(CNN) - Bill O'Reilly, the conservative Fox News host, believes same-sex marriage advocates have a more convincing argument than opponents, who do nothing but rehash scripture to make their point.
"The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals," O'Reilly said Tuesday on Fox. "That's 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 have got to have a very strong argument on the other side. The argument on the other side hasn't been able to do anything but thump the Bible."
Follow @politicalticker Follow @KilloughCNN
O'Reilly has previously stated he takes a libertarian view on the issue, and repeated Tuesday night that it's a decision that should be left up to the states. "I support civil unions. I always have. The gay marriage thing, I don't feel that strongly about it one way or another."
Both sides of the debate clashed this week in Washington as the Supreme Court hears challenges to two cases dealing with the issue.
O'Reilly has been less critical of so-called Bible thumpers in the past. In a May 2009 column on his website, he again argued the matter should be decided by states but also said he understands that "most Americans believe heterosexual marriage deserves a special place in our society."
"Our Judeo-Christian traditions, which have made the United States the most prosperous and just society the world has ever known, speak to a family built around a responsible mother and a father-certainly the optimum when it comes to raising children," he wrote.
But, he argued, people who feel strongly about traditional marriage "have allowed themselves to be intimidated" and have refused to stand up for what they believe in.
"When was the last time you saw a Catholic cardinal or archbishop speak against gay marriage on television? I know–I've invited some of them. They all turned me down," he wrote.
His comments Tuesday weren't the first time he's taken on his own party. Last week, O'Reilly sharply criticized Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann for making "trivial attacks" and unsubstantiated claims of President Barack Obama's so-called perks in the White House.
Koheleth, you don't sound like clergy. Putting that aside, there is no freedom FROM religion in the First Amendment. There is only freedom to practice and prohibition from the state forming a religion.
"Our Judeo-Christian traditions, which have made the United States the most prosperous and just society the world has ever known."
Yes, because obviously the United States is the only country on earth with a Judeo-Christian tradition.
yes they are Americans and so Am I you have taken so much from people that hold the Bible sacred. just stop if they want to get married then let it not be out of the Holy Bible let them make up your own. Vowel. We have right to. We want to teach our children what this country was founded on to. What about our children.
The issue of same-gender marriage currently before the Supreme Court very much echoes the question of individual freedom as was considered in the Dred-Scott slavery case in what was in 1875 very contentious times. Were the court today to do as the Taney court did back then and come down on the wrong side of history they are not going to put this issue away and more than the question of slavery was back then.
Why? Because equal protection of the law ever grows for more and more people and like it or not opponents of same-gender marriage cannot grasp that this gene is more than out of the closet; it is out of the bottle and is not going to be put back behind a stopper.
The only question to be seen in the short haul is if the conservative members of the court understand what they decide is already history and same gender marriage has already become a part of the American way.
It soon enough makes no real difference to anyone but maybe Justice Alito if he and any others want to take a place on the wrong side of history-as did the first Roman Catholic justice on the Supreme Court, Roger Taney. It was but a passing place of irrelevance in which Taney placed himself with a pro-slavery decision intended to deny Dred Scott a right to equal protection of the law although Scott had already been set free as have all ever after.
If gay marriage is just banned outright their would be no issues with unequal rights. It's for a man and woman only. Case closed. And like our grand king of NY Mario Cuomo...you got a year to divorce...just like with the AR15's.
Barney has a very good point when he says, "...we have something called the separation of church and state. Folks have to realize that recognizing marriage as a state is very different than recognizing it in a particular religion."
I recall when I was young, the Catholic stance (at least in my parish) was not to recognize marriages between couples that were not done in the church. If someone got married by an alderman or justice of the peace they were not considered married by the church, but they still had all the legal privileges of marriage.
Gays & lesbians are asking for these same rights. What someone's religious views are should not matter.
Oh, who cares what O'Reilly thinks?
Well, Hallelujah, put your hand on he radio!
Did he "blast" critics? Looks more like he mentioned them....
Don't be fooled by O'Reilly's "surprising" beliefs.
Don't be fooled by all those Republicans who now are more lenient.
It's simply a desperate Republican effort to win voters.
O'Riley has no shame. How long before he goes on a rant that "christmas is under attack?"
He'll be the next one to come out of the closet, watch !
Sorry to break it to everyone but the US is not Judeo-Christian country. We are a John Lock country.
With out God I feel like I am in hell. I believe in America we have rights, but some where mine have been taken away. I have a right to believe what the bible say is true that marriage is between a man and a women. to love the person and hate sin. But now Christians are hated because they believe the word of God.
This is probably coming from three places: 1) I imagine that O'Reilly has gay friends and supports their rights, 2) I think O'reilly wants more than anything to be on the right side of history, and 3) it is important to him ot maintain the charade of "fari and balanced" so that he can deny claims of his extreme bias. Good for him. He has really high ratings!
Unbelievable! I needed to read twice to make sure it is right! Will he lose his conservative base?
What's at stake here is equality. OK, so if there's too much resistance to gay marriage, nullify all marriages. There, playing field leveled. And you can stay out as late as you want.
I am a man married to a woman. We have three children. I have no problem with gays getting married, with all the attendant government-mandated benefits of marriage. I am not afraid of gays. I don't see how their marriage will hurt my children. Gays are not going to turn hetero just because they aren't allowed to get married. If you want children born to married, hetero couples, banning gay marriage is not going to help. If married gays adopt children that are otherwise unwanted, that's a good thing. If married gay couples find egg or sperm donors to help them have biological children, that's no different than what infertile hetero couples do. And that won't reduce the number of children born to hetero couples. The #1 thing to help the traditional family is to discourage out-of-wedlock pregnancies and encourage 2-parent families. Gay marriage will help.
If any two people want a relationship let them have it. lets not start changing definitions to apease the sensitive little pansies out there. if we are gonna change definitions lets just change the definition of murder, rape, and any others. that way no one will ever do anything thats wrong. this is comical that anyone thinks just changing the definition will make any difference. some countrys still publicly execute for less things than a gay relationship. be glad your allowed to at least live the kinda life you are allowed and quit your damn crying!!
I'm making up my own vowel right now: eeaaiyuuoo! Will that work!? ;-)
how do you spell gasoline on a fire? Bill O'reilly.
all this guy does is insult people all day long. sad are those that listen to him.
Wow, first Bachmann and now this... Is O'Reilly actually growing some humility and scruples??
i'm a liberal who is tired of my democrats bologna.
if the libertarians had a popular candidate, i would vote for them next time in a heartbeat.
The only thing he's criticizing about the bible thumpers is the strength of their argument. He's essentially saying, "you need to make a better argument if you want to win."
the bible thumpers need to explain,to themselves mostly, how it is moral to worship and especially to love a deity who plans to torture a segment of humanity for eternity...free will or no makes no difference...that kind of behavior is simply an embarrassment and a disgrace...and that is what these simpletons believe will happen