"Tarot helps you meet whatever comes in the best possible way."
Warning: the following is a political, social commentary by Keith Olbermann prompted by the passage of Prop.8 in California, which rescinded the right of same sex couples to marry. I found it a beautiful and impassioned plea for humanity’s honoring of the deepest meaning of the Lovers card. The title above is a line from the poet Omar Khayyam quoted by Olbermann.
≈◊≈◊≈◊≈◊≈
Mary K. Greer has made tarot her life work. Check here for reports of goings-on in the world of tarot and cartomancy, articles on the history and practice of tarot, and materials on other cartomancy decks. Sorry, I no longer write reviews. Contact me HERE.
© 2007-2018, Mary K. Greer All material on this site is copyrighted. If you use anything, be sure to include my name and a link back to this site. Thank you.
Donate any amount to keep this ad-free blog growing.
Mary K. Greer's Tarot Blog 
22 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 12, 2008 at 2:18 pm
judithornot
Excellent connection, Mary. Thank you!
November 12, 2008 at 3:49 pm
tero hynynen
I hope this reached a lot of people.
November 12, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Joanna Powell Colbert
Thanks Mary for connecting KO’s commentary to the Lovers card. You are so, so right. I cried when I listened to this on his show the other night. We’ve come so far and still have so far to go.
November 12, 2008 at 6:51 pm
TarotByArwen
I and my friends will continue to fight for our right to marry as we see fit. Thank you so much for posting this. I found it intriguing that one of my very recent posts was on this very card. Synchronicity. 🙂
November 13, 2008 at 4:32 am
Zoe Matoff
I’ve clung, Leo that I am, to the occult notion that the heart is really our thinking organ. Well, I suppose that like all organs, they fall into disrepair if they are not exercised. I ask now whether the heart can hold vitriol, blindness and error whilst performing at its highest level. There is sincere doubt in my heart that this could be. For so many of us, unused to this higher “thinking” and expression of the heart, it must be said that we are weakened in this latest refusal to open to a fuller consciousness of the true meaning of Love wherever and whenever we find it. I stand accused therein, I am sure. But as we look at the Lovers card, surely we can see an openness that reveals to us that all stinginess is a mistake. Regardless of how one feels about gays – for these are people who exist in our world and give to our world in untold ways — surely one can adhere to the tenet that marriage is only an expression of the desire to live in Love. Regardless of how one feels about the true state of marriage, perhaps calling it only a legal statement, or perhaps calling it an outdated institution, it remains only a vehicle or vessel for Love. In this, surely, if it is only a way station on our evolutionary path, still that path is to advance us to the dream of Love. Clumsy as our gropings can be, I would not deny anyone whose heart thinks to be on that path the right to advance toward the universal realization we in our heart of hearts seek for ourselves, the animals, the trees and the universe in its pleroma of Love. We cannot deny that we are Lovers. All of us. What foul error has delayed this dream?
November 13, 2008 at 9:23 am
Paul Nagy
I have puzzeled over why so many people of color and religious types think that voting to deny gay people the right to marrage is in harmony with their highest ideals?
I believe we need to educate people that the public commons, the garentee of liberity and the exercise of free conscience has to be protected from those whose vision of the good requires it be in opposition to some evil.
They can recognize when the wrong is on them but not when they create a wrong to others.
November 13, 2008 at 10:33 am
Patricia (a/k/a Roswila)
Profoundly moving. As a new resident of California and very happy to be living here, I found my own heart hurting over the outcome of Proposition 8.
November 13, 2008 at 3:21 pm
mkg
Sure the demographics suggest that certain groups here in California voted more highly than others for Prop 8, but those groups were also especially targeted by big-money campaigns and bus-loads of advocates who used out-and-out lies to increase fears about danger to children and loss of religious freedom. Olbermann’s comments obliquely referred to some of these—but the core message was more to do with waking up to Love and what that really means, what Love calls for in its greatest sense.
I sincerely believe that if/when the truth of the matter and the lies be exposed for what they are, the sentiment in California will change. I hope that commentaries like Olbermann’s and public stances like Schwartznegger’s will turn the tide and that the California Supreme Court will uphold it’s original decision.
I ask myself—who is using lies, discrimination and separation to get their way? Aren’t these keywords for another tarot card? What is the real evil here?
