Hasselbeck: Women want all the rights of men but are not asking to be called men

[ecstatic]

:crazy: She said that to Portia de Rossi in a discussion of whether the term "marriage" should be used for gay couples.

Video and more details here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/04/portia-de-rossi-elisabeth_n_380402.html

[Champion Jack]

1. .

.

[get the red out]

2. Ugh, yea....that's the point of "equal rights"

So she thinks rights have to do with the word "men" or just a dick?

Ok, so she expects all the rights of a sentient human being without having to bother carrying around all that heavy brain matter.

[Initech]

3. How do people this dumb get air time?

[MattBaggins]

14. Both she and Sherri

have no business being on that show. Together they have the IQ of a 5th grader.

[Initech]

15. That's kind of an insult to fifth graders.

At least fifth graders are getting to the age where they are capable of putting up an intellectual conversation. Those two are way past that age - and they cannot do that.

[treestar]

17. This is what I want to know

Are we so shallow we'd rather look at pretty people spout stupidity than listen to knowledgeable if less gorgeous people? It seems we are.

[trof]

32. air head = air time?

Or something.

[Bluebear]

4. A human twinkie lectures us about equality.

[BrklynLiberal]

5. LOL. That is SUCH an insult to Twinkies!!!

At least Twinkies are not totally empty!!



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Bluebear]

8. I think Hasselbeck's cranial filling is about the same though!

Just not as sweet!

[BrklynLiberal]

11. ROTFLMAO!!! Excellent..

[ElboRuum]

6. Better to be thought of as an idiot than to speak and remove all doubt, Liz? n/t

[Lorien]

7. "Rights of men"; therein lies the problem. Women want equal human rights,

members of the GLBT community want equal human rights, non-whites want equal human rights, the poor want equal human rights. As long as there's one set of rights for straight white rich non-disabled Christian men and another set for everyone else, everyone else will fight for equality.

[Johonny]

9. I think it's an ok comment

too many it makes sense. As long as you have equality then what is really in a name? The problem in practice is of course separate facilities for the under class tend to not be equal. But for basic rights how can this ever be? But then again if there's true equality then noone cares what one calls it, do they? I think many people see civil unions that guarantee common rights as a common ground compromise, but I think most people that seek that understand in a truly equal society "the name won't matter". As long as the label matters you can expect unequal treatment.

[bermudat]

10. Hasselbeck is the reason I no longer watch the View.

I enjoyed watching it while she was out on maternity leave. She didn't stay out long enough.

I guess when you have nannies, maids and personal assistants there is no need to stay home.

[Canuckistanian]

12. Why is this woman on TV?

She should be home looking after her kids and making dinner for her husband.

Honestly, this world is going crazy.

[MattBaggins]

13. The moranic statement of the week

WTF does that even mean?

Seriously what was she trying to get at with that stupid statement?

[liberal_at_heart]

16. all the rights of "men"? What the hell?

Why is marriage considered a man's right? Is this how they suppressed the voting rights for so long? It was a man's right? How about property rights? Remember when owning property was a man's right? How about divorce? Is that a man's right? Are we going to go back to a time when a man could file for divorce from his wife but a wife could not file for divorce from her husband? It's sad to see when women willingly deny or give up their rights.

[Skittles]

30. it's a common affliction of repuke women

[Thickasabrick]

18. Portia did a great job on that show - until sherrie made her talk

about her show. I don't see how anyone could watch that and not understand how wrong these laws are.

[Cleita]

27. If that's what it takes to get equal rights, then call me a man

if you like. It doesn't change my biology in any way.

[BattyDem]

19. Hasselbeck thinks the word "marriage" isn't important ...

so my question is this:

If it's only the actual rights that matter and the word "marriage" isn't important, why is she against the word being used by same-sex couples? :shrug: Even if she truly believes the word would be "diminished" by same-sex couples, what difference would it make? Heterosexual couples would still have the same rights they've always had. So what's the problem, Elisabeth? It's just a word ... right?



edited: typo :blush:

[Lagomorph]

20. I'd rather discuss issues than semantics, but...

Marriage has been a religious sacrament for a long time. You could be legally married by the state, but to have your marriage recognized by your church required a religious ceremony. I think religious people want to recognize the difference between the two. Legally Married as opposed to Holy Matrimony. We're trying to apply the same word to two radically different concepts. Non religious people don't give a rat's ass, they want the legal rights.

