O'Reilly blasts same-sex marriage critics
March 27th, 2013
11:26 AM ET
7 years ago

O'Reilly blasts same-sex marriage critics

(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."

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.

Filed under: Fox News • Same-sex marriage
soundoff (451 Responses)
  1. Jessica

    Bill has been very anti-gay in the past. He is just realizing that his side has no, real, valid argument other than it makes them feel icky when they think about gay sex. Sort of how I feel when I think about straight sex except I don't feel compelled to take straight peoples rights away I just don't have straight sex.

    March 27, 2013 11:33 pm at 11:33 pm |
  2. Martin

    Post what you may; One thing remains true, Death! Bible says there is a Hell & eternal damnation for those who do no believe and accept the gospel, the other option is Heaven with God/Jesus. You want to take a chance? Go for it, we will all find out soon enough. Deny the evidence if you will; Jesus was crucified and also resurrected, the Bible tells us and so does Roman history, with more then five hundred eye witnesses. O'Reilly, you, me; There is a day appointed for all when we will meet our creator, a day of judgment awaits us all. Its a matter of time!

    March 27, 2013 11:39 pm at 11:39 pm |
  3. user

    People seem to think that The Bible singles out gays. All sexual sin is immoral, e.g., sex before marriage, adultery, same-sex sex. All people are GOD's people and all people have GOD's law written on their hearts.

    March 27, 2013 11:44 pm at 11:44 pm |
  4. Herby Sagues

    What's going on? Is the ten year republican madness rampage over? Is the GOP coming back to its senses? Good to see we may be back to a two party system! Let's hope it holds.

    March 27, 2013 11:47 pm at 11:47 pm |
  5. Mike - WA

    The evangelical christian god is about money and profits. When there is profit in gay marriage then the dogma will be morphed to support it.

    March 27, 2013 11:54 pm at 11:54 pm |
  6. Anonymous

    I would refer bible thumping brethren of Jesus' comments regarding with his coming the old testament had been fulfilled. If I'm not mistaken he did not equivocate when he said love one another or judge not lest ye be, judged, that is or those of us without sin, cast the first stone. There was something said about glasses houses also. Oh yes and that one, let's see, how does it go? Oh yes, "as you have done it unto the least of these, you have done it unto me. But maybe they haven't learned there is more to the bible than the old testament.

    March 27, 2013 11:57 pm at 11:57 pm |
  7. Bob Zmuda

    Finally, people are standing up to this outright bigotry. Believe whatever you like, but leave it at home. The Capitol building is not your church.

    March 28, 2013 12:00 am at 12:00 am |
  8. Rich Crawford

    Bill O'Reilly is as conservative as Bill Clinton, He is all about O'Reilly, true conservative positions do not matter to him as he will change with the wind.

    March 28, 2013 12:10 am at 12:10 am |
  9. BLCA

    This matter shouldn't be so hard and divisive...
    Procreation is a male + female undertaking, most often in early adulthood when many to-be families have limited financial resources... biology is fairly strict in this matter
    Conscientious child rearing can be very expensive. Many parents elect to invest in their family at the expense of their career opportunities... most think this is a good thing
    We have provided pro-family taxation policies and benefits to partially offset some of the costs and disruptions associated with raising children.
    To extend this same benefit to other relationships, including homosexual unions, would dilute the pro-family benefits, and exacerbate our inability to balance government revenue / expenditures.
    Marriage, and the associated benefits, should be extended exclusively to long term (hopefully??) heterosexual unions.

    March 28, 2013 12:12 am at 12:12 am |
  10. noteasilyswayed

    Wonder if O'Reilly has a homosexual family member; conservatives are usually against homosexual freedoms until they discover that some close family member is homosexual, then they change their tune.

    March 28, 2013 12:12 am at 12:12 am |
  11. mickey1313

    When the only thing you can use to advance your argument is a 2000 year old book, that has ZERO factual basis in reality, then you have no ability to defend your posision. Giveing equal rights to all americans is the only fair thing to do. We must end anti hom o se x ual laws, just like we need to end the drug war, and the fake war on terror. Oddly all three of these things are GOP projects. With so man republicans in this nation, is it any wounder that we are sliding into the poop tubes now. The past 40 years of the american experance is a fing joke.

    March 28, 2013 12:32 am at 12:32 am |
  12. Jl Taylor

    I have Changed my mind about gay rights. When I realized that I was on the same side as the rednecks and
    Right wing conservatives I started supporting all gay rights. Giving them full protection under the law will non
    take anything from me.

    March 28, 2013 12:46 am at 12:46 am |
  13. Capone

    There are two fundamental issues that the "bible thumpers" have with this issue: hypocrisy and irrelevancy

    The hypocrisy arises from the fact that they seem to cherry pick things out of the Bible that they want to support, while simultaneously ignoring anything that they don't.

    For example, they will point to Leviticus in their argument that same sex marriage should be banned because it says it is against God. Leviticus also says that God doesn't want you to eat pork.. It also says that God doesn't want you to eat anything from water that does not have fins and scales (i.e. lobster, crab, shrimp). I've never seen any Christian groups advocating that we ban ham, bacon, or Red Lobster.

    The second is irrelevancy. This one is far more simple. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what the Bible says. It doesn't matter what the Quran says. It doesn't matter what the Torah says. It doesn't matter what any religious text or scripture says. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy.

    The 1st Amendment protects your right to worship whatever deity you want and to subscribe to whatever religious doctrine you chose. But it also protects the right for others not to believe in what you believe. So to say that a law should ban something because you believe your God is against it is an invalid argument.

    If you want to believe that homosexuality is a sin against God and anyone who engages in it will be damned for all eternity, then have at it. Live your life according to that belief. But you do not have the right to force others to follow that belief.

    Your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others.

    March 28, 2013 12:55 am at 12:55 am |
  14. loudmusic

    Even Colbert couldn't quite believe it. Safe bet that's the last time O'Reilly gets to play games with the other reindeer at C+PAC conventions.

    March 28, 2013 12:59 am at 12:59 am |
  15. MItz Rommel

    America (the beautiful) is becoming more progressive. Finally. And this cause for much celebration... Sorry bible-thumpers, biggots and hate-mongers... It is all slipping away from you.. And watching it happen is more wonderful, more entertaining and funnier than any comedy I am likely to find on tv.

    And when religion is finally relagated to being little more than novelty, and far fewer folks build their entire lives and beliefs on an imaginary man in the sky, we will truly be free – and happier – as a society.

    March 28, 2013 01:18 am at 1:18 am |
  16. 1stSgt-TopKick

    Read what you just wrote: "All scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God".

    Nowhere in the "Good Book" does it proclaim that GOD actually wrote ANYTHING.
    Nowhere in the "Good Book" are the statements, "I, God, have written this book." or "I am God and I approve this message". ALL religions that have sought to LITERALLY place the deity of God on the planet Earth (like God is SOLEY concerned with man – a creature that is less than 1/1,000,000,000th the age of THIS "young" planet) have lost followers and will continue to do so in a word dominated by seekers of "proof". The age of Superstition is long gone.

    The VALUES expressed by religions are worthy and the INSPIRATION of Faith is wonderful, but every time anyone quotes scripture as an answer to today's challenges, they lose the followers and they lose the debates.

    March 28, 2013 01:31 am at 1:31 am |
  17. Anonymous

    The highly religious seem to only support the US Constitution when it's convenient for their dictatorial views on morality. The Judeo-Christian bible is not a valid source for arguing legality in a court of law. In fact, it's explicitly rejected as a legal basis in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's pretty plain language. Congress can NOT establish any religion as above any other. That includes the moral arguments from such religions. The only counter argument against establishing equality towards same sex couples is entirely religious, and not all religions look at homosexuality in the same moral light. The US government cannot pick one over the other by Constitutional law so the Defense of Marriage Act is going beyond the powers of the federal government.

    The legality of Proposition 8 from California is a different problem. Amendment 10 says that although the Federal government cannot legislate social morals based on religion, the problem of civil unions and marriage is traditionally a legal matter for the States. This comes down to a basic argument of equality before the law. Is it right to bar a minority from the rights enjoyed by the majority based on nothing more than social and/or religious traditions? This was the question that was asked by Plessy v. Ferguson and again in Brown v. Topeka, KS Board of Education.

    Marriage became a legal, and not a religious matter, as soon as marriage was enshrined into US and State law. If those who are against same sex marriage wanted to control what the definition of a marriage should be, they shouldn't have insisted it become a legal matter instead of a religious sanctioned one. These same pro-inequality arguments were leveled for slavery and later segregation and are no more valid now as they were then.