November 14, 2008 at 8:35 am
Elizabeth Delisi
What a wonderful impassioned defense of gay marriage. I’ll never understand why people think it will destabilize marriage or the country for two people to make a legal and emotional commitment to each other. I guess some people just let their fear get the better of them, or their prejudice.
November 14, 2008 at 10:41 am
Sally from Ontario
Mary
I found this so touching and beautiful thank you for bringing it to us. It makes me realize that the declaration of marriage should really be so simple.
Just the simple statement we are committed and love each other we do no harm. That should be unconditionally open to ALL people.
November 15, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Stefan (aka la-luna )
Thank you very much for posting this Mary !!
Luckely I live in a country where i can mary anyone i want (so yes even my darling boyfriend) – but this message is wonderfull and spoken from the heart and soul of someone who has personally nothing to loose or gain from this, except his being a true HUMAN the name true.
November 16, 2008 at 9:15 am
Quiet
Is the overlay of marriage as a religious ritual the thing that causes the fundamental opposition? I know that civil ceremonies are possible but the association of marriage with religion and ‘morals’ arising from it is very strong.
Ultimately perhaps the underlying basis of marriage might change for everyone. After all, there are some heterosexual customs that may not be worth emulating. Many of these are based in history.
If if was possible for gay people to make a commitment that was legally recognised would that be enough for them?
I can’t get You-Tube so can’t hear the comments but am familiar with the issues.
November 16, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Tara
I am so thrilled to hear someone other than me and my circle of friends talk so blatantly about love and human rights. As a straight woman with lots of gay friends, this isn’t about stopping some crazies from carrying on, it is about humans letting other humans have the same rights. Especially for a country that claims to be so progressive and forward thinking, a land of plenty and of opportunity, an America with an African-American President-Elect, I see no reason why everyone may not be extended the same rights and privileges.
November 16, 2008 at 6:42 pm
James
Thanks so much for posting this, Mary.
In case anyone wants to see the transcript for this video, you can see it here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/
As for the question posed by Quiet (“If if was possible for gay people to make a commitment that was legally recognised would that be enough for them?”), this is a common, and rather pernicious, misconception.
First, the underlying supposition in this question is that “Separate but Equal” can work. We know from history that it never does. Separate will always imply Unequal.
For example, a few states have Civil Unions (or Domestic Partnerships as it’s called in California) that are approximately the same as Marriage. But many people can’t add their Civil Union partner to their insurance coverage because their company, which will cover a spouse, doesn’t cover it. Also, if you CAN add your partner to your coverage, that benefit is taxed as a “benefit” whereas it is not taxed for a spouse. This can amount to about a couple thousand dollars per year. There are many other little differences like that and they add up. Also, those unions, and their rights, are only recognized in the state that grants them. When you travel or move to another state, you are no longer covered.
Second, there is the intangible difference of stigmatization. Saying that Marriage and Civil Unions are equivalent in terms of rights is like saying that people forced to ride in the back of the bus get to the same place as the people who get to ride in the front of the bus, so what’s the big deal, right?
Finally, the following is from an Aug. 8, 2008 story in the LA Times —
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-marriage8-2008aug08,0,1229155.story
“… there are differences. … studies have found that domestic partners do not receive the same treatment or recognition from hospital staff, employers and the public as spouses do.
But it was Ronald M. George, chief justice of the California Supreme Court, who cut through to the essence of the issue in the May 15 opinion he wrote: “[A]ffording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.” ”
Well… I know that was quite a lot. Sorry to hijack your comments section, Mary. But I really feel that this is an important issue that deserves to be clarified.
November 17, 2008 at 12:33 pm
mkg
James –
Thank you for explaining so much. It’s great to get the real scoop.
November 18, 2008 at 7:07 am
Samara
In the UK, this didn’t even make the main news I don’t think, what with all the other stuff happening in the world. Yet it is so important – the question of how can you claim to love others when you hurt them, deny them, and say they must be like you to be acceptable.
Zoe wrote “I ask now whether the heart can hold vitriol, blindness and error whilst performing at its highest level.” and I support her there; how can I, or anyone, claim to be filled with love, if it drives me to hate, anger, aggression or discrimination?
I hope that those folks who campaign for all forms of mutual loving expression and equalness will feel supported by many comments like these from around the world.
In love
Samara
November 18, 2008 at 8:11 am
Quiet
Thanks James,
I’m not American and therefore not fully aware of the context there.
