Fox News Spins Gay Marriage Ruling in O’Reilly No Spin Zone?

See DOZENS more examples of FOX NEWS BIAS at: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D

It wasn’t quite a “no spin zone” when Bill O’Reilly brought Megyn Kelly on to the May 15, 2008, edition of Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” as the legal expert to analyze that day’s California Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality as I show with the clips and commentary in this video.

You can find the full text of, In re MARRIAGE CASES, the California Supreme Court decision striking down California’s ban on gay marriage, at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

Duration : 0:3:24


Post Author: mark

25 thoughts on “Fox News Spins Gay Marriage Ruling in O’Reilly No Spin Zone?

    lsdvine

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    America is breeding …
    America is breeding some first class right wing/fascist wrongens

    BailiffQuimby

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    “The onus is on you …
    “The onus is on you who support this change to explain why you should not back down and accept civil unions”

    Good thing I already did so. If you have a valid objection to one of my four points, please share it.

    “the proper and just union for those who do not qualitfy for marriage.”

    Still waiting for why gays shouldn’t qualify for marriage. So far, all you have offered is (that’s the way it’s always been) which is a dumb reason, as I’m sure you realize even as you say it.

    havock89

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    You havent done any …
    You havent done any such thing. You make a various assortment of appeals to emotion inbetween the gibbering.

    Again, who is emotionally hurt is not the issue. Gay people have no right to claim that marriage should be redefined. The state has no authority to force legistation to do the same. The onus is on you who support this change to explain why you should not back down and accept civil unions, the proper and just union for those who do not qualitfy for marriage.

    BailiffQuimby

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    “both [gay marriage …
    “both [gay marriage and rape] are not what marriage is”

    But one hurts people while the other does not.

    “Your desparation is showing.”

    Given that I am the only one in this debate who has provided any actual real-world arguments for his side, I’m not feeling too desperate.

    havock89

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    Now once again you …
    Now once again you are trying to obfusacte the issue by citing examples where marriage has been abused. I would no more condone the state supporting rape within marriage than I would so-called “gay marriage” both are not what marriage is.

    “there” is not my traditional marriage – “there” are the moral crimes of humanity and also “there” is the example of how you try and win a point by any means necessary. Your desparation is showing.

    BailiffQuimby

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    The concepts I …
    The concepts I listed all existed independantly of government before we quickly realized it would be smart to hand them over to a common authority. They are properties of society which have been given to the state.

    Regardless, marriage, before government got involved, included such noble practices as it excusing rape, women being used as currency and treated as property, and conquered nations’ women being forced into relationships with the conquerors. There’s your traditional marriage.

    havock89

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    Once again an …
    Once again an erroneous statement. The segregation laws of the US were unique. The rest of western civilistion did not follow suit. As I have stated marriage is as it should be when a man and a woman are the component prerequesites for marriage. Race should not come into it, and that was as great a travesty of justice as so-called gay marriage is today.

    Marriage is not in the same ballpark as those emergent properties of the STATE.

    havock89

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    At what point do I …
    At what point do I become subservant to your desires?

    I have an opinion, and I have a right to that opinion. I also have the right to share my opinion with others, and vote on them.

    I do not want society to go down this road. And I do not need to offer anything in a manner pleasing to you.

    Please then, dont bother us with your opinions about what opinions I should or should not share in a public forum.

    thehawk9165

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    -havock69

    If you …
    -havock69

    If you bring “the common good” into the discussion then you are contradicting that phrase because the “common good” means good for all, and redifining marraige as “the union between two persons who love eachother” allows for equality in society in which all can be happy. the common good is about, obviously, what is good for all.
    also, what do you mean by the “elite members of society?

    BailiffQuimby

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    So we shouldn’t …
    So we shouldn’t have redefined marriage 45 years ago to include interracial couples? How about money? Money is an emergent property of society, and governemt has graciously taken up the responsibility of printing, protecting, and regulating it. Personally, I’m glad they did, or the recent sh*t that went down on Wall Street would have thrown the nation into anarchy.

    Other emergent properties of society include education, postal service, libraries, the police, fire depts, and the fine arts.

    BailiffQuimby

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    “By stating what it …
    “By stating what it is and what it should be…”

    You state what it is, but you give no explanation for why that is what it “should be.” You say nothing about why it is “important in society” that it stay this way, or why changing it is a “travesty,” or even why it is for “the common good.” You also claim that equal rights supporters are “elite and corrupt,” but give nothing to back it up.

