Keith Olbermann, Candace Gingrich Discuss Prop 8 (VIDEO)

On his show last night Keith Olbermann spoke with Candace Gingrich, brother of outspoken conservative and "gay and secular fascism" fighter Newt. In a recent letter, Candace Gingrich responded to her relative's anti-gay rhetoric:

The truth is that you're living in a world that no longer exists. I, along with millions of Americans, clearly see the world the way it as -- and we embrace what it can be. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of looking for new ideas or moving beyond what worked in the past."

Gingrich and Olbermann discussed the letter and Proposition 8. Watch:

Comments

[puffthedragon]

I seriously believe that the only individuals who have a problem with same sex marriage and cival rights are HOMOPHOBS!

[BSERIUS]

HOMOPHOBS??? no we are not homosexual key chains.....but in typical liberalize , namecalling always suffices... Why not have some commentator interview both siblings( not Olberman of course due to him being a conservaphobe and would never have the intelligence or talent to interview someone with a different view)

[FlamingLibrul]

I had the pleasure of working with Candace Gingrich a few years ago. She's witty, genuinley kind, and an extremely intelligent person, who deals very well with being related to the Newt. Like most siblings, she knows how to poke big brother in the eye. I would guess he didn't appreciate being called an irrelevant relic. Oh well; we all know the truth hurts sometimes.

[sean6886]

About a few months before the November election, I was listening to a national morning program. I can't remember who they are because I honestly don't really listen to the radio, but they're from Los Angeles and broadcasted everywhere for the morning drive.
Anyway, they brought up this topic since it was up for a vote in Californina and a lot of people who go to church every Sunday seemed to be the majority of the callers. There seemed to be a common thread in their answers as to why this prop 8 should pass to ban gay marriages.
Apparently their church leaders were telling them that if gay marriage was to pass, then churches would go out of business because they would be forced to perform these gay marriages. If they didn't comply, then they could be sued under a h a t e crime law.
I just couldn't believe it. Do we seriously have people that s t u p i d that they can't research or think for themselves?

[meede]

Yea. If you look at the Rev that told his congregation to have sex for 7 days and they all followed his direction like sheep being led by a ring in their nose. Supposedly the only one who didn't do it was the Rev himself. That's why I see the problem with Palin. The people at the ralies -- many showed they could not think for themselves. When she stumped daily the Ayres terrorist isue or about Obama's voting record or a number of issues, it boggled me that these people didn't attempt to research for themselves but again, followed like sheep to the slaughter.

[DianeGhil]

I love Keith Olbermann.
I agree that gay marriage does not bother anyone. I cannot believe that the church going people think this would bring any harm to them. It boggles my mind how intolerant many people who profess to be religious are in this issue.
I hope prop8 passes and I hope the pressure stays on.
I am not gay so it really does not affect me personnally except that it does affect us all generally if intolerance is allowed to dominate a society.
Diane

[raskolnikov72]

I believe you meant to use 'sister' as the appositive not brother.

"On his show last night Keith Olbermann spoke with Candace Gingrich, brother of outspoken conservative and ..."

[midknightryder13]

Since this is a matter of CIVIL rights law -- I've always asked people who are against Marriage Equality what EXACTLY they will lose, or what they THINK they will lose should Equal Access be made the law of the land.
Now, I'm talking ACTUAL losses -- not perceived possibilities usually having not even been introduced to the truth, let alone having any kind of relationship to say nothing of understanding of it.
I have yet to get an answer that makes any sense.

Further, the sheer volume of the lack of knowledge regarding our system of government and how it ACTUALLY works, not their imagined workings. This is how we get people with the attitude of "activist judges" or "legislating from the bench" as if the concept was brand new. And, of course, my personal favorite -- what about the will of the people?

There are some things the people CAN and SHOULD have a direct voice in deciding. Subjects like this are not among them.

I'm also more than a bit perplexed about this bogus argument saying this will 're-define marriage". Redefine means "to give a new or different definition to" That means the ORIGINAL definition is discarded and no longer would apply to that word.

So, now we're back to explaining EXACTLY what heterosexuals LOSE with Marriage Equality. An expansion of a definition is NOT a RE-defintion, because the original is still there.

[meede]

I have found that many people who have a problem with it in fact don't have a stable marriage or are divorced. They haven't figured out how to do it right themselves and therefore they have no way of understanding anything outside the box. When you look at the divorce rate statistics, how can these people have a vote regarding someone elses lives when they can't do it themselves. Within a straight marriage, the excuse that blows my mind is when the wife blames the other woman. Excuse me. No blame on the husband who couldn't keep his p.e.c.k.e.r in his pants and no blame for herself in that most times it does take two for failure. The other woman would not have been an issue if the marriage was stable to start with. One of those Hmmmmm thoughts for straights to think about.

[dsbsh]

Exactly. I tell my students (college level) that those threatened by same-sex marriage are most likely those with crappy marriages. My wife & I just celebrated our 20th wedding anniversary. Marriage can be wonderful. I want gays and lesbians to have the same type of relationships, with all the benefits, that we have. Frankly, I'm offended by marriage being used as a tool of discrimination-- as in "marriage means we're better than those gay people who can't have it." THAT cheapens and devalues marriage.

