Posted on 01/21/2015 9:06:45 PM PST by iowamark
I wish Newt would run for Senate.
Me too. I wish he and Clista would move back to GA and he could run agains’t and knock off RINO Johnny Isakson next year.
Well, I would guess that you do NOT believe in Constitutional Government!
After all, aren’t we supposed to follow the law as defined by the Courts?
Some here seem to think that their opinions are above the law (would call you folks out, but you know who you are) and insist that because Megan does not believe or act as you would that she is wrong. She is obeying current law as any good lawyer would.
Shame on you for trying to tie your opinions with her actions as a lawyer - you are the one who should be ashamed!
Yes, things should be better, laws passed that reenforce our beliefs, non-corrupt government, non-corrupt lawyers, but we still have to live in the real world. That means that the lawyers (Megan included) still have to follow the rules and the rulings. You though can protest and do whatever you want... Putting down those folks that are required to follow these rules even if they conflict with your ideals is silly!
The real world is not so nice compared to your utopia!
Where did you get that idea?
After all, aren’t we supposed to follow the law as defined by the Courts?
That is not what the Constitution says, or are you suggesting that no one should have an opinion at variance to the courts? So it would seem...
Some here seem to think that their opinions are above the law
If that is what you think, it is you that doesn't believe in Constitutional rights to freedom of speech.
She is obeying current law as any good lawyer would.
She is ignorant.
The real world is not so nice compared to your utopia!
Huh? Enough with the teenage crush; please grow up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/megyn-kelly-gay-marriage-prop-8_n_2957680.html
Fox News host Megyn Kelly challenged Maggie Gallagher, the co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage, over her opposition to the Supreme Court potentially striking down Prop 8 on Tuesday, comparing the law to previous bans on interracial marriage.
The Supreme Court began hearings on Prop 8, the California state ban on same-sex marriage, on Tuesday. Kelly discussed the case with Gallagher, who argued that the Supreme Court should not override the democratic rights of Californians who voted for Prop 8.
Kelly disagreed, saying that the Supreme Court has done similar things before, and stepped in to outlaw bans on interracial marriage. She said:
But before I get back to Richard on that, there was a time in this country in which interracial marriage was not lawful. And the Supreme Court had to step in and say, ‘That’s wrong. Under the U.S. Constitution, under the Equal Protection clause, whites can marry blacks and states are not free to tell them otherwise.’ And those that advocate on behalf of this issue, Maggie, they say this is another, sort of, iteration of that.
Kelly made the same comparison last August when debating Chick-Fil-A’s support for anti-gay groups, saying that the bans on interracial marriage were eventually struck down. “Why is gay marriage any different?” she had asked.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/megyn-kelly-gay-marriage-prop-8_n_2957680.html
Video at this site
http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201303260004
O’Reilly And Megyn Kelly Agree: Gays Have ‘More Compelling’ Argument, Opponents Just ‘Thump The Bible’
During last night’s O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly and his guest Megyn Kelly both agreed: same-sex marriage advocates have the “more compelling” argument, whereas their opponents have not done much besides “thump the Bible.”
The revelation may come as a shock to many, as O’Reilly had previously made news for suggesting same-sex marriage would eventually lead to men wanting to marry ducks and other animals. But as he told Kelly last night, he is actually quite apathetic on the issue. “I don’t feel that strongly about it one way or the other,” he said. “I think the states should do it.”
But as they discussed why same-sex marriage has become more popular recently, Kelly suggested that once you take the biblical argument out of the discussion — because “there’s no arguing that” — the anti-same sex marriage side has a thin argument.
Referring to an interview she once conducted with Family Research Council president and anti-gay activist Tony Perkins, Kelly said that she has not heard “anything articulated that was particularly persuasive” from a non-biblical angle.
O’Reilly responded that he agreed with her 100 percent. “The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” he said. “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,” he concluded...
Video: Fox News’ Megyn Kelly’s Gay Marriage Interview
Yesterday, WND posted a story involving Fox News “America Live” anchor Megyn Kelly that incorrectly attributed to her the view that the Bible prohibits mix-race marriage.
On further examination, it’s clear that Ms. Kelly wasn’t representing such views as being her own, but was summarizing the views of others – including a Virginia judge – who in the past have cited the Bible in their attempts to justify slavery, the subjugation of women and the prohibition of interracial marriage.
Read more from this story HERE.
Publisher’s Note: We join WND’s apology to Ms. Kelly. Here’s the original video that we posted earlier today and linked to the WND’s original story. The comments that were the subject of the original posting start at 3:45:
Read more at http://joemiller.us/2012/08/video-fox-news-continues-assault-on-traditional-values/#mFFZlh66M5EgAQFl.99
Megyn Kelly Hits Back at Bill O’Reilly’s Critics Amid ‘Thump the Bible’ Gay Marriage Controversy: ‘I’m Not Kissing Your Butt’
Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly continued to discuss his “thump the Bible” controversy on Thursday night, bringing on Megyn Kelly to share her views about the outrage that has ensued since his comments about conservatives and gay marriage last week.
During the segment, Kelly strongly defended O’Reilly, claiming that his controversial statement about conservative Americans and their same-sex marriage arguments shouldn’t be taken so contentiously.
The decision to bring Kelly on makes sense, considering that she was on the show with the host last week when O’Reilly said that conservatives who are opposed to gay marriage don’t necessarily have the strongest arguments.
