Melissa Etheridge Takes On Elisabeth Hasselbeck Over Prop 8 (VIDEO)

Melissa Etheridge stopped by "The View" Tuesday, but before singing a Christmas song she challenged co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck about Prop 8.

Etheridge married partner Tammy Lynn Michaels, which whom she has twin two-year olds, in 2003.

"To have people vote to take away rights is very un-American," Etheridge told the cohosts talking about her disappointment over Prop 8.

She then singled out Elisabeth for a previous show's discussion on the issue when she cited a Swedish priest. "I was saddened with your conversation only because I felt you misleaded people when you started to talk about a Swedish priest who was put in jail..."

Elisabeth got defensive and backed away. "We're not in California. I didn't vote on Prop 8. I wasn't there..."

The conversation got a little more heated from there, but Etheridge stayed cool and cited Thomas Jefferson while Elisabeth fought back. Sadly for viewers, Sherri then interrupted and had Etheridge sing a song, inviting her back another time to talk gay marriage.

Until next time!

WATCH:

Comments

[CoffeeBreakDMV]

Melissa did great. The conversation was ended in a tacky way. But I like how she and Elisabeth listened to each other, when it's so known they do not agree.
My feeling on Prop 8 -- especially with the margins being so close is that the wording was so confusing! "for it meant you were against" ... "against it meant you were for it".. huh?
I am a woman who loves everything...wait...most...wait...some things about men ((smiles)).
But the bottom line is Love is hard enough to come by.
For those who are blessed enough to find a loving, positive relationship with each other - I say they should have the right to create a life and have the same legal protection... and headaches as everyone else.
Many will not agree, and that's cool. That's what so awesome about Opinions! :)

[clearthinker2008]

Elisabeth said it should be voted on by the people. F Elisabeth.

[Steamy]

Actually, the statistics are about 70% of Heterosexual marriages end in divorce. So using the Bible as the reason to not allow Gays/Lesbians to marry is bogus. If they took their vows before their God half as serious as they throw the Bible in Gay/Lesbians faces, they wouldn't have such a high divorce rate. Don't use the Bible against Love. Not Lust. Love. Loving committed couples that long to have marriage vows and equal rights. No longer deny Gays/Lesbians over 1,200 civil liberties that others take for granted. Or perhaps.... the Gay/Lesbian tax monies are not good enough for the bigots either?

[Steamy]

I can't believe that Hasselbeck thought that it was OK to dis people by using the Constitution for Hate. Etheridge clearly stated an Edison paper stating the Majority couldn't vote in regard to the minorities and yet Hasselbeck still didn't let it go.
They invited her on to sing a Holiday Song and Hasselbeck used it to Hassel Etheridge & to try to get her into an argument. If the majority could have been allowed to vote on the minority a few decades back..... We would still have slavery too!! Don't go bringing faith into it either, The Bible says it's OK to have slaves, yet the USA saw fit to change our laws for equality. Well, here ya go again. Equality in the US should never be an issue. What happened to Life, Liberties and the Pursuit of Happiness!?! Or do all the Bigots think our forefathers were only speaking of Hetero, White, Republicans?
Please.... This is the 21st Century, for God's sake! Wake Up America!!!!

[wvicens]

I agree with many in respects to overpopulation. We should start taxing people for having too many children with all the benefits "traditional" families receive - they still can't afford to raise their children properly. What the LGBT community is asking for is the right to go to a hospital to care for an ill loved one, have a legacy, home and inheritance to leave their family without fear of corrupt law taking it all away. Something that "marriage" (call it whatever you like) provides. I believe benefits such as tax incentives is a non subject for the LGBT community. Honestly many gay parents are far more responsible financially, and actually PLAN their families. We adopt and give birth creating a morally strong, confident, loving, and educated children for family and country. Tax breaks (for the money) is a sacrilege to the institution of marriage and family. However, equality does need to be recognized across the board and what is good for the "traditional" family ought to be good for the "new" family. With the help of our straight friends and alliances for all that is fair and just in this country, we will overturn prop 8 and receive the freedoms inherit of our birth right as citizens of the USA.