In the country in which I live civil or ‘de facto’ partners don’t always face quite the same kinds of emotional or psychological discrimination in terms of health care and the like but certainly there have been difficulties with superannuation. insurance and the like. These vary from state to state and situation to situation of course.
Given that marriage as it is does carry the credibility and package of rights and responsibilities to which you allude I can see why there is such passion around this cause. I would not support a civil contract other than marriage if it did not carry with it all the appropriate legal and civil rights.
With regard to Ronald George’s comments, I don’t think that marriage alone conveys dignity to relationships, even heterosexual ones.
November 19, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Ferol Humphrey
Mary, one of my gay friends sent me this and I was glad to view it and consider it. I am glad that we live in a world where so many may love openly, and I pray that we can continue to move forward to even more freedom in our choices and recognitions in community and under law. I found Mr. Olbermann’s emotion the most important part of the video. Careful analysis is useful, but allowing the emotions to show in a fairly clear but managed way is instructive and educational for those who haven’t really thought about the issues, and may expect all objections to come from those with a vested interest. May I be written in the book of love as well. And all of us.
November 22, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Matt Brooks
Mary! Thanks so much for posting this for us! I work for GE, which is the mother company of NBC (and hence MSNBC). Our GLBT Alliance sent a note to KO thanking him, as well, for taking the time to spread this message of Love to such a wide audience. The CA Supreme Court agreed to listen to arguments refuting this proposition in 2009 and we are hopeful that Justice will join Love during the time of Judgment for this issue.
Thanks everyone else as well for your kind words and support!
M@
November 25, 2008 at 2:50 am
Quiet
Australian newspapers reported today that all discrimination in law in terms of superannuation, insurance, medical power of attorney and the like for same sex couples have been removed after a two year review of relevant legislation.
Same sex couples also have access to the Family Law Courts for assistance with property or custody disputes and the like.
Most of this legislation is federally based – Australia’s political system is quite different from that of the US. Still, I don’t think ‘marriage’ per se is possible. I think a couple of states have processes where people can register their relationships.
I understand that some sections of the gay community here still would like the right to marry but whether these latest legal changes would affect their wishes, I’m unsure.
It seems that these seem to be mainly state issues in the US and that such change is not really possible. If marriage would resolve the legal issuse for gays in California, I hope it happens.
November 25, 2008 at 10:59 am
mkg
Matt –
This is a thought worth holding: “we are hopeful that Justice will join Love during the time of Judgment.” I thought that was an intriguing statement so I added and reduced the sum 11+6+20 = 37 = 10. The Wheel of Fortune brings change. [If Justice is numbered 8 then the sum reduces to 7, the Chariot. Not quite as fortuitous to my mind.)
Quiet –
Thanks for the info on what’s being done in Australia. It always helps bring things in perspective. The fact that this issue is also up for Australia seems significant. States Rights are still an important aspect of life in the USA and they sometimes come into odd kinds of conflict with Federal law – like the medical marijuana issue that is legal in certain states but conflicts with federal law.
I was talking to my 91 year old mother who feels confused by all the changes in the world. I tell her she should be proud to have lived through a lifetime with such sweeping changes. Personally I feel a sense of awe at all that has gone on during my life. When I was a child there were still people alive who had lived through America’s Civil War.
December 2, 2008 at 9:14 am
Mark
To All Concerned,
You cannot imagine how difficult it is to be gay and without equal rights unless you are gay yourself.
My own family sees me a the “pink elephant” that no one wants to acknowledge it even exsists. Yet they have known I am gay since I was very small…..I’m 44 now. I only came out of the closet to myself when I was in my late twenties…then I still didn’t come out to others until I was in my early thirties. Last year my dad, in a shameful voice, told some psychiatrist that I’m gay. My dad was hoping for validation that something was wrong or bad about me. While it is perfectly normal in the eyes of psychiatry for some people to be gay, the psychiatrist said nothing, neither validating nor invalidating my dad’s feelings. My mom still tries to “covertly” get me to be straight.
I love my parents and respect their right to not approve of me and my relationships…I just wish the respect was mutual. *sigh*
I understand that not everone lives the life I live…(at least I hope not LOL) I wrote this not to stand in one camp or the other but instead offer insight into what it’s like to be gay in a straight world. To feel unloved or even “not respected” is very difficult indeed.
Mark
Aurora, CO