NationStates

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/26/b ... -thumpers/

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly knocked opponents of same sex marriage on Tuesday night, claiming they had a weak argument that relied entirely on religious beliefs.

The conservative Fox News host was discussing two cases before the Supreme Court regarding same sex marriage with his colleague Megyn Kelly.

During the segment, O’Reilly remarked that public policy should be based on religion. Kelly responded by saying that arguments against same sex marriage were not very persuasive when the religious element was removed.

“I agree with you 100 percent, the compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” O’Reilly said. “That is where the compelling argument is. We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else.”

“That’s a compelling argument, and to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”

“I support civil unions, I always have,” he added. “The gay marriage thing, I don’t feel that strongly about it one way or the other. I think the states should do it.”

We win. Even Faux now accepts same sex marriage.

Bill O'Reilly has always been in favor of civil unions? Right, I'll wait for John Stewart to research that bullshit.

That seems more like a "come on team we have to try harder" than a concession.
"I think the states should do it" is the exactly the side that the conservatives have been on.

Sort of anyway. He adds the new tact at the end, "I think the states should do it", it's the same argument they fell back on when Slavery was on the way out, when the Civil Rights Movement was on the offensive, and every time the conservatives fail at something.

It's win-win for the Republican Party, they attempt to get the bigotry albatross from around their neck, and Georgia and Mississippi get to continue killing gays. Win fucking win.

Khadgar wrote:Bill O'Reilly has always been in favor of civil unions? Right, I'll wait for John Stewart to research that bullshit.

I got stuff popping up from 2004, perhaps there is stuff earlier but yes, he actually has supported civil unions for same sex couples since at least 2004.

Yeah, that's just the same bullshit 'third option' where they agree to only kinda hate the gays, only sort of restrict their rights and then sit smugly and wait to be patted on the head for their forward thinking.


Listening to the audio of the hearings yesterday I was flabbergasted that they sounded like the worst of the bullshit arguments made here. Kagan actually had to ask an attorney, "Would you say it was unconstitutional to forbid infertile couples to marry?" and "Whats the harm that's caused by gay marriage?" where the guy had to try and find a way to say there wasn't any but that it was still bad. Even the justices who we assume will be deciding against same sex marriage seemed to be leaning towards punting rather than actually trying to defend this bullshit.

what!?

Cannot think of a name wrote:Yeah, that's just the same bullshit 'third option' where they agree to only kinda hate the gays, only sort of restrict their rights and then sit smugly and wait to be patted on the head for their forward thinking.


Listening to the audio of the hearings yesterday I was flabbergasted that they sounded like the worst of the bullshit arguments made here. Kagan actually had to ask an attorney, "Would you say it was unconstitutional to forbid infertile couples to marry?" and "Whats the harm that's caused by gay marriage?" where the guy had to try and find a way to say there wasn't any but that it was still bad. Even the justices who we assume will be deciding against same sex marriage seemed to be leaning towards punting rather than actually trying to defend this bullshit.

Think they're dumb enough to try the Separate but Equal shit again?

TaQud wrote:what!? O'Reilly Supports Same Sex Marriage!?

No, he supports state-rule over it, but supports civil union personally.

Anyhow, wow.

Khadgar wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:Yeah, that's just the same bullshit 'third option' where they agree to only kinda hate the gays, only sort of restrict their rights and then sit smugly and wait to be patted on the head for their forward thinking.


Listening to the audio of the hearings yesterday I was flabbergasted that they sounded like the worst of the bullshit arguments made here. Kagan actually had to ask an attorney, "Would you say it was unconstitutional to forbid infertile couples to marry?" and "Whats the harm that's caused by gay marriage?" where the guy had to try and find a way to say there wasn't any but that it was still bad. Even the justices who we assume will be deciding against same sex marriage seemed to be leaning towards punting rather than actually trying to defend this bullshit.

Think they're dumb enough to try the Separate but Equal shit again?

Isn't that the exact argument for "Civil Unions" that Bill-O is presenting?

I say we abolish marriage and Civil Unions altogether.

They're both unfair to lonely people.

Khadgar wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:Yeah, that's just the same bullshit 'third option' where they agree to only kinda hate the gays, only sort of restrict their rights and then sit smugly and wait to be patted on the head for their forward thinking.


Listening to the audio of the hearings yesterday I was flabbergasted that they sounded like the worst of the bullshit arguments made here. Kagan actually had to ask an attorney, "Would you say it was unconstitutional to forbid infertile couples to marry?" and "Whats the harm that's caused by gay marriage?" where the guy had to try and find a way to say there wasn't any but that it was still bad. Even the justices who we assume will be deciding against same sex marriage seemed to be leaning towards punting rather than actually trying to defend this bullshit.

Think they're dumb enough to try the Separate but Equal shit again?

