women and blacks of this country who fought for their rights over the years? Again, I am guessing you would not. Really, it seems to me that you are the one missing the point.

  2. Michael Koby says:

    If a large number of people voted on how I could or could not practice myreligion it would further prove my theory that this country has lost it corevalues. However I doubt that would happen.My “scum” reference was very specifically focused on those that are fightingsomething in court that was voted on “by the people” and how getting thatpassing vote turned over would cause more people to believe that the votingsystem in this country does not work. We already have a good chunk of thepopulation believe that their vote doesn't count. If the passing ofproposition 8 is overturned in court then it just goes to prove to thosethat don't vote because they believe it won't make a difference that theyare right.Why vote for something if it's only going to be turned over in court whenthe people who voted didn't vote the way everyone thought they should. Thisis exactly what's happening in California and find it to be a greatdisservice to all those that took the time on Nov. 4th to vote. The PROPERway to handle this would be to get a motion on the next ballot to overturnthe passing of Proposition 8. Since it was voted on and passed thesystematic and democratic way for those people that voted NO on it to getwhat they want would be to have it on the next ballot, call a specialelection, or something similar. NOT to have the fact that it passed turnedover in court of law.The black and woman's sufferage were amendments to constitution, whichmeans, they had to be voted on. If gays want their right to marry, thenshould they not go through the same process as blacks and women?After all, isn't that what democracy is about?

  3. Diadem4Drummer says:

    Good Article. I read the Olbermann content and I thought he had some good points, but he just sounded angry and no one wants to talk to angry people because they can't be reasoned with. It's their way or the highway (or so it's always seemed to me).With that being said, I agree with the author here in saying we do have voting and if we want to keep people from being disenfranchised, we need to follow the ideas of the founding fathers, even if it means it takes a bit longer. My proof to back up my argument in this debate is simply the fact that this past election day, my town finally passed a measure to allow liquor stores in town. This measure finally passed after failing in 1999 and again 2006. The point is that if it fails now, simply get it put on the next ballot…and you keep doing it until you get it where you want it.Really in a perfect world, if we would've listened to VERY smart men like Thomas Jefferson who said, “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits,” we'd be much better off. If this would've been adhered to, then we wouldn't have had to free the slaves or allow women to vote or give blacks equal rights because they would've had them from the get go. Of course, then Keith Olbermann wouldn't be ranting about the rights of gays to marry because they would have it.My point is that voting is the one power we as individuals have over our government and the idea is that since you can't please all the people all the time, you should try to please most of the people most of the time (majority rules). If you don't think the results of a given vote are wrong, then you should get out and logically and rationally educate people why they need to see your POV and why it's better for the majority.But that's just my 2 cents…

  4. Donna says:

    Actually, I think your idea that the disenfranchised minority can wait for their rights until the majority sees their point of view goes against how women and non[-whites got votes and rights. Slavery, the disenfranchisement of women and other things have all been legal, popular and wrong in the past.The process you have for putting propositions forward is biased against minority groups. Imagine if the proportion of gays and straights was reversed…would YOU feel it was fair for US to vote on your right to marry? I doubt it.Really , the only ones who should decide whether I can marry or not are myself and my prospective partner. Why should anyone else get a say?

  5. Michael Koby says:

    Actually, it doesn't go against it. Both were amendments to theconstitution, the only way to amend the constitution is for it to be votedas such. Article V of the constitution states as such (abbreviated toconserve space)*”*…shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of thisConstitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of theseveral States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof…*”* (completetext can be found on wikipedia athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_th…)The only way for an amendment to actually become an amendment is for it tobe voted for by 3/4's of the his country's states. So again, no, my “idea”does not go against how women and non-whites got votes and rights (see the19th and 15th amendments respectively).What you are suggesting is that the minority rule the majority. You arealso further arguing that it is okay to for people to go to court andforcibly take what they want regardless if it will cause people's vote tonot count. Basically saying, “Hey, it's okay if those people feel liketheir votes don't count as long as i get what I want” and that is just notfair to those that took time out of their day to go and vote their stance onan issue.I'm not arguing if the current system is right or wrong. That's not whatthis post was about. The current system is flawed and I have never oncestated that it was perfect. However, the system as it stands is the systemthat we must deal with. Why should gays be different than women ornon-whites and get what they want by judicial interpretation (which is whatit is if the courts in CA rule against the passing of Prop 8) when women andnon-whites had to work with in the system to achieve their goals? Are youarguing that gays are some how different than women or non-whites and thusshould be treated with even more special care?You argue that it is wrong and unfair for the minority to have to wait forthe majority to see their point of view. However, that's exactly what womenand non-whites had to do. And you know what? It worked for them. Theyhave rights to vote now. I'm sure that if the gays want to marry thatbadly, they can get a new proposition on the next ballot and have it pass.But they should still work within the system as it currently stands not findloopholes that cause millions of voters to feel like their vote didn'tcount.Also, as of Nov. 4th I am in a minority. I'm in a minority of people whodon't believe Obama was a good choice for president. I am 1 of a VERY smallnumber among my friends, peers, and co-workers. In this case, the systemdid not work the way I wanted it to. But you know what? That's the way itgoes sometimes. I have to deal with 4 yars under a leader i neither votedfor or wanted. You don't see me throwing a “world class hissy” do you?Why? Because in 4 years I get another chance to vote against Obama, andI'll do it again. Just because the system doesn't work the way one wants itto, doesn't give a minority of people the right to forcibly take what theywant. Regardless if you like the system's results, you still live withinthat system and should abide by it until such time the system can be modifedand made better.

