RECENT  POSTS:  » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out » But your subjective view of 'real' marriage is factually irrelevant, Ryan » Flip Benham (yes, their dad) reportedly protesting outside NC weddings » TV's Duggar family continues anti-LGBT activism » Caught ya: Far-right's latest marriage 'victim' edited website to make more solid legal case » Read: Wyoming to become our 32nd marriage equality state » GLAAD: Victory is what happens while you're busy making other plans » What fake victimization sounds like in Arizona » Federal judge strikes Arizona's discriminatory marriage ban; marriages should begin today! » NOM's latest desperation: Relying on hearsay James O'Keefe video to smear Democrat for 'secretly' not opposing equality  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

11/14/2008

Video: Miranda rights

by Jeremy Hooper

This from tonight's "Larry King Live":

Wasn't that great? And by "that," we of course mean Cynthia's ability to speak for more than a minute without Carrie Bradshaw chiming in and somehow turning the conversation back to herself. Seriously, there is self-involved and then there's Carrie!

But in all seriousness: Good show, Ms. Nixon! We're proud to have you on our team.

Larry King Live [YouTube]

**MORE: Here is some amateur footage from the rest of this Behar-hosted "LKL" episode. In these clips, see Gavin Newsom and Dan Savage try to explain civil rights to two religious men, Rev. Jim Garlow and Bishop Harry Jackson:


*Beyond the obvious, typical flaws in the anti-gay side's arguments, here are some other notes on the above:

-Okay, first off: The not so hidden elephant in the room is that the defenders of "yes on 8" are wholly working from a religious place. The primary question that should be raised is WHY can we not disconnect the civl elements form the religious?! Why does the "pr-family' side refuse to acknowledge that what gays are seeking is CIVIL marriage equality, with the churches still free to make their own decisions about who they wish to marry (just as they are now with heterosexual couples)?! In fact, we submitted this question to Larry King's producers:

-Eckern wasn't "forced to resign," he WILLFULLY resigned after his donation raised genuine negative reaction. And while we adore Gavin, it's unfortunate that he kind of took that bait. And it's to Dan Savage's credit that he later tried to correct Newsom on this point.

-It's also super annoying that Jackson is using the Besen vs. Cannick feud against the gay community. That has become a distraction, and there needs to be some product dialogue/resoultion on that matter.

-Dan Savage ably handled the civil rights fight vs. the CIVIL RIGHTS FIGHT argument. It's just unfortunate that folks like Bishop Jackson will surely not listen to this point, and will instead continue to accuse the LGBT community of "hijacking" the African-American civil rights fight.

-This situation is uber-annoying and we're frickin' sick of it!

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Hm. Few thoughts.

The whole Tuesday versus Thursday thing, about how people can only think for themselves later in the week; what was THAT all about? The polls were all over the place, where does she get that? There's really no need to invite more charges of religious bigotry. That was immensely patronising towards people of faith; I found it offensive, and I'm not even religious.

Re: would you stop paying taxes? Why is this discussion treating all three marriage bans the same way as if there is no difference? The right of gay people to marry was recognised by the highest court in the state of California, it was recognised as a civil right guaranteed by the constitution, and that right was taken away.

Not enough people seem to get what that means. People are acting as though constitutionally guaranteed rights don't count if they were only recognised recently, but that's not how the law works. If you can take constitutionally recognised rights away from minorities simply by changing the constitution to specifically exclude them, then you can't just do that to the gays, you can do that to any minority.

I feel like I'm hearing too much stuff about love and how the vote will go in the future, and not enough about what this means as a legal precedent. I'm no lawyer and I might be wrong, but to my lay eyes it looks like the passing of prop 8 should scare the pants off of anyone in any kind of minority, if it is allowed to stand.

Posted by: Willie Hewes | Nov 15, 2008 4:29:41 AM

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

- Pastor Martin Niemoller

Willie, I think a lot of non-LGBT folk do get it. For those who don't, they need Niemoller's poem hammered in their head.

Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | Nov 15, 2008 6:10:25 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails