“Marriage defender” Bill O’Reilly is divorced

Fox’s Bill O’Reilly has a problem with gay issues.

He likes to talk about how he really doesn’t care about the gay thing, and at one point, he even suggested that he was fine with gay marriage.  Then the religious right got upset and suddenly Bill found God (or God’s ugly twin) again.  And so it goes with gay marriage.  Now when O’Reilly talks about gay rights, he often reiterates the line that he doesn’t care about it, but then finds a way to undercut the pro-gay position.

Gawker reports today on Bill O’Reilly’s divorce.  Yes, proud marriage defender Bill O’Reilly didn’t even defend his own marriage “until death do us part.”

The divorce took place in 2011 (I wasn’t even aware he was divorced), and apparently it’s been somewhat contentious, and involves the couple’s two children, aged 10 and 13.  Which is interesting, since O’Reilly once went off against gay marriage by talking about how kids need a “responsible mother and father” – which they won’t really have after a divorce, at least not full-time (and I’m sure the religious right would argue that it’s not “responsible” to divorce when you have children, period).

Here’s O’Reilly on the children:

Our Judeo-Christian traditions, which have made the United States the most prosperous and just society the world has ever known, speak to a family built around a responsible mother and a father—certainly the optimum when it comes to raising children.

I also understand that once America changes marital law for one group, homosexuals, it will have to allow plural marriages and other types of situations under “equal justice for all.” Also, there is no question the Scandinavian marriage model of anything goes has led to a drastic decline in traditional marriage.

Now, you might have noticed something else in that O’Reilly quote. Not just a mention of plural marriages, aka polygamy, but also a mention of “other types of situation.”  I read that and I immediately thought “goat.”  And what do you know, that’s exactly what O’Reilly meant.  Gay marriage might lead to people getting the legal right to marry goats, per O’Reilly.


Loving goat via Shutterstock

Loving goat via Shutterstock

O’REILLY: The judges in Massachusetts knew they weren’t going to be impeached when they said to the state legislature, “Gay marriage is now legal in Massachusetts because we say it is. We the judges” — they knew they weren’t gonna be impeached. They knew the legislature didn’t care. You get the government you deserve. In California, the prevailing wisdom is marijuana is no big deal, let’s legalize it. And since we can’t get that through the legislature, we’ll do it this way. And they did it! You see?

And 10 years, this is gonna be a totally different country than it is right now. Laws that you think are in stone — they’re gonna evaporate, man. You’ll be able to marry a goat — you mark my words!

But it doesn’t stop with goats.  This is a common theme of O’Reilly, bestiality, and he’s gone off about ducks, turtles and dolphins too.


Man and duck via Shutterstock

Man and duck via Shutterstock

O’REILLY: The secular progressive movement would like to have marriage abolished, in my opinion. They don’t want it, because it is not diverse enough. You know, that’s what this gay marriage thing is all about. But now, you know, the poly-amorphous marriage, whatever they call it, you can marry 18 people, you can marry a duck, I mean

LIS WIEHL (co-host): A duck? Quack, quack.

O’REILLY: Well, why, you know, if you’re in love with the duck, who is the society to tell you you can’t do that?


Turtle via Shutterstock

Turtle via Shutterstock

GLENN BECK, FOX NEWS: If you change the variables and say that it doesn’t have to be a man and a woman, it can be a woman and a woman and or a man and a man, why not a man, and a woman, a woman, a woman? It may sound crazy.

BILL O’REILLY, FOX NEWS: I don’t care about gay marriage, like here you go. This is the slippery slope. You legalize gay marriage, gay sex, and all of that, then anybody who wants to marry five people can do it, commune people can do it, you can marry a turtle.


Man and dolphin via Shutterstock

Man and dolphin via Shutterstock

O’REILLY: Time now for “The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day.” One of the arguments against gay marriage, that we just spoke about, is that if it becomes law, all other alternative marital visions will be allowed. We’ve already seen a Dutchman marry two ladies in the Netherlands. Looks like a happy guy. And now comes word that a British woman has married a dolphin in Israel. Forty-one-year-old Sharon Tendler has tied the knot with a 35-year-old mammal, so age is no problem there. But there might be other issues, which would be, of course, ridiculous to get into, and there is one more thing. The dolphin is a female, Cindy, so you got that going on. Again, I guess this is part of the honeymoon ritual, but far be it from me to know anything about that. Despite everything, we wish the couple the best and we hope to see them at SeaWorld or someplace.

Though perhaps my favorite O’Reilly quote on gay marriage was when he warned in 2012 that the President’s embrace of marriage equality meant he would lose North Carolina, and likely Virginia, Nevada, Florida and Ohio.


O’Reilly then warned that after the election, the traditional media likely wouldn’t mention that the gays caused Obama to lose.  But a funny thing happened – Obama won four out of five of those states:

Election results 2012, Obama in blue, Romney in red. Via HuffPo.

Election results 2012, Obama in blue, Romney in red. Via HuffPo.

It’s sad to hear about Bill O’Reilly’s divorce.  But the good news is that there’s a goat somewhere in Alabama with Bill’s name on it.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

37 Responses to ““Marriage defender” Bill O’Reilly is divorced”

  1. HeilMary1 says:


  2. mr_ed says:

    Glad to give you a LOL on that one. Thanks!

  3. silas1898 says:

    Let’s propose a Constitutional Amendment (deep voice) banning cross-species marriages. Maybe that would shut them up for five minutes.
    I will never understand the wingnuts obsession with other peoples’ sex lives.

  4. karmanot says:

    Turtles are slower than chickens, who can out run Billo.

  5. karmanot says:

    “to marry goats, ducks, and turtles” Is that like bestial Mormonism?

  6. karmanot says:

    And two timed him big time!

  7. Tor says:

    Doesn’t Bill belong to an international corporation-cult that bans divorce and contraception?

  8. Tor says:

    Why, it just might lead to bible-based polygamy!!!

  9. RepubAnon says:

    Wouldn’t the duck have to be over 18? Or get its parent’s consent to the marriage?

  10. tedhayes says:

    Hypocrisy by any other name is still pronounced, “Bill O’Reilly.”

  11. mike31c says:

    Never thought Billy was a turtle fucker…

  12. Ninong says:

    O’Reilly should confine his fantasies to “the falafel thing” and stop thinking so much about sex with ducks. The man has a serious problem and should seek professional medical help.

  13. HeilMary1 says:

    LOL! Best comment!

  14. BeccaM says:

    BTW, there’s a story going around about Santa Fe, NM Mayor David Cross and city attorney Gino Zamora (sp? I’ve seen 3 different versions) saying that according to state law, New Mexico should be allowing same-sex marriages, and in any case should also be bound to recognize marriages performed in other states, regardless of gender.


    I advise caution in any presuming this is earth-shaking news, because it’s actually semi-old news here in the Land of Enchantment. At the same time in ’04 that my wife and I were getting married in SF (sadly, it didn’t hold up in court), a county clerk in Sandoval County decided that a literal reading of NM law did not prohibit the issuance of license to same-sex couples. Unfortunately, this was stopped and all issued licenses declared void.

    In 2011, state AG Gary King (D) issued a statement saying he felt the state was actually bound by law to recognize legally-enacted out-of-state same-sex marriages. Again unfortunately, his word does not carry the force of law here. In a way, it’s like the Federal DOJ saying they feel DOMA is unconstitutional; until a court rules on it or the legislature acts, it’s nothing more than an executive branch opinion.

    The chances for action continue to appear to be slim, as even a domestic partnership can’t seem to make it past the legislature and our sometimes sane, sometimes wingnutty GOP governor Martinez has said she’d veto such a measure anyway.

    Supposedly Mayor Cross plans to submit a city resolution next week “recognizing” that same-sex marriage is legal in NM. However, it will not have the force of law and is essentially unenforceable at this time. If he orders or any county clerk takes it as permission to go ahead and issue licenses, or some couple married in NY or Iowa or MA decides to try to assert their rights… well, we’re talking a ton of litigation yet to happen and no certain outcome.

    The main reason I advise caution is in both the posted stories and in blog reports, I’ve seen people mistakenly assert that out-of-state same-sex marriages are already recognized here. Emphatically, they are not. I have years of state income tax forms and newly signed mortgage & title paperwork proving this is not so. According to NM, my wife and I are nothing more than property-sharing unmarried females. The misleading part is this: While it is true that current state law requires recognition of any legal marriage performed elsewhere and it does not specify gender, nevertheless the courts, legislature, and governor’s office continue to maintain that because there was no specific intent to include same-sex couples, exclusion is to be presumed.

    True, this does and has represented a legal opportunity for a long time now. But so far we have not been able to make much headway against the entrenched bigotry of the homophobes, especially those in the Catholic and Baptist lobbies.

  15. Clecinosu says:

    Funny how homophobes like Bill-O never mention a thing about consent. Men and women can consent to marriage. Pets, barnyard animals and wildlife cannot. And that’s the difference.

    But then again, facts like this would muck up their ridiculous claims, wouldn’t it?

