On Saturday night's installment of the Fox News program Geraldo at Large, liberal pundit Sally Kohn and Congressman Tim Walberg (R-MI) debated the issue of gay marriage. Their discussion stood out to me (in a positive way) for a couple of reasons. Too often, debates on cable news devolve into shouting matches that are more befitting the WWE. I think that Ms. Kohn made some excellent points and did so logically. Although I disagree with Rep. Walberg's stance on this issue, he stated his case in a calm manner. It was also refreshing to see Rivera stick to just moderating the debate. What normally happens is that the host will pick a side and it turns into a 2 against 1 scuffle. Although I can understand the temptation for a host to jump into the fray of a 1-on-1 debate, it's better when they leave it to their guests to engage with one another.
What are your thoughts on the debate between Ms. Kohn and Rep. Walberg?
4 comments:
I didn't know Geraldo had his own Fox Nooz show, yet apparently it's been on since 2005? Tim Walberg lost the debate IMO. It's only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal across all 50 states, yet the Repubs don't seem to get it. Walberg tried to soften his position, saying he wasn't against loving unions like Sally Kohn's, but he does oppose "refining marriage". What a bunch of baloney! as Sally Kohn pointed out, nobody is suggesting we force Churches to marry people they don't want to marry.
Why doesn't everyone just mind there own damn business and go about their own lives where this is issue is concerned! I am pretty sure your personal life is not pristine :-) Most of the people against gay marriage use the Bible to legitimize their argument. I say follow scripture and let God do the judging...Can I get an Amen and a Hallelujah!!!
I don't think there's any debate to be taken seriously in the opposition of equal rights for all. Human rights! They shouldn't have to be "given." It's insulting. We're all born free in this world, and piss on whoever stands against that.
The calm delivery is phony to me. It's like someone calling me a fat ass, and putting "with all due respect" or "don't take this the wrong way" in front of it, as they say it calmly and politely. It's still an insult.
This is an issue I've had to evolve on over the years. I used to be one of those just-call-'em-civil-unions kinda guys. But I see now that this idea of "traditional" marriage is a farce to begin with. Marriage has been different far longer than it's been 1M/1W + love + children.
Family marrying. Family forcing girls to marry. Young, prepubescent children marrying. Bartering for marriage. Marrying for position. And on and on -- that's more "traditional" than the crap bigots cling to these days.
Marriage has been redefined more than Heidi Montag's jawline.
But the buck stops with two Bucks?
It boils down to one thing and one thing only. The Bible supposedly prohibits it. But what confuses me is why this particular instance of irrelevant scripture is plucked out and taken seriously, whereas blended fabric, variety gardens, shellfish, etc, are embraced in "open defiance," to quote Chris Broussard.
Right-wingers and religious fanatics: You can't have it both ways. You want government involved heavily in marriage in terms of assigning rights and status, but don't want them to tell you what "marriage" can be.
You can't give something you claim to be the "church" to the state and then tell the state to butt out. (They can, obviously; see Christmas, money, courthouses, etc. But it shouldn't work that way, on principle.)
Get government out of marriage, make it something that's only recognized in your religion, and then you can bitch about it. But when you handed it over, you lost the right to take the rights of others away.
And having too large a majority to relent doesn't make it right. It just makes it that much sweeter when you lose.
Dervish: I think "Geraldo at Large" doesn't get as much ink as shows like "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity" is because it airs on weekends and the host doesn't say as many outrageous things as Bill and Sean. I think Sally won the debate as well. Rep. Walberg seemed to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. However, at least he wasn't over-the-top.
Pam: Agreed. The people who oppose gay marriage need to realize it's not about them. Speaking of people using the Bible as a crutch against gay marriage, I know you remember when someone in our family spewed that nonsense and got her ass handed to her.
Josh: Welcome back... it's been a long time! I've asked the same question regarding how Bible thumpers will cherry pick things in scripture to suit their own bigotry. Although I think the opposition knows they are losing the battle, they are going to go down swinging ala Cool Hand Luke.
As for the calm delivery, that's Sally Kohn's style. Even when dealing with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin, she manages to keep a cool head. I don't know much about Rep. Walberg, but he doesn't seem like the "fire and brimstone" type either.
Post a Comment