Bill O'Reilly | Gay Marriage | News | Rick Santorum

Bill O'Reilly Questions Rick Santorum About His 'Extreme' Plans to Invalidate Same-Sex Marriage Licenses: VIDEO


Rick Santorum entered Bill O'Reilly's 'no spin zone' last night and was questioned about how he's going to respond to people who believe his views on social issues like abortion, gays in the military, and same-sex marriage, are extreme.

Santorum doesn't believe his views are extreme: "I don't think being for marriage between man and a woman is extreme, Bill."

Says O'Reilly: "To rescind licenses already given? That's a big deal."

Says Santorum: "The federal government would have to pass a constitutional amendment and if the Constitution says that marriage is between a man and woman, then things that are inconsistent with that would not — would be inconsistent with the Constitution..."

Santorum then says he doesn't talk about gay issues a lot, adding:

"...this is the fundamental issue in this campaign is whether government is going to be big and obtrusive and telling people how to manage their — their lives or — and are they going to support the basic values of faith and family that allow government to be limited and allow our economy to be strong."


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Really, he doesn't talk gay issues a lot? I'm sure Jon Stewart has quite a few segments on "frothy mix".

    If anything, someone at his campaign told him to tone down the social issues but those videos still exist and will come back to haunt him.

    Posted by: Sam | Jan 5, 2012 12:40:08 PM

  2. He's not long for this campaign. Even if he gets the nomination he is so extreme that even moderate conservatives should find him to be on the fringe. Besides no one will vote for a President who's name is synonymous with sh!t.

    Posted by: FernLaPlante | Jan 5, 2012 12:41:55 PM

  3. Good job talking out of both sides of your a**hat, Frothy.

    Posted by: TJ | Jan 5, 2012 12:42:41 PM

  4. If Santorum demands that homosexual people stop being homosexual through government restrictions on their rights and lives, then he is a hypocrite about hating big government: He hates when a "...government is going to be big and obtrusive and telling people how to manage their — their lives...". But he wants his presidency to tell people how to manage their lives by revoking their rights to marry or to live openly as homosexuals.

    Read more:

    Posted by: trees | Jan 5, 2012 12:45:19 PM

  5. Third-party assholes trying to dissolve same-sex marriages? Not a surprise at all. It's been very under the radar, but you know they dream about it. It first popped up when they tried to invalidate existing marriages in CA. It's specifically why we did not get married in Mass. back when the residency requirement/agreement was still a part of the process for out-of-staters getting married there.

    The law (overturned in the legislature and with the governor's signature effective 2009) would have opened the door to third-party suits filing for divorce on the basis of someone not actually taking up residence in MA after the wedding.

    It seemed like such a small loophole, but you KNOW the crazies/fundies/Koch whores would have gotten their camel-nose right up to that tent.

    Posted by: Name2 | Jan 5, 2012 12:48:05 PM

  6. Campaigning for and passing a US Constitutional Amendment to directly target gays and lesbians is about as unobtrusive as you can get!

    (that and he probably meant "intrusive"... idiot.)

    Posted by: KiltBear | Jan 5, 2012 12:50:35 PM

  7. "...this is the fundamental issue in this campaign is whether government is going to be big and obtrusive and telling people how to manage their — their lives or — and are they going to support the basic values of faith and family that allow government to be limited and allow our economy to be strong."

    This is a false dilemma. There is not an either/or in reducing government intrusion into personal rights vs. marriage equality. In fact, he has it twisted (no surprise). Supporting what he considers to be the basic values of faith and family (and by extension, excluding those which do not align with his vision of same) would be a higher level of government intrusion than legalizing marriage equality would be.

    Posted by: Jeffrey in St. Louis | Jan 5, 2012 12:50:49 PM

  8. Doesn't talk about gay issues a lot?!!! That's the only issue he's talked about during this whole campaign, how to stop the gays from marrying, how to invalidate current gay marriages, how to take rights away from gay people, blah, blah, blah. That's all he's ever talked about, it's truly an obsession with him. How stupid does he think we are? He truly takes hypocrisy to a new level. It's going to be a long year listening to his crap everyday.

    Posted by: Matthew | Jan 5, 2012 12:52:32 PM

  9. So, the rightwingers couldn't change the banker bnuses when the government bailed them out because they all had contracts.

    But, if it suits the rightwinger purposes they can easily break gay marriage contracts.

    Do these rightwing nutjobs ever remember what they've said before?

    Do they ever not lie?

    Posted by: Continuum | Jan 5, 2012 12:56:40 PM

  10. He makes me wnt to throw away all of my beloved sweater vests.

    Posted by: TJ | Jan 5, 2012 12:57:17 PM

  11. The New York Times has an article describing how his wife had to have an induced abortion. What a complete, utter hypocrite.

    Posted by: homer | Jan 5, 2012 12:59:51 PM

  12. If it ever happened my husband and I would have to escape the oppressive American regime and claim refugee status in a country that respects freedom, equality and basic human rights.

    Posted by: Trev | Jan 5, 2012 1:00:36 PM

  13. Divorce by constitutional amendment. That would be an interesting legal situation. In a few states it is still difficult to divorce if one of the parties wishes to remain married - it would be fascinating to watch how courts deal with a divorce where neither party wants to end the marriage.

    Santorum is a waste of oxygen.

    Posted by: MikeBoston | Jan 5, 2012 1:12:02 PM

  14. This is the exact same issue as in CA. They changed the constitution, yet those marriages are still valid.

    Passing a constitutional amendment to retroactively changing someone's legal status is still an ex-post facto law, no matter how you go about it.

    Posted by: Steve | Jan 5, 2012 1:13:04 PM

  15. Will he will be Romney's running mate?
    Could this sort of "flip flop" be part of a bigger more frightening picture?

    Posted by: Vern Dufford | Jan 5, 2012 1:14:06 PM

  16. The SNL skit poking fun at Santorum couldn't be closer to the truth!

    The skit included the moderator saying of Santorum, "he looks confused by everyday life".

    It's SO true!

    Posted by: Ron | Jan 5, 2012 1:14:40 PM

  17. He is the definition of "doublespeak". "Telling people how to manage their lives"--no, he's not doing that at all by trampling on people's marriage rights.

    Posted by: rayy | Jan 5, 2012 1:21:44 PM

  18. Wow, when even Bill O'Reilly calls your conservative standpoint extreme, you know youve entered the twilight zone...

    Posted by: Snownova | Jan 5, 2012 1:29:53 PM

  19. Unfortunately, his extreme, bigoted right-wing views will play very well to the 27% that make up the lunatic fringe of the Republican base. That will be a constant no matter what he says or does.

    What's going to demolish his standing with the moderates and independents is going to be his dealings with bogus charities, crooked lobbyists and his deep involvement with convicted felon Tom Delay and the K-Street projects. I believe we'll see this in a big way during the debates this week-end.

    Aside from being a bigoted hypocrite, he's a thief, a liar and a coward who in no way is prepared for the scrutiny a presidential run brings on. You can read all about Ricky-boy here:

    Then read the comments... Have a bottle of scotch handy.

    Posted by: Tim Tondreault | Jan 5, 2012 1:35:42 PM

  20. O'Reilly isn't so clear himself. He's given interviews to gay magazines where he says that gays deserve equal rights.

    OH WAIT. The hypocrisy and mindlessness of both these guys is the issue.

    Santorum has zero chance. The Repubs are screwed with all their candidates. They couldn't find anyone willing to endure a brutal campaign in a horrible economic environment.

    Every single one has major issues to be exploited. Hate Obama all that you like, but he hasn't been an embarrassment. Santorum, Perry, Paul, Romney....they cannot win because they're dimwits or extremists. I'd love to see Obama debate any of them, because it would be a brutal smackdown.

    Posted by: Paul R | Jan 5, 2012 1:37:49 PM

  21. I guess everyone realizes this, but I don't see any difference between Romney and Santorum on this issue. Both have pledged to work to pass a federal marriage amendment, which would seemingly have the effect of dissolving any gay marriages anywhere in the country. (It might be litigated up to SCOTUS. Here in California, of course, Prop 8 was interpreted not to dissolve previously existing marriages.)

    I realize that such an amendment has very little chance of passage.

    Posted by: Matt | Jan 5, 2012 2:11:34 PM

  22. Who but the republican party could produce such dimwits and morons? It's a breeding ground for them. If I were a gay republican including civil liberarians, I'd be beyond embarrassed to be associated with any of them, let alone voting for the very people who don't want us to have full equality. Not even Ron Paul does because he also supports DOMA if states so legislate.

    Posted by: Robert in NYC | Jan 5, 2012 2:23:10 PM

  23. Yes, because the single time in our history where an amendment actually took something away from the people, rather than extending their rights, it worked out swimmingly.

    Posted by: kpo5 | Jan 5, 2012 2:25:54 PM

  24. As much as Bill O'Reilly makes my flesh crawl, he's one of the few who has raised extremism in relationship to Frothy's anti-gay agenda (haha, Frothy doesn't talk a lot about gay issues--he's obsessed by homosexuality!) and is challenging Frothy on his very radical plan to not only exclude gay couples from civil marriage but to go about abolishing the legal marriages of all those couples who already have them. The radicalism of cherry-picking legal marriages for destruction has mostly been ignored by lazy journalists who are either too indifferent or too ignorant to understand extremism if its anti-gay extremism. So, kudos, Bill--still a d**chebag, but he did his job here better than most.

    Frothy's campaign will die eventually, but until it does journalists need to call him on his "family-values" BS or they're complicit in his homophobia.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jan 5, 2012 2:29:36 PM

  25. a candidate for president of the united states cant be bothered to wear a suit? Call me crazy but I dont want creepy uncle Rick and his sweater vest collection calling the shots...also..hypocrite...

    Posted by: Amaezm | Jan 5, 2012 2:31:28 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz Calls Santorum's Anti-Gay Marriage Plan 'Inappropriate and Unacceptable': VIDEO« «