Megyn Kelly Stated "There is No Stopping It Now" regarding gay marriage.

Bill Oreilly Show | October 8, 2014 | Bill Oreilly Show

[The_Media_never_lie]

Tonight on Bill O'Reilly's show, Megyn Kelly was only stating her opinion. She was not espousing gay marriage.

This gay marriage is against the will of the American people, against history, and against nature. Time and time again the people voted against it only to be overturned by learned judges who, through their own life experiences believe they know better than everyone else.

How will this experiment work out? How will you get muslim, christin and jewish fundamentalists, to whom gay marriage is prohibited by their religion to acquiesce? Will the religious be forced to accept this abomination? Will free speech be prohibited on the subject? Will religious liberty be subverted? What a hornets nest.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

We are one national fantasy under king Obama and Vizier Harry Reid—Gays make up what—2% of the population? Why is this a big deal? Why should we bend over backwards to Islamic people? It has become the tyranny of the minority. Most are Christian but they must be punished by the Government.

[publius911]

Megyn Kelly has been pro-fag marriage for years. I think she even attended some kind of event that was in specific support of it.

My pro-pervert meter has a good record, and fauked to flag Megyn.

Although I watch her show daily, if this proves to be true she's off the schedule at my house.
Permanently.

Rumormongering, on the other hand, may also be a good subject to also discuss soon.
Did CNN start this rumor?

[greene66]

Check post no. 95. There was a big hubbub, and a big documentation covering the pro-homo connections at various media outlets, and especially FoxNews, which was circulating late last year or early this year. It finally started making sense why FoxNews was so peculiarly kittenish when the issue of fag-marriage kept coming up.

Truthfully, I virtually never tune in to FoxNews anymore. I might catch a half-hour per week at most. I used to practically have the network on all the time, like a default-position on my tv-set. But I really just don’t trust anything from them anymore. They used to be a welcome outlet that at least acknowledged the conservative side of things, but in the last few years, they’ve become such obnoxious and obvious flacks for the GOP beltway establishment. Then add the subtle pro-homosex propaganda and slants, and I frankly now look upon both them and their talking-heads with the same deep distrust and suspicion that I always accorded to CNN, MSNBC, and the other alphabet network news.

[Rummyfan]

How will this experiment work out? How will you get muslim, christin and jewish fundamentalists, to whom gay marriage is prohibited by their religion to acquiesce? Will the religious be forced to accept this abomination? Will free speech be prohibited on the subject? Will religious liberty be subverted? What a hornets nest.

We shall see. But as Chesterton, said, when you break the big laws, you get many little laws. It's going to be a nightmare to everyone but the legal profession.

[NetAddicted]

I know Orthodox Judaism says we’re in the last days.

[ducttape45]

I about fell off my chair when I heard her say that too. I can’t say I ever liked her much, but when I heard her say that I lost what little respect I had for her. To me, she’s no better than Bob Beckel.

[ducttape45]

There ya go. What more proof do we need? That’s why I never watch her show.

[ontap]

We are suppose to hate the sin and love the sinner!!You are right on!!

[IrishBrigade]

One day He is going to let loose His wrath and it won’t be pretty.

...well, that explains Lena Dunham, I guess...

[Agamemnon]

The rules of the Senate are not law, and not subject to review.

And they are subject to reversal without say so of the Executive or the Judicial. Thank you, that only further buttresses my line of thinking.

I am pretty sure your idea to reverse the appointments (or otherwise try to obstruct them) would be deemed unconstitutional.

"Pretty sure" somebody will "deem" it unconstitutional, are you? Are you a Constitutional scholar? On what Constitutional basis do you make you claim or are you just throwing words around?

Did you know that Constitutionally Congress can limit the authority of the Judicial branch to rule in cases it "deems" to be outside the scope of Judiciary's remit to do so (Article III Section 2)? Congress could step up and pass a law saying that the Federal Judiciary cannot be arbiters in cases involving state statues governing the institution and definition of marriage.

Congress could simply dissolve the entire Circuit Court system forever or until such a time that the Federal Judiciary chooses to acknowledge the supremacy of State sovereignty in the definition of and civil matters related to the institution of marriage.

Congress writes the Judicial branch's check. Congress may use the power of the purse to compel action from the Judiciary if it wants to. It's part of the Judiciary's job description and if the Judiciary fails to do its job, it can also fail to get paid until it decides to do what it is being paid to do.

And politically stupid.

You are clearly unable to think outside the box. The guy who did the politically stupid thing was Reid and going with the nuclear option on Judicial appointments.

We need a Congress that can get stuff done. People are sick of both sides not being able to do anything.

Now you sound like just another whiny lib. Here I have proposed a plan for Congress to use its present Constitutional authority to "get stuff done." There's lots of things in Congress's Constitutional authority to do, if only it choses to exercise those powers to do so.

If you even have two neurons to rub together to come up with a better plan than mine I'll challenge you to do it now.

FReegards!

[IrishBrigade]

As evil as sodomy is, I just can’t wrap my head around the idea that a God who has put up with the murder of 58 million babies is going to rain down hellfire on the country because of a few million sodomites.

...that’s what we call an ‘inconvenient truth’ to those who populate this forum...

[IrishBrigade]

My pro-pervert meter has a good record, and fauked to flag Megyn.

...well, I’m glad it wasn’t ‘flagged’ to ‘fauk’ Megyn...

[Vermont Lt]

Clearly, I have at least two neurons to rub together, because I can touch type.

[Jimmy Valentine]

"But it will always be immoral, deviant and unclean."

BINGO!

[Agamemnon]

Clearly, I have at least two neurons to rub together, because I can touch type.

That's great.

Now why don't you then just touch-type up a plan that you think is better than mine and can pass Constitutional muster and we'll compare them, side by side, shall we?

FReegards!

[Vermont Lt]

Hows about we elect people to follow the Constitution. And when they do not, we boot them out of office and elect different people?

[Agamemnon]

That's certainly a start, but that's also the time worn current solution, and I think we can agree it is working only marginally well.

I have proposed a solution.

What's your new, different, and better Constitutionally-informed solution, and tell readers why it is better than the Constitutionally-informed solution I have proposed.

FReegards!

[Vermont Lt]

Nope. I am not playing reindeer games this morning.

[Agamemnon]

Nope. I am not playing reindeer games this morning.

OK, I get it.

It's a lot easier to sit on the sidelines and shoot spit balls at someone else's strategy, than it is to actually have developed any substantive, well reasoned strategy of your own, that your are in any way capable of communicating in a forum like FR.

Enjoy your touch typing: shave your legs, and KellyGirl OfficeTemp services just might have a career slot waiting for you that is perfectly suited to your skills set and at the same time is one that doesn't require a whole lot of deep thinking or intellectual heavy lifting.

FReegards!

[Vermont Lt]

You obviously do not understand collaborative reasoning. I told you what was wrong with your plan. Fix those and try again.

I did not say I had a better one, nor do I think anything we say on a forum is going to have one iota of impact.

The Gay marriage issue is not an issue for me. I am not saying I support it. I am saying its not an issue. My church does not recognize gay marriage and that is the only marriage that matters to me. Marriage is a status before God. He knows.

The state, or commonwealth in my instance, is run by idiots. They think they are doing a lot of things correctly. They are not.

So, you can make your plan. I will be happy to give you constructive criticism. But this is not my battle.