O'Reilly: Green cards for gay partners could lead to "people in love with three women" claiming rightsJuly 19, 2007 6:34 PM EDT ››› KATHLEEN HENEHAN
On the July 17 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly, attacked a July 16 Los Angeles Times article that reported on the fact that while "heterosexuals can [sponsor] their husbands and wives" for green cards, a gay U.S. citizen cannot do the same for his or her partner. He said, "Well, what about the triads, OK, you know. I know there's -- I know people in love with three women." Also, despite later acknowledging that heterosexual bi-national couples must go through a "process," O'Reilly argued that if the law changed: "[A]nybody could say, 'Hey, I'm gay. You gotta let in Lenny, my friend over here.' " He added: "[A]re they gonna do a demonstration in front of the immigration authorities? Are they gonna demonstrate their gayness?" O'Reilly later asserted that "[t]his is social engineering," and went on to compare the legalization of gay marriage to that of "triads," adding: "I know people in love with three women. And so you're gonna bring that in."
In discussing the Times article, O'Reilly repeatedly asked how a gay couple would "demonstrate their gayness" before immigration authorities, if a gay U.S. citizen were allowed to sponsor a non-citizen partner for a green card. He asserted that "this isn't a homosexual situation. This is a logistics situation." He went on to discuss the Uniting American Families Act of 2007 -- a bill that would allow U.S. citizens and permanent residents in a committed relationship to sponsor their non-citizen partner for legal residency status in the same manner that a married person would -- and argued that "this immigration thing is way, way more than a bunch of Mexicans trying to, you know, pick agricultural products or make up hotel rooms or cook in restaurants. This is social engineering. This is what is behind all this." Despite later noting that the Uniting American Familes Act would require same-sex couples to be in "committed intimate relationships" with the intention of "a lifelong commitment to one another," O'Reilly also suggested that the legislation would allow legal status in cases in which "you met him over there on the beach in Mykonos, [Greece] and you guys had a great time."
O'Reilly concluded that there "is another subtext to this L.A. Times article," which is: "We should have gay marriage so all the gay get the same opportunity." He added: "Well, what about the triads, OK, you know. I know there's -- I know people in love with three women. And so you're gonna bring that in. They want a commitment. You laugh, but it's -- Look." When National Public Radio correspondent Juan Williams countered "That's absurd. I mean, clearly," O'Reilly argued: "It's not absurd. As soon as they passed gay marriage in Holland, they had Olaf with two girls, and they got married."
O'Reilly's mention of "Olaf with two girls" may be a reference to Victor and Bianca de Bruijin, a Dutch couple, who according to The New Republic, signed a cohabitation contract with another woman, Mirjam Geven "in an attempt to legally add her to the De Bruijin family" in September 2005. In fact The New Republic article cited Evan Wolfson, the executive director of Freedom to Marry, as saying "the only legally relevant thing that happened was that three people, with the help of a notary, signed a private cohabitation contract -- and did not enter into any kind of legal state-recognized union." Wolfson added: "Such personal agreements are not registered, and do not have legal implications for third parties. In both these respects, as well with regard to the state's imprimatur, a personal agreement or contract is different from both marriage and registered partnership." The article stated: "The De Bruijins didn't marry [the other woman], and they didn't even enter into a civil union. They simply signed a contract and got it notarized." The Dutch parliament legalized gay marriage on September 12, 2000.
Regarding O'Reilly's comparison of gay relationships to "triads," Media Matters for America has documented occasions on which O'Reilly discussed gay marriage and went on to warn of "poly-amorphous" marriage, in which "you can marry 18 people, you can marry a duck." He has repeatedly stated that gay marriage will eventually lead to people petitioning courts to marry goats. During the January 5, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, he stated, "One of the arguments against gay marriage, that we just spoke about, is that if it becomes law, all other alternative marital visions will be allowed." He then related the story of a British woman, Sharon Tendler, who "married" a dolphin in Israel as an on-screen graphic read "Slippery Slope?"
From the July 17 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Here's what they -- this is today, an article, "Line in the Sand for Same-Sex Couples," by Teresa Watanabe, Watanabe. Quote, "The American and the Australian met in London. They fell madly in love. They got together, got a dog and got a house near Venice Beach, which is in L.A. But there is no happy ending in sight for Tim Miller and Alistair McCartney. That's because the couple is gay, and U.S. immigration law does not allow the Whittier-born Miller to sponsor McCartney for a green card as heterosexuals can do for their husbands and wives."
And then it goes on, you know, it's heartbreaking, and you got that -- all right, so the L.A. Times basically wants -- and this is a news article, by the way. This isn't an editorial. It's written like an editorial. The L.A. Times basically says, look, not only do you have to let in people who are married, but you gotta let in their gay partners now too.