[cityspeak]

Minority groups are often the victims of irrational hatred and fear by the majority in a country. A strong judiciary with respect for the dignity of every human being is essential in a real democracy.

Full marriage equality is coming to the USA,. The question for people now is where do you want to tell people you stood, on the side of equality and dignity, or the side of fear and oppression?

[butlerman]

The fight for human rights will never be "over' until the day comes that every one is equal under the law. The courts had already ruled on this. This country should not be legislating the deprival of anyone's rights. The fact is almost any hate filled agenda, properly financed and misrepresented through the media would have a chance of passing in such a form. Fully 34% of the money to finance this bill came from outside of CA. So when you say the "people" have spoken, which "people" do you mean? This is not a a bill about highway or school funding etc. This is about peoples' constitutional rights. This is a case of religion crossing the line into government. If churches, as is their right, wish to deny the right to marry in their own denominations they may. Some will allow this others will not welcome it. And that is fine. But even if they all frowned on it the legal civil "marriage" option would still be there. Civil unions are not the answer because symbols are important. Separate but equal doesn't work and never has. In some states rights are denied under this formula because certain things like health benefits for partners are not recognized under the civil union statuttes, only marriage is recognized. Health benefits for CU's are taxable, not in marriages. So you see separate is not really even equal.

[Ivar]

I have no problem with anyone being whatever they want with whomever they choose. That is their business. I do not agree to calling a marriage between a man and a woman if one of them is not. You cannot marry a republican and a republican if one of them is a democrat.

[drumz]

Talk about convoluted... You need to go fishing and your clam chowder is pasty.

[meede]

We still have too many small minded, close minded peons in this country. Wake up and smell the roses people. We live now in 2008, not the dark ages, not in the year Jesus was born. If you truly believe in God -- he loves everyone. Seems to me those naysayers are not upstanding citizens as they go against God's belief.

[ratcity]

Right On. Well Said

[Ivar]

meede..Interesting convoluted thinking.

[drumz]

How was that convoluted? It was pretty straight forward to me. Are you a homophobe that doesn't know how to say it?

[butlerman]

Interesting? Maybe in Bizarro world.

[tahoegal]

Prior to the vote on Prop 8, we had many lively discussions on this issue with our friends. Most have grown and married kids, all traditional marriages. When I asked if they would vote to refuse a grandchild that right to marry if they happened to be gay....it gave them pause. I also reminded them that if the majority can vote to take away rights for any group, what would be next, slavery? That was extreme, but I think they got the point! As long as the Republicans are the party of infringing upon the right to choose, who can and cannot marry, and oh so many other issues, my feeling is that they are in trouble.

[MillaRSC]

I'm not a gay person. My children are not gay. But, imagine if they are.
For all of you, out there, just imagine if your child is.
Do you want your child to suffer?
To me, discrimination is discrimination.
Doesn't matter to which group of people you belong, we all deserve same rights.

[SouthJerseySteve]

Bless you for saying that -- more people should think like you! I've been with my partner for over 15 years. We cannot get married or get the federal protection of a man-woman couple who marries in Las Vegas and divorces a year later. Let's hope more people "wake up" and support federal rights of all loving couples.

[KickerBoard]

Exactly agreed. My favorite question to friends and relatives is: "What's it to you, stopping people from being happy? What do you get out of it, besides spite or a sense of ideological self-righteousness that has nothing to do with anyone but you (in other words - spite)?"

[longislandlol]

OK GOP---we have Cheney's daughter- Newt's sister-- give up your fight-- you have lost all credibility on this major issue....

[stunsitfel]

It was voted on by the people. It's over Keith. Give it a rest.

[antaeus]

Over? Go to law school. Rights in America aren't subject to the whims of the boobocracy, and this will be overturned.

[stunsitfel]

Well then if voting by the public doesn't matter, then I say McCain won. Who cares what the boobocracy (whatever the hell this means) says. It's what I want! Wah Wah Wah.

[luvobama]

Never.

But thanks for letting us know where you stood or would have during the other Civil Rights movement. You sound like a very decent human being.

[onthelam84]

We didn't ask for this assault on our civil liberties - you brought the backlash upon yourself. It's not over - mind your own p's and q's stunsit and get a hobby that doesn't involve commenting on my civil rights.

[Tom95134]

It is not over. Our form of government insures that when the people "speak", but they speak contrary to the guarantee of basic human rights, there is recourse to the courts to correct the error of "the people". The people "spoke" many times regarding the rights of blacks but the courts found the people were wrong.

All laws and Constitutional amendments have to to viewed in relationship to our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the persut of happiness. Some may pursue happiness in ways different that others bt as long as it does not hard others then they have that right and MUST not be denied the full protection of the law and the benefits available to them. Because the denial of the right to marry denies same sex couples the availability of benefits granted to opposite sex couples then it will fail. Separate but equal is NOT equal.

[jnah]

alright and what if other people decided to make your marriage null and void. Discrimination is discrimination I can't stand people like you

[stunsitfel]

put it up for a vote......not your hatred but your idea of marriage. I will follow the law.

[BLinCincinnati]

"brother of outspoken conservative and "gay and secular fascism" fighter Newt."

Should say "sister of"

[ReallyMe]

Ouch! That's sad.

[gbrooks]

Okay, I know it's a serious topic, but heck--how about a bit of levity.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Freudian slip anyone?