After Bill O'Reilly made his infamous "thumping the bible" comment, there was speculation that his position on same sex marriage had evolved; especially given that he defended his comment even after receiving blowback from the religious right. He was validated by his Fox pals including Megyn Kelly who claimed that Bill wasn't being pejorative because he's an awesome advocate for religious freedom. So was it his concern for religious freedom or an attempt to assuage the "thumpers" when Bill attacked "fascist" gay students who want a Catholic college chaplain removed from campus for his anti-gay comments? And in what might appear to be another effort to play to those whom he offended, under the rubric of religious liberty, he later agreed with Adam Carolla that same sex marriage will lead to gays demanding that they get church weddings - a meme pimped by opponents of marriage equality. Evolution? Maybe not so much!
On Monday night's "Rollin with Carolla" segment, Bill joked that Carolla is causing trouble over comments Carolla made during a recent podcast. O'Reilly played the tape of Carolla asking his audience if, after same sex marriage is legalized "we'll be done with it" because gays will say "we want to get married at the Crystal Cathedral" and the guys at the church will say "we don't agree with it and according to our faith, a man doesn't lie down with another man and then there's gonna be a march and then there's gonna be a thing and it's going to the Supreme Court again, that much, I know." O'Reilly cited his earlier report about the Catholic chaplain and called Carolla a "prophet."
Wrong - the students at George Washington University were not asking to be married by a Catholic priest. They were concerned that his public comments, that those who are involved in same sex relationships are "unnatural and immoral," are divisive and possibly counter to the school's anti-discrimination code.
O'Reilly predicted that "it's not going to stop with the legitimacy if it comes of gay marriage." Carolla said that we're still arguing about race, even after the election of an African-American president and that's why he didn't think that "giving gay people the right to be married would ratchet down the argument." (Memo to Carolla - race is still a very divisive issue and the election of a black president seems to have exacerbated it. )
He then did some comedy (?) about how he "loves gay people" and that they should be subsidized because they gentrify neighborhoods. That's when things got really strange. O'Reilly played good cop and bad cop all in one sentence: "Bottom line is this, homosexual Americans want respect and that's what it's all about and that's why your right, the debate is not gonna end." So gays want respect; but they're also overreaching in order to force unreasonable concessions from "traditional" institutions? WTF?
Doing his best Beavis & Butthead, Carolla snarked "you said bottom line, Bill, that was funny." Laughter was heard in the background. Bill said "you're welcome."
The argument that gays will not be happy achieving all the benefits of marriage equality is offensive and ridiculous. Massachusetts has had marriage equality for many years and there have been no attempts to force clergy, whose faiths don't support same sex marriage to marry them. And why would they want to take up a futile legal battle (churches have the right to marry whomever they want) to get married by a hostile church. It makes no sense; but it is persuasive as part of the anti-gay marriage playbook about the "slippery slope."
If you want to talk "bottom," Bill O'Reilly's lies and personal attacks are on the lowest level of media bloviation. For any other meaning of the word, I'll just leave that to your imagination ;)
When pigs choose to BREAK THE LAW by practicing blatant discrimination, it doesn’t fucking matter what their religious beliefs are. This cow was operating a business, open to the public at large. That makes it a “public accomodation” and in the State of Washington, you are NOT allowed to discriminate against anyone.
As for Carolla, he’s also a washed-up hack and his religious (or lack of religious) views as well as his marijuana legalization views have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. He’s not a lawyer; he has no legal insight. And his “legal” opinions have no more merit or weight than yours or mine. Again. This cow is being sued because she chose to discriminate which, in Washington, is against the law.
The right-wing has been pulling this same crap with the Affordable Care Act, where a bunch of COMMERCIAL businesses whose owners happen to be right-wing Christians are trying to say they’re exempt because their business are “religious in nature.” That’s a bunch of bovine excrement, and they know it. Hobby Lobby (for example) does NOT have a chapel on its premises where people come in and worship; even if they did, that’s NOT the primary reason the story exists, therefore, it’s NOT “religious in nature.” These companies are NOT allowed to discriminate when hiring under FEDERAL laws (and many state laws afford even more protection against discrimination), so why do they think they have a right to discriminate against the people who do business with them?
Then, there’s hospital visitation rights. Gay couples who are in “civil unions” can still be denied visitation rights in privately run hospitals, even denied any say in the hospitalized spouse’s (yes, I wrote spouse—deal with it) care if the hospital refuses to recognize the civil union (and in the 30+ states which constitutionally prohibit recognition of ANYTHING resembling marriage, this is highly possible) and refuses to recognize all the couple’s legal documents, including the power of attorney. If a gay couple is in a state where the hospitalized spouse’s “birth family” lives, THEY get precedence in making decisions for the hospitalized person, not the person’s spouse or legally designated caregiver.
And then, there’s the matter of inheritance. There are literally hundreds of horror stories where a gay couple’s lifetime is ripped asunder because the family of the deceased spouse challenges the validity of any will the dead gay person had made during the couple’s time together. And, unfortunately, in most states, a dead person’s birth family gets precedent over the designated heirs in a will IF the dead person is gay or lesbian and the designated heir is his or her same-sex spouse (because, as noted above, there are 30+ states which do NOT recognize anything that resembles marriage). One of the cases currently before the Supreme Court involves the unfairness in inheritance laws. The plaintiff—who was legally married to her wife at the time of the wife’s death—was forced, due to tax laws, to pay taxes on the inheritance as though she were not related by marriage. A hetero couple, on the other hand, gets a large tax exemption on the estate when one spouse dies.
The list goes on. Of course, since you’re apparently not gay, you don’t recognize the “hetero privilege” that comes with marriage.
What a coincidence- Dennis Miller did the same thing, he just played the approach of that supposedly his friends in the LBGT community are sick of hearing about equality- like it’s a big annoyance to them:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2292045925001/miller-time-craziness-in-california/?playlist_id=938973798001
And didn’t Greg Gutfeld and Steven Crowder play that same fiddle recently off the Fox News camera? I can’t remember how recenty, but it seems like they both said something similar to this not too long ago.
I swear that the Fox News “comedians” all share the same brain- they just draw their primary reasons out of a hat to sound like they have different reasons for the same “thought.”
But, I bet there are a lot of interfaith couples (perhaps even a few interracial couples) who can point out how their weddings were “ruined” because one half of the couple had her* heart set on being married by her long-time family minister** (and the other half didn’t really care about the actual venue) but the minister was required to refuse because the faith*** prohibits its facilities and its clergy**** from participating in interfaith ceremonies (unless, the “infidel” is willing to convert to the faith).
Okay. Maybe there aren’t a lot of interfaith couples who suffered because the church*** of their choice was unavailable due to religious
Used since women tend to have a stronger view on, or more emotional tie to, the wedding venue.
*Substitute rabbi, imam, priest, pastor, whatever appropriate clerical term is used.
*Used as a neutral term.
**Used as a neutral term for whatever person would officiate in the faith’s religious ceremonies.
