No, Mr. O’Reilly, You Cannot Marry a Duck

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

On Tuesday’s The O’Reilly Factor, our erstwhile host had his panel of smart, Fox beauties on to discuss the important, current issues. In this case, I believe it was Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl. There appears to be a link to the transcript of the “Culture Warriors” interview on the Factor’s website, but of course, it won’t load, so I can’t confirm this and am forced to work from memory.

At any rate, one of the issues up for discussion was the recent decision by a Massachusetts Federal Court to overturn parts of the Defense of Marriage Act on constitutional grounds.

The discussion itself was mildly interesting. O’Reilly, in his typically half-joking/half-condescending manner, referred to the women by last name only; a trick he no doubt learned while teaching. The women presented their arguments, Guilfoyle for and Wiehl against the court’s decision, when O’Reilly once again proved he simply can’t have a logical debate on the issue of gay marriage.

“Can you marry a duck?” Bill asked Ms. Guilfoyle.

Upon which, I found the nearest wall and began pounding my head against it to get out the stupid.

This isn’t about being for or against gay marriage. This is about pomposity. About Bill O’Reilly, whom I do like and admire, having become so convinced of his own brilliance he doesn’t even try anymore. O’Reillys interviews with Megyn Kelly, which usually devolve into very entertaining yelling matches involving O’Reilly flatly telling Kelly he’s smarter than she is, are a case in point.

Kelly is a lawyer. O’Reilly is not. Yet, because he’s the host of the number one rated show on cable news, he is The Mind. Clearly, America has bought into O’Reilly’s superior intelligence, and so has O’Reilly himself.

“Can you marry a duck?”

No, Mr. O’Reilly, you cannot marry a duck. You cannot marry a duck for the same reason clown fish can’t open a McDonald’s franchise. Non-sentient beings are not allowed to enter into legally binding contracts. Just ask Justin Bieber, whose parents no doubt have control of his money and career until he comes of age, or goes all Culkin and sues for emancipation. (Don’t worry, America. Bieber is actually Canadian.)

You cannot marry a duck. You cannot have a civil union with a Corvette. You cannot file taxes and claim a bit of string as a dependent. Gay marriage, even if the left’s wildest dreams were rewarded, will not lead to Man/fowl relationships. Are we clear, sir?

These absurdly reductionist arguments may seem the height of witty insight to O’Reilly and ilk, but to those of us actually interested in discussing this issue, the gay marriage = bestiality argument is … moronic.

Discuss the merits of the case. If you want to draw a comparison to abortion rights (which O’Reilly also, incorrectly, did) then fine. Different amendment. Case being argued on completely different grounds, but at least we’re in the ballpark.

Why must gay marriage lead to birds and small mammal unions? Are there not heterosexual animals? Why must gay marriage lead to polygamy? Did not some heterosexuals, in fact, support polygamy earlier on in this country’s history?

It’s like O’Reilly is spoofing “Ghost Busters,” rather than talking like an actual adult. “Dogs and cats, living together!”

Oh, the humanity.

Incidentally, he also asked if one could marry his mother. Excuse me. One man (son), one woman (mother.) Sounds like heterosexual marriage could get us there quicker.

The gay marriage issue is important. Regardless of the will of the people, courts are forcing it through. Conservatives are split on the issue, with Libertarians being largely for, and Republicans being largely against. Liberals are split on the issue, with secular liberals being for, and many people of faith being against. We need discussion! Real, grown up discussion.

On all other issues, Bill O’Reilly mostly behaves like a mature, intelligent adult, but when it comes to gay marriage, he’s suddenly three years old.

No, Mr. O’Reilly, you could not, should not with a duck. You will not, shall not with a truck. Not with a car. Not with a bar. Not with a deer. Not with a steer. You may not marry water fowl. Hear me. Hear me. Hear me now.

3 Responses to “No, Mr. O’Reilly, You Cannot Marry a Duck”
  1. Polly Hoar says:

    I’m beginning to love you Chris

  2. bteacher99 says:

    It’s true of many of us: we jump immediately to the extreme conclusions or questions. We like the worst-case scenarios.

    On a cheerier note, I LOVE the final paragraph!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • wordpress blog stats
  • Performancing Metrics
  • Globe of Blogs
%d bloggers like this: