Keep It Pithy (16 page)

One is gay marriage. I have not, as the president put it in his own case, “evolved.” I’ve come to another conclusion, which you will soon read
.

But I agree wholeheartedly with the following, written in 2000:

Dykes on Bikes? Take a hike! Can’t you “express yourself” without throwing it in our faces?

When I’m walking down the street with a five-year-old, I don’t want to have to try to explain why Jack is dressed up like Jill or Jill is wearing a buzz cut. The kid shouldn’t have to be dealing with any sexual ideas at all, much less a couple of thousand folks marching around in drag or half-naked in order to “celebrate their sexuality.” Give us all a break. Express your sexuality where the rest of us do, if we have any sense: at home, with the blinds drawn.

On the other hand, religious fanatics who demonize gays and other alternative groups aren’t covering themselves with glory, either. Yes, I know about the references to
homosexuality as “an abomination” in Leviticus, but I also know what the Old Testament says about slavery. As long as a sexual issue is not intruding on your freedom or endangering your kids, leave it to God to sort it out. The deity is a lot smarter than we are. That’s also in the Bible.

Hold that thought.…

Tammy from Tennessee is fired up because I believe homosexuals should have equal protection under the law. “O’Reilly, why do you hate Christians? I believe the Bible is the word of God, and I take it literally. Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. Why are you so intolerant?”

Tammy, it is your right to believe in the Bible and live according to it. It is not your right to
impose
that belief on anyone else. I happen to believe that all Americans have a right to make a living and have a lifestyle free from religious judgment. As long as gays or any other group do not intrude on you, they should be left alone. Let God sort the private stuff out. He is smart enough to do it right.

Somewhat in this vein, a very interesting thing happened on
The Factor
with a story involving openly gay Ellen DeGeneres, J. C. Penney, and a conservative family organization known as One Million Moms. The background to the story is that the Moms demanded that the department store chain fire Ms. DeGeneres as a spokesperson because of her sexual orientation
.

Here’s a portion of my discussion of the topic on my program January 28, 2013, with Fox News contributor Sandy Rios.…

       
O
’
REILLY
: This is a business deal. Ms. DeGeneres is hired as a spokesperson by J. C. Penney. J. C. Penney has an absolutely perfect right to do that.… So there she is, earning a salary to represent the department store chain. And then the Million Moms say, “Hey, because we feel a certain way about Ms. DeGeneres’s lifestyle, you need to fire her.” I don’t think that’s the spirit of America, Sandy, I’ve got to tell you.

       
RIOS
: Bill, spokespeople stand for something. People are chosen because they stand for certain things. They represent companies. It matters very much what they stand for. From my perspective, it isn’t about Ellen DeGeneres, but it’s about mainstreaming something that is not acceptable to Christian and traditional family people all over the country.

       
O
’
REILLY
: But they don’t have to shop there. They don’t have to shop there.… And this is where we run into a problem. Because if you remember with the McCarthy era, in the fifties, and they were hunting down communist sympathizers and not let them work … What is the difference between a McCarthy-era communist blacklist
in the fifties and the Million Moms say[ing], “Hey, J. C. Penney and you other stores, don’t you hire any gay people. Don’t you dare”? What is the difference?

       
RIOS
: The problem is that Ellen DeGeneres has chosen to act out her lesbian lifestyle, marry her partner. It is what that represents. And the fact that J. C. Penney is supposed to be middle America, the store where families shop …

       
O
’
REILLY
: Don’t shop there.

       
RIOS
: It’s disturbing to them.

       
O
’
REILLY
: Don’t shop there.… You’re dodging the essential question. The essential question is that a group, a conservative group in this country, is asking a private company to fire an American citizen based upon her lifestyle. And I don’t think that’s correct.…

And so forth, round and round in the discussion, but I think you get my point
.

Now, for something completely different—

Like Ann Landers, I’ve come up with a little manual for dealing with the opposite sex, but my point of view is not
the same [as hers]. Bring on the cheek-to-cheek