(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.
"Last time I checked, saying one group has a better argument than another is not that same as blasting the group with a weaker argument. But what did I expect from cnn?"
Seems like a minor difference in your word choice from CNNs and not related to the issue at hand: A conservative commentator is saying the religious right doesn't have a good argument here. This is of national and historical importance.
Yes, there may be many things the government gives to married couples, but that doesn't mean we should ask permission to marry from the government. Just register your marriage when you decide you are married. Done deal.
No Mike I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the union between a man and a women is invaluable to society. A gender requirement for marriage is a reasonable one for the government to have. A fertility one is not.
It is unconstitutional to rule against same-sex marriages based on the Bible because you cannot base law on one religion. Separation of Church and State requires that.
and not to mention that anyone who has ever been divorced HAS NO SAY SO on this matter because you do not believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman or you would still be married to your first spouse!!!
Annullments count too!!! they are divorces according to law!!!!
The elephant in the room that none of the news media wants to touch with a ten foot pole is that, that in the end, the real opposition to same sex marriage is religious based. And we all know about the separation of church and state. So opponents are left trying to create these convoluted arguments that fall on their face. If you're against same sex marriage, say it, admit it, your opposition is basically religious based.
science, it still takes a man and a women
Terry, that cannot produce new life. New life is essential for the society to continue.
It's more than just bible thumping! The people using biblical references want them used to impliment laws that block gay peoples access to their const.itutional rights! That, among other things, is why there has to be a national mandate! As far as 'civil unions' go, I know of many hetero couples who went down to the JP'S office, but society still recognizes it as a 'marriage'! Why should we call a gay couple's union something different? Marriage is as sacred as the 2 people involved deem it to be, not due to some percieved religiosity! I'd also like to point out that 50% of hetero marriages end in divorce, often w/children involved! What happened to the sacredness there? Perhaps that's the real issue that should be discussed!!
Why not hit them where it hurts? Demand that the courts separate church and state and deny all married couples any tax breaks. A religious ceremony should not provide monetary benefits from the government under the US constitution. Watch the bible thumpers scramble if they thought they were going to lose dollars.
Obviously, there are many people with way too much time on their hands posting here...probably myself included.
CNN posting news read out of FOX ... NICE work news media ...LOL
Well, he has a point. And the court arguments at the state and federal level show this very clearly.
We're either a theocracy, or we're not. Since our legal documents say we are not, people trying to get their religious morals passed into law need to think for a minute how un-American that attempt is. You are trying to undermine some of the cornerstones of what separated our country from other countries and made the US great. Just stop it, already.
Civil unions for gay people is another way of saying separate but equal. And it never is.
Who can argue that all people should be treated equally? If this were the only issue, the matter would not be before the supreme court. Children have been known to emulate the behavior of their parents. If children raised in gay households follow this pattern, then a gay lifestyle might become their normal. IF these children in grow up to be gay, who can say with any certainty that they weren't influenced by their upbringing? We need guidance so let's pray about this...
Sun goes up, sun comes down...garbage goes in, garbage comes out....
Pander away, Billy me boy, pander away.
"A gender requirement for marriage is a reasonable one for the government to have. "
Why? If the fertility argument is not a valid concern, as you say, then the gender requirement is not a valid concern either.
Could people stop talking about O'Reilly "suddenly changing his mind" and all of this garbage? He's been cool with gay marriage for years. It's the fact that this is being reported on any news source other than FN is the real story here.
Wow if Bill keeps making this much sense, I may start watching him. Imagine that a conservative in favor of freedom.
Our country is going down hill like a snowball headed for hell.
Before the election 2012, Bill O'Reilly was the only person I could listen to at Fox News and was quite reasonable. BUT after election he became an angry, hopeless white guy. He might think now that Gay people are winning , still he continues to prove every single day that he is not a person anyone can rely on. What a sad situation, as fox News has lost everyone of its own.
Marriage is NOT about procreation. Marriage begins with love and procreation is a benefit to that relationship.
I find it so odd to actually agree with O'Reilly on something although I believe this is a federal issue due to the laws being unequally applied. The state legislatures are dominated by right wingers who will vote out anything even remotely moderate these days and to let them vote on a basic right is complete BS.
O'Reilly is a registered independent. Thus, it's incorrect to claim he is taking on "his party," i.e., Republicans.
Well Told You,
" IF these children in grow up to be gay, who can say with any certainty that they weren't influenced by their upbringing?"
They don't grow up to be gay, per se. There are children from gay couples who have been growing up in that context for more than 30 years, and their sexual orientation does not appear to be influenced at all by gay parents.
Of course, you conveniently don't mention that gay people grow in in hetero families all the time. Their sexual orientation does not appear to be influenced by their straight parents, or the straight culture they grow up in, at all!
Ashley - to set the record straight, so to speak, Bill O'Reilly is NOT a conservative. He is moderate on many of his positions and is opposed to the death penalty. Please stop trying to give your article some oomph by reporting a "conservative" TV analyst is blasting bible thumpers. If it was Hannity saying it, it would be more of a story!
I find the arguments from the Right are a bit scary. One often hears them bring up Jesus as being part of a proper marriage. Because their entire argument is faith based, what stops the Christians from then saying that Jewish marriages are wrong? What about Buddhist, Hindu, and all the other Non-Savior religions? What about Atheists? If the Right wins this fight they could go after all the others. All because they won the gay issue based on Theology.
This country was started by people of faith who were smart enough to know that religion needs to be kept out of government.
All the self-righteous kooks who want a faith based government need to look around the world. The countries run by the religious tend to be the worst places to live if you want human rights.
The bible-thumpers also need to feel good that they live in a country that allows religious freedom. Within 4 blocks of my house there are churches and temples that represent some 10 different religions. In 20 years there none of those structures have been burned or blown up. The people who go to these places have never seen a car bomb go off or people dragged away to be killed because of their faith. Try finding this in many parts of the world.