In either case, I think the head of a household should be able to insure anyone living in the house. They may have to pay for the insurance, but I don't see why six people should have to live on Ramen because one uninsured person needs constant medical attention.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

28. You speak for non-religious people, eh?

This non-religious woman is married and I do care to be called married. Religious people do not and have never legally owned that term. And I wont' stand for separate but equal for anyone.

[Lagomorph]

29. I'm non religious as well...

But I read read a lot.

All I know is what they've published. I don't see where I endorsed anybody's position, however, I've discussed the issue with a whole spectrum of different people with vastly different positions.

I married a Buddhist, the minister was gay, so were a lot of my friends at the ceremony, along with myvery straight veteran friends and my Aunt, the Catholic nun.

[noel711]

31. Marriage was not a sacrament until the middle ages...

the roman catholic church saw that this was some place
they could gain some political leverage... and decided it should be
'sacramentalized'- the same way they didn't mandate celibacy for the clergy
until around the 14th century because much of the property was being
passed on to the children of priest/bishops. Celibacy ensures the
property remains in the confines of the church.

Before that, marriage was a civil event,
a family decision, usually to cement propery/political alliances.
There were no formalized 'rites' for marriage,
so two people could look at each other, say "I marry you,"
and the deed was done.
This was done often and secretly, often without the knowledge or
consent of the family, and this led to unhappy alliances...
Look at "Romeo and Juliet" as one example.
They really didn't need the priest to marry them,
just to be a witness.
That's why when I preside at a wedding rehearsal before the
actual event, I tell the couple not to speak their vows..
the vows, in the presence of a witness, make it legal.

The reformation supposedly returned marriage to its original
place, the civil arena. But .. because of the dominance of the
Roman Catholic Church, many people today, even those who aren't
catholic, believe it's a sacrament.

Hasselbeck, and her ilk, are ridiculously spreading
misinformation which is believed by many people.
Because they have a televison forum, they have influence
over people who don't know history.
But being in the media is no proof of education or knowledge.

Marriage in its early forms, was to guarantee continued patriarchy.
It was under the thumb of men, they made all the decisions.
Ancient marriage ensure the 'line' of the fathers.
Men had all the rights.
Much of what these idiots base their 'marriage knowledge/opinions'on
is their literalistic interpretation of ancient scripture.
BUt a close reading would reveal that even biblical marriage
was not part of their religious tradition at all;
there were no marriage rites in the jerusalem temple.
But they love to read their own idiotic traditions into
the past.

[Lagomorph]

33. It's been a sacrament since well before this country was founded.

You could say it predates the American legal tradition of inalienable human rights, unless you embrace the religious tradition that we are all equal in the eyes of God.

Before that it was all holy or royal indulgences, which was a nice little racket the religious royalty used to keep the coffers full.

You're going to see the kind of reactions from extremely religious people that you see from gays when someone claims homosexuality is curable. Both sides are going to dig deep and throw lots of lawyers at each other.

I'm saying the religious meanings run pretty deep, not that I endorse them. My Catholic family already lights enough candles for their heretic black sheep cousin to cause global warming.

(Also, please post a source for your excerpt. I'd like to read it within the context of the entire argument.) Unsourced cherry picking and pie throwing never leaves me feeling well informed.

[JetCityLiberal]

22. Look at the DU overnight "Lago" bullshit right wing posers supporting her

right now 'under the radar'.

Fuck you transparent right wing slimy overnight fucks .

NOTED!

Paul

[Lagomorph]

34. Go have a few stiff ones at The Cuff...

...you'll feel better. See you around The Hill.

[NMMNG]

23. Why is she on TV in the first place?

Shouldn't she be at home popping out babies and being a helpmeet to her man as the Bible dictates?

[omega minimo]

25. Uh, yeah?

[distantearlywarning]

26. What are these special rights that men are getting?

I wasn't aware that "rights" were separated by gender.

Unless, of course he means HUMAN rights. :eyes: