I disagree with his comparisons of the political movement for gay marriage to that of slaves being able to marry. Kind of insulting to African-Americans. That’s supposed to be one of the reasons that black Californians voted so overwhelmingly for the ban.

Gay couples in “civil unions” in California already have all of the same rights of straight married couples [http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/civilunions_domesticpartnership_statutes.htm] But that’s not enough. They also want official state endorsement of their lifestyle choice. That’s what this is about. Claiming that it’s about love is disturbingly deceptive. It simply boils down to a desire to legally redefine the word “marriage.”

Olbermann also unfortunately reduces the “do unto others” verse to a plea for moral relativism, a self-defeating worldview. He equates “love” with letting people do whatever they want. What about when the polygamist or incestor makes the same appeal? Afterall, these things don’t affect me, right? Can any moral line stand up to the power of “love?” Very passionate speech cloaking a very flimsy argument (I have to disagree with you Andrew — it kind of disgusts me that such close-minded and narrow views get televised).

That said, unfortunately the church was very politically active in supporting Prop 8 (especially the Mormon church which has drawn the brunt of anti-8 protests in the wake of the result) and is therefore associated with being “anti-gay” and “hateful” etc. So the net result of all that political involvement is probably actually quite negative for Christians and Christianity and how they are perceived by homosexuals and others. I’m sure this grieves God’s heart.

When will the church learn to keep its independence from politics/government? I hope it happens one day, for the betterment of all stakeholders in these kind of issues.

Secondly, I think you are very cute.

http://4mgiselle.wordpress.com