I'm pretty unqualified to make predictions about the Supreme Court and how they decide shit, I can basically just repeat things I've heard with no understanding of how accurate they might be, that they have an 'out' to decide that it's an issue of standing and push it back down to a lower court or something like that...there were two other non-decision decisions they could make, then there was 'only California' decisions or the big time 'forbidding same sex marriage is unconstitutional' decision, which they thought was unlikely for whatever reason.

Again, those aren't my opinions but the ones that the commentators relayed and I haven't the foggiest idea how reliable they are. In the one soundbite I heard seemed hung up on the intent of the 14th amendment and whether the authors foresaw it meaning gays could marry but totally believing that they meant mixed race couples could even though they couldn't until Loving vs. Virginia.

It's all very weird.

EDIT: Oh, totally forgot, there was the 'separate but equal' thing in there, that the decision was unnecessary because California had domestic partnerships. Don't really know how that landed though.

Maurepas wrote:

Khadgar wrote:
Think they're dumb enough to try the Separate but Equal shit again?

Isn't that the exact argument for "Civil Unions" that Bill-O is presenting?

I think for him it's more the states should be the ones who determines who is allowed to get married but federally they can have civil unions. To expand part of it I thinks stems from, at least in the past, to "The American people don't want it" but now that that has changed I'm not all that surprised he's switched his tune.

Well, modern conservatives will eventually become libertarians, while the Democrats grow more authoritarian, so it will become a liberty-authority rule instead of equality-morality.

Libertarians Unite!

The New Sea Territory wrote:Well, modern conservatives will eventually become libertarians, while the Democrats grow more authoritarian, so it will become a liberty-authority rule instead of equality-morality.

Libertarians Unite!

The hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Des-Bal wrote:That seems more like a "come on team we have to try harder" than a concession.
"I think the states should do it" is the exactly the side that the conservatives have been on.

Far as I can tell, calling for something to be done by the states is basically code for wanting to violate the constitution and get away with it because "States rights!"

The New Sea Territory wrote:Well, modern conservatives will eventually become libertarians, while the Democrats grow more authoritarian, so it will become a liberty-authority rule instead of equality-morality.

Libertarians Unite!

Yea, no, the Libertarian Party only got 1% of the vote in 2012, which they have done before in the past. They're never going to gain mainstream popularity.

Divair wrote:

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly knocked opponents of same sex marriage on Tuesday night, claiming they had a weak argument that relied entirely on religious beliefs.

He's got it right there.

Divair wrote:

The New Sea Territory wrote:Well, modern conservatives will eventually become libertarians, while the Democrats grow more authoritarian, so it will become a liberty-authority rule instead of equality-morality.

Libertarians Unite!

Yea, no, the Libertarian Party only got 1% of the vote in 2012, which they have done before in the past. They're never going to gain mainstream popularity.

Plus then there will be a reversal and libertarianism will be too mainstream and unpopular.

Authoritarians of the world, unite!

Napkiraly wrote:

Khadgar wrote:Bill O'Reilly has always been in favor of civil unions? Right, I'll wait for John Stewart to research that bullshit.

I got stuff popping up from 2004, perhaps there is stuff earlier but yes, he actually has supported civil unions for same sex couples since at least 2004.

That's why he's my favorite person on Fox, he's an independent thinker compared to the rest on that channel.

Ifreann wrote:Far as I can tell, calling for something to be done by the states is basically code for wanting to violate the constitution and get away with it because "States rights!"

Not only that in this case saying it's strictly a state issue means the federal government shouldn't be able to grant benefits to same sex couples even if their marriage is recognized in their state.

Coffee Cakes wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:I got stuff popping up from 2004, perhaps there is stuff earlier but yes, he actually has supported civil unions for same sex couples since at least 2004.

That's why he's my favorite person on Fox, he's an independent thinker compared to the rest on that channel.

Aye, he isn't as bad as the other people they have on there. I personally don't agree with his politics on a lot of issues, but there are far worse people than Bill O'Reilly.

Napkiraly wrote:

Coffee Cakes wrote:
That's why he's my favorite person on Fox, he's an independent thinker compared to the rest on that channel.

Aye, he isn't as bad as the other people they have on there. I personally don't agree with his politics on a lot of issues, but there are far worse people than Bill O'Reilly.

I find that's pretty much my assessment of him, too.

I respect that he makes his own opinions though.

Des-Bal wrote:That seems more like a "come on team we have to try harder" than a concession.
"I think the states should do it" is the exactly the side that the conservatives have been on.

not really, i support same sex marriage, but i dont think it is a constitutional issue. i dont think the constitution protects sexual orientation. just cause a law is wrong does not make it unconstitutional.

Coffee Cakes wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:I got stuff popping up from 2004, perhaps there is stuff earlier but yes, he actually has supported civil unions for same sex couples since at least 2004.

That's why he's my favorite person on Fox, he's an independent thinker compared to the rest on that channel.

He thinks the tides are caused by magic.