Mark Levin slams O'Reilly for 'putting down his audience'

[itshappening]

This is pretty amazing. Mark Levin goes after O'Reilly for his comments on same-sex marriage. Not many people in radio or tv are prepared to stand up that bully so I think this is great.

AUDIO:
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-rips-bill-oreilly-for-putting-down-the-folks-as-bible-thumpers-over-same-sex-marriage/

[Cutlerzzz]

I'm supposed to be happy that Levin wants the government to ban various marriages?

I don't want to hear Levin's voice so I'm not going to go beyond reading the article.

[itshappening]

I'm supposed to be happy that Levin wants the government to ban various marriages?

I don't want to hear Levin's voice so I'm not going to go beyond reading the article.

Someone prominent standing up to O'Reilly = good. I doubt he wants a federal ban on gay marriage

[FSP-Rebel]

I listened to some Levin last night and he was talking about how these left wing litigators before the SCOTUS were attempting to use federalism and the 10th Amendment to push their case yet in the very next sentence were saying that gay people were the biggest group affected by state referendums. Basically, the left uses anything they can to further their agenda and that's the point here.

[fr33]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?339354-Take-The-No-Levin-Challenge

[dannno]

This is one thing Bill O. is right about. If you don't want gay marriage then don't get one.

If you disagree, get ready to be buried by the millennial in a few years, this is a useless battle.

See this:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

[itshappening]

This is one thing Bill O. is right about. If you don't want gay marriage then don't get one.

If you disagree, get ready to be buried by the millennial in a few years, this is a useless battle.

See this:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

The irony in case you missed it is Bill O is a Catholic who wrote a book on 'Culture Wars' yet here he is insulting religious people's disapproval of homosexual behavior.

[Brett85]

I'm supposed to be happy that Levin wants the government to ban various marriages?

I don't want to hear Levin's voice so I'm not going to go beyond reading the article.

There are no marriages that are banned. No one gets thrown in prison for having their own private marriage ceremony.

[talkingpointes]

The irony in case you missed it is Bill O is a Catholic who wrote a book on 'Culture Wars' yet here he is insulting religious people's disapproval of homosexual behavior.

IRONY: Stephen Colbert is a sunday school teacher in a catholic church. I used to watched him "religiously".

[talkingpointes]

There are no marriages that are banned. No one gets thrown in prison for having their own private marriage ceremony.

But they want other people to approve. They are such cry babies. The more days go by the less I can stand by the gay lobby. They can take sympathy behind an alley and ring the shit out of it. I know longer care anymore what so ever.

[Christian Liberty]

There are no marriages that are banned. No one gets thrown in prison for having their own private marriage ceremony.

This, exactly this.

[erowe1]

I'm supposed to be happy that Levin wants the government to ban various marriages?

I don't want to hear Levin's voice so I'm not going to go beyond reading the article.

We need to take back this abuse of our language. Nobody's talking about banning anything.

[Christian Liberty]

We need to take back this abuse of our language. Nobody's talking about banning anything.

This, once again.

To be honest, its not going to be the end of the world for me if government recognizes SSM. If I could let them win that issue in exchange for stopping the endless wars, endless printing of our money, or endless arrest of people for victimless crimes, I'd take it in a heartbeat. I do have bigger fish to fry. Even still, supporting state recognition of SSM isn't really the libertarian answer, and nobody (Well, not very many people, anyway) actually want to ban SSM, they just don't want to recognize it.

[Brett85]

This, once again.

To be honest, its not going to be the end of the world for me if government recognizes SSM. If I could let them win that issue in exchange for stopping the endless wars, endless printing of our money, or endless arrest of people for victimless crimes, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

Yeah, and I'd let them win that issue in exchange for banning abortion. I just have a problem with people saying that people who don't support same sex marriage are trying to "ban" it, make it "illegal," or trying to "control what people do in their own bedrooms."

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, and I'd let them win that issue in exchange for banning abortion. I just have a problem with people saying that people who don't support same sex marriage are trying to "ban" it, make it "illegal," or trying to "control what people do in their own bedrooms."

Yep, that one too.

[itshappening]

Wake up. They're never going to trade anything for an 'abortion win'

[supermario21]

The only problem is that 90% of the LGBT lobby is going to push for more government in every other facet of societal/economic policy...

[twomp]

There are no marriages that are banned. No one gets thrown in prison for having their own private marriage ceremony.

Yeah you would be right except for the fact that there are many states that don't recognize this marriage as anything. So they don't get the same benefits that a "regular" marriage does. Keep trying the spin though.

[erowe1]

Yeah you would be right except for the fact that there are many states that don't recognize this marriage as anything. So they don't get the same benefits that a "regular" marriage does. Keep trying the spin though.

Spinning would be using the word "ban" for what you just described.

[jkr]

The only problem is that 90% of the LGBT lobby is going to push for more government in every other facet of societal/economic policy...
TRIPLE this

[itshappening]

I just listened to Mark Levin's podcast and the argument is that Congress can define marriage however they want for Federal benefits. They're elected. The Supreme's should not get involved. If people don't like it then harass your congressman and let them pass a law defining it another way. He pointed out that DOMA was passed and signed by Clinton because of the concerns of other states that the MA court was trying to redefine marriage i.e 'married' gays from MA moving to Alabama will want to be recognized in a state that will not recognize them

[itshappening]

Rand Paul's argument is that if the Supreme's decide to get involved in this then the Congress should just rewrite all the laws and make it neutral

[Brett85]

Wake up. They're never going to trade anything for an 'abortion win'

I know. I was just speaking hypothetically.

[dillo]

Bill Oreilly nailed it

[Deborah K]

This, once again.

To be honest, its not going to be the end of the world for me if government recognizes SSM. If I could let them win that issue in exchange for stopping the endless wars, endless printing of our money, or endless arrest of people for victimless crimes, I'd take it in a heartbeat. I do have bigger fish to fry. Even still, supporting state recognition of SSM isn't really the libertarian answer, and nobody (Well, not very many people, anyway) actually want to ban SSM, they just don't want to recognize it.

Compromizer! :p

[Deborah K]

I just listened to Mark Levin's podcast and the argument is that Congress can define marriage however they want for Federal benefits. They're elected. The Supreme's should not get involved. If people don't like it then harass your congressman and let them pass a law defining it another way. He pointed out that DOMA was passed and signed by Clinton because of the concerns of other states that the MA court was trying to redefine marriage i.e 'married' gays from MA moving to Alabama will want to be recognized in a state that will not recognize them

I'd like Levin to explain where it states that in the Constitution.

[kathy88]

I'd like Levin to explain where it states that in the Constitution.

AMEN. Even if it weren't for the awful voice, I physically react to him. And not in a good way. LOL.

[erowe1]

I'd like Levin to explain where it states that in the Constitution.

I would say the necessary and proper clause.