Bill O'Reilly | California | Gay Marriage | News

Bill O'Reilly Guest Bombs with No Reasons to Oppose Gay Marriage


Bill O'Reilly brought on Family Law Attorney Don Schweitzer, who is opposed to same-sex marriage, on the Factor last night to ask him for some reasons why same-sex marriage is not good for the state of California.

For all practical purposes, he couldn't come up with any.

Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. This reminds me of the infamous Chris Matthews "appeasement" interview/smackdown. This guy has NOTHING to say but the same mindless talking point over and over.

    By the way--and not just because of this clip--I think Californians will defeat the pro-discrimination measure this fall. People really are in a "change" mindset this year, in all kinds of ways. Thanks, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney!

    Posted by: Miles | May 29, 2008 8:28:15 AM

  2. LOL

    toto spam advertising on the wrong sight obviously

    LOL Who here actualy wants a woman no matter how rich she is? How many Lesbian sisters who read towleroad want a man no matter how rich he is?


    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 29, 2008 8:33:20 AM

  3. I...was just in the Matrix. Because Bill O'Reilly made sense. Apparently, that clip is sort of what it will look like when you look into the abyss.

    Posted by: Mike B. | May 29, 2008 9:18:26 AM

  4. Woah... for probably the first time ever, I kinda have respect, if not a bit of love for Bill O'Reilly. What's happening to me?

    But seriously, these opponents of gay marriage are such gooses. Not only have they not put forth some vile, borderline-insane bigoted reason against it...

    They just can't come up with 1 for frick's sake!

    Posted by: Paulie | May 29, 2008 9:18:47 AM

  5. Woah... for probably the first time ever, I kinda have respect, if not a bit of love for Bill O'Reilly. What's happening to me?

    But seriously, these opponents of gay marriage are such gooses. Not only have they not put forth some vile, borderline-insane bigoted reason against it...

    They just can't come up with 1 for frick's sake!

    Posted by: Paulie | May 29, 2008 9:19:46 AM

  6. OMG! Bill's given up! We must've won!

    Posted by: nudel | May 29, 2008 9:25:24 AM

  7. I love it...basically this asshole guy is saying that Heteros don't want to SHARE the Name Marriage...ahh, that's thier reason. I see....back when inter-racial couples fought for the right to Marry..they wanted to Call thier Marriages "something else" too...because it was different...Lame,lame. EQUALITY FOR ALL AMERICANS!

    Posted by: Disgusted American | May 29, 2008 9:36:54 AM

  8. "So you really don't have a reason." "You haven't really given one." "I don't think that's going to cut it." These comments from O'Reilly no less!

    The opposition to our basic human right to marry is crumbling before our eyes. Their "spokesperson" is left with nothing more than an appeal to "age old" bigotry.

    See you in November! Change is indeed a'comin' and none too soon.

    Posted by: rudy | May 29, 2008 9:38:48 AM

  9. I have YET to hear one solid argument that makes any sense that gay marriage will undermine the tradition of a man and woman in matrimony! How are WE going to destroy hetero marriages? The divorce rate in this country is at an all time high. Divorce is easy to do. Drug use is rampant,child abuse is rampant, crime is rampant, poverty still exists and we as a country are ask to believe that the issue of gay marriage is going to destroy....what?
    As a gay man in a long-term relationship who pays his taxes I am denied the benefits readily available to all hetero marriages (whether traditional or common-law) We don't need a church wedding but we do want the benefits that hetero couples in wedlock receive.If my "gay" money paid in taxes isn't welcomed then please at least exempt us from paying!

    Posted by: tommy | May 29, 2008 9:45:28 AM

  10. What idiots...they both talk as if the California decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court. IT CAN'T. The Federal Courts can not tell California how to interpret their own constitution! Only the California courts can do that, and the highest court in California has spoken! There can be no further appeal of the substantive issues decided by the SC California.

    Posted by: Chan | May 29, 2008 10:03:01 AM

  11. Forget about what's going on in Iraq (Babylon); forget about plagues, famine, disease and pestilence. Forget about wars and rumors of wars.

    Bill O’Reilly making sense, and on gay marriage no less, is the EIGHTH sign of the Apocalypse!

    Hell has finally completely frozen over!

    Posted by: Zeke | May 29, 2008 10:52:53 AM

  12. I can't wait to see what all these "let the people decide" folks are gonna say when the people of CA vote this amendment down.

    You can bet your sweet patoot that their talking point toon will change over night. We just got a glimps into their next whining point in this interview. If "the people" which these people have so much faith in decide to support marriage equality then they'll try to take it to the Supreme Court of the US so that the activist judges there can overrule the will of the people. In spite of the fact that that option is not available to them you can't help but see the irony in that strategy.

    Posted by: Zeke | May 29, 2008 11:01:53 AM

  13. Bill was being pragmatically sarcastic.

    Posted by: anon | May 29, 2008 11:31:46 AM

  14. Personally, I'm more interested in the repeal of DOMA (my partner from California and I live in different countries, and even if we were able to get married, I wouldn't be able to immigrate so long as DOMA is in place).

    Posted by: William | May 29, 2008 11:32:02 AM

  15. omg i never watch him, but i love this clip.....

    Posted by: dave | May 29, 2008 12:13:46 PM

  16. Certainly Bill O at his most reasonable and level-headed, at least in appearance. But you've got to think that he somehow has in his head that he can play it like Colbert a little, use some reverse-psych to get the right wing motivated. And he's absolutely right that the old purely-religious-based, destruction of the sanctity of marriage-arguments just aren't going to work anymore.

    Just like the GOP in general, Bill O is sweating in his undies at the state of affairs right now, namely that the GOP's grave has been dug, and they're standing on the edge of it losing their balance.

    Posted by: JeffRob | May 29, 2008 1:42:19 PM

  17. You could see how annoyed Bill O'Reilly was getting at the inability of his host on finding good reasons apart from religion to oppose gay marriage. That's because there aren't good reasons, this is nothing more than a religious issue for the conservative base.

    Posted by: DevonFairchild | May 29, 2008 3:19:10 PM

  18. Amusingly, this lawyer was suspended from the bar for 60 days after a felony conviction for assaulting his ex-wife's boyfriend.

    Good stuff.

    January 10, 2003

    DONALD PHILIP SCHWEITZER [#166412], 43, of Pasadena was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on 36 months of probation with a 60-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. Credit toward the actual suspension will be given for an interim suspension which began July 14, 2002. The order took effect Jan. 10, 2003.

    Schweitzer pleaded guilty to felony assault, a charge later reduced to a misdemeanor. He had an ongoing custody battle with his estranged wife and one evening entered her apartment and beat her boyfriend. Schweitzer broke his hand in the assault and the victim suffered jaw pain and significant bleeding.

    The criminal conduct did not involve moral turpitude.

    In mitigation, he has no record of discipline in nine years, was having severe family problems at the time that affected his emotional state, and reports involvement in community activities. His actions cost him his job as an Orange County deputy district attorney.

    June 14, 2002

    DONALD PHILIP SCHWEITZER [#166412], 43, of Norwalk was placed on interim suspension June 14, 2002, following a conviction for. The suspension ended Sept. 12 and he returned to active status. He was ordered to comply with rule 955.

    Posted by: deanp | May 29, 2008 3:44:05 PM

  19. Not only did the CA Supreme Court annihilate the legal rationale for the marriage ban, it did so while led by a conservative-appointed Chief Justice. The opponents can't look at this decision and say it's from a liberal, "activist" court. The court, rightly, made the analogy to inter-racial marriage. It helps to recall that before the Supreme Court ended the laws against inter-racial marriage, people used biblical rationales for that as well. Famously, a lower court judge said that God created the races to be placed in separate locations, ie. different continents, so it was God's will that the races not inter-marry. I hope this parallel will be used in the campaign to stop the passage of the amendment. This argument appeals to the basic fairness of the people of California.

    Posted by: gr8guyca | May 29, 2008 4:12:57 PM

  20. Good segment, but Bill never asked the follow up question. Since the only reason that he has against gay marriage is that the people do not want it, will he accept gay marriage if the people do not vote for the constitutional amendment. Let's not forget that the California legislature has already twice voted in favor of gay marriage and Arnold vetoed it saying that he did so because it was an issue that the courts should decide.

    Posted by: ado | May 29, 2008 4:25:10 PM

  21. Also, he can't possibly have passed first year civil procedure. There is no way this can be appealed to the US supreme court. The CA SC made this determination on the basis of the state constitution, not the federal one. The SCOTUS defers to the highest court of each state on their interpretation of their own constitutions. There's nothing to appeal.

    Posted by: lawstud | May 29, 2008 5:45:18 PM

  22. "I am not a biggot"...what the hell ever! He has NO viable reason for not allowing gay marriage.

    Posted by: RB | May 29, 2008 9:11:45 PM

  23. Schweitzer opposes the theft of the term ‘marriage’ by same sex union word bandits because the ‘people’ do not want 'marriage' to be confused with same sex unions, because they’re as ‘different’ as winter and summer. I don’t understand. I must have missed that episode of People’s Court.

    Posted by: MarylandMike | May 29, 2008 10:14:33 PM

  24. I'm not a fan of Bill O' Reilly but he handled that guy pretty well. Excluding religious reasons there is no valid argument against gay marriage.

    Posted by: MC | May 30, 2008 1:43:38 AM

  25. Let's be clear here...Bill O'Reilly is NOT for Gay Marriage. He was just pointing out to this idiot that they are going to lose their petition to amend the CA constitution if they don't make a good case for it.

    Posted by: Patrick | May 30, 2008 9:38:20 AM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «VMan/Ford Models Modeling Contest Winner Announced« «