    March 28, 2013 01:40 am at 1:40 am |
  18. TruthandConsequence

    This is odd coming from O'Reilly who does his own fair share of bible thumping...he presents himself as a devout Catholic, criticizes liberal non-observant catholics life New York's Cuomo, then departs from his church the question of gay marriage. Surely, he can make the strongest of all cases...Scalia had no trouble with it, "when did preventing homosexual couples from marrying become unconstitutional". There is no constitutional basis for gay marriage Рif you need a legal point to make your case. If you need a historical point, it is the fact that the "equal rights" clause of the 14th amendment was not written to secure the marriage "rights" of Americans with bizarre sexual interests. We all know the writers of the 14th amendment had not the vaguest idea of how their descendants would mangle the meaning of their prose. And if we have any doubt of it, we need only note that the 14th amendment was of no use in the Edmunds Tucker Act which outlawed polygamy and disenfranchised the Mormon leadership - where were the liberal wailers then? Now, if O'Reilly needs a common sense argument...he needs only to look at that tired refrain "equal rights". Surely, he must know that homosexuals are not really after "equal marriage rights" for all...they want a special deal for themselves. I get it, but they hide behind what they construe to be a larger principle of letting "freedom" ring throughout the land. What a line! Of course, polygamists will have grounds upon which to base their own claims, bigamy laws will be pass̩. And what about those consenting adult incestuous relationships? Why would true "marriage equality" prevent mom and son getting married? Of course, "consenting adults" is another form of inequality. Who made those laws? Consenting adults...certainly not minors who cannot drive, work, marry, attend certain films or watch that sick sad fare that passes for entertainment these days. Next on the menu....the continued sexualization of children, the further corruption of our society and the dimwitted passersby who just sing "nearer my god to thee" while the Titanic sinks РO'Reilly apparently already in a life boat among the swarm who do not wish to see what is happening.

    March 28, 2013 01:49 am at 1:49 am |
  19. MOCaseA

    "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."

    No... it was our SECULAR laws demanding justice and equality that made this country great. Get your facts straight O'Reilly...

    March 28, 2013 02:02 am at 2:02 am |
  20. caeser

    Wow...I think Bill O'Reilly just came out of the closet.

    March 28, 2013 02:10 am at 2:10 am |
  21. rickinmo

    O'Reilly finally gets one right or should I say left. I guess in this case Left is Right. In any case O'reilly has shown some growth on gay marriage. I don't agree with O'Reilly on states rights regarding gay marriage. If you see gay marriage as a constitutional rights issue, it is in the domain of the federal government to protect civil rights as it was in the case of civil rights for African-Americans. If left to the states, we would have segregated states and unsegregated states just like we had slave states and non-slave states prior to the Civil War. This issue is much too important to be left to the states. The rights of individuals to the rights afforded all U.S. citizens should not be subjected to the biases and religious beliefs of legislatures. As we have seen since the Republicans put gay marriage on ballots in 2004, public sentiment has shifted toward acceptance of gay marriage while Republican legislatures have held onto their anti gay marriage stance based primarily on bias, misinformation and religious beliefs. Bias, misinformation and religious beliefs should never be factors considered in matters of civil rights. Many states have proven that they are not capable of the unbiased rational thought such issues demand.

    March 28, 2013 02:39 am at 2:39 am |
  22. logic

    A few things I would like to say especially after reading the comments.
    1. Most if not all current religions are more than likely children of a parent religious order. A lot of christian stories are derived from other religions. So please, stop thinking you're special because you probably lack the most basic understanding of your religion.
    2. To assume that you have the right to say that someone should not be given equal treatment goes against the fabric of the constitution.
    3. To think that religion has a place in modern society is laughable, if you take a close look at the structure of religious orders you will notice striking similarities to what would be considered a cult.
    4. To say that gay marriage should be illegal due to the safety of a child being raised in such a relationship and stating that one should be raised in a mother father dynamic says that you believe the children of single parents should be taken away due to the lack of the mother father household.
    5. Finally, for the people who truly believe in a heaven and a hell. If there is such a thing, I will gladly walk into the pit myself because really who would want to sit and do practically nothing for the rest of eternity? To me at least, it looks like the party is being held in the basement.

    March 28, 2013 03:03 am at 3:03 am |
  23. Name: Christopher

    If the position of God Almighty concerning homosexual relationship as it's contained in His sacred book isn't enough to dissuade the actors,then the end-time is near. Categorically I dissociate myself from all form of antiChrist policies.

    March 28, 2013 04:01 am at 4:01 am |
  24. marsally

    A Fox guy making sense. Might have to tune him in. I said, "might."

    March 28, 2013 07:25 am at 7:25 am |
  25. Lynda/Minnesota


    Oh, who cares what O'Reilly thinks?

    Great question. Add me to the list of those who don't care what Bill O'Reilly thinks.

    March 28, 2013 09:20 am at 9:20 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19