  6. Some Guy says:

    Here here. It took black people 100 yrs to be free as slaves and finally get the rights to not be legally judged based on the color of their skin (something they couldn't help be born with).It may take 100 yrs for LGBT people to get the same rights, but they'll eventually get it if they stay at it within the system we have…or change the system so it's not flawed (like Michael said…and I agree with).I also agree with Diadem's post. Really the government shouldn't have the right to restrain or aid it's people in their pursuits (unless intervening will save a human life from harm by another), and maybe that's the part of the system that is flawed that we need to fix.

  7. Michael Koby says:

    Actually, it doesn't go against it. Both were amendments to theconstitution, the only way to amend the constitution is for it to be votedas such. Article V of the constitution states as such (abbreviated toconserve space)*”*…shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of thisConstitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of theseveral States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof…*”* (completetext can be found on wikipedia athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_th…)The only way for an amendment to actually become an amendment is for it tobe voted for by 3/4's of the his country's states. So again, no, my “idea”does not go against how women and non-whites got votes and rights (see the19th and 15th amendments respectively).What you are suggesting is that the minority rule the majority. You arealso further arguing that it is okay to for people to go to court andforcibly take what they want regardless if it will cause people's vote tonot count. Basically saying, “Hey, it's okay if those people feel liketheir votes don't count as long as i get what I want” and that is just notfair to those that took time out of their day to go and vote their stance onan issue.I'm not arguing if the current system is right or wrong. That's not whatthis post was about. The current system is flawed and I have never oncestated that it was perfect. However, the system as it stands is the systemthat we must deal with. Why should gays be different than women ornon-whites and get what they want by judicial interpretation (which is whatit is if the courts in CA rule against the passing of Prop 8) when women andnon-whites had to work with in the system to achieve their goals? Are youarguing that gays are some how different than women or non-whites and thusshould be treated with even more special care?You argue that it is wrong and unfair for the minority to have to wait forthe majority to see their point of view. However, that's exactly what womenand non-whites had to do. And you know what? It worked for them. Theyhave rights to vote now. I'm sure that if the gays want to marry thatbadly, they can get a new proposition on the next ballot and have it pass.But they should still work within the system as it currently stands not findloopholes that cause millions of voters to feel like their vote didn'tcount.Also, as of Nov. 4th I am in a minority. I'm in a minority of people whodon't believe Obama was a good choice for president. I am 1 of a VERY smallnumber among my friends, peers, and co-workers. In this case, the systemdid not work the way I wanted it to. But you know what? That's the way itgoes sometimes. I have to deal with 4 yars under a leader i neither votedfor or wanted. You don't see me throwing a “world class hissy” do you?Why? Because in 4 years I get another chance to vote against Obama, andI'll do it again. Just because the system doesn't work the way one wants itto, doesn't give a minority of people the right to forcibly take what theywant. Regardless if you like the system's results, you still live withinthat system and should abide by it until such time the system can be modifedand made better.

  8. Some Guy says:

    Here here. It took black people 100 yrs to be free as slaves and finally get the rights to not be legally judged based on the color of their skin (something they couldn't help be born with).It may take 100 yrs for LGBT people to get the same rights, but they'll eventually get it if they stay at it within the system we have…or change the system so it's not flawed (like Michael said…and I agree with).I also agree with Diadem's post. Really the government shouldn't have the right to restrain or aid it's people in their pursuits (unless intervening will save a human life from harm by another), and maybe that's the part of the system that is flawed that we need to fix.

Comments are closed.