MSNBC Host Tapes 'Marriage Equality' Promo for Gay Lobby
MSNBC's complete lack of a standard for moonlighting progressive activism surfaced again this week with a new video weekend host Melissa Harris-Perry made for the "Americans for Marriage Equality Campaign" run by the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay lobby.
The video, posted on YouTube on Wednesday, urges joining up with HRC: "I cannot imagine how in 2012 our government is still denying equality to committed and loving couples just because they are gay or lesbian. Join me and a majority of Americans who support marriage equality nationwide." (Video below)
Before the join-us language, Harris-Perry began with biography: "As the child of an interracial couple, I understand the deep injustice of laws that bar loving couples from marrying just because they upset the status quo. Intentionally disenfranchising a group of people like gay and lesbian couples violates the core values of our Constitution."
This is part of an ongoing relationship for Harris-Perry and HRC. Harris-Perry gave the keynote address at their “Clergy Call” last year, which drew “hundreds of LGBT-equality-supporting clergy to Washington, D.C. for inspiration, mutual support, training, and lobbying visits on Capitol Hill.”
She argued that LGBT forces must engage with faith. Religion Dispatches reported:
It is important to recognize that the Bible is problematic, she says. She has written that “we need to cultivate an active, public, prophetic, liberal core that can resist these texts of terror by arguing for a more comprehensive engagement with the Bible.”
....She suggests that rather than trying to deconstruct the meaning of the “terror texts” through exegesis, it is more convincing and useful to devalue them relative to other texts, elevating the “countering texts of liberation.”
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Find the phrase you won't hear from the Left.
Submitted by GregE on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 10:21pm.
It is important to recognize that the Bible is problematic.
It is important to recognize that the US government is problematic.
Equality this, equality that
Submitted by GregE on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 10:23pm.
Why is a man called a man, and a woman called a woman? We need equality. Let's drop one of the words and just everyone be a "man" or a "woman." We don't need both. We need equality.
We also need to abolish that
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 11:00pm.
We also need to abolish that pesky Y chromosome, we should all have XX chromosomes!
So much for the left believing in science.
Good evening Greg
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 11:58pm.
That's exactly what the bible says
Gen 1:27 - So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (from the King James version)
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
The Bible is Problematic?
Submitted by KevinB on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 11:35pm.
"Professing themselves to be WISE, they became FOOLS.."
---Romans 1:22
Denying Equality
Submitted by LaVallette on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:38am.
""I cannot imagine how in 2012 our government is still denying equality to committed and loving couples just because they are gay or lesbian".
And why leave out brothers and brothers and sisters and sisters, brothers and sisters, and parents and children, business partners, and what about the discrimination against group's in favour of just couples and wjat about all the rest of the possible combinations that involve "loving commitment"?. And of course why should such "loving commitments" have to involve sex or sexual activity at all? Love does not have to mean "Lurve" after all.
Let us all get married to each other. Problem solved.!
MSNBC's complete lack of a standard
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:55am.
MSNBC's complete lack of a standard....
and complete lack of shame.
Liberals all think liberals can completely sever their lives outside of their job and still be "balanced."
But a conservative who once worked with the son of a guy whose whose brother-in-law was a lobbyist can't possibly be unbiased on a certain issue.
Say "no" to sodomy-based marriage
Submitted by thestalkinghorse on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 7:25am.
It is important to recognize that Melissa Harris-Perry is problematic.
There is nothing "liberal" about marriage equality.
Submitted by PolishBear on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 10:01am.
I would think that Tim Graham would support marriage equality for Gay couples. Isn't it better to promote love, monogamy, and commitment ... rather than relegating Gay people to lives to loneliness and depression? I don't think there's anything "liberal" about encouraging couples, regardless of whether they are Straight or Gay, to make a solemn commitment to one another's happiness and well-being.
Likewise, there is nothing "conservative" about supporting unconstitutional laws like the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is clearly in violation of the both the 14th Amendment and the "Full Faith & Credit" clause.
Yes because without coerced
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 10:02am.
Yes because without coerced validation from all of society gays are doomed to be lonely and depressed. That is the most pathetic, worthless, 3rd grade argument that the gay lovers pull out of their asses. Get a grip on the real issue and come back.
say what?
Submitted by Dr. Ron on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:24pm.
So, we have a constitutional lawyer called polish bear saying DOMA is clearly unconstitutional. Really? Guess the ACLU and gay/lesbian organiation must have missed that "fact" and the Supreme Court has not declared it unconstitutional.
As American citizens, what rights and protections, under Declation of Independence and Constitution are denied gays/lesbians?
In fact, in many states they have rights/protections not afford heterosexual folks.
Put another way, 4 or 5 states have made gay marriage legal ...but, in every state and every time this issue is put to a vote, it is voted it down, followed by judges/courts overturning the vote..."will of the people" seems to be only a phrase to such activist judges and courts.
Definition of an "activist judge" :
Submitted by PolishBear on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:37pm.
A judge who makes a decision you disagree with.
It is not the courts' job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of "equality," and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not "activism" on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.
The word "marriage" does not occur in the Constitution, so technically there is no federal right for anyone, Gay or Straight, to marry. One might infer from this that marriage is, therefore, a "States Rights" issue.
However, the federal government has complicated the issue by taking a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of tax law and Social Security (among the 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on couples once they marry). Therefore this is not an issue that can be left up to the states to decide individually, since it wouldn't do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa, for instance, to become automatically UN-married once they decide to move somewhere else.
Religious beliefs are irrelevant to this debate, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want.
Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since (1) couples do not have to marry to have children, and (2) the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license.
This is simply a matter of treating Gay and Straight couples equally under the law. I can’t imagine how simply acknowledging the existence and rights of Gay couples is going to cause the collapse of civilization.
For our one-issue poster
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:28pm.
I can’t imagine how simply acknowledging the existence and rights of Gay couples is going to cause the collapse of civilization. I realize three things about you, PolishBear: 1) you love to bark orders at people and try to dictate the terms of debate; 2) you are extremely self-absorbed, and 3) you don't give a rat's ass about ANYTHING other than ensuring gays have more rights and more privileges than any other group in society. But answer this:
How has human civilization managed to survive for 6000 years without "gay marriage" (which would be a silly term if not for the deeply self-absorbed types such as yourself.)
If only you cared as much about children, which are a group of humanity you look at the same way as you do the fecal matter you occasionally deposit into toilet bowls. Marriage isn't about procreation: you bring that up because you are a deeply self-absorbed individual. Indeed, I don't think you know what marriage is about, considering you act as if history began on your birthday.
I'm not religious. So save that riposte for one who cares.
If I don't have the right to marry - and I don't - neither does anyone else. There. Equality under law.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Sorry, but the institution named marriage is already taken,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:44pm.
and has been for many thousands of years. Find another term and then legislate it.
Here's an analogy: A Subchapter S Corporation is legally different from a Limited Liability Company (LLC) which is different from a Close Corporation which is different from a General Corporation, etc. etc.
How about THIS?
Submitted by PolishBear on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:56pm.
I've often heard it said, "I don't care if Gay couples have their legal rights, just don't call it MARRIAGE."
Okay, then. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, but that those benefits and responsibilities could be granted to Gay couples under a different term ... such as "civil unions." The rights under tax law, Social Security, etc. would be EXACTLY the same for Gay and Straight couples; only the terminology would be different. Opposite-sex couples would be allowed the option to "marry," and same-sex couples would be allowed the option to enter into "civil unions." Social conservatives could keep the term “marriage” for themselves, and Gay couples would be granted equal protection as specified by the 14th Amendment. AND of course those civil unions would be automatically honored in all 50 states, per the "Full Faith & Credit" clause of the Constitution.
Would you have a problem with that? I wouldn't.
For our one-issue group rights advocate
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:37pm.
What you most definitely have a severe problem with is the concept of individual rights and liberties. That concept disgusts and angers you, even more so because a bunch of people that you view as beneath contempt insists that individual rights and liberties are a cornerstone of society.
What you want, instead, are group rights. You want to classify everyone in this country into different groups of people who will then be granted rights and privileges based on whatever the Left tells us the different groups deserve. In your world, gays will basically be immune from law and can do as they damn well please because their group status grants them that privilege.
Why do you think that, for instance, a guy who wants to shove his male organs into another guy's rectum deserves more rights and privileges than I? Am I missing something here?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
PolishBear is Gay; NTTAWWT, and he argues for ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 9:50pm.
Gay "rights" the same way Jer does in trying to support a leftist ideology.
NTTAWWT, either - :o) - it's just that as a conservative, I have seen nothing from either PolishBear or Jer that would change my mind, my beliefs, or my preferences.
MD
Irrelevent...
Submitted by adamsmith on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:42pm.
As soon as the gay gene is found on a DNA strand and can be identified as homosexual, homosexuals will cease to exist. If people already abort based on gender, this is not far behind. Who wants to have a gay baby if they have a choice? And before you go into a tizzy PolishBear, I'm a pro-choice Conservative(Goldwater Conservative). Gays will be gone, so why legislate on this abomination at all.....
Why you sanctimonious pecker. "Marriage" in quotes?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 10:15pm.
It's no skin off my ass. Call it whatever you want, then legislate it. I really could care less, but you 3-per-centers are really getting in our faces, and not in a good way.