Melissa Etheridge Explains Gay Marriage to Elisabeth Hasselback Using Small, Simple Words

We thought, post-election, we’d be free from having to care about the teeny, tiny thoughts going on in the head of loud-mouthed The View co-host Elisabeth Hasselback, but there she was yesterday, going on about her love of the tyranny of the majority and how all the gays can’t be happy about being able to vote terrorist hope-monger Barack Obama into office on one hand and angry that the good, virile breeding stock can take away their equal rights by vote on another. Fortunately, Melissa Etheridge was on hand to explain to America, if not Hasselback, just how very wrong she is.

Bonus video after the jump: Hasselback blows off some steam about not being invited and then eventually invited to the White House Christmas party. The words “Maybe I didn’t do enough for the Republican Party this year” actually come out of her mouth and let’s just say it’s a good thing she wasn’t at any press conferences over the weekend. Stilettos hurt!

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #elisabethhasselbeck #marriage #melissaetheridge stories and more


  • Paul

    Ah, yes, the “activist judges” red herring. I love conservatives. Any decision they don’t like is “activist.”

    It’s kind of like how they champion states’ rights… except when they want a federal marriage amendment… or when they use the federal controlled substances act to overrule states’ laws on medical marijuana.

    Hypocrite, Table of One?

  • Jaroslaw

    I’m going to resist the temptation to call E Hasselbeck words that rhyme with ignorant runt and ask “What did she not understand about Thomas Jefferson writing a paper about how the rights of the minority are never to be put up for a vote?”

    Let “The View” know what you think of Elizabeth Hasslebeck:

  • seitan-on-a-stick

    I did, thanks Jaroslaw.

  • Michael Letterman

    If I understand you correctly. The people spoke, the people voted, you don’t like what the people said, the vote should not stand?

    If this is some gay logic then please explain it. Marriage is not a right, it’s a privlidge. Rights are granted in the Bill of Rights. Privlidge is granted by the court system.

  • MR

    @Michael Letterman: @Michael Letterman:

    There is a problem when “the people” refers only to a majority or the powerful:

    There was a time in this country when “the people” encouraged a single man to go on a witch hunt, ruining the lives of innocent people because he said they were “red.”

    There was a time in this country when “the people” gathered up American citizens, putting them in internment camps because their families had originally come from a particular country in Asia.

    There was a time when “the people” decided “the people” should only be men, not only refusing women the right to vote, but torturing those who peacefully protested for change.

    There was a time when “the people” sold and bought other human beings as chattel, denying them such self-evident rights as Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness.

    “The people” can be — and have far too often in this country’s history, have been — wrong.

  • Michael Letterman

    @MR: This country is bound by majorities. We elect officials by majority to represent us in legislation.

    We the people, chose each of the periods you mention. Were we wrong? I could debate this for weeks with you. We the people, by our votes, elect representives to enact legislation based on our collective needs and wants. We have always had a majority decide how things should be. Why should this time be any different?

    If we were to allow gays the privlege to marry, why not also allow the NABMBLA, PTA mom’s with their 13 year old boyfriends & other subsets of our population to marry the way they would choose? Why not just have a free for all where anyone can marry anyone, anything they choose?

    I for one am all for granting gays the same rights that everyone should enjoy but marriage is not a right, it’s a privlige.

  • WW

    Privilege: the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.

    You will notice that by definition a privilege is simply a special right.

  • Shannon

    Conservatives are hypocritical. A real conservative argument would be that the government shouldn’t be allowed to have any say in whether people get married or not. Marriage is a religious institution. That way gays could get married if they found a church that wanted to marry them and conservatives wouldn’t have to worry about “activist judges.”

  • lambman

    @Michael Letterman:

    I am sorry but equating adults having sex with minors is not the same thing as talking about denying rights to consenting unrelated adults to make decisions about whom they want to partner with for their lives. Those under 18 are not legal adults and adults taking advantage of them is wrong. Two people of the same gender deciding they want to be legally bound to one another is not similar in any way.

  • Michael Letterman

    To you it may not be the same. No one could truly say that being gay is the norm. It is a deviation from the norm and in that respect it is no different than any other deviation. If a law is set that allows one deviation to have the privlidges of being married then the argument can, and I am sure will eventually, be made for granting the same privledge to other deviations.

    Marriage is most certianly not a religious institution it is a legaly binding agreement that provides for many legal obligations each party has unto the other.

    I also think your definition of privilege is overly truncated to the point it misses the crux of what I am tring to say so to that
    I offer this from “”

    A privilege—etymologically “private law” or law relating to a specific individual—is a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth. Miscellaneous privileges, e.g. the old common law privilege to title deeds, may still exist, though of little relevance today.[1]

  • one opinion

    @Michael Letterman:
    Just my 2 cents:
    your very first right is the one to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – call me a hopeless romantic, but I’m pretty sure marriage falls into this particular category (at least it should, anyway), so it is a right, therefore everyone should have the opportunity to enter into a marriage.

    I would also like to point out that the “NAMBLA” and “PTA moms” examples – which you provided as examples of people who would also have to be allowed to be married if gay people can marry – are truly horrendous and inappropriate comparisons. You are equating adults who molest and/or abuse children with all gay people. NAMBLA/PTA moms have victims – gay people have partners. Making gay marriage legal is in no way the same thing as sanctioning pedophilia, nor will gay marriage lead to the legalization of child molestation any more than my heterosexual marriage has.

  • Dawster

    I’m loving melissa more and more theses days.

    i still like the “withhold our taxes” stand. THAT would get some attention.

  • MR

    @Michael Letterman:

    The only thing that surprises me about your response is that you didn’t compare us with people who have sex with animals.

  • wendell

    @Michael Letterman: Being gay is not the “norm” to you, but it is to me. I was born this way and you were born your way. You can’t say what is the “norm” for anyone else. Being a biggoted, close-minded jerk is the “norm” for you, but I still believe you have the RIGHT to get married.

  • Jaroslaw

    Michael Letterman – I normally don’t respond to heterosexual trolls like you, but for the sake of argument – Being a Genius is not the norm either. Is it a bad thing to be a Genius?

    Natural selection/Darwinism posits the idea that all life is in a constant state of motion (put in place by God in my view so it doesn’t remove HIM from the picture) but nonetheless very often over the millenia the “abberation” turned out to have an advantage.

    A very good example of this is the Dinosaurs died out and animals and plants that were adapted to the new climate flourished. Sickle cell anemia is another, While a distinct disadvantage for LONG life, SC people were immune from malaria because their abnormal blood cells couldn’t aquire it. I think it was malaria anyway.

    The bottom line here, to echo everyone else, the vast majority of people will always be straight, so what is the problem? Where is the threat to YOU? Live your life and let me live mine with the SAME rights and benefits….

  • Michael Letterman

    The point is as law states you don’t have the same rights all I am doing is defending the law as it is written. When there are enough gays to overrule this law I won’t bitch and moan I will accept the new ‘norm’.

    Being hetero is no great honor it is just how I am. I don’t condemn someone for being gay, I even have gay friends who are fine people. What I condemn is trying to subvert the law into something it was not intended to be, a dilution of a privlidge granted to hetero relationships.

    And thank you for making the beastiality connection I did not find it prudent to do so in an open forum. After all if gays have the right to marry why not those people as well?

    I have defended and explained myself. I am not alone but I am not the spokesman either. I understand your points even if you need paint me as bigoted. I know that I am not and those that are close to me know me for who I am. I am not here and will not be here to debate this issue futher. You will continue to fight for what you think is right and for that I commend you. I will continue to fight for what I think is right and for that I ask you to merely try to understand my side of it.

    Good luck to both of us in this issue going forward.


    @Michael Letterman:

    Your *alledged* gay friends should be ashamed of themselves for being YOUR friend.

    When do we get to vote on YOUR rights?

  • Michael Letterman

    My friend Jim has no reason to be ashamed he is what he is much like I am what I am. You can vote for my rights anytime you enter the polls. That is how Obama got elected, the majority voted for him. When the majority of the world turns gay then you can vote for my privlige of getting married until then you will abide by the laws in place as will I. I will not hate you for what you are if you want to hate me for who I am I’ll fight for your chance to do so. You want the laws to change then go ahead and campaign for it. Don’t whine when you lose. Much like I’m not gloating when I win.