  16. Badgerite says:

    I remember watching an Oprah show once when her protege Nate Berkus was on and talking for the first time about the loss of his partner and clearly the love of his life during the tsunami that hit Indonesia years ago. They had been vacationing there at the time it hit. Berkus survived. His partner did not. The grief was written all over him. These cases are about this kind of human relationship. The kind of relationship that anchors another person’s life. It is the kind of relationship to which society owes a certain respect and protection.

  17. Bosfarcal says:

    Who got custody of the falafel?

  18. This is not something I expected to read here today, or anywhere.

  19. HeilMary1 says:

    Bill thinks stalking is dating.

  20. HeilMary1 says:

    But she came to her senses and dumped Bill for a local cop.

  21. SkippyFlipjack says:

    hah.. nice

  22. nicho says:

    It’s probably too late. We’ve gone way beyond turtles. As we saw from O’Reilly’s case some woman was able to marry a douchebag.

  23. nicho says:

    Well, we just saw one capable of posting tripe to a blog site — so anything could happen.

  24. nicho says:

    You’d probably have to put everything in a shell corporation.

  25. BeccaM says:

    The inconsistency and hypocrisy should make it clear the position isn’t about protecting marriage or tradition or any of that twaddle.

    It’s about privilege. Heterosexist privilege in this case, but the set-up is far from uncommon.

    And it’s why we keep hearing the same twisted illogic, the same arguments as were claimed by the bigots in opposition to equal rights regardless of race or gender. (Many of you are probably too young to remember, but one of the most ridiculous — yet still taken seriously — arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment was that it would result in mandatory unisex bathrooms.)

    If marriage was intended only for adults who can procreate naturally, they’d be outlawing childless and infertile marriages. If ‘protection’ was the goal, they’d be outlawing no-fault divorces and imposing long waiting periods before being granted a license. They’d also be imposing criminal penalties for adultery. And if traditional ‘Biblical’ marriage is what they claim to be protecting, well, then it’s back to chattel status for women and polygamy for any man rich enough to afford multiple wives, concubines, and slaves. (Mind, among their more extremist elements, some of this IS what they want — but this absolutely is not what their leaders will push. BillO would never give up his right to divorce his family at will. If there are child support payments involved, I’m sure he resents every penny.)

    The extension of equal civil rights is a win for everybody — except for those who need to know that people other than themselves are suffering in order to believe (falsely) in their own superiority.

  26. SkippyFlipjack says:

    O’Reilly is just worried because there’s little case law regarding divorcing goats, ducks and turtles. What if someone lives in a community property state? How do you split half your assets with a turtle?

  27. Krusher says:

    Maybe a shotgun would marry Bill O’Reilly. And then shoot him.

  28. Krusher says:

    “O’Reilly says gay marriage could lead men to marry goats, ducks, and turtles.”

    All of which wouldn’t touch that creepy old pervert with a 10 foot pole. The Goats, ducks, and turtles be a runnin’ for cover.

  29. Naja pallida says:

    Do you suppose he considers his sexual harassment of co-workers as dating?

  30. stupidicus says:

    Quite frankly it’s hard to gauge how stupid people like him and those that read or listen to him are. Modern AMerican marriage is above all else, a contract, which of course an animal can’t sign or consent to in the legally required way under contract law. He might as well be arguing that shotgun weddings are gonna make a comeback.

  31. Badgerite says:

    The only question before the Court is whether the state can prohibit a gay person from marrying another gay person. Now, if Bill O’Reilly wants to marry a turkey I think that might be a fine pairing (equals and all) but that is not what the issue before the Court and the country is about. That is like saying that if we allow the speed limit to go to 65 miles per hour we cannot possibly keep any limit on speed at all so 90 mph or 120 mph, it is all the same. It isn’t all the same. And by denying a gay person the right to marry the person they love, you are denying them the right to marry period. That is what the issue is about. Not diversity. Not anything goes. The right of that person to have their loved one and their family protected by law. Got it? Ok then.

  32. jomicur says:

    When you come across an animal capable of signing a marriage license application, be sure and let us know, okay?

  33. Surely the slippery-slope argument can be applied to any marriage? I mean, who knows what legitimizing marriage between a male and female human might lead to? It might lead to relations between males and females of any species. At least on DeviantArt.

  34. guest1 says:

    I don’t think marriage will happen, but about 30 or so years from now anyone mocking the ‘zoophiles’ will be labeled a biggot just like gays today. I doubt pedos will ever get accepted and they shouldn’t, only thing stopping zoos is the eeww/religion factor

  35. God’s ugly twin… aka Angry Santa.

  36. UncleBucky says:

    If he’s divorced, is he presently dating? ;)

  37. Is the goat’s name Billy?

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS