Keith Olbermann's Prop 8 Special Comment: It's "About The Human Heart" (VIDEO)

Keith Olbermann delivered a rousing, emotional, 6-minute special comment on Prop 8 Monday night. Olbermann, who has never married, vehemently disagrees with its passage and the ban on gay marriage.

"I am not personal vested this," he said, "yet this vote is horrible. Horrible... This is about the human heart." After going through the history of marriage in the United States, and reminding viewers not only that marriage between black and white people used to be illegal in 1/3 of the country, but illegal between slaves, he made a plea for love and the spread of happiness.

"The world is barren enough... with so much hate in the world, so much meaningless division... this is what your religion tells you to do?... this is what your heart tells you to do?... You are asked to stand now on a question of love."

WATCH:

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Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.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

---

Good night, and good luck.

Comments

[christopherstjohn]

07:36 PM on 12/05/2008

It’s interesting to look at the way the supporters of Proposition 8 summarize their position:

“Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

This statement is usually made by evangelical Christians, and it’s stated as though it were a well-known Biblical edict. However, most of the revered patriarchs in the Old Testament had many wives. In fact, it would be more accurate to characterize the Old Testament attitude towards marriage as:

“Marriage is between a man and as many women as he can lay his hands on.”

The other primary backer of Proposition 8, the Mormon Church, was famously founded by a group of modern polygamists. Some of these men wed girls as young as 14. This suggests that their policy could be presented as:

“Marriage is between a man and an eighth-grader.”

It’s hard to imagine 52% of Californians voting for that sentiment.

[love not hate]

02:37 PM on 12/04/2008

How is allowing gay marriage hurting anyone? It depends on your perception of homosexuality. If you are a reasonably compassionate person, you either view it as a healthy expression of human sexuality, or you view it as sexual brokenness in need of healing. Neither perception is hateful nor condemning towards homosexuals. Simply put, if you believe homosexuality is healthy, there is nothing to heal and the law should honor your union. However, if you believe it is a form of sexual brokenness, it is harmful for the law to honor it because that promotes the falsehood that there is nothing to heal, preventing those in need of healing from seeking or receiving it.
Some who don't think of homosexuality as completely healthy don't want to pass "judgment" on someone else's sexual preference. Why? “That's their own personal choice, they aren't hurting anyone, and who am I to judge? Everyone should just love and accept each other..." This reasoning implies the only ways to love and accept homosexuals is to agree their lifestyle is healthy and best for them, or to avoid caring about that part of them altogether. I believe that acceptance, love, and compassion can happen without having to believe that lifestyle is the healthiest one for them -- even if they disagree. Discerning a lifestyle as unhealthy does not equate to hatred and condemnation, and I feel taking the passive approach of "not judging" is actually more apathetic than compassionate -- it's their life, why should I care?

[mormonCULTlover]

01:31 AM on 12/04/2008

re: http://www.edgelosangeles.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83942

It's amazing to learn how long and how intently the Mormons have been involved in fighting the same-sex marriage equality issue. If the LDS church has gone from being known as the practicers of polygamist marriage to the protectors of traditional marriage, wiping away 150 years of a polygamist cult stigma for only $40 million dollars, then I say it was money well-spent. The strategy may be insidious, but you have to give them credit. No one’s talking about how half the girls at the LDS polygamist texas ranch were impregnated by church elders or Warren Jeff’s pedophilic acts. They’re talking same-sex marriage. The Catholics would do well to copy the Mormon insidious playbook.

[BOin08]

04:47 PM on 12/03/2008

How fitting is it that a pic of the classy Sarah Silverman is the Olberman icon for this post? Is it becasue they're oth on the same level of Howard Stern-like journalism? Just wondering...

[iPolitics]

04:46 PM on 12/01/2008

Breaking?

[break]

05:28 PM on 11/24/2008

Gay people are not asking you to change your religious views. Gay people do not care whether or not your religion tells you that love between people of the same gender is wrong. All gay people want is to enjoy the same rights that straight people take for granted. Doesn't the Bible also say that people should not get divorced? Doesn't it say that you should not be unfaithful to your spouse? Doesn't it say that you should always give 10% of your income to the Church?..there are many things that the Bible says that people conveniently forget or excuse away.

No one who wants marriage equality is trying to achieve it by attacking your religious views. We just want to be able to have the same protections and benefits of marriage that the court provides to straight couples. Let's not forget that the Constitution strictly and vehemently calls for the separation of church and state. We are not asking for marriage equality from the churches, we want it from our government - which is suppossed to be separate from the church. Regardless of your views on whether or not this country was founded on christian values. This is about people who pay taxes to their government and yet being treated like second class citizens. One person's "gayness" does not infringe on another person's "straightness" so get over yourself (unless you are suffocating in the closet and are expressing your own self-hate - in which case I wish you well)

[MsObamacan]

12:16 PM on 11/24/2008

Keith. Love your show. I am a moderate liberal, stand in the middle. I am a Believer (an Obama type Christian, more definition for you). Speaking as a highly educated woman who was raised outside of this country, might I say you don't get Christian doctrine.
I hate to say it, but the black culture of California (and the US) are charismatic believers, who believe that Jesus is the reason they have life, meaning and value. They are not interested in violating the law of their God as is written in the bible (marriage is between a man and a woman only). Nowhere in the bible, does it say anything about colour (that's Canadian spelling, love) of skin not being able to marry another colour of skin, making it reasonable that marriage law between blacks and whites rightly should have been overturned years ago.
This is a different issue. This country is based on that Christian doctrine in so many ways, and you can't change that. That's the beauty of the bible...it's consistent and never changes.
but I love that you take a love approach....I couldn't agree more, you're speaking my language (or trying). There needs to be legal protection for gay couples, so they are treated fairly in our world. Now that is a genuine Christian heart speaking.
Gotta, go...my patient's are calling..

[musettawaltz]

10:35 PM on 12/04/2008

So, let me get this straight:

The liberal news stations are the only ones who are bias?

What about conservative bias? Fox news, anyone?

I accept that MSNBC is a news channel with liberal bias. But at least they tell the truth.

[sokkerkris]

04:02 PM on 11/18/2008

Keith's theatrics are just another evidence of a liberal media trying to sway public opinion toward its own agenda. When is the last time the American public were able to enjoy an unbiased media when they had their own severest choices to make? This happens over and over again. Hollywood, CNN, MSNBC, you name it...all biased...and all cry and become militant when they don't get their way. Free speech and opinion prevailed in the case of Prop 8 -- only to have its oponents rise in their own loving way against a single religion...not the many other religions who happened to agree...but against one. Protest is protected free speech as well, but not the evil maligning of a single faith whose beliefs happened to be in opposition -- to the point of physical threatenings and malicious damage to their Church buildings. Where's the love in that? Does anyone else see the inconsistency here? Prop 8 passed and rightfully so, it had the votes. If the opposite had happened, we'd be living with that outcome as well. But I can assure you this, no Mormon would take it into their own hands thereafter to begin militantly damaging the homes of gay married couples.

[desrtrse]

11:14 PM on 11/18/2008

might I remind you of the many hate crimes against people who are gay. Murdered just because they are gay, in my city if you are out you are a target, always, homes are defaced, people paint hate in the street in front of a house where gay people live. I would loose my job if I were out simply because I am gay. I do not condone violence at any time of any sort but don't come on saying that gays are the violent ones. We are human, we are a target just for who we are. Taking away rights is never a good thing, we deserve every right that you have and who I love should not be a determining factor. Do you see how rediculous this is, do you see how rediculous you are?

[sokkerkris]

12:09 AM on 11/20/2008

Do not assume I condone violent behavior against ANYONE, regardless of their station in life, and especially because they are gay. You're making assumptions against me personally. Please re-think that.

The Mormon Church has their beliefs and their right to express them just as any other people of our free nation. However, I assure you that the Church would never go after anyone violently who happened to disagree with them. My point in my first comment was relative to this particular situation after the passage of Prop 8 and what began to happen around the Mormon temples and church houses. That violent behavior was inexcusable especially when the Church had every right to voice its opinion, just as any gay individual has the right to protest peacefully.

The Mormon Church was singled out as the lone enemy to Prop 8 and that simply was not true. Yet the Mormon Church was the only church derided for having done something about their opinion.

Violence against anyone is wrong. The Mormon Church is not responsible for racism or violent homophobic behaviors you are talking about. Sick, judgemental INDIVIDUALS are responsible for those acts, so please don't suggest that my point was ridiculous, nor that I in my opinion am personally ridiculous. I DEPLORE violence in every form. You have every right to defend your opinion, but do not deny me my right as well and then call me ridiculous. If you've been persecuted, you ought to know better yourself.

[musettawaltz]

10:36 PM on 12/04/2008

So, let me get this straight:

The liberal news stations are the only ones who are bias?

What about conservative bias? Fox news, anyone?

I accept that MSNBC is a news channel with liberal bias. But at least they tell the truth.

[chantelletibbs]

03:05 PM on 11/18/2008

Wow, very well put. Although I have to say I'm not worried about this one. Prop 8 may have passed but it won't be around for long.

You have these people clutching onto everything they possibly can to go out of their way to take someone's rights away from them. It doesn't speak much for their integrity and it definitely doesn't speak much for any relationship they are in. People who are in love tend to want to see others in love and happy as well. It's usually the people who are lonely or in failed, empty marriages that roll their eyes when they see couples holding hands and go out of their way to make people feel as lonely as they are.

There was a time when people put money behind women not being able to vote, and well we all know how that turned out. A day will come when the very people who put time and energy into stopping gays from getting married will watch as their own children vote for gays to HAVE the right to get married. This is progression. It's adaptive, it quickly and efficiently washes out the old and brings in the new way of thinking that usually represents a larger portion of the population.