  • MEM


    It’s not wrong to “be Genius”, but it is elitist to be a a genius. Or even smart. And it’s wrong to be elitist.

  • Ryan

    @Michael Letterman:

    I’m sorry, but upon a closer analysis your theories do not hold any water. You talk about how opening up gay marriage opens up all manner of other derivations, pedophilia, bestiality etc, but I am sorry, that is simply not the case. the only argument that could be made, and in all likelihood will be made is for poly amorous relationships (though it will not hold water, for a variety of reasons) and the simple rule is consent. A poly amorous relationship like a hetero or homo normative coupled relationship involves consenting adults. Bestiality, and pedophilia are not comparable based on the issue of consent. We have statutory laws in all 50 states that clearly proclaim children under a certain age (typically 18, though it varies) are unable to make legally binding decisions for themselves because they do not yet possess the mental capacity to do so. On a similar ground animals do not have the ability to apply consent, nor arguably the rational mental capacity to make such decisions for themselves.

    You talk about the will of the people, and how right or wrong it is what it is, but I must digress, the found fathers, designed our country as a REPUBLIC not a democracy for these exact reasons, it is called the tyranny of the majority for a reason. In their infinite wisdom they did not wish to supplant one form of tyranny for another. It depresses me greatly (and evidences the vast amount of educational reform our country is in need of) that so few people understand, what are the -very basic- foundations of our government. Similarly The bill of right is simply the first 10 amendments to the constitution. It is by no means a complete and exhaustive list there have been 17 additions since then. Further even if it is not enumerated explicitly in the constitution it does not mean that it is -not- a constitutional right.(see amendment 9) All of that aside, a constitutional argument for gay rights can be had based on the 9th, 14th and in several places in the actual constitutional articles.

    The most common arguments used against gay marriage, are that gay’s are unable to produce children, gay’s are unfit parents and that homosexuality is an unnatural choice. It is no longer considered a legitimate requirement of marriage (which is in fact actually historically a contract of ownership and property) that married couples be able to produce children, and further it has been proven (repeatedly) that gay’s are able to sire children through a variety of means. Secondly all major psychological and medical organizations have declared and have had scientific studies printed in their publications that show there is no detrimental effect to having gay parents. In fact some studies have shown minor advantages to having lesbian mothers. Statistically the most damaging effect on children is, divorce. Finally the unnatural choice of homosexuality. First it has been demonstrated that homosexuality (both in terms of acts and in terms of long term pairings) occurs in a variety (re: majority) of animals, including both those we consider to have no nominal or no self awareness (giraffes, penguins, mice etc) and in those that show significant amounts of it (whales, dolphins, great apes) and further since when has a lack of choice been a requirement for a protected status? The decision to belong to a religion, or to not belong to a religion has been a protected status as long as our society has existed, it is in fact one of the founding principles of our society, and it is a complete choice.

    I’m sorry, I may be elitist, but I am sick and tired of people who have no real understanding of how this country was intended to work, nor how it actually works, standing on their soapboxes and telling me how I should live my life. If you want to argue over my ability to get married, educate yourself on both your religion (and what it -actually- says about sexuality), your country and your own rights.

    -end rant.

  • Ryan

    also, it is not wrong to take advantage of your own inherent gifts and use them to better yourself. It is wrong to be an elitist, but being an elitist is not the same as being intelligent, just as being intelligent is not the same as being educated.

  • Jaroslaw

    To ML: How did my post make a connection to bestiality? And to MEM- what does elitism have to do with any of this? I simply pointed out that a genius, or a mentally retarded person is outside the “norm” and by itself, is not “right” or “wrong”.

    And ML – “the law as written?” Check out some history books. Many laws ASSUMED marriage was between a man and a woman in this country and had to be amended later.

    Many court decisions referenced the Bible in the not too distant past. While the Bible is generally a fine book, we are not supposed to be pushing one brand of religion in the USA.

    The point which you have obviously missed is that it is not the government’s job to hand out all the benefits and goodies (tax breaks etc.) based on who THEY decide someone should be allowed to marry.

Comments are closed.