Chick-fil-A | FOX News | Gay Marriage | Megyn Kelly | News

Megyn Kelly: Why is Anti-Gay Discrimination Any Different Than That Against Women and Blacks? - VIDEO


“This country has a long history of discrimination against certain groups. Eventually we wind up getting it right. Right? Against women, against blacks, the civil rights movement and so on. And in justifying that discrimination when it was in place, some folks turn to the Bible and turn to their religious beliefs and said we have to have slavery because it’s in the Bible. Women have to be second-class citizens because that’s in the Bible. Blacks and whites can’t get married because that’s in the Bible. That wound up in a case. A judge wrote that in an opinion, which the Supreme Court ultimately struck that down, saying that’s not right, judge—the Equal Protection clause says you can't do that. Why is gay marriage any different?”

— FOX News Anchor Megyn Kelly, AFTER THE JUMP...

(via good as you)

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. @RWG

    I think you completely misunderstood his comment. I believe he meant that granting access to marriage to same-sex couples in a court ruling would not require rewriting all of these laws as they are now, not that these laws already grant access to gay couples.

    Posted by: BL | Aug 3, 2012 1:47:40 PM

  2. I am so tired of the media, not only in this clip but on CNN and all over the place, FLASELY stating this as a case of Dan Cathy being "blasted for his support of traditional marriage."

    NOBODY IS BOTHERED if he supports traditional marriage! My own parents have a very traditional marriage, which I fully support! They also fully support same-sex couples' right to likewise be married.
    Dan Cathy's marriage is NOT the problem.

    The problem is that he has given millions of dollars to bona fide hate groups that support disenfranchising gay people by denying them human rights. Some of the groups he's contributed to have even lent support to the horrific "Kill-The-Gays Bill" in Uganda.

    As far as the polygamy issue, that is a total red herring and a completely unrelated issue. Couples can in every practical way be covered by exactly the same laws regardless of traits like gender or race or height or weight. The same can NOT be said for "number."

    In fact, though this guy did not mention the name of the case he vaguely refers to, I remember when someone in a different interview made a similar claim about a polygamist case being tied to same-sex marriage. I looked at the website of the polygamist group that was making that case, and they stressed EXACTLY the opposite. They said it is totally unlike same-sex marriage because same-sex couples are seeking the same rights and responsibilities as any other two-person couple while polygamists realize that is logically impossible for groups who are not couples and they only want their situations decriminalized. (For example, they know that they cannot expect to pay the same to socal security as everyone else does and then get death benefits checks sent to 15 different spouses when they die.)

    Journalists need to start pointing out that these two situations are in no way tied together.

    Posted by: GregV | Aug 3, 2012 1:51:42 PM

  3. Jeffers quotes the Bible in Matthew 19. Unfortunately, he gets it wrong. Jesus doesn't espouse one man and one woman. He's ASKED A QUESTION about a man divorcing his wife and he answer it in that context. I won't even get into historical context of Jesus' life, the time and place in which he lived etc., which the pastor ignores. If they want to live that life, I suggest they all move to the Sinai penninsula,give up their cell phones and their 500 dollar suits and, I would wish them well.

    What these ignoramouses all talk around is the fact that when you're supporting a negative, supporting inequality, your beliefs are anti-Christian. There is simply no way around that. Their views are antithetical to everything Jesus Christ as a historical figure stood for. Whether or not you believe him to be the Messiah isn't the point...look at his life, look at his words, look at his actions. These people are the Pharisees which he challeged every step.

    Posted by: Bart | Aug 3, 2012 1:59:06 PM

  4. I understood RHR to be saying what RICH F. explained, above. The IRS, SSA, or any other agency would not require [expensive] software changes to implement equality today. And if somewhere there is a database that requires Husband/Wife designations... just toss a coin.

    This isn't a Y2K-scale conversion project.

    Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen | Aug 3, 2012 2:00:14 PM

  5. If gay marriage becomes the law of the land, doesn't he realize that he, and any pastor of any denomination who believes as he does, WILL NOT BE REQUIRED BY LAW to perform these ceremonies? Civil marriages and marriages in gay-affirming churches will be the norm.

    Posted by: Tessie Tura | Aug 3, 2012 2:00:54 PM

  6. @FML: I think you mistook what RHRinTN meant. Gay couples COULD be covered by existing rules and regulations of marriage simply by removing the discrimination (just as inter-racial couples have bee nin the past and as same-sex couples already are in countries where their rights are respected). The rights and responsibilities and calculations don't need to be in any way re-written for a male spouse vs. a female one (just as they don't need to be altered for a black spouse vs. a white one or a tall one vs. a short one).
    That doesn't mean that gay couples already have such rights in places like Tennessee, but just that current formulas that apply to mixed-sex couples need not be altered in any way when a jurisdiction chooses to stop discriminating against gay couples.

    Posted by: GregV | Aug 3, 2012 2:01:33 PM

  7. He sounds and moves his mouth like Leslie Jordan.

    Posted by: JellyBean | Aug 3, 2012 2:04:57 PM

  8. Who let Brother Boy become the minister of a Baptist Church in Texas? Escandalo!

    Posted by: Harry Saxon | Aug 3, 2012 2:18:06 PM

  9. It's pointless to argue about biblical interpretation. Rather it's more important to point out that it provides no basis for US Law interpretation, nor has any singular interpretation that scholars can agree on in today's world. All biblical arguments are a time-waster. Just say the Bible has no bona fides and move on.

    Posted by: anon | Aug 3, 2012 2:24:08 PM

  10. wow! I just checked back in to follow up. I apologize for not stating my case more clearly.

    If DOMA were to be overturned and marriage equality was the law of the land, the IRS would not have to restructure any of the existing programs, as they are all set up for two people already.

    Thanks for having my back in my absence, guys!

    Posted by: RHR IN TN | Aug 3, 2012 2:45:36 PM

  11. I'm still unclear about what the goal of the boycott is. Someone above said that the boycott is about the money that was donated and not about what Mr. Cathy believes. If that's the case, can we start eating there again if the company makes a pledge to no longer donate to those groups?

    Posted by: John | Aug 3, 2012 2:51:35 PM

  12. John, you can still eat there now if you wish, just know that you are spending your money against your own best interest. Of course, if he were to pledge, and actually follow through on his pledge, to stop donating to those groups, then we could eat there if we wish without contributing to causes that would harm our interests. His personal beliefs are NOT the issue. The issue is and always has been, the organizations to whom he contributes. Equality has nothing to do with whether someone else agrees with us or not, only whether we stand equally in the sight of the law. There will always be those with whom we disagree.
    In the late eighties, the gay communities in the South boycotted Philip Morris for their support of Jesse Helms. Not a small feat considering their products were the number one sellers in gay bars at the time, and may still be. Helms still won reelection, but Philip Morris took note. They now donate a great deal of money to gay causes and reap the benefits of their support.

    Posted by: Kenneth | Aug 3, 2012 3:56:34 PM

  13. Chick-fil-A only offers domestic partner health benefits in places that mandate such coverage. It IS a civil rights issue for their employees. That's the crux of the issue. They do discriminate.

    Posted by: Alex | Aug 3, 2012 3:56:50 PM

  14. Kelly didn't get it right either.

    Again, the point isn't that he's expressing his right to free speech, it's that (and I'm sorry, but I have to use all caps to make this point because no one seems to be getting it)


    Is anyone getting this right? Rachel Maddow? Anderson Cooper? Thomas Roberts?

    Hello? Is anyone there???

    Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Aug 3, 2012 4:02:49 PM

  15. Magen Kelly has supported gay adoptions, transgenders, and very vocally Chaz Bono in the past. I REALLY believe she is in actuality a big champion of our community but can only say so much on the network. Every now & then, it slips and you realize she's an ally.

    Posted by: cj | Aug 3, 2012 4:42:59 PM

  16. Megyn Kelly has in the past defended us before. I saw a segment last year while flipping the channel and was surprised by her comments, in a good way.
    I personally like her.

    Posted by: Max R. | Aug 3, 2012 4:44:45 PM

  17. With friends like Emanuel and Menino, who needs enemies? They have done enormous damage.

    Love Megyn Kelly. All the condemnations of Fox News are just knee-jerk reactions to O'Reilly and Hannity.

    Where was the outrage when Obama had exactly the same opposition based on his Christian beliefs?

    Posted by: LincolnLounger | Aug 3, 2012 8:15:53 PM

  18. omg i must have read the wrong bible, what are they reading the crazy hidden scriptures that we don't know about. what else are the hateful bible thumpers going on bout now.

    Posted by: albertam | Aug 3, 2012 11:07:31 PM

  19. everyone who thinks this is an issue of "the first amendment" is not only completely unaware of what the first amendment actually IS but also has no idea about what this whole chick-fil-a thing is.

    it aint about speech, folks. attempt to understand the facts.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Aug 4, 2012 12:51:39 PM

  20. Wanting to limit speech/expression of religious views you don't agree with is not a liberal play book thing. Conservatives have made long practice of that - like that drummed up stupid controversy they made over the so-called "ground zero mosque" and trying to have it forbidden.

    Posted by: greg | Aug 4, 2012 2:47:09 PM

  21. This explains why are Americans are fat and unhealthy. The rally around fast food but don't protest The NRA still trying to get rid of gun laws after the movie theater killings.

    Posted by: Arthur | Aug 5, 2012 2:45:14 AM

  22. If one is Not a Believer, it is no wonder he/she dismisses the Word of God. The Word says, "We ought to obey God rather than men." Leviticus 18:22..."Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman--that is detestable." I Cor. 7:2 "Let every MAN have his own WIFE, & every WOMAN have HER own HUSBAND." I Cor. 6:9 "Do you not know that the WICKED shall not inherit the Kingdon of God?...sexually immoral, homosexual offenders..." BUT...such persons can be saved. "And that is what some of you were"--These homosexuals were saved by ACCEPTING Jesus Christ as their personal SAVIOR. Megyn, it really doesn't matter WHAT I THINK...IT IS WHAT GOD SAYS IS RIGHT AND CORRECT. Yes, God is very narrow-minded...a man and a woman make a marriage....Kenneth Owen, a Christian from Amarillo, Texas...I don't thump the Bible--I read it! AND...I believe it...

    Posted by: Ken Owen | Apr 2, 2013 10:46:12 PM

  23. « 1 2

Post a comment


« «Romney's Horse Rafalca Stars in New MoveOn Ad: VIDEO« «