We have to take care of our personal domestic issues FIRST and fairly if we are to work as ONE to solve any other problems that face our nation.

[clearthinker2008]

And who would decide who has too many children? Let's tax you for judging others.

[NanDarien]

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with straight people getting married and then at least half of them getting divorced (thus showing to the entire world that they never took seriously the vows of straight marriage). It's none of my business what consenting hypocrites do with each other. But we need a compromise. If it's marriage (and then likely divorce) that they want, then I want my gay social security dollars separated from those straight ones, so that someone's wife doesn't end up with all that gay social security money of mine after her husband dies, even though she didn't work for it. (After all, straight marriage is the only reason she would be getting those dollars.) Further, what about those gay dollars of mine in the company's pension fund (you know, the fund that gives some of my gay dollars to the surviving wife after her husband dies). The same with that health insurance policy at work, paid in part with my gay dollars.

Are you starting to get the picture, Natalie? Marriage isn't straight and doesn't belong to you any more than the "gay" money I contribute to a whole host of "funds". That's why we're hung up on the word marriage......because we've bought and paid for it, just like you did, and it's high time we got what we purchased. Thomas Jefferson, as great as he was, really has nothing to do with it.

[nataliesmith]

Did you read the whole thing or did you just see a differing opinion and decide to just start swinging? I'm all for gay couples uniting. This world is hard enough without having at least one other person to count on, no matter what happens. I think committed gay couples should be able to share benefits, adopt children, make important decisions about health care, etc. Basically all the benefits that staright married couples share. But yes, everyone is hung up on a word. Both sides. What I'm saying, I understand, basically equates to fighting semantics. But both sides are locking horns and yes, we need to compromise. I've met many people like myself who would gladly take up the fight for homosexuals if they would fight for civil unions. That's why I ask, what is the desired end result of this fight? If it's for rights, then fight for civil unions, it's a much easier fight and will lead to results much quicker. And if straight people have done such a terrible job with marriage, being hypocrites, like you say, then why on Earth would gays want in? And just to completely answer your blog, I don't think Jefferson should have anything to do with this arguement either. So why would someone with the opportunity to express her ideas to so many choose to quote someone who was probably not the biggest fan of homosexuality?

[NanDarien]

Yes, I read your post....all of it. Now read mine. The bottom line is repeated below for your convenience:
"Are you starting to get the picture, Natalie? Marriage isn't straight and doesn't belong to you any more than the "gay" money I contribute to a whole host of "funds". That's why we're hung up on the word marriage......because we've bought and paid for it, just like you did, and it's high time we got what we purchased. Thomas Jefferson, as great as he was, really has nothing to do with it."

[alwaysthere]

For a guy just trying to get laid
These are confusing times !!!!

[SouthpawSass]

ROFLMAO!

Not like the good ole days, huh?

[nataliesmith]

To Melissa Etheridge: Jefferson thought the punishment for homosexuality should be castration for men and boring a hole through the nose of a woman. Do a little more homework before quoting someone whom you obviously know so little about. Check for yourself:


"Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least."

Found at: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/texts/

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuality. It's really none of my buisness what consenting adults choose to do with each other. But we need a compromise. Instead of fighting for marriage, fight for civil unions. There are many people who oppose gay marriage who support gay civil unions. If it's rights that homosexuals want, civil unions should be the obvious solution. No good? Do homosexuals need to be able to say they're married? Then say it! I seriously doubt that if this country started allowing civil unions for gays that police would start arresting people for saying they're married. I have a gay friend who tells me about a new "husband" every other week, so what's the prob? If they are so hung up on a word, then why can't they understand the other side being hung up on it, too? Do they want rights or a fight?

[ramonaramone]

But rape, polygamy, and sodomy are not homosexuality. The three previous acts (rape, polygamy, and sodomy) are power-stances and hate-filled deeds, used to sexually dominate and tear down the victim. Sure there are homosexual rapists and homosexual sadists, but there are also hetero rapists and hetero sadists. Homosexuality is best viewed as a consensual and loving relationship, not much different than heterosexuality should be, but with two people of the same sex. Of course I'm sure you knew that.

[MarkieBee]

exactly...I'm not sure Melissa Etheridge and her partner are having a lot of sodomy. I'm sure most heterosexual couples have performed sodomy more times than Melissa and her partner.

[nataliesmith]

Fun with words. I've always thought of sodomy as meaning "anal sex". I never thought of it as a "power-stance" or "hate-filled deed". When did that happen? I guess when people don't pay attention, definitions get blurred. For instance, in the link I noted, Jefferson seems to think of "sodomy" as sex between people of the same gender (men or women). So yell all you want, but still, the point is, and always was, it isn't smart to quote someone who doesn't support your cause. Remember how many musicians got ticked at McCain for using their songs in his campaign? Same idea except that Jefferson is dead. So unless someone like me comes along and points it out, other dimwits are going to regurgitate this, "Jefferson was a friend to the homosexual cause," crap. How would gay rights activists like it if after they died people started quoting, out of context, what they had said and making it sound like they were anti-gay rights. There are enough intelligent, LIVING people out there to help the gay cause.

Also, you include polygamy as one of those "hate-filled" deeds. I must say I'm surprised that's your attitude. I mean, if you can say that a gay relationship is "best viewed as a consensual and loving relationship," then why can't polygamy be the same thing with multiple consenting adults? You're not a polygamist, but are willing to criticize polygamy, interesting. See how close both sides of this arguement are?

[IDIOTA]

Jefferson was a man of his times, and he needs to be seen in that light. Etheridge's invocation of Jefferson was apt enough and important to remember because it is a trope for American ideals.

[NanDarien]

Sophist.

[ChristianEcon.com]

How does "rape, polygamy, or sodomy with man or woman" necessarily refer to anything homosexual?

[NanDarien]

Good question. Those issues have nothing to do with homosexuality unless you're a homophobic sophist.

[MarkieBee]

exactly, the homophobes are so caught up in the sex acts they fail to see the real reason behind the gay marriage issue. Gays are not trying to gain the right have gay sex. Every anti-gay protest always has a SODOMY IS SIN sign held by some rabid homophobe. It's so cliche....and sad.

[nataliesmith]

Are you being serious? I gave you the link for Christ's sake! Are you really going to be so childish as to say that you think that Jefferson was refering to something else when he said, "sodomy"? Are we also going to pretend that when people said the word "gay" in the 20's or 30's that they were referring to homosexuals and not to being happy? Let's not be that willingly ignorant. Read the link and then tell me what you think. What do you think it means? He already covered rape, so he couldn't have been talking about forced sodomy, as that would have been covered in rape. Seriously, I have no idea what you think he meant. As these blogs don't allow as much room as is needed to post the whole thing, I urge you to follow the link and read it yourself. And just to be clear, my citing this is not because I agree, because I don't. I just don't think Etheridge should have quoted him. I wouldn't quote Saddam Hussein when talking about women's rights. Understand?

[JudgeMoonbox]

Jefferson played such a key role in the country's founding that we need to be on our toes in case someone invokes the ugly side of his life story. Okay, he did own slaves. Okay, the only slaves he freed were Sally Heming's kids (which he may have fathered.)

The Declaration of Independence declares "All men are created equal;" but the institution of slavery was stronger when Jefferson died than when the DoI was published 50 years earlier.

Abraham Lincoln was challenged on that point, and he said that the Founders set forth an ideal that we may always strive to uphold even if we never reach that ideal.

[freeus]

I am so glad to finally see intelligent progressives taking on the bigots, and the MEDIA IS COVERING IT!!! I really think this means we're over the hump on this issue. Just another case of discrimination in America in our quest to find equal rights for all.

[aussiebrat]

I don't know what the problem is, canada has gay marrige and it is a non issue there, whats the worst that can happen here? We give them a tax break for being married, it always comes down to the money doesn't it??? Well when they get divorced you get a cut of that to, so what ya think now$$$$$ sheeeeesh there is other domestic stuff in this country that needs more attention than this, this is easily solved why make it so hard?

