In an unusual and unscheduled post, I’d encourage people to check this out. It’s quite eloquent.
If it ain’t about love…
If you’re having a hard time with the video, the text is here.
Wielding the Stick of Grandmotherly Kindness
Wielding the Stick of Grandmotherly Kindness
In an unusual and unscheduled post, I’d encourage people to check this out. It’s quite eloquent.
If it ain’t about love…
If you’re having a hard time with the video, the text is here.
Nicely done, and I wish more people who felt the need to vote against such rights COULD answer those questions.
Without invoking their Imaginary Friends, of course.
Good post. Been thinking on this quite a bit myself, even though I, like Olbermann, am one of those folks that ain’t got no dog in this fight.
I hear a lot of folks quoting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as their primary argument on this issue, but Constitutionally it really doesn’t hold up. ‘Twould be nice if it did, but someone much wiser than I has reasonably pointed out that there’s a much bigger stick that may be wielded here: the second sentence of the First Clause of the 14th Amendment. To refresh:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
(That is the text of the clause exactly as copied-and-pasted from the Fourteenth Amendment as posted on the website of Cornell University Law School Library, without editing.)
This is _not_ a religious vs. secular argument, and anyone who insists on bringing religion into it is guaranteed to stay distracted and sidelined. Drop the Imaginary Friend stuff and stick to the Fourteenth Amendment on its own merits. Note the refreshing absence of “unless they’re gay,” “unless they’re transgendered,” “unless they’re bisexual,” or “unless they’re polyamorous” tacked on to the end of that clause. It just says “citizens of the United States” once, and “any person” twice. That’s ALL.
Religion is _irrelevant_ to this debate. This is a Constitutional issue, and it is already CLEAR AS VODKA. And I come across no instances of any churches currently spearheading or bankrolling any initiatives to rewrite or edit the Fourteenth Amendment.
But what do I know? I ain’t a lawyer, after all…
While my blog is very new and I don’t have many visitors, I wanted to share the video with those I know do read my blog. (Mostly friends.)
Thank you for posting this. Thank you.
I just re-watched Good Night and Good Luck the other night, and as I was listening to this piece it occurred to me that in an age where editorialism in television is mostly a trainwreck, this is, in its precision and eloquence, evocative of Murrow.
So of course, when I got to the last three seconds, I bawled. Thank you.
This is an incredible speech, obviously heartfelt. Not too long ago our Canadian parliament – analogous to your house of Congress I believe made gay marriage the law in Canada. I hope that if our own homegrown closed minds try to steo backwards we can hold our own against them.
PS
I have just run across your blog and I am definitely hooked, Looking forward to future posts, I am going to first read all your archives. Thanks for posting.