At the beginning of last night’s segment, O’Reilly first differentiated between how conservatives have argued against abortion versus how they’ve tackled gay marriage. While on the former, the host says that theology has been overwhelmingly left out of the right’s talking points (i.e. opponents have relied upon DNA, science and other more compelling points), the latter issue is a very different story.
On the same-sex marriage front, O’Reilly said, “Anti-gay marriage forces — not individuals — have not seized upon one central persuasive argument like the human DNA component.” The host, noting that he believes secular courts are hostile to religion, also said, once again, that conservatives need more compelling arguments (he also highlighted some points that could or should be used in the gay marriage debate).
After discussing the issue, Kelly appeared on the show to speak further about the debate — and the attacks on O’Reilly. In addition to noting that she didn’t find his comment about thumping the Bible particularly problematic when he first said it, Kelly defended the host against detractors.
“At no point did I think that you were being pejorative of the religious right or people who believe in their religious ideals in terms of opposing gay marriage,” she said. “Now the haters are always going to hate on you and they’re going to perceive everything you say in a way that’s least favorable to you and most controversial.”
Kelly also noted that O’Reilly has been among the staunchest defenders of religious liberty — something conservative opponents haven’t considered in their latest attacks on the host.
“And I’m not kissing your butt. This is fact,” she added.
Watch the segment, below:
“This country has a long history of discrimination against certain groups. Eventually we wind up getting it right. Right? Against women, against blacks, the civil rights movement and so on. And in justifying that discrimination when it was in place, some folks turn to the Bible and turn to their religious beliefs and said we have to have slavery because it’s in the Bible. Women have to be second-class citizens because that’s in the Bible. Blacks and whites can’t get married because that’s in the Bible. That wound up in a case. A judge wrote that in an opinion, which the Supreme Court ultimately struck that down, saying that’s not right, judge—the Equal Protection clause says you can’t do that. Why is gay marriage any different?”
— FOX News Anchor Megyn Kelly,
The video to the interview has been scrubbed and furthermore the WND article and a Joe Miller post were scrubbed over misrepresenting the clip. Supposedly Mrs. Kelly was stating opinions of those in favor of Gay marriage at least on whatever Joe Miller and WND posted out of the same interview.
Megyn Kelly Asks Anti-Gay Hate Group Leader Why Pro-Gay Activists Are So Intolerant
April 09, 2013 10:29 am ET by Carlos Maza
Fox News’ Megyn Kelly whitewashed the extremism of one of America’s most notorious anti-gay hate group leaders, suggesting that pro-gay activists are actually the intolerant ones.
During the April 8 edition of America Live, Kelly invited Tony Perkins – president of the anti-gay Family Research Council (FRC) – to discuss the reaction to the suicide of right-wing Pastor Rick Warren’s son. Kelly condemned “haters” on the Internet who were using the tragedy as an excuse to attack Warren over his anti-gay views.
Near the end of the segment, Kelly asked Perkins how he felt about being “the subject of attacks” over his opposition to marriage equality, suggesting the pro-gay activists are the ones being intolerant:
http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201304090002
Aren’t there “rules” here that aren’t being followed? (as in Pic)
Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly stepped up her criticism of Dr. Keith Ablow’s attacks against Chaz Bono, Cher’s transgender son who will compete on the 13th season of ABC’s Dancing With The Stars. During an appearance on Bill O’Reilly yesterday, Kelly characterized Ablow’s claims that children will develop gender confusion after watching him on national television as “irresponsible and dangerous and could result in some real problems.” Kelly had challenged Ablow on her daytime show on Wednesday.
“There is no scientific evidence to back that up and in fact…the experts in this field say Ablow is way off base,” Kelly claimed and suggested that Ablow’s words will lead to the persecution of transgender people:
KELLY: Listen, this group of people already undergoes enough discrimination and isolation…
O’REILLY: We have this this slippery slope argument…
KELLY: No, don’t talk over it Bill.
O’REILLY: I’m not talking over it, I got to get to another…
KELLY: This group of people is persecuted already and now you have Dr. Ablow telling people that if your kid sees one in a manner that is something akin to a celebration, your kid may wind up being one of them. Now there are people int his country that will react to a transgender person when they see one at the McDonald’s or at some event and that’s irresponsible.
O’REILLY: You don’t know that they’re transgendered people. Alright.
If Kelly is going to champion transgenders, I can find something else to do at 9:00 pm.
At least Keith Ablow is a doctor.
Kelly is just a lawyer.
Not bad on your responses but you still miss the point of it all. That is okay though as many think like you do so that is okay, I guess.
I made the point with which you agreed that she is a lawyer first, before she is a conservative. There are problems with that. Megyn Kelly is a liberal at heart in the sense that she thinks government is there to protect us, DESPITE WHAT THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND PLAINLY SAYS. For example, She believes in gun control and thinks the same way about "reasonable" environmental laws.
Lawyers tend to over-estimate their grasp of any issue and as a lawyer, she is more argumentative than thoughtful. At 45 years old and after three kids, by now she should know better than to be as open to "gay marriage" as she clearly is. She sees that as a matter of individual liberty, yet she doesn't see the rights of the children involved in her myopic "case." Hence, her commitment to family rather than individual self-fulfillment is evident; accordingly, she is once-divorced.
Still, on balance Megyn Kelly is a fine person and an asset to conservatism. All I'm trying to do is to get you to listen to her more skeptically.
FReegards, CO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.