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


Video: Our equal Joy -- what's the big Whoopi?

by Jeremy Hooper

On Friday we showed you a clip from "The View" in which Sherri Shepherd, in particular, presented less-than-accepting ideas about marriage equality for gays and lesbians. But it turns out, we weren't the only ones who had a negative reaction to the discussion. Both celesbian Ellen Degeneres and gay rights organization GLAAD saw the show, formed a few thoughts regarding the co-host's misconstructions (again, primarily from Sherri), and got in contact with the daytime chatfest. Check out today's clip:

Hey Sherri: If you don't know, then perhaps you shouldn't weigh in! Or better yet, perhaps you, as a television personality who is paid to chime in on current affairs, should learn the facts. Because when talking about civil rights, your personal Biblical faith is not a substitute for legal knowledge! And in fact, your "struggle" with your faith-based views and your apparent inability to separate the two only highlights why so many folks have so much trouble understanding this civil, civil, civil, -- let us say it again, CIVIL -- matter.

And you too, Elisabeth: As we pointed out on Friday, the Swedish case you keep referencing had NOTHING to do with marriage! Ake Green's case was about printed "hate speech," which is punishable under Swedish (not American) law. if you're going to continually use this point, please get the information right (as opposed to far right). While your opinions are fully free and even encouraged to shade your ideas, the views that you are paid to convey to the viewing audience are assumed to be based in factual information. The majority of the American public may not know the details and nuances, but we most certainly do. And we know that the information you leave out/misconstrue are not minor footnotes, but rather the pertinent points. It's intensely frustrating for us.

The View [ABC]

**UPDATE: Alright, to be fair, there was some Sherri redemption after the commercial break. However, Elisabeth actually stepped up the shortsighted conservatism by suggesting both a non-equal stopgap, as well as the ridiculous idea that gay people already have the right to marry an opposite-sex partner. But the best part? Not a one of them seems to know much about what the Bible has to say:

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

Your thoughts

Elisabeth Hasslebug is daft and incredibly stupid.

Posted by: John Ozed | Nov 10, 2008 1:03:55 PM

What is with the SIXTY-TWO percent figure. Where are they getting that from? Prop 22 only got 61% of total votes and Prop 8 got 52%.

I think GLAAD need to get a phone call so they can help STRAIGHTEN some facts out on THE VIEW.


I wonder how Sherri Shepherd would have reacted if she was told that she could only worship her GOD, but only in a Mosque.

Posted by: Jeff Chang | Nov 10, 2008 1:05:51 PM

Note Elisabeth kept implying that Prop 8 passed by 62%, which is untrue. She said it three or four times. Perhaps she was referencing the previous vote but the way she phrased it made it sound as if Prop 8 passed by 62%. It is 10 percentage points that must be corrected.

I wrote an email to the only email addy I could find on The View website , [email protected] , which is an addy on an unrelated topic. If someone else can find a better address they should post it and we should all send emails about not only Ake Green but also Elisabeth's continual reference to 62%.

Posted by: Jon-Marc | Nov 10, 2008 1:20:35 PM

Could they please just go crawl under whatever rug they came from? They are NOT the people I want discussing these topics and having people think they're informed, when they're clearly representing the side of fractal wrongness when it comes to facts.

Posted by: sdfa | Nov 10, 2008 1:23:10 PM

Funny, I didn't even catch the 62% number the first time around. Thanks for pointing it out.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 10, 2008 1:28:25 PM

Right to marry an opposite sex-partner?

Does Elizabeth know the definition of a homosexual? I've heard this more than once from someone on the Right. It makes no sense at all and it shows how uneducated they are.

Posted by: | Nov 10, 2008 1:29:45 PM

Elmo (from "Sesame Street") was at "The View" this morning. I want to hear what HE has to say on the subject (esp. as he is animated by a gay man). ... What someone needs to remind the View panel is that marriage is and always has been a civil matter in the U.S. Religious groups are granted the government-provided PRIVILEGE of officiating marriages. They do not own the institution. Meanwhile, clergypersons and churches have often refused to marry a couple for any number of reasons and have never been successfully sued because of it. That will not change. And regardles off what happened in Sweden, we're not Sweden. ... Someone also needs to remind Elisabeth that when she harps on "legislating from the bench," that if it weren't for court decisions, her friends Sherri and Whoopi would still be sitting at the back of the bus. Just because a majority votes for or against something does not necessarily make it in line with the protections due an American citizen. ... Why aren't religious groups putting to a vote the rights of a couple to divorce? The Bible says a lot against divorce.

