Did I Just Agree with Bill O’Reilly…?

While we were all sleeping, Bill O’Reilly was replaced by Bizarro Bill O’Reilly (Rill O’Beilly?).

Maybe it’s not too weird… The man has previously been known to defy all logic, eliciting this reaction from David Silverman:

The tide does *what*…?

But here he is in a conversation about gay marriage and he’s… for it? Well, maybe not for it. But he rejects arguments made from religion, that’s for damn sure:

“The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals… That’s where the compelling argument is: ‘We are Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument. And to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side… And the other side hasn’t been able to anything but thump the Bible.

Despite a lot of initial pushback from conservatives for the “Bible-thumping” comment, he discussed it again this week with guest Laura Ingraham when she tried to play the “you need to have respect those of us who loooorrrve the Bible” card:

If you want to stand up for heterosexual marriage, you have to do it outside of the Bible. You can’t cite the Bible because you’ll lose if you do it.

Wow… well done. That’s exactly right. (I can’t believe I’m saying this.) And it only got better:

Laura Ingraham: Bill, in response to that, when you say “You can’t cite the Bible,” well, again, I think that is disrespectful to people who really try to live their lives according to the Bible.

Bill O’Reilly: It’s not disrespectful. In their private life they can. We’re talking a policy deal here. Don’t you understand the difference between private beliefs and public policy?

Seriously, watch that video because it is the damnedest thing to listen to O’Reilly do his “talk over the person and shout them into submission” thing — which is still annoying — but you’re agreeing with what he is saying… which is weird because… it’s him. I feel dirty just thinking about it. It feels like that dream sequence from Twin Peaks.

Well, credit where credit is due, Mr. O’Reilly. Thank you for being the unexpected voice of reason over at FOX News in your own belligerent, shouty way.

About Jessica Bluemke

Jessica Bluemke grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and graduated from Ball State University in 2008 with a BA in Literature. She currently works as a writer and resides on the North side of Chicago.

  • http://profiles.google.com/conticreative Marco Conti

    I saw both videos a few days ago and once I was done watching ithem I stepped outside to make sure that a large comet was not going to wipe out all life on earth.

  • http://ossurynot.com/ Tony Russo

    I think it’s tactical, part of a realization by a growing number of conservatives that this isn’t the hill to die on. Maybe he wants to save credibility for the eventual Roe v. Wade challenge North Dakota hopes to force…

  • CelticWhisper

    I think the 2012 election really shook things up in Rightville. After Republicans were defeated en masse for opposing LGBT equality and reproductive freedom, we’re seeing a shift away from religious-right social-conservative Republicanism to more of a private-freedoms libertarian Republicanism. I recall someone, I think some RCC official during the pope replacement proceedings, griping that conservatives “Would rather follow Ayn Rand than Thomas Aquinas.” Objectivism’s failings aside, I’d still rather see the GOP influenced by Libertarian philosophy than biblical bullshit.

    This is the same Bill O’Reilly who once said “I don’t care about the Constitution” and has long defended church-state integration now talking about keeping private matters and public policy separate.

    So while I have my grievances regarding the outcome of the 2012 election, I think it definitely showed social conservatives that the writing is on the wall with regard to, at the very least, LGBT equality and rights. I hope it has the same effect with regard to reproductive freedom, though the North Dakota law is not encouraging. I’m just hoping ND is a “one step back, two steps forward” sort of scenario. Hopefully we’ll get those two steps forward sooner rather than later.

  • smrnda

    Wow, I mean, his line about the difference between private belief and public policy sounds like something … some liberal or Obama would say.

    This makes me wonder. O’Reilly isn’t young. I can’t imagine that a few years ago he couldn’t have figured out this point and now suddenly he realizes that you have to base public policy on arguments not founded in (unproven and unfalsifiable) religious beliefs. My thoughts are that he’s a bit better at playing the ratings game than most other conservatives – he did the hard-right thing since it was a good act that got ratings, but he knows the writing is on the wall for the anti-equality crowd so he’s hoping to survive by ditching the more odious right-wing talking points. He probably realizes that old white guys ranting about how homosexuality will be the downfall of civilization will have a hard time getting TV show gigs in the future.

    I also think that we’re seeing a split between the pro big business and Bible-thumper factions of the Republicans, which at least makes me think that perhaps $$ doesn’t rule everything, since corporate America, as mean and nasty as it usually is, has pretty much been in support of gay marriage for a long time but somehow wasn’t able to translate this into gains as easily as they did weakening worker protection laws and keeping wages low. I think both sides probably feel like they’re the ‘real Republicans’ and the others are either heretics or know-nothing wack-jobs, so this ship might sink from infighting before it splits into 2.

  • Conspirator

    People like O’Reilly are often complaining about the government controlling our lives too much, the nanny state and so on. For once he’s finally taking that to its logical conclusion. That’s kind of amazing really. It’s really hypocritical to complain about soda bans, CAFE standards, gun control, etc., then turn around and say that the government should limit who can marry who.

    The one thing I’ve respected about Ron Paul is that while I disagree with most of his beliefs, he is remarkably consistent most of the time. He wants less government in all areas. It’d be nice if more Republicans were like that, then I’d at least have some respect for them.

  • Renshia

    Funny, when I heard the first one the other day, I just thought I had misunderstood what he was saying.
    Now I am just stunned. I think Tony must be right. They must have saw it as a lost battle and wrote a new script for Bill.

  • Canadian Atheist, eh!

