1. EYEROLL says

    You know what the biggest threat to a marriage is? Telling another woman, who isn’t your wife, your sexual fantasies and getting slapped with a sexual harrasement suit.

  2. says

    Except….the folks in Utah who put this through don’t want gays to marry. “Gay Marriage” didn’t pave the way for this polygamy law, this polygamy thang came *first*.

    Then O’Reilly grabbed a falafel and soaped up a woman’s boobs with it.

    Still, I don’t see how any of this will dissolve straight folks’ marriages.

  3. Jack M says

    I got news for Bill. If straight people are still getting married despite all the domestic abuse and adultery going on, I would say straight marriage is in no danger of becoming a thing of the past.

  4. Michael Heynz says

    One thing you can always count on: If FOX says something, you know it CAN’T be true. Unless of course they are reporting what they have hacked into someone’s account and stolen.

  5. CPT_Doom says

    Frothy mix didn’t “predict” anything. From the moment the Lawrence v. Texas decision – which declared states cannot make specific forms of sexual acts between consenting adults illegal – came down, this portion of the Utah law was unconstitutional. It just took this long for someone to challenge it. What a maroon.

  6. Gregory In Seattle says

    Never mind the fact that the ruling did nothing more than strike down a cohabitation law which made it technically illegal to have an adult roommate, and that nothing has changed with regards to actual legal marriage.

    But then, facts just aren’t the strong suit of American conservatives.

  7. DN says

    It was a throwaway line at the end, but someone said something true, insightful, and that runs against common social perception!

    “I didn’t violate your constitutional rights, did I”

    “You can’t; only the government can do that.”

    Napolitano is 100% right and the world would be so much better off for understanding that.

  8. JackFknTwist says

    The idea of listening to anything this toad has to say on any subject repels me.

    He is a fool beyond redemption, and as many have pointed out a stinking hypocrite.
    If anyone has taken his thirty pieces of silver this toad has.
    Phuck him and the horse he rode in on.

  9. Richard says

    Oh, god, really? Morons like O’Reilly will defy reason and basic intelligence to march in lock step with Tony Perkins and the rest of the vile, demented homophobes running the far-right flank of the GOP.

  10. says

    There’s a difference between Frothy and O’Reilly.

    O’Reilly knows what he says is stupid, but says it anyway because he is an attention and ratings seeking troll.

    Frothy says this because he is an idiot and actually believes the sh*t is spews.

  11. Rick Sanscrotum says

    I wish O’Reilly could make up his mind. Either he is FOR the protection of freedom to practice one’s religion or he isn’t. But he’s trying to have his cake and eat it too!

    This was a ruling by a conservative Mormon judge, protecting the rights of FLDS families to co-habitate in plural RELIGIOUS marriages, not legally recognized ones.

    O’Reilly has argued for protection of religious freedoms when it’s a matter of expanding marriage equality. And then when he gets a ruling precisely designed to protect free exercise of religion, he turns around and BLAMES the gays, who had NOTHING to do with this ruling, which had NOTHING to do with the gays!

  12. calpoidog says

    The only part that was decriminalized was the part that said you can’t even live together…that’s against the freedom of association in the US Constitution and makes complete sense. The US Supreme Court has previously upheld laws against polygamy so the only thing these guys get are fear mongering talking points. Regardless, the train on same sex marriage has left the station. Find something else to worry about.

  13. Jay says

    Ridiculous! You know what’s destroying marriages across this Country? Drugs, debts and self destructive behavior. Why don’t you tackle those very real threats to the institution of marriage which you so desperately seem to want to protect?

  14. woodroad34 says

    Geez! What socio-pathic liars and human pathogens these people are. All the ruling says is that you can have as many people living with you that you want. It doesn’t say that someone can have multiple legal wives/husbands with multiple marriage licenses–just like any other state. This is why these people can’t hold public office: their facts are wrong and their rational thinking skills are almost non-existant. Such disgusting meat sacks.

  15. Hey Darlin' says

    Two dim bulbs attempt to attach two ideas together and fail miserably. Without the necessary wattage, in the dark, everything connects to legalized gay marriage.

    Necessary benefits are still tied to marriage, so that kills the procreation logic. They obviously think it’s a good line of deception though, they’ve been using that one for a while now. If the logic goes that it’s only for supposed protection of those able to procreate then why are others who can’t procreate allowed to marry, except only “the gays” and why are those who procreate not also forced to marry? Wait, it’s not because in modern society people have a choice is it, when was that allowed to happen?

    Also, where’s the alternate protection for the children being raised by two loving gay parents or can they just go to hell? If you don’t like the choice we’ve made to fight for our children’s rights but have also not spent any time providing equal protection without marriage then I fail to see your reasoning that it’s for “children” ANY children.

    The children of straight parents won’t change one bit either by their schoolmates being able to receive the same protection as them. We also should just let our children’s rights be stolen from their only family because it’s only about children of someone who procreates, that’s doing an awful disservice to some of those children you are “protecting” right?.

    OR, in reality, is this discussion just so we will lash out at the polygamists and draw them to your side?

  16. RonCharles says

    FuryOffFireStorm is right! Bill O’Reilly does not believe any of this nonsense. Like Anne Coulter he just says these things to garner attention and to keep raking in the cash. In contrast, bigoted idiots like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann really do believe the santorum that they spew out.

  17. Bill says

    O’Rielly is trying to protect us from invasions by space aliens looking for intelligent creatures to turn into sex slaves. As his garbage propagates out into the universe at the speed of light, and is eventually picked up by some hapless extraterrestrial anthropologist trying to find something new for his thesis so he can get out of graduate school, the aliens will realize that there is no intelligent life here and pick some other planet to invade.

    Either that, or the libertarians got to him and he smoked too much of the “evil weed” before the show!

    Wisecracks aside, O’Reilly came across as a complete idiot. The nuts first argue that gays should not get married because you need opposite sex couples, or at least the active ingredients, to reproduce, so this nut goes on about families with 35 children competing in an inter-family turf battle with 10 wives or whatever it was.

  18. andrew says

    Bill O’Reilly says that marriage equality will cause ” a fundamental dissolution of marriage in this country.” WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? O’Reilly and his wife Maureen McPhilmy divorced in 2011 when their children were 8 and 13 years old. Yep, they dissolved their marriage. He was hit with a sexual harassment lawsuit in 2004, while married, which was settled out of court. Several published reports indicate he paid millions of dollars to the woman to settle the case. He and three marriages and lots of adultery between marriages Newt Gingrich are strong defenders of traditional marriage. I almost forgot to include Sen. Vitter R-LA, customer of prostitutes, while married, is also a strong defender of traditional marriage. If those damn gay people would just stop trying to marry, America’s traditional marriages would be safe.

  19. Bill says

    @Andrew: it is Biblical. Vitter could justify being a patron of prostitutes, etc, while defending “traditional marriage” because traditional marriage was King Solomon’s 700 wives and 300 concubines. Even allowing for exaggerations of Biblical proportions, that’s a lot of women.

  20. jamal49 says

    So, when the Republicans gain total control of Congress and the White House in 2014 to 2016, expect a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman to follow. It’s coming, gentlemen, and there won’t be a damned thing we can do about it.

  21. Jimmy Palmieri says

    I love how equal rights just makes some people crazy. Equality takes away their elitest entitled station in life. Welcome to the real world. The GLBT community exists, loves, and raises family. Now finally the wave of equality is helping us become full families. Shame on those who preach the god thing. Your vitriol demonstrates nothing even close to godliness.

Leave A Reply