My apologies Dale, it was in fact Jay Severin that mentioned goats. His radio show follows O'Reilly and I heard a lot of stuff yesterday and was fairly irritated by most of it. During my running around yesterday it seemed that gay marriage story was spreading like wildfire and boy were the opinions flying. Beginning in the morning when I was getting my haircut. I did not mean to decieve anyone about O'Reilly...he doesn't need my help to look bad. In fact his comments you pointed me did not leave him smelling like roses on the issue. He does in fact use several of the things I mentioned with what seems to be the idea of making people think "judges are looking for loopholes" to for the most part force their ideas down our throats. I think he is fanning the flames of conservatives and shooting for that "victory for the secularists"...basically meaning here we go, liberals are screwing up the country and our society deal. So, in other words, he's spinning things to his take and basically being fairly destructive with his comments.
"By a four to three vote, the Commonwealth's highest judges ruled the state's ban on same sex marriages as unconstitutional. Apparently the wording of the ban does not include a marriage description that mentions men and women. So four judges used that to OK gay marriage."
Bill is selling this as the judges manipulated a loophole to fit their agenda. Basically, a bunch of bull. He's spinning here and fanning the flames. Trying to polarize people and make those of a conservative leaning believe the judges are liberals attacking their values.
"Personally I couldn't care less about gay marriage. If Tommy and Vinny or Joanie and Samantha want to get married, I don't see it as a threat to me or anybody else. But according to a poll by the Pew Research Center (search), only 32 percent of Americans favor gay marriage. And the will of the people must be taken into account here."
Bill continues to spin here. Sometimes it's what a person doesn't say. He throws around poll numbers and talks about "the will of the people"...boy that's a beauty...really the thing is judges rule based on the law and that's what they did...they don't poll people first and they don't base their decisions on what they believe fits most people's agenda. O'Reilly is being fairly misleading with these comments.
"We simply can't allow this country to be run by ideological judges. Marriage is not a right, neither is driving a car. Both are privileges granted by the state. Just 100 years ago, most Americans even didn't bother getting married. They shacked up, but marriage has been defined as a union between a man and woman ever since the Catholic Church (search) made it a sacrament in the year 1215."
Here he finally starts going where he wanted to. From foolishness to outright nonsense. The country is not run by these "ideological judges" and nothing is their to support that. So he's got only two excuses for that...one he's stupid...or two he wants to be misleading to incite people. He continues to play this game throughout this paragraph...getting cute with his "marriage is not a right" nonsense...Well if Bob and Tom went down to ask for a marriage license they would be denied that "right" or "privelege" because they are two men and not a man and a women. Then he alludes to the definition of marriage and brings the Catholic Church into the argument. How disingenuous. This guy is obviously manipulating things...or spinning...to create his desired effect. I'd call it lying but you can call it what you'd like. It's sort of Bill's semantic game of hide and seek.
"Now the secularists want to redefine marriage against the will of the majority of Americans. They are defining it as a rights issue. But again, it's not a rights issue. Anyone can form a partnership that will protect assets and allow access to personal endeavors. The state issues a marriage license. And the state is entitled to set the rules."
He's trying to drive it home here. Setting it up to piss people off with his us (majority of the people or conservatives really) against them (secularists or liberals screwing up the world) statements. Then he gets back to his semantic "It's not a rights issue" game. So, he's trying to have his cake and eat it too. He starts off saying "I don't care" then flys off into all the reasons it's wrong and supposedly liberal judges and secularists are destroying our society. The guy is a master bullshit artist and that's why people dislike him.
"If the good people of Massachusetts want a secular approach to marriage, let them vote on it. But judges have no right to find loopholes in the law and impose their views on everybody else. That's happening all over America. And if it continues, the core values of this country will be changed dramatically. Another secular victory today, this Massachusetts marriage deal."
Here's he's back to "judges finding loopholes" as if they went looking for this whole thing on their own...it was brought before them. It's fairly devious the way Bill presents his case and there's only a couple ways to look at that Dale. To try and sell this as the judges are manipulating things and imposine their views on us is way off the mark. It is on the whole, very dishonest and shameful. So, sorry for my mistake but his comments are pretty pathetic.
