Gay Marriage | Lawrence O'Donnell | News | Tony Perkins

Lawrence O'Donnell Unleashes His Wrath on Tony Perkins: VIDEO


The religious right-wing is trying to rewrite the history of marriage and Lawrence O'Donnell is not. having. it.


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Lawrence O'Donnell. Touche.

    Posted by: jamal49 | May 11, 2012 3:17:01 PM

  2. Strange: we have to go to a news commentator to tell us the truth about the bible--because the biblicists deliberately distort--or hide--what's actually in the bible.

    Posted by: Danny in the East Village | May 11, 2012 3:18:05 PM

  3. Love him!

    Posted by: Leroy Laflamme | May 11, 2012 3:29:44 PM

  4. Wonderful. Bravo Lawrence!

    Posted by: jim | May 11, 2012 3:39:30 PM

  5. A true ally. If there be a God, bless this man.

    Posted by: NullNaught | May 11, 2012 3:46:55 PM

  6. Listening Mary? There are also historians who have studied many of the major religions in the past couple thousand years who have actually had same sex ceremonies..the Catholic church actually having a sainted same sex married couple. Saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

    Posted by: Michaelandfred | May 11, 2012 3:54:55 PM

  7. "OK! I'll buy that!"

    So adorable!

    Does anyone know how many wives Mitt's father had?

    Posted by: benjamin | May 11, 2012 4:18:21 PM

  8. Would also like to add a bit of historical 'trivia' here... A same-sex marriage between two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova. So, as far back as 1061 the Catholic Church held same-sex marriage. Whouda thunk it... Funny how history can bite you in the ass.

    Posted by: theotherlee | May 11, 2012 4:23:10 PM

  9. It'd be nice if he mentioned TP's many visits to the Folsom street festival.

    Posted by: anon | May 11, 2012 4:31:47 PM

  10. It wasn't common for priests to perform marriages until around the 12th century. Priests weren't required for a wedding until the 13th century. And marriage didn't become a sacrament until the 1530s

    Posted by: Steve | May 11, 2012 5:16:12 PM

  11. "Strange: we have to go to a news commentator to tell us the truth about the bible--because the biblicists deliberately distort--or hide--what's actually in the bible."

    Nah, you could also ask a comedian or an atheist.

    Posted by: M | May 11, 2012 5:21:54 PM

  12. Sentient rational thoughts will not appeal to those who believe that intelligence is the doorway to a godless socialism and who are not only proud of their ignorance but believe it to be sacred. Since this belief describes the majority of the Republican Party, O'Donnell's thoughts are like the casting of pearls among these swine. Yet his thoughts have a great need to be spoken loudly, clearly and often, so as to give succor to the few of us who value integrity, honesty and truth. Thank-you Mr O'Donnell.

    Posted by: StevyD | May 11, 2012 5:30:11 PM

  13. With all due respect to Mr. O'Donnell and all others who rightly) bring up polygamy, chattel/arranged marriage, interracial marriage, etc. in countering the "one man one woman" claim ... those issues are technically correct, but really miss the mark in countering the underlying and overarching argument - which is clearly that marriage has always been between men and women. And yes, there are examples of church and state-sanctioned same-sex marriages in history, and those should be noted in a candid argument against the necessity of different-gender marriage - but the standard counter-arguments on the changes to marriage norms throughout the centuries are a bit disingenuous. The religious zealots are by-and-large correct that marriage has just about always been between men and women. Let's put forward the reasons why that doesn't have to hold true any longer, and not argue on something no one's really making a case about.

    Posted by: Zlick | May 11, 2012 6:06:52 PM

  14. Eurocentric much? So we happened to inherit a bunch of Abrahamic tradition. More's the pity. Not so for everyone across time and geography.

    Posted by: melvin | May 11, 2012 6:30:16 PM

  15. Marriage has traditionally been about transfer of property, whether it was a female, more than one female, or not. True, much of the time it was opposite sex (though not always)--and the property in question were often children.

    But the "marriage is historically only between one man and one woman" argument is simply not true. Maybe if they said "one man, many young girls." Or "one man, a few girls, and a eunuch."

    Get over it, christianists.

    Posted by: Sean in Dallas | May 11, 2012 6:53:24 PM

  16. Actually I think the point was expressed to me by a young african american woman today who got blasted by friends, family and members of her church when she posted positive comments about the President and Marriage Equality. What she said to me today and to people over the past few days was that you could not honor Dr. King or recognize his work without realizing that this was part of the same path. I agree completely. The arguements for or against Marriage Equality tend to overlook the one thing that future generations will see immediately; that once again, a group of people tried to keep rights for themselves and designate themselves as special, worthy and deserving of these rights while denying them to those people who don't fit their idea of right. It's not about religion - that's an excuse. This is once again about bullying and opposing people who make angry or fearful, people they don't understand. Once we get past the fear, things start to change but, sometimes you have to change things before people can get past their fears.

    Posted by: Mark | May 11, 2012 8:55:45 PM


    Posted by: doug105 | May 12, 2012 10:30:57 AM

Post a comment


« «Rachel Maddow Asks Why Romney Laughs About Anti-Gay Bullying, Abusing Dogs, and Closing Factories: VIDEO« «