Opinion> Bill Oreilly> Opposing Gay Marriage

	14 Feb 2012 Why Whitney Died The media have no bleepin' clue how to cover the death of Whitney Houston. That's because she was slowly … Read More.
	11 Feb 2012 A Gay Time at JCPenney Every Halloween, New York City residents are greeted by homosexual parade marchers dressed to impress … Read More.
	4 Feb 2012 Political Correctness and Muslims The story is grisly: a husband and wife murdering their three young daughters, ages 19, 17 and 13, by … Read More.

Opposing Gay Marriage

Here's the thing about homosexual marriage in the United States: It is going to be legal in about half the states. There is no stopping the gay nuptials now, even though most Americans say they are opposed to extending marital law to same-sex couples.

Right now, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and Maine allow gays to marry. New Hampshire will soon do so. Once the legislatures of New York and New Jersey get finished taxing the life out of their citizens, they, too, will most likely pass gay marriage. And even though the folks in California voted down gay nuptials, the Supreme Court there is desperately trying to find a way to nullify the vote.

A new CNN/Opinion Research poll says 54 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage, while 45 percent support it. But if you oppose gay marriage, your opinion makes you a bigot. Did you know that? That's what the Miss California controversy was all about.

Your humble correspondent doesn't really care much about gay marriage because I believe it is no danger to the Republic and the deity can sort all this stuff out after we're dead. I take a libertarian position on issues like gay marriage because I want all Americans to be able to pursue happiness equally.

However, I understand 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 father; certainly the optimum when it comes to raising children.

I also understand that once America changes marital law for one group — homosexuals — it will have to allow plural marriages and other types of situations under "equal justice for all." And there is no question the Scandinavian marriage model of anything goes has led to a drastic decline in traditional marriage.

But you rarely hear those arguments articulated in the media, which are largely sympathetic to gay marriage.

Not only that, but people who feel strongly about maintaining a special status for traditional marriage have allowed themselves to be intimidated. 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.

The truth is that pro-gay marriage forces have succeeded in their bigot-branding campaign and will not stop with marriage. Because they won this public relations war, you can expect to see the racist-bigot label marketed in other controversial situations. Already, abortion zealots are branding pro-life people "anti-woman" and "anti-privacy." The left knows it has a powerful cannon with this bigot stuff.

So the gay marriage debate is just about over. Conservative states won't pass it, but liberal states will. There was a time when we truly were the united states. No longer.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O'Reilly is host of the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor" and author of the book "Who's Looking Out For You?" To find out more about Bill O'Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the Web site www.billoreilly.com.

Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment

I don't think gay marriage should be allowed. I think it should be encouraged.
I was raised to look at homosexuals as less than human. Looking back, I believe I can find the time <a href="http://www.FairAndUNbalanced.com?http://www.testimoanials.com/blog/blog1.php/2009/05/22/gay-rights-and-the-orange-juice-lady">I first began re-examining the issue</a>.

Comment: #1
Posted by: Burr Deming
Sat May 23, 2009 4:46 AM

Report this post

You fight fire with fire, O'Reilly. It's that simple. "Bigot" is an appropriate epithet for someone who cannot let someone else be. You agree not to force your superstitions on me, and I will stop calling you a bigot. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

Comment: #2
Posted by: Masako
Sat May 23, 2009 8:10 PM

Report this post

The left has "started" calling anti-abortion people bigoted against women? I was a clinic defender in the late 1980's, and we knew then that Operation Rescue and their ilk were anti-woman. All it takes is one woman bleeding to death from a back alley abortion because she would rather risk death than be pregnant and you understand that those who wouldn't give her that option are anti-woman. Heck, I'm against abortion. You reduce their numbers through support and education and creating a climate of personal responsibility, not by making abortion a capital crime. (That's right, folks; in Utah, abortion is a capital crime, and the only reason doctors who perform them aren't subject to the death penalty is Roe v. Wade.)

Read why the national organization Operation Rescue is no more. They were blockading a women's clinic when one of the patients, pregnant with a very wanted baby, arrived because she was spotting. They began to harass here, surrounding her in the street. She fell down there and miscarried. When she sued them, she got everything. Then tell me these bastards aren't anti-woman.

As for gay marriages, when the State gave itself the ability to license marriage, it created a legal contract of marriage that is separate and distinct from the religious sacrament of marriage. The State does not have the right to prevent anyone who is 1) of age and 2) mentally competent from entering into marriage any more than it has the right to prevent those same people from buying a house, starting a business, or accepting a job. The State will marry many people that churches won't. Try being a Jew and marrying a Hindu. The State will do it. Few houses of worship will.

Of course many of the states that will end up banning gay marriage until the Supreme Court rules it must be permitted are the same states that would ban gay employment and gay homeownership. Columbia students laughed at Ahmadinejad. The only reason John Huntsman doesn't say the same is that he can't lie on stage.

Comment: #3
Posted by: TychaBrahe
Sun May 24, 2009 4:32 AM

Report this post

Those that would call Pro hetero marriage bigots are bigots themselves. You are not allowing them to have their own opinion by treating their opinion as false and labeling them. I am in support of the state getting out of the marriage business. Marriage is defined in many religous scriptures and as such is a religous ceremony binding two people under their god. There are many churches that are not as strict that will preform a marriage ceremony for gay couples. Also, a civil union is the same as a marriage in everything but name. So, take marriage licenses away from the state and make everyone get civil union papers. Then find a church that you wish to get married at and get your marriage paperwork. You would end this debate here and now. Everyone would have equal rights. I welcome someone to challenge this proposal with a valid reason for how it would not work. Hetero sexual couples would still be married in the true sense of the word, and homosexual couples would still get equal rights and equal opprotunities.

Comment: #4
Posted by: Chrisoflucas
Wed May 27, 2009 12:01 PM

Report this post

This is why Bill O' Reilly sucks: http://tinyurl.com/cmla89

Comment: #5
Posted by: moneyremix
Thu May 28, 2009 7:53 AM

Report this post

Already have an account? Log in.