Posted by: Frank H | Nov 10, 2008 3:22:20 PM

Notice how prop 8 proponents always point out the 60+ percentage of those who voted yes on 22, but but they never then point out the exact numbers for prop 8 supporters, because it's lower, and they don't want people knowing that people are gradually becoming more accepting.

We all know that if the majority was on our side they wouldn't want these things on the ballots.

Posted by: Nami | Nov 10, 2008 3:38:39 PM

Did anyone get dizzy watching that? Going round in circles... and a certain two just not getting it?

Imagine if in 100 years an influx of Muslim immigrants creates a majority who don't believe in women showing their faces and bodies. Should we have a Prop 11 - Eliminate the rights of women to tan and wear bikinis?

Posted by: GT | Nov 10, 2008 4:46:38 PM

GT..not faces...but have you seen what women HAD to wear in the Victorian era?

Yep, our Justice (St.) George has a big one to fight this time...but RIGHT is on his side (again) so I think it will, eventually (certainly not till after the Inauguration) come out right.

Remember it isn't marriage they are against it is GAYNESS in any form or degree. They are simply HOMOPHOBES, period.

Posted by: LOrion | Nov 10, 2008 6:05:28 PM

Please get GLAAD on them!! and can't you just see KO's, or Daily Show or Colbert or MADDOW's version of this tonight?

Posted by: LOrion | Nov 10, 2008 6:07:19 PM

Those women are dumb. Whoopi is about the only one that makes sense and even that is being liberal. How can ABC let these fools get on TV with absolutely no prep to make a point that is even close to factually accurate.

Sheri and Elizabeth can both blow off with their "we love gay people, but we don't want to treat their relationships the same" crap. And please, if you are going to use the Bible to defend anything, you really should actually know what the Bible says. It's embarrassing. I hope people are drowning their inboxes with emails about how ridiculous they are.

Posted by: Britton | Nov 10, 2008 8:32:37 PM

I think the 62% that The View's Village Idiot keeps spewing is a confused reference to Florida's Amendment 2 that passed by that amount. She's a pathetic person. Pie her!

Posted by: Dennis | Nov 10, 2008 9:37:19 PM

You can go here to comment or complain about the View...


Tell them you don't appreciate the anti-gay lies and propaganda.

Posted by: Josh | Nov 10, 2008 9:52:29 PM

You can also contact Sherri Shepherd directly through her own website...


Posted by: Josh | Nov 10, 2008 9:53:30 PM

"Over reach" Yeah those Uppity fagots!

Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Nov 10, 2008 10:08:20 PM

Two quick points...okay three....FINE, four! This ticked me off!!

-The 62% annoyed me. It's a simple fact and an easy one to get right. To echo Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%"

-The sanctity of marriage does not exist. It was not that long ago that marriage was simply a way to exchange property. Marriage is defined by the times in which it exists. It has not stood the same for the past 5,000 years.

-As a black man, I don't get black people who are against gay marriage. 40 YEARS AGO Sherri could not have married a white man in 13 states. 40 YEARS AGO!! Since when did it become okay to go from oppressed to opporessor?!

-I cannot stand the argument "we're not taking away the right of people to marry, just to marry same-sex partners". Really?!!

Posted by: Kenneth | Nov 11, 2008 12:10:55 AM

>>"However, Elisabeth actually stepped up the shortsighted conservatism by suggesting both a non-equal stopgap, as well as the ridiculous idea that gay people already have the right to marry an opposite-sex partner."

Wait a second, why is that a ridiculous idea? It's vitally important to recognize that all people do have an equal right to marry an opposite sex partner. Marriage itself is a ridiculous idea for people that have no desire to marry, but surely even they ought to retain the right to marry if their desire changes, right? It is very evil to suggest that someone does not have the right to marry someone of the other sex.

And people should not have the same right to conceive bio-related children with people of either sex. All people should have the right to conceive using their own genes, but only by combining their genes with someone of the other sex. All marriages should have the right to combine their genes to conceive children. Civil Union should not be a "stop gap" on the way to marriage, it should be available forever for couples that want to commit to each other but are related to each other in a public way that would make their procreation unethical, and no couples whose procreation would be unethical due to their relationship to each other should ever be allowed to marry. Marriage approves of the couple conceiving children together and always should.

Posted by: John Howard | Nov 11, 2008 1:44:53 AM

I contacted the view the exact day the prop 8 discussion aired. Elizebeth has to go, and so does Sherry. The misinformation and religious overtones of the discussions have made the program entirely unwatchable. They have lost an audience and the intergity of the show is null. Barb has an issue to worry about ratings and her panel--so get with it Barb!

Posted by: Steven Pope | Nov 12, 2008 10:38:19 AM


Posted by: SHIRLEY | Feb 5, 2009 11:40:16 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails