O’Reilly wants a reason to reject gay marriage — but can’t find one

May 29, 2008

Once in a great while, a high-profile media personality will surprise me. Two weeks ago, it was Chris Matthews humiliating right-wing shock-jock Kevin James for using the word “appeasement” without knowing what it means. Last night, believe it or not, it was Bill O’Reilly.

The Fox News personality did a segment last night on a new Field Poll in California showing that a majority of the state’s voters now support gay marriage. O’Reilly said he didn’t believe the poll, and invited Don Schweitzer, identified as a “family law attorney,” to explain what’s likely to happen in California when voters head to the polls in November to decide on a statewide ballot measure on the issue.

It didn’t go especially well. (thanks to reader N.B. for the tip)

O’Reilly made this really easy for his guest: “You’re going to lose at the ballot box if you don’t come up with a reason [why gay marriage is bad for California]. What is the reason? … What is the reason you oppose gay marriage?”

And the attorney, who was presumably aware of the subject of the interview before he went on the air, simply couldn’t explain it. He kept saying that he was concerned about “definitions,” but he had no idea why gay marriage is a bad idea.

O’Reilly ended up saying, “I don’t think that’s going to cut it…. Look, I think you guys are going to have to come up with a cogent reason to convince independents, who are going to make the decision on this, because it is now getting closer, why gay marriage isn’t good for California. And you really haven’t done it tonight.”

Seriously.

The point isn’t that O’Reilly is suddenly taking a progressive attitude on marriage equality; by all appearances, he doesn’t support gay marriage at all. But he invited a leading opponent of gay marriage in California onto the show to convince him — let’s hear the reasons voters should vote against extending marriage rights to gay couples.

And given that chance, there just weren’t any answers. It’s hard to know if O’Reilly was disappointed or surprised, but there were quite a few instances of awkward silence during the interview.

Amazing.

On a related note, I should also mention that opponents of gay marriage — whether they can explain why or not — apparently aren’t having a good week at all.

Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”

The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.

“Very shortly, there will be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, and probably thousands and thousands and thousands of gay people who have their marriages recognized by the state,” said Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and has pushed for legalization of gay unions.

Massachusetts and California are the only states that have legalized gay marriage, while others, including New Jersey and Vermont, allow civil unions. Forty-one states have laws limiting marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Legal experts said Mr. Paterson’s decision would make New York the only state that did not itself allow gay marriage but fully recognized same-sex unions entered into elsewhere.

It’s hard not to get the sense that the tide is turning.

Funny thing about voting: it doesn’t have to be based on reason. Unlike, say, court rulings.

  • The point that is missing but quite evident is that many on the right only oppose same sex marriage because it inflames the republican base. Personally, they either could care less about same sex marriage or are for it. My uneducated guess is that most are ambivalent. How else can it be explained when:

    1. The Vice President of the United States has a lesbian daughter.

    2. Republican representatives are making overtures to minor boys.

    3. Various National Republican politicians being caught having affairs. One even fathering a child with his mistress.

  • The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

    I’d sure like to see them winnow out unnecessary advantages that married people get under the law. As a single person as well as a zero pop guy, i don’t think rewarding having children is fair. I’d rather see better benefits for adoptive parents than bio ones. Although it all pales in light of the massive money spent on bombs and shit.

  • Schweitzer says: “.. . if they put that into our [CA] constitution, then it becomes a Federal question.”

    1. Can a proposition amend the CA constitution?

    2. If yes, how does amending the state constitution “make it a Federal issue”?

    I believe the lawyer is wrong on both points.

  • The problem for wingnuts is that Gay Marriage isn’t on regular “normal” people radars when you don’t have a job or enough money to pay the bills.

  • My guess is that since the guest was billed as an attorney, not as a representative of the religious community, and without the flexibility to wave a Bible around there was just no valid legal argument he could make that would make gay marriages invalid.

    It’s not often we get to see a blowhard like Bill-O pwn himself, but he sure did last night. More of that, please, Bill. 🙂

  • It’s “nuptials”, Bill, not “nuptuals”. Stick to words your viewers can understand and you can pronounce.