    No, it was just a pig on the wing. ;^)

  • Bdole

    Maybe this is his way of proving there really is a god?

  • TheG

    You are giving them too much credit. They see the change coming and don’t want to be remembered for being on the wrong side of history. Bill, several members of Congress, and many social conservatives are trying to position themselves so that we forget about the evil that they did when they point to the last few weeks to try to show that they really supported equality all along.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson
  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    I wonder which of Bill’s family or friends is gay. I guarantee someone close to him is.

  • Michael

    He is saying that quoting the bible doesn’t win debates and that gay marriage will pass unless its opponents find a better way to argue against it.

    It’s a start, but a long way from being a secularist.

  • Kengi

    Ron Paul wants less federal government in all areas, but wants state government to step in as a replacement. He wants state governments to be able to establish a religion, for example, or be able to censor speech if they want to. He wants to shred the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act so states are free, once again, to legalize discrimination.

    He doesn’t want less government. He wants more government, but at the state level, without that pesky US Constitution getting in the way.

  • slaq

    Bill OReilly strikes me as a man who has come to his own conclusions about the world, not the conclusions of any affiliation or party. Sure, he’s fairly conservative, but I feel that him conservatism is a bit more honest than most.

    He’s still an idiot though. He’s just selective of what he’s an idiot about.

  • liu

    If I was forced to vote for either Ron Paul or Mitt Romney, I’d vote for Romney in a heartbeat. The man may be a snake, a political tool, and just about as likable as a bowl of warm cardboard that wants rich people to not pay taxes, but Ron Paul is batshit insane.

  • Rain

    I’m “throwing in” with O’Reilly on this one, albeit I can’t…

    wait for it…


    …explain that.

    I’m throwing in with O’Reilly but I can’t explain that.

  • Pseudonym

    Yes, this. There are two things that people don’t get about Bill O’Reilly:

    1. He is not a party conservative.
    2. His on-screen persona is an act.

  • Marella

    This is the key, O’Reilly is not stupid at all, he is doing what he is paid enormous sums of money to do and, unlike Sarah Palin who is genuinely stupid, doing it very well. If he has decided to support gay marriage then he and his boss, has decided that that is where the money is. Assuming that O’Reilly is stupid is an error, and lets him off the hook for being responsible for the pernicious things he says and does.

  • Marella

    Fascinating, even by 2006 he said he didn’t think that gay marriage would cause the collapse of the republic. I begin to think the commenter who said he has a gay relative is right.

  • fsm

    You put a gun to my head and say I have to vote for one of them? Pull the trigger. And I identify as a Libertarian.

  • fsm

    I tried to watch the whole thing and was amused by O’Reilly doing his rude thing on the Xtian conservative, but I got too annoyed by the end.

  • compl3x

    OK. So flaming water falls upwards now?

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    It’s weird for o’reilly to reject religious arguments since he doesn’t believe in a separation of church and state.

  • Baby_Raptor

    She thinks it’s disrespectful to Christians to tell them that its unconstitutional that laws be based on the bible?

    I’ll go cry them a river. It must be SO HARD living in a country where you have so much privilege, you’re the majority religion, you’re free to live life how you see fit…But the mean old government just won’t let you enshrine your personal whims as law that everyone has to follow. Damn freedom!

  • allein

    The video won’t play for me, and I can’t decide if I’m annoyed or relieved…

  • Willy Occam

    Nice to see a right wingnut like Laura Ingraham get a taste of the shit Bill-O pulls on his “lefty” guests. We need more of this kind of entertainment on Fox… I might actually watch then.

  • flyb

    And any fool knows, a dog needs a home.

  • Sinfanti

    Yeah, even Silverman has said in interviews that when he talks to O’Reilly before going on the air he’s impressed at how smart and civil he comes across. Then when they’re in front of the camera he turns on the act that we’re all too familiar with.

  • Keulan

    What the fuck. I actually agree with Bill O’Reilly on something. This is just too weird.

  • amycas

    Sure…he wants the government out of all areas…except my uterus of course, but that doesn’t count I guess.

  • coyotenose

    C’mon people. No one has to be amazed at “agreeing with O’Reilly”. This is not you agreeing with O’Reilly. This is O’Reilly agreeing with you and with logic. You don’t have to feel conflicted or anything. Just because your douchey ex likes Iron Man doesn’t mean you have to feel uncomfortable with liking it also. It doesn’t drag you down to his level or elevate him to yours.

    Considering the amount of damage O’Reilly has done over the years, there is also no need to give him any credit for suddenly wanting to do slightly less damage going forward. Not intruding into strangers’ private lives is not a virtue. It’s the default.

  • David S.

    What’s wrong with not wanted to be remembered for being on the wrong side of history? Political issues where too many people were willing to be on the wrong side of history for too long are painful and often bloody. If Bill O’Reilly means that gays can get married in some states earlier then they would otherwise, why grouse about it?

  • Randay

    I looked through the Constitution and didn’t find the word “marriage” much less a definition in it. I don’t know if any state constitutions, except California’s for now, has the word and its definition. As to civil unions, France has had them since the 90′s. Billo makes you think that gay marriage is controversial in France. It isn’t. The demonstrations are by the ultra-right traditionalist faction of the Catholic Church. But a poll showed that only 5% of declared Catholics go to Church. Real sex ed is taught in the schools & jr & sr high school students can get free condoms from the school nurse.

  • Michael Eck

    I do believe that the fictional hell just froze over. I am in complete shock.