Barack Obama | Bill O'Reilly | Gay Marriage | News | Proposition 8

BigGayDeal.com

Watch: Bill O'Reilly Wonders Why Obama Opposes Gay Marriage

Oreilly

Bill O'Reilly and attorneys Tamara Holder and Jennifer Smetters discussed the Prop 8 ruling on FOX News last night.

I can't decide if watching sycophantic Smetters makes me want to laugh or cry, but she sure doesn't know what she's talking about. I'm surprised she doesn't have her info written on her palm. Holder, thankfully, is there to set her straight.

One thing they can all agree on is that none of them knows why Obama opposes gay marriage.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Is O'Reilly a complete idiot? In one breath he recognizes the right of the federal government to strike down the laws against inter-racial marriage in Loving v Virginia against the "will of the voters". In the next breath he is saying that marriage is a state issue that isn't addressed in the constitution so the federal government shouldn't be getting involved.

    You can't have it both ways.

    Posted by: Tim | Aug 6, 2010 8:26:23 AM


  2. Watching anything on FoxNews gives me a headache. Obama is just walking into a trap by opposing marriage equality. He thinks this will give him the mantel of being "moderate". The fact is he will NEVER get the support of the right wingers, and the so called "independents" will consider his position nonsensical. Don't get me wrong, he has done some good things, but he is forfeiting his chance to be a great president by not leading. To lead, you have to take a stand on controversial issues. He's just kicking the can down the road.

    Posted by: Mike | Aug 6, 2010 8:27:33 AM


  3. this poor hateful blond woman is silly stupid. I cannot believe she has a job on television.

    Posted by: Brad | Aug 6, 2010 8:28:29 AM


  4. WOW!!! Mike thanks for really saying something intelligent because Miss Michael Bedwell and the rest of the Obama troll nation are coming up in

    5...4...3..2...1...

    Posted by: RED DEVIL | Aug 6, 2010 8:32:21 AM


  5. One really has to wonder about the psychosexual programming motives of the Fox producers: older, white male "schooling" a couple of young, attractive women, they coded blonde/brunette, good/evil, Smetters nodding like a bobblehead toy. Does anyone else find this totally scripted, objectified, straight middle-aged male fantasy, designed to distract in any way possible from the substance at hand? Basic propaganda technique.

    Posted by: VSo | Aug 6, 2010 8:40:57 AM


  6. The reason Obama opposes gay marriage is because it is still politically safe to do so. It'd be wonderful if he would just stand up and do what he surely knows is the right thing, but he would much rather keep his job.

    Despite our general dissatisfaction with being handed one small crumb at a time, Obama can safely do this too, because it's not like any gay person with a brain would ever vote for Newt or Palin or Mittens or any other soulless twit offered up by the increasingly theocratic Republican party.

    Two party system, lesser of two evils, yadda yadda. It will never change.

    Posted by: homoDM | Aug 6, 2010 9:01:39 AM


  7. Bill does the set up. Bill then asks the guests to talk. Bill interrupts. They start to ta---Bill interrupts again. Bill asks a question, the guest tal---ooppps, there's Bill interrupting again.

    My question to O'Reilly, why bother having people on. Wouldn't it be cleaner to have no guests and just talk? Is the opposite of talking, waiting to talk as opposed to actually listening?

    And finally, to the the Smetters woman...I would imagine if I brought your bad nose job and ridiculous hair color and screeching voice up for a vote in California, I could get seven million people to ask that you never ever appear on TV again. Oh my God, every time she opened her mouth, I kept pleading, "Make it stop!!"

    Posted by: Bart | Aug 6, 2010 9:04:43 AM


  8. That Elle Woods character is a right old donut. What kind of 'trials' is she an attorney for ?

    Posted by: Paul | Aug 6, 2010 9:05:33 AM


  9. we all know he says he opposes GM to get votes to allow him into office to make other needed changes

    Posted by: rjp3 | Aug 6, 2010 9:13:58 AM


  10. Bill O'Reilly and Jennifer Smetters are full of crap. Marriage is NOT solely a state's rights issue. Otherwise the Supreme Court wouldn't have had the jurisdiction in overturning the bans on interracial marriage. They made a blanket ruling that prohibited states from discriminating against interracial couples. At the time, 70% of the public did NOT approve of interracial marriage. The S.C. overruled the "will of the people". Jennifer would obviously think that was the wrong decision. What a brain-dead idiot.

    Posted by: David in Houston | Aug 6, 2010 9:42:41 AM


  11. Smetters has no clue what she's talking about, and she looks absolutely ridiculous. Holder's not the strongest liberal but she's leagues beyond the blonde's limited thinking.

    Did O'Reilly insinuate at the end that state's rights are more important than individuals'? Who could sanely argue that?

    Posted by: Vincent | Aug 6, 2010 10:28:22 AM


  12. Bill O'Reilly knows why Obama 'opposes' gay marriage and that if he didn't, O'Reilly would be tearing him down for it as well as the rest of Fox news... every. single. day. What a disingenuous turd. Since Obama hasn't given them that convenient target on his forehead, they have to go for another angle. The "Why hasn't Obama supported gays?" angle, where he can continue to smear us while also highlighting a wedge between the President and a key Democratic constituency. In other words, coyly having it both ways.

    Posted by: Wes | Aug 6, 2010 10:29:59 AM


  13. Absolutely unbelievable.

    Posted by: VEK | Aug 6, 2010 10:31:20 AM


  14. How much coke did Jennifer snort before she went on air?

    I love how they keep referring to the 7 million votes that passed Prop 8, as if there were NO votes against it, and as if ballot propositions that steal away previously granted rights should be exempt from constitutional scrutiny. And shouldn't straight judges also recuse themselves from marriage cases since they have a vested interest in the matter? Maybe only those lacking any sexuality should rule on such cases. (Hmmm, who was just confirmed to the SC?)

    Posted by: Ernie | Aug 6, 2010 11:21:29 AM


  15. Well, good for Bill for bringing up Loving v. Virginia, though the bimbo completely missed his point (that judges rule using the Constitution, whether the masses agree or not, and in the case of interracial marriage the public was far more strongly against the idea and had to "catch up" 20 years later) and he didn't press it.

    Even Mildred Loving herself said, very eloquently, that her case was as much about the rights of same-sex couples as it was about interracial couples.

    As for the idea that Judge Walker "should have recused himself," (because only a virgin eunuch should decide on relationship law???) O'Reilly should have asked "In any case about religious liberty, should all judges who are Christian be required to recuse themselves so that only an agnostic judge can decide?"

    Posted by: GregV | Aug 6, 2010 12:56:14 PM


  16. Well that was a waste of time.

    Posted by: ichabod | Aug 6, 2010 1:32:45 PM


  17. Re: Smetters. Don't you hate when Conservatives almost literally drape themselves in the American flag? Conservatives are "real" Americans. Liberals are America-hating elitists. When will Liberals learn to take back the mantle of patriotism? (Of course, she's a prattling dolt.)

    Re: Holder. While a voice of reason, she should have presented herself much better. Why be corrected about Reagan appointment? Sloppy. There were many strong issues in the Court ruling and she didn't use them effectively.

    Re: 7 Million voters. The total votes were 7 Million for Prop 8 and 6.4 Million against. So, 600,000 people were overruled. That's 5% of the voters.

    Re: Recusal. If a gay judge would have to recuse himself, so would a married judge...or a Christian Fundamentalist judge....or a ...... And, of course, no case about minority rights could ever have a judge who part of a minority.

    Posted by: gr8guyca | Aug 6, 2010 2:24:58 PM


  18. Holy cow, Bill O made himself look slightly liberal (during the first few minutes) when he shut down that DUMB blond by telling her that the majority rule is NOT always right.

    Smetters is on something. Where do they get these IDIOTS. She looks like she should be in bad straight porn with all her head bobs, not commenting on anything.

    Posted by: Joe | Aug 6, 2010 8:19:57 PM


  19. Our government shouldn't be involved in this issue in the first place! The less government control we have the better our country will be! Two men or two women are free to live together and raise a family without government intrusion, a ban on Gay Marriage has no bearings on a personal choice and two men or two women living together is not illegal! This is not a civil rights issue because there are no acts of violence or threats of violence against personal life when it gets to that point then the government can step in! What you do in the privacy of you own home is your business as long as it doesn't physically harm someone else! It becomes a Public issue when you put money into the equation and that is why we have this debate Marriage is about Money! People are free to do what they want as Americans without Government involvement!

    Posted by: Ivan | Aug 7, 2010 2:23:01 PM


  20. @Ivan... By your thinking, interracial marriage should not be protected by law as well. There is no law saying that a man of one race can't live with a woman of another race.

    The fact is, without the protection marriage offers, a family can not exist in today's society. Marriage allows for the right to make decisions medically for the one's spouse when that person is unable to make that decision.

    If I had a partner that was in the hospital. The hospital does not have to allow me to see my partner. If I were legally married to my partner, they can't refuse.

    In most, if not all, states. Adoption is next to impossible for single individuals. Marriage makes it easier.

    If one of the couple in a relationship has a child, the other has no legal right to make any decisions regarding the child. In a marriage, the couple shares the decision process and the law acknowledges it.

    So, no, this is not just about money. It is about equal rights. Just because we are gay, does not mean we are not human.

    The law is meant to protect the human rights of ALL of the citizens. If that means that the law has to overturn the "moral wants" of others, tough. That is what it is supposed to do.

    Without the Constitution, there would be no states! The Constitution gives us these rights. ALL men (& women) are created equal. By that statement alone, a homosexual person should have complete access to any and all rights and privileges of a heterosexual person.

    Posted by: Richard | Aug 27, 2010 4:50:10 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Larry Kramer: Barbra Streisand a Hypocrite on Gay Rights« «