I will live to see the day when Gays and Lesbians have the right to get married. I'm looking forward to that day:)

[steveo justice]

10:27 PM on 11/17/2008

Whether I think it a perversion of nature or not, the importance of Prop 8 is NOT, in fact, on the human heart, Keith.

Marriage is an institution formed by the Christian church thousands of years ago thatr is between a man and a woman. It's purpose is not only love, but also that it creates an ideal environment for raising children and creates a mutually benificial situation for the immediate and extended family, children or no. Gay "marriage" serves none of these purposes. It should be noted that marriage between blacks and whites or between slaves was never outlawed, because the CHURCH never said anything about it, the US government did. Marriage was never redefined by the US, but the law was redefined to suit marriage.

And US law is still currently suited to the christian definition, right down to the tax laws, for the above reasons.

Prop 8 would alow people who were never intended to participate in marriage become married, and still not create the environment marriage was intendet to. I f the gay community wishes to establish a similar institution suited to their lifestyle, I couldn't care less, and they would have a lot more support from the Californian people. But in this case, they literally are ripping off the church's deal.

[tux-sf]

04:14 PM on 11/19/2008

What??? Your ignorance is startling & it isn't even clear what you are attempting to say here.

To start with, marriage existed long before the Christian church did. But that aside, marriage historically had much more to do with property than anything else. The whole idea that the nuclear family is the best vehicle for raising children is a fairly modern one. When most lived in large extended families in the same house/neighborhood that was the context in which children were raised--and many would see that as the ideal environment for doing so (it takes a village, and all of that). And as far as love goes, that had little--if anything--to do with the historical institution.

The point is that the idea of marriage has changed over time. . .and is changing now, as this whole issue shows. There really is nothing that can be called 'traditional marriage' in any case since even if we froze the concept of marriage in time (pick a time period, any time period) you would find that on examination there were multiple definitions of what it is depending on place/culture/religion--whatever quantifier you want to choose.

Get over what you see that concept of what civil marriage is & actually LOOK at what it is & is becoming!

[break]

05:40 PM on 11/24/2008

I don't pay my taxes to the church, I pay it to the state. The church has no place in state business, it is against the Constitution. Therefore, your christian church has no right forcing its views on people's lives. Gay people are not out to infringe on your "christian" way of life. (The same "christianity" that has brought us colonization, wars, genocide...)

[DoctorKit]

04:39 PM on 11/16/2008

You should have the right to love or marry whoever you want. Love is a good thing, and good things never die.

[corsters]

03:50 PM on 11/16/2008

I couldn't have said it better myself. I applaud this man's great bravery to stand up for what he believes, taking such a risk for something that doesn't even personally affect him.

[langster]

02:43 PM on 11/16/2008

Although I nothing but agree with Keith Olbermann’s speech, something about it strikes me as bothersome. Why is it that a White, relatively wealthy and prestigious, heterosexual male, gets so much attention and praise for supporting the right of non-heterosexual couples to get married (stressing that he has no personal bias)? What if this same speech was delivered by a Black, homosexual woman? Would her opinion be less significant because she’s not White, not male, not heterosexual, not the ‘norm’, or because the issue is personally relevant to her? Perhaps all of these reasons would work against her.

It seems that Keith Olbermann’s main argument is that gay marriage is okay and should be legal because it’s about “love”, about the “heart”. Romantic ‘love’ is a heterosexually based concept that may not necessarily be the reality for the modern-day American, much like religious beliefs are no longer unquestionably accepted by all. That said, what if two gay/lesbian people want to get married but they aren’t ‘in love’. Does that not make it okay? It’s not like heterosexual couples ever marry for any other reason but love.

[Angelpdx]

06:45 PM on 11/15/2008

Thank you Keith Olbermann. I watched the video of your commentary with tears in my eyes. I appreciate the eloquence with which you state the things I can often not find the words for because I am too overcome with frustration and anger at those who would deny me a basic right to pursue happiness with the partner of my choice.

Opposers often counter that they don't understand my passion, my vehemence when discussing the issue of gay marriage. How can they not understand that it is so very personal to me. This isn't a measure, an amendment, this is my personal right to express my connection with the person I love. When did we end the rights to Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? When did we remove Freedom of Speech, and when did my love become so frightening?

[BOin08]

08:45 AM on 11/16/2008

no one is doubting your passion, so go get married, have your ceremony, your union already has equal protection under the law, just stop demanding unqualified acceptance and recognition from the world's recognized religions....

[tux-sf]

04:17 PM on 11/19/2008

Civil marriage has nothing to do with be recognized by "the world's recognized religions."

About that, who maintains that list? Can I see it please??

[BOin08]

11:07 AM on 11/15/2008

MSNBC as a network is under represented by minority talent and Keith leads the pack of no-talnet hacks keeping us down....where's the tearful plea for our rights, brother?