O'Reilly falsely claimed Bush "is against" amendment banning same-sex marriage, mischaracterized McCain's position on issue
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that President Bush "is against" a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and misleadingly stated that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "came out against" such an amendment. In fact, Bush called for a ban on same-sex marriage in 2004, and White House press secretary Tony Snow reaffirmed that Bush "supports" a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage at a recent press gaggle. Furthermore, McCain recently suggested on Fox News Sunday that if the federal courts strike down the right of individual states to define marriage, he may support a federal constitutional amendment.
On the May 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that President Bush "is against" a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and stated that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "came out against" such an amendment without noting that McCain's opposition is qualified. In fact, Bush called for a ban on gay marriage in 2004, and White House press secretary Tony Snow reaffirmed that Bush "supports" a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage as recently as May 19. While McCain has advocated that the issue be left to the states, he recently suggested on Fox News Sunday that if the federal courts strike down the right of individual states to define marriage, he would support a federal constitutional amendment.
In the May 19 press gaggle, Snow confirmed that Bush still supports the marriage ban:
QUESTION: After the vote yesterday on the gay marriage amendment, does the president consider this a priority, and would he urge the Hill to move forward on this?
SNOW: He supports it. I don't know whether you want to get into priorities. You know, if I get into the business of prioritizing, I think what you'll let the Hill do, is that they schedule their votes, they schedule their debates, but the president does support the amendment.
During an interview on the May 21 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday with host Chris Wallace, McCain said that "unless there's some decisive overruling by the federal courts," he would leave the issue to the states. Additionally, as The Arizona Republic reported on August 26, 2005, McCain said "he supports an initiative that would change Arizona's Constitution to ban gay marriages and deny government benefits to unmarried couples."
From the May 21 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Question, Senator McCain, will you vote for or against the federal marriage amendment when it comes up before the Senate in June?
MCCAIN: I will vote against it because I believe very strongly that in a -- first of all, on the sanctity of union between man and woman, but I also believe that the states should make these decisions. The states regulate the conditions of marriage, and unless there's some decisive overruling by the federal courts, then I will continue to believe that the states should decide. We in Arizona should make our decisions about the status of marriage in our state just as the people in Massachusetts and other states should make their decisions.
From the May 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: OK, Michelle [Malkin, right-wing pundit]. Fifty percent -- that's all -- support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. McCain came out saying he's against it. Bush is against it because Laura Bush doesn't want it. There's no chance. There's no chance to get a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in this country.
MALKIN: Yeah, I think it looks pretty clear that it's not going to get through the Senate.
So George is AGAINST the amendment banning same-sex marriage BECAUSE Laura is AGAINST it?
Well it's nice to know he's nagged until he changes his mind like the rest of us (IF my wife reads this post-- I'm only kidding dear)
BUT seriously I hadn't heard Bush had changed his mind [flip-floped]. Maybe I missed it?
OR
Is Billy-Boy fibbing again? ;-)
...when is O'Reilly going to start issuing all those corrections that he claims he makes?
"IF" BOR makes any corrections it will be like a newspaper....section 3, page 12, lower left corner in small typing. 4 people in the nation will here the corrections, IF.
Where did O'Reilly get that "fifty percent" from? The BBB?
[link to www.pollingreport.com]
But as other commenters on MMFA have noted, modern history shows the inexorable march of liberalism. Give it ten years: the old traditionalists will die off, and many of the rest will be persuaded to give up yet another bigotry.
However, it is troubling that those 50% think the Constitution is the appropriate place to define marriage.
" modern history shows the inexorable march of liberalism "
Yeah, that's what scares a lot of people in our nation. When that finally happens it will be the downfall of our nation, just it has been for every other society in history. History will repeat itself over and over again and the "inexorable march of liberalism" seems to happen over and over again, too. You would think someone would get the correlation.
Personally I hope they never get "marraige" rights. They can have all the civil unions they want, but leave marraige to those who actually know what it means. Of course, so has EVERY state that's had a chance to vote on the choice. Each time it is voted down by the people. And, after all, isn't that what a "democracy" is all about? Letting the people choose how the rules are made? Not letting the "inexorable march of liberalism" change the laws with their liberalized judges who choose to ignore the will of the people in this "democracy"?
Bill O'Realitymeansnothing and facts appear to be bitter enemies that will struggle to the end of days for dominance on Fox 'news'...
the resistance against gay marriage: mine will be worth nothing less when a handful of gays marry. Further: its none of my business what other people do with their lives as long as they do not threaten society. Any ammentment on this issue is inserting more right-wing agenda in politics and means more interference by the government into private lives and private matters.
Is anyone surprised that Bill lies? The only thing that surprises me is that he lied trying to make Bush appear more liberal.
The whole gay marriage debate is ludicrous. Anybody against it is afraid of homosexuality; their arguments are specious (e.g. "family values" is really a gender-neutral idea) and usually rely on some argument from authority. As the authority they cite inevitably agrees with their own ideas the argumet is circular. Citing the Bible is equally valid for both sides -- and those who don't understand that don't really understood the Bible, even if they think they do.