[frenchie25]

finally...a rational thought on the matter

[IDIOTA]

It is about money but not just money. Imagine that your spouse suddenly falls ill. You didn't plan for it, and it is a shock, but you rush to be at her side. This is what spouses do. Then you find out that her family, who never liked you because your bad influence made her gay, has blocked you from visiting, and you can do nothing because you are not family. She dies, and the kid that you helped rear is snatched away by blood relatives whose claim is greater than yours because you weren't married. Marriage fixes all of that.

[vdub4]

As a single person, I don't believe that tax breaks should be given to married people...nor do i believe that tax breaks should be given to people who are having child after child after child - contributing to the already horrible OVERPOPULATION problem we have on the earth. Like that couple with 18 kids?!?! Please!!!! Just a discussion topic... BTW, I'm straight and Against Prop H8...

[freeus]

As a straight person in a LTR, I couldn't agree more about tax breaks and marriage. Taxes and marriage shouldn't have anything to do with oneanother; and as far as tax breaks for people with kids... if we all had health care, this wouldn't be as big a deal to remove.
Why is marriage a government issue, now that women aren't property?

[Beaglelovers]

Amen to that! At last someone mentioning the terrible overpopulation problem that stresses the planet and contributes to global warming. At least homosexual marriages don't produce more kids. If they want kids they should be allowed to adopt kids that are already here.

[Riani]

As a married person with children, I too don't see why there are tax breaks for married people.

[mamothree]

The State should not be involved in marriage at all. Leave that to the churches, etc. The rest of us can be domestic partners.

[madashellvoter]

little knowledge is worse then no knowledge at all. Haven't we learned that from Dubya.

Get her off the air!

[uncleentropy]

With her dithering remarks about "activist judges," Hasselbeck shows no understanding of the core principle of democracy, which is that certain individual rights are not subject to popular vote. Call it a paradox, but the freedom to express yourself and even to vote rest upon certain principles which are themselves absolute in their application. We cannot "vote" away equal protection for all people anymore than we can "vote" away democracy itself.

It is too bad that Melissa Etheridge was not allowed to drive that point home, although she made it well enough in the brief time she had to anyone who is not a sophist.

[Chis1283]

If that's true, then why do we have a procedure for amending our Constiution? The equal protection clause wasn't even in the original document....it's in the 14th Amendment...if we can adopt an amendment enshrining equal protection of the law as a Consitutional guarantee, then why can't we adopt one denying it?...not that this would ever happen, but it just goes to show that individual rights are subject to the popular vote, albeit through the much tougher route of adopting a constitutional amendment.

[luvobama]

Did you know that the only time the constitution was mended to TAKE AWAY a right, was Prohibition? We all saw how well that worked out. To me, amending any constitution, state or federal, to take away rights, is very unAmerican.

[redkim]

Hi Chris:

For some reason people are afraid to use the Amendment route to gain the right of same-sex marriage.
People on this board are very passionate in what they believe and have cited the 14th Amendment.

I don't think it applies to same sex marriage. Here is my reasoning:

While the 14th Amendment speaks generally regarding the protection of rights of all citizens, women did NOT use this amendment to gain the right to vote. It is pretty clear, then, that they did NOT think the 14th Amendment was applicable, so the suffragette movement fought to get it's own amendment (the 19th).

While they did this, they also fought to gain the right to vote in individual states. My numbers may be off, but I think that by the time the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920, thirteen(?) states already gave women the right to vote.

It was very clear then that the right of women to vote was NOT recognized as a civil right under the 14th Amendment, yet the 14th Amendment speaks VERY clearly on civil rights.

If then same-sex marriage is to be recognized as a civil right in the US, then supporters of it need to go the same route as the women's suffrage movement did

[uncleentropy]

You raise a good point, but I would not characterize amending the constitution as a "popular vote" just for the reason you have alluded to above, especially if popular vote is understood as simple majority rule.

Believe it or not, I would also say that the 14th Amendment is not essential for permitting gay marriage, but it helps. There are several others that are in their spirit consonant with the idea that two consenting adults should have their union recognized as a marriage.

You guessed it by now.....I am no strict constructionist!

[nataliesmith]

When did marriage become a right? I don't remember seeing that anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution. And please don't just respond that the "pursuit of happiness" includes marriage. That's pretty lame. I could just as easily say that my pursuit of happiness includes killing consenting individuals. (Before you attack that, there was actually a case of someone who wanted to kill and eat another human being and found someone who consented, no bs; in Germany, look it up.)