  • I think the gay marriage issue will play out by just washing over the country. People expect thunder and lightening bolts to crash and gay marriage will be upon us. One day it will just be a fact of life. It will sort of ease its self in.

  • Danp (7),

    Thanks for reminding my about Senator Larry “Wide Stance” Craig. Thanks

    Anymore “closet” Republicans to add to the list/?????/

  • Danp,

    I heard about Craig’s upcoming book on the radio today. I was left wondering, at what point does something become so revisionist, it has to be classified as fiction?

  • It seems that o-LIE-ly has a hard time finding a sex act he does not like – and then he talks about them on the phone with his subordinates. After all, someone with erotic attractions to or sexual contact with garbanzo beans, coriander, and cumin really doesn’t know what is “normal” or “objectionable.”

    He really should do us all a favor and not judge anyone else’s personal life.

  • Dale, I am completely with you. As a single woman with no kids (nor any plans for any), I don’t feel that paying people to have children makes any sense. There are so many needy children already.

    I know a guy who is in the dating world (as I am) and over the years we became good friends. He absolutely wants children – his own children. He wouldn’t consider adoption. It’s a line of reason I simply do not understand. Yes, you can birth your own children with your own genes, and that I understand, but what is it about having children that should subsume people? Should it not be about the children and not yourself?

    Too many people give birth and wind up the worst kind of parents. Many single or married (and unable to conceive) would make good parents. And too many children need a good home. This, to me, is an easily understood formula.

  • The state should only recognize civil unions, gay or straight.

    Riddle me this Batman:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

    The Unitarians, Episcopalians, some Jews, and a bunch of other religions recognize gay marriage.

    How is banning gay marriage not a law “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?

  • Okay, so O’Reilly has made a lasting name for himself as a blowhard who doesn’t need facts, logic or reason to fly off the handle about any given hot-button issue (e.g. illegal immigrants) or even any given non-issue (i.e. France). Which is why it is quite, quite stunning that he can pick up a potentially explosive topic – gay marriage, people, otherwise known as “The One Topic Most Likely To Have Right-Wing Lunatics From Zero To Raving In 0.5 Seconds” – and end up in a conversation with “awkward silences” over it. Guess that means the issue is quickly becoming a non-issue.

    (And perhaps it’s gotten to the point where even Billy-O can’t say with a straight face that legitimate gay couples may “turn straight children gay” just by being there.)

    Maybe, just maybe, we’re going to get over ourselves and let this one go? Like, for reals? One may dream…

  • When the day comes that “the shrill little man cub” from FauxNews finally explodes like Mister Creosote, I hope that someone has the audacity to post it on a YouTube clip

  • Erik (or Robin, the Boy Wonder):

    That coin has two sides.

    “…a bunch of other religions don’t recognize gay marriage.”

    “How is banning gay marriage not a law “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?”

  • Erik@14 says:

    “The state should only recognize civil unions, gay or straight”

    I’ve been saying the same thing for years. If a couple then wants a religious ceremony, fine, but all unions should be state-sanctioned civil unions.

    I’m all for gay marriage – or civil unions. Teh gays can’t screw up marriage any worse than we straights have done!

  • Historically, BillO doesn’t seem to be really that anti gay, he just knows his audience and adjusts his rhetoric. He’ll offer the crackpots a platform, but he doesn’t have any skin in the game, or at least not enough to prop them up when they can’t even return the softballs he pitched.

  • How is banning gay marriage not a law “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?

    Because religious denominations can, and do, hold “wedding” ceremonies with various and sundry names that are not recognized by the state as marriages. The states grant marriage licenses according to their own state laws, as they have had the power to do pretty much since the existence of states. I can form a church tomorrow dedicated to people in relationships with turnips, but the First Amendment doesn’t mean the state has to grant my parishioners marriage licenses.

    Interestingly, the California S.C. did not say that the state had to offer gay marriage, it left the door open for the state to decide that it would only do civil unions for everyone. The sticking point is the “separate but equal”.

  • You’re being too easy on Billdo. He’s encouraging this guy to work on his gay bashing chops. But it is nice to see that They. Got. Nothin’.

    The old stand-by bogey of the sex fiend pervo lookin’ at your kids doesn’t work when the issue is marriage (and the fRightWing has provided the majority of SFPs). Want to argue it is a church issue? What do you know, you don’t need to go to a church to get married. If you don’t have that government-issued certificate you’re not married. So they’re left with:

    WingNuts: Bu- but … they’re GAY!

    Growing number of Americans: Look, not only do I know gay people, I’ve got bills to pay, my job just cut health insurance benefits, I care why?

    WingNuts: But … gay people! Living together! Paying bills just like you! That degrades your bill paying and living together!

    Growing number of Americans: WTF? No it doesn’t!

    WingNuts: Um … next thing you know they’ll want to use the same water fountains and sit next to you on park benches!

    Growing number of Americans: [Punches WingNuts in the face]

  • I can form a church tomorrow dedicated to people in relationships with turnips

    Turnips can’t legally enter contracts (neither can children or pets, to anticipate the other usual straw men). The civil side of marriage is a contract.

  • I can form my own Yearing For Zion Part Two Electric Bugaloo church, then, dedicated to marrying 15 different people. It doesn’t matter. The point is that marriage licenses are a matter of state law. It isn’t an infringement on the establishment or the free exercise clause to not grant marriage licenses to gay people. (It would, of course, be an infringement to say that churches are required to marry gay people.) The Constitutional problem is equal protection, not the First Amendment.

  • 1. The Vice President of the United States has a lesbian daughter.

    2. Republican representatives are making overtures to minor boys.

    3. Various National Republican politicians being caught having affairs. One even fathering a child with his mistress.

    One of these things is not like the others. Pedophilia–or predation of post-pubescent minors–is not interchangeable with consensual sex between adults. And I probably don’t need to remind anyone that the vast majority of pedophiles/child predators are men abusing girls.

  • I don’t disagree that there’s a 14th amendment problem.

    If the state recognizes the religious ceremony of one denomination they need to recognize a comparable one from another religion, otherwise they’re showing religious preference.

    The 1st amendment argument is a strong one to disarm the religious right. Government messing with their God is a hot button.

    If you get God/religion out of the whole thing (ie there are ONLY civil unions) then the 14th amendment issues are not muddied by the religious baggage.

  • Playing devil’s advocate (and not going to argue further):

    My opinion is that the most convincing argument is that marriage is traditionally some religious ceremony, therefore it should be up to religions to define it. In other words, government shouldn’t have anything to do with it. Obviously the “trouble” started when government started regulating a religious ceremony.

    The second most convincing argument is probably something about kids being raised best when they have both a male and female role model. In general, males and females aren’t actually created ‘equal’ (you might notice they have different body parts, for one).

  • Maria said: “‘Republican representatives are making overtures to minor boys.’

    One of these things is not like the others. Pedophilia–or predation of post-pubescent minors–is not interchangeable with consensual sex between adults. And I probably don’t need to remind anyone that the vast majority of pedophiles/child predators are men abusing girls.”

    You people are so unfair to Mark Foley. He knew quite well he shouldn’t be having sex with underage boys. He just used the Congressional Page program to troll for relationships that he’d sustain until they were eighteen and then he’d go in for the kill.

    He did get drunk once and basically make an ass of himself outside the page’s domitory one night, but I don’t think any sex occured.

    Pedophilia is prefering the company of children (basically because you are unmatured yourself). Child abuse is child abuse. One is a mental condition. The other is a crime. Don’t confuse them.

  • The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

    At long last, some relief to the suffering Gay Fishing Tourism Industry.

  • Franklin said: “My opinion is that the most convincing argument is that marriage is traditionally some religious ceremony, therefore it should be up to religions to define it. In other words, government shouldn’t have anything to do with it. Obviously the “trouble” started when government started regulating a religious ceremony.”

    Marriage is a property arrangement. So is baptism (the legal assertion of parentage by the male parent). So is death (final rites, you can’t inherit until the guy/gal is dead). So is confirmation/bar-bat mizvah (acknowledgement of adulthood and the right to hold property).