Now, just think about that for a minute. Now, that means that anybody could say, "Hey, I'm gay. You gotta let in Lenny, my friend over here." How are they gonna do -- are they gonna do a demonstration in front of the immigration authorities? Are they gonna demonstrate their gayness? How do you know? You see what I'm talking about?
E.D. HILL (co-host): Yeah.
O'REILLY: Say you wanna get a guy in or a lady in, your friend. OK, you can say, "Well, we're gay."
HILL: Well, I think that's what it's gonna get to if you follow this.
O'REILLY: Well, but let's keep it here. Say, "Well, we're gay. You gotta give him a green card or her a green card." What do you do, a demonstration?
HILL: Prove it.
O'REILLY: Yeah. I mean, it's ridiculous. And so that means that you have carte blanche about, OK, you're an American. You go over. You meet somebody. They wanna come to America. You bring -- and you could have industry of that. "I'll give you $50,000 if you can get me in and say I'm your gay lover and dah, dah, dah, dah, dah." So it's impossible. I mean, this isn't a homosexual situation. This is a logistics situation. Couldn't do it. Couldn't do it.
But the L.A. Times, in its political correctness, the fog of PC, "Oh, you gotta do that. And if you're against it, you're a homophobic. You don't like those gays. Not fair." This, that, and the other thing, and you say to yourself, "Is it -- how bad is it gonna get in America? How bad is it gonna get? It's gonna get worse than it is now?"
Now, 19 countries allow gays to bring in their partners, and it's the usual suspects -- Norway, France, the Netherlands. Israel does. I think Israel just needs folks over there. Sweden. Switzerland, I'm not so sure. You got Switzerland down there. They don't let anybody in. So their name's on the list, but believe me, it ain't easy to get into Switzerland and be a citizen. U.K, I -- you know, you could see that. Canada, and on and on. So 19 countries say, "If you're gay, you can bring in your partner."
But here in America, we have such a problem with this; such a problem with illegal immigration, and our pals, Jerrold Nadler [D], congressman from New York, and Senator Patrick Leahy [D] from the People's Republic of Vermont -- Leahy really has gone off the deep end. I mean, Leahy was always a far-left guy. Now, he's just in the land of the forgotten here. My God.
The Uniting American Families Act, which is introduced first in 2000, would require that applicants be "adults in committed intimate relationships." What? I mean, that means you could bring in your girlfriend. "Committed intimate relationship who intend a lifelong commitment to one another." Who intend? This is crazy. Uniting American Families Act. It hasn't passed, but if the SPs were in charge, the secular progressives, it would. It would.
So I hope everybody's getting this thing, that this immigration thing is way, way more than a bunch of Mexicans trying to, you know, pick agricultural products or make up hotel rooms or cook in restaurants. This is social engineering. This is what is behind all this.
You know, let me just read you again. If the SPs could get it passed, you would have the Uniting American Families Act, which would require adults in "committed intimate relationships who intend a lifelong commitment to one another" could bring in whoever they want to the United States. Think about it.
HILL: I am.
O'REILLY: Think about it. I mean the industry that could grow up.
HILL: That leaves everything wide open.
O'REILLY: But look, the more crazy the secular progressives get, the L.A. Times gets, let's have all the gays come in, and if you have a friend, and you met him over there on the beach in Mykonos, and you guys had a great time, and you want him to become a citizen. The more nutty you get, the less cooperation you're gonna get from the traditional end.
WILLIAMS: Let me ask you a question, Bill.
O'REILLY: Real quick.
WILLIAMS: How would you allow -- on what basis would you allow people to come into this country: if they had money, if they had skills, if they had family? How do you make the cut?
O'REILLY: I would make the cut based on employment, and I would set up a guest worker program; a two-tier, temporary and permanent, and the people who wanted to come in as guest workers, and they had a skill that was needed by American business, they could come in, and they could prove themselves, and they could apply, and they get a green card, and they go through the process. Does that sound reasonable?
WILLIAMS: OK, so what you're saying is, then, if I have a woman -- if I meet a woman in Ireland and marry her, you're saying, "No, you can't bring her."
O'REILLY: No, if you get legally married to a foreign national, OK, then there is a process. They look at it. They see whether it's a bogus marriage -- because there's a lot of that. You know that.
WILLIAMS: Yeah, a lot of corruption on that front.
O'REILLY: And they make a determination on, you know, if you're legally married, then you can have a person here with you. Whether that person becomes a citizen or not has gotta be a decision made by the federal government. But we don't have gay marriage here. This is what they're -- this is another subtext to this L.A. Times article, "We should have gay marriage so all the gay get the same opportunity -- " Well, what about the triads, OK, you know. I know there's -- I know people in love with three women. And so you're gonna bring that in. They want a commitment. You laugh, but it's -- Look.
WILLIAMS: That's absurd. I mean, clearly --
O'REILLY: It's not absurd. As soon as they passed gay marriage in Holland, they had Olaf with two girls, and they got married. C'mon.