And by the way, your use of the word "sophist" appears to be sophism itself. You accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you or Etheridge of being a sophist. You say nothing of why other than they disagree. What arguement was made that was deceptive? Think again before using silly, ten cent words in an attempt to sound more intelligent, you sophist.

[uncleentropy]

Your use of the "silly, ten cent word" at the end of your comments made you sound extremely intelligent and not a bit hypocritical....

[JudgeMoonbox]

"With her dithering remarks about "activist judges," Hasselbeck shows no understanding of the core principle of democracy,"

Imagine that Bill Clinton had sought and won a third term, and that the Supreme Court ruled that he'd be violating the 22nd Amendment if he was sworn in. Would Hasselbeck say that was a case of activist judges? The California Constitution made a promise of equality, and the state Supreme Court said they had to deliver on that promise. Does Hasselbeck think that because the promise was nullified in the past, it should be nullified in the future?

[joeyfoto]

Dear Judge Moonbox: The entire question is: "Does Hasselbeck think...?" The answer is... You might as well ask for logic from a cup of eggnog.

[bgranny]

I would like to take a poll - of all the folks that are Gay - do you believe in the Bible? Or do you have no spiritual faith at all? I just wonder about that. Please no name calling etc. Just real answers would be appreciated.

[luvobama]

Do you? Do you live by it? From your posts, i already know you don't. So, my question is, do you think it is hypocritical to use the bible to deny other people their rights? What about judgement? Do you believe what the bible says about that?

[bgranny]

If you read all of my comments, you would see that I know I am not a perfect person - no one is. Yes I try to live a good life and be a good person. I am only voicing my opinion. It will be each persons right to do as they please since as my opinion is that God gave us all free will. I am not saying gays are not good people, I love all people. I may not agree with the way they live but you may not believe in the way I live either. It is not for me to judge anyone - I have failed way to many times in my life to think I am better than anyone. This is just what I believe. simple as that.

[mercury613]

This issue has nothing to do with the Bible, since the U.S. is not a Christian nation.

[madashellvoter]

What does the bible have anything to do with this issue? And if you say “it’s written in the bible”. Yeah, written by man about two hundred years after the death of Jesus. Plus, it was written several different times with phrases taken out and new ones put in over several hundred year period. Please give me a break

[UlisesCo21]

A poll ? Your A Moran How could you question anyone elses faith U are why America will Always be to much into other peoples lives ...just let people live their lifes

[prostock69]

The bible is a human book from beginning to end. It was written by different human authors at different times and in different places to address different needs. Many of these authors were inspired by their BELIEF in God to say what they did, BUT they had their own perspectives, their own beliefs, their own views, their own needs, their own desires, their own understandings, their own theologies; and these perspectives, beliefs, views, needs, desires, understandings, and theologies INFORMED everything they said. The bible was not written by God. I challenge you to read "Misquoting Jesus", by Professor Bart Ehrman, Ph.D. He is one of the leading bible historians in the world. He has read EVERY Christian antiquity and non-Christian antiquity of the first two centuries. He was a fundalmentalist Christian who attended Moody Bible College,Wheaton College (Billy Grahams' alma mater) then went on to attend Princeton Seminary. He is now an agnostic. He wanted more than anyone to believe that Jesus of the bible really did exist and was the son of god. Well, here's the kicker: what he found during the past 30 years of scholarly work is it's all bogus! Another book you should read is "Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists".

[C65]

PROSTOCK69,
My heart goes out to you as well as the professor,(you're so gunho on believing).
All,should use their GOD given inteligence to do their own research,like reading
the Bible,(that you claim was written by old men in their time with their own ideas)
for yourself then look around and obsearve the world you and the professor live in
and compare the prophesies of the old men of their time and todays happenings,
then see if you still believe what your dear professor wrote.
Don't let him lead you to HELL with him,remember miseary loves company.

[Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger]

No Rachel, They Will Have Forgotten http://stephencrose.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/no-rachel-they-will-have-forgotten/