    The profession we call priests, having decided that standing between us and God(s) was not powerful enough, started taking over matters of property (wealth, where the money is) by creating sacriments that they insist only they can execute. Of course the fact that they are usually the only ones who can write and keep records gives them a big step up.

    In reality, the only sacriment that OUGHT to exist is communion (or it’s equivilants), which is an expression of membership in a particular religion.

    So no, I’d say that Religion should just get out of the way and let the State regulate property/labor contracts, which is all marriage is.

  • “If the state recognizes the religious ceremony of one denomination they need to recognize a comparable one from another religion, otherwise they’re showing religious preference.”

    They aren’t “recognizing a religious ceremony.” If the celebrant, secular, religious, or whatever, meets the state’s requirements to perform marriages, and the participants have a marriage license, then you are legally married. They are granting authority to people, of any religion or no religion, to perform marriages that meet the statutory definition of marriage.

    If this is such a fantastic argument, why has no one ever attempted it before? I’m not aware of any caselaw addressing the First Amendment as it applies to the states’ jurisdiction over marriage proceedings.

  • Playing devil’s advocate on this is an interesting exercise because it really is hard to come up with a decent argument, try as you might. I guess I’d give this a shot if I were on the anti-marriage side:

    1. Play on a generic appeal to tradition, a la the Burkean, tempermental conservatives: “Marriage has always been between a man and woman, so it’s a safe bet that there’s good reason for that. Changing what marriage is so fundamentally could change the nature of the family, and with it society, in ways that we can’t predict and may well regret.” The great thing about this form of argument is that it leaves you free of the burden of specifying the rational basis (if any) of the tradition. You just bask in the warm glow of the idea of “tradition” allowing the gay=weird and icky sentiment to do the work. Caveat: Californians, by and large, aren’t traditionalists, and self-consciously so.

    2. Agree with Franklin: get people thinking of married gay couples raising kids. “Hey, I’m ok with my co-worker or neighbor doing their thing, but growing up with gay parents–that’s too weird and hard to imagine. Would it affect their sexuality? Would it be confusing for them? Would they catch a lot of grief (like if their parents stuck them with a really awful name)?” This makes me wonder if a small part of the pro-marriage strategy should be profiling kids raised by gay parents, in the same way that profiling gay couples reveals them to be…boringly normal.

  • #3 said “I’d rather see better benefits for adoptive parents than bio ones.”

    I’d also like to see some kind of grants/subsidies for infertile couples for IVF, federally. There are some, but unlike in Hawaii- the first IVF treatment is free. People don’t realize the pain and emotional suffering of that kind of biological betrayal.
    Why don’t the RTL nutjobs push for that?
    -adoption of children from war-torn nations ( and that way partly because of US) should be gratis, as well.

  • If this is such a fantastic argument, why has no one ever attempted it before? I’m not aware of any caselaw addressing the First Amendment as it applies to the states’ jurisdiction over marriage proceedings.

    I’m making a political argument. You’re making a legal argument.

  • “I’m making a political argument. You’re making a legal argument.”

    Well, it’s no good as a political argument, either. People *like* marriage. They don’t want to be united civilly, they want to be married. They don’t want to call their husband or wife their civil partner. That’s kind of what all the hoopla in California was about — the civil unions were legally indistinguishable from marriage; the difference was basically the name. And, as I said before, the California court definitively said that the state could make everything a civil union if it wanted to — the difficulty is in treating the two groups separately. You’ll notice there wasn’t a lot of conversation about that, though, a la, “well, let’s just make us all civilly unioned, then!”

    And you’re using the Constitution. One generally uses the Constitution to make a legal argument. This is what you started with: “How is banning gay marriage not a law “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? That’s a legal question that I tried to answer.

    Third, you keep making it backwards. Marriage stems from the authority of the states to make laws regarding marriage. If the states discriminate against religions in their exercise of that authority, e.g. give celebrant licenses to Methodists but not to Muslims, then you have a problem. If the state says “two dudes can’t be married”, that is not religious discrimination. It is sexual orientation discrimination. Some religions are fine with gay marriage, some are not, but that doesn’t matter. Every religion everywhere could be o.k. with gay marriage and it still wouldn’t a restriction on the basis of religion. It will always be a restriction on the basis of there being two people of the same gender. If your analysis were accurate, then anti-gender-discrimination laws would violate the First Amendment because there are fundamentalist sects that believe women shouldn’t work outside the home.

    Anyway, I appreciate debating with you and I hope I haven’t been rude.

  • I am a gay parent raising a daughter with my ex.

    My teenager :

    A) Boy crazy from the womb. Believe it or not, the majority of gay people were raised by straight parents. To my knowledge neither myself nor my gay frineds were raised to be gay. Anyone who thinks they have a sayso in who their child falls in love with at age 25 is delusional.

    B)In an AP honors program in school. Will probably graduate in top 1% of her class.

    C) Is well adjusted with most of her friends and their parents knowing about her family situation.

    D) competes in her sport on a national level.

    So, God bless her, in spite of the abomination of growing up with two moms, she does okay.

    As far as the argument that children do better raised in a household with a mother and a father, with the divorce rate in this country hovering somewhere between 50-60% how adept are heteros with that concept? There are 60,000 children in foster care in Florida. I ‘d be willing to bet that all of those kids came from the “traditional man, woman model.

  • Marriage stems from the authority of the states to make laws regarding marriage.

    The marriage license didn’t even exist in the US until the 1920s. Before then the state had no role. At some point the states started making laws that impact fundamentally religious ceremonies.

  • homosexuals can choose another planet and marry whomever they please and because they won’t be able to bare children naturally they will not be around after a few years.
    God made man and woman from man to take dominion over the world and procreate for his glory and communion with him.
    We in American are shoving every good thing he has given us right back in his face. including sex, love, family and are doing it our way … God is love is a gift and if we reject him we let ourselves open for 911 and all horrid things to go with it.
    Choose… life or death…. follow his plan or go on to destruction.
    The choice is ours.
    There are legal ways to make trusts, legal inheritanced for those we love.
    However, marriage is a God Blessed union created by God… not man.

  • Let’s resist the urge to bitchslap Delores. It’s really not necessary to the interesting flow of this thread.

  • Delores,

    “Marriage” never took place in cave man days. People just paired off. Marriage is a legal commitment that man decided was necessary. It doesn’t even say in the Bible that God “married” Adam and Eve. Marriage confers a special status in our society, legally and otherwise and those that are “special” are just ticked because they have to share.

    You say, “God is love” but you are advocating the rejection of some of his creations because they are not like you. I say that you should just love UNCONDITIONALLY and let God sort out the rest. It’s his place, not yours. That’s what the cross is all about.

  • Well,you’re right Delores, we could choose another planet, however, we just got the decor done perfectly on this one.

    As far as “legal inheritanced” is concerned, those can be (and are) contested in court. Get yourself one of those activists judges, and you can lose everything you and a partner have spent your life acquiring.

  • homosexuals can choose another planet and marry whomever they please and because they won’t be able to bare children naturally they will not be around after a few years.

    It would probably be better for everyone if homophobes would choose another plant and marry whomever they please, but alas, that wouldn’t solve the problem of homosexuality. About ten percent of their children will be homosexual, too. You can neither drive homosexuals away nor run away from them. Deal with your fears rather than projecting them on others.

    And I have no IDEA what being able to bare children naturally means. You let them run around naked?

  • O’Reilly is no insisting on REASONS for conservatives to have opinions?

    Kudos, Mr. O’Reilly. Well done.

    Please don’t be alarmed if you or your listeners find your show tilting leftward as a consequence.

    In the long run, this is a GOOD thing, if painful to adjust to.

    Your listeners may be concerned about slight headaches they are now getting from listening to your show.
    Assure them it is strictly a result of something called “thinking” and the headaches go away with practice. Given time, many members of the population actually ENJOY it.

  • Mr. Schweitzer is a “family law” attorney – i.e. divorce attorney in Pasadena. He was a former prosecutor and police officer. He loves to appear on T.V.

    Beyond that, he’s at the tailend of marriage issues and understands little about this area of constitutional law in California or the U.S.

    Both courts reject the concept of maintaining discrimination based on “tradition” or “definition.” He’s out of his league. A publicity hound, at best.

    • Comments are closed.