    Please don’t bother us with your opinions if you have no reasons backing them up.

    havock89

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    The state does not …
    The state does not have the authority to redefine anything that is an emergent property of society. That is the servant telling the master how he should live.

    havock89

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    I am not interested …
    I am not interested in dancing round the table with you.

    By stating what it is and what it should be others will hear and recognise the truth of what I am saying. They will fight for what they realise is important in society, and one day reform the travisty of justice wherein marriage is redefined according to the whims of the elite and corrupt members of society.

    The common good should and must take preference over the individual good when it comes to the state.

    BailiffQuimby

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    Redefining one …
    Redefining one particular institution of society is not “redefining society”. And if the traditional definition of that institution is based on an outdated or bigoted notion that men should only love women and vice versa, then why should we redefine it? And to which lies are you refering, btw?

    BailiffQuimby

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    Non-religious …
    Non-religious definition for morality and ethics always revolve around the question, “does it hurt anyone?” If you have morals that are not molded from this question, then you are accepting those morals from an outside source, presumably without question. This may be why people are assuming that your complaints are religious.

    BailiffQuimby

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    “The joining of the …
    “The joining of the sexes, is what marriage IS.”

    Reminding me of the traditional definition won’t really persuade anyone to believe that you’re right. Everyone already knows the traditional definition.

    “Usurping marriage for their own ends is not within the scope of what the state should be doing.”

    Still waiting for you to explain why not.

    If you can state some concrete real-life problems that would arise by the redefinition, I would love to hear them. So… still waiting.

    havock89

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    The joining of the …
    The joining of the sexes, is what marriage IS.

    If you want civil union recognised by the state, for the purposes of taxs and inheritence. I am all for that. That is fair. But not redefining marriage. The relationship of one man and one woman is what marriage is applied to, and is not a case of the marriage is what the relationhip is applied to.

    Usurping marriage for their own ends is not within the scope of what the state should be doing. Fin.

    BailiffQuimby

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    “I am perfectly …
    “I am perfectly happy for gay people to marry. And they can, as soon as they marry a person of the opposite sex.”

    That’s a horribly weak argument, given that gay people don’t have the option of falling in love with a person of the opposite gender. And once again, you have failed to give me an actual reason why you think redefining marrage as “love-based” instead of “gender based” would be a travesty. I await your explanation…

    havock89

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    As I have said …
    As I have said above. I am perfectly happy for gay people to marry. And they can, as soon as they marry a person of the opposite sex. For that is what marriage is.

    This is not about me not “wanting” a certain person to marry. It is about the legality of redefining marriage. I think it is a travesty of justice for the law courts to pass laws altering the definition of marriage. The state exists to serve society, not the other way around. Our society was founded on “one man and one woman.”

    BailiffQuimby

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    @havock89

    I’m …
    @havock89

    I’m sorry that it sounds as if D35J4D1N5 is putting words in your mouth. I’m sure you are more than capable of stating your non-religious reasons why it would be detrimental to society if gay people were permited to marry. Please do so, and I will make no assumptions about your position.

    BailiffQuimby

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    @havock89
    “I’m …

    @havock89
    “I’m against is the revisioning of the definition of marriage. It is a travesty. ”

    Why?

    D35J4RD1N5

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    Let’s say you were …
    Let’s say you were a father, now your kids could go to “school” but because I don’t want your kids to sully the meaning of education, I’d rather send them to an “tutorial facility”

    Legally it’s identical, but it would not be school, when they finish “university”, they get no credentials or diploma, in fact, they should be ashamed for even trying to get an education.

    Now, would you fight for getting your kids into school, or would you sit back and accept the artificial bigoted separation.

    D35J4RD1N5

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    What you believe is …
    What you believe is the topic of conversation, because you don’t believe that gay people should be allowed to be married, you believe that they are only deserving of civil unions that would give them the same legal rights of being married, just not the word, the meaning, the significance, the expression of love two people have for each other.

    havock89

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    It is also the same …
    It is also the same for those in secular countries of the west as well. That is our shared culture.

    As I have said, What I “believe” is not the topic of conversation. If you are incapable of staying on topic I am done with you.

    D35J4RD1N5

    (March 1, 2010 - 2:16 pm)

    Without the greeks, …
    Without the greeks, you wouldn’t even have a democracy, you wouldn’t have ideas of justice. You wouldn’t have modern science, which sprung from the work of Aristotle, without him, I wouldn’t even be able to tell you how much of a fool you are. Modern society is built upon correcting the mistakes of the past.

    You’re perfectly happy to let gay people be married, but just so as long you can keep the word married, because you don’t think gay people deserve it, you don’t think it’s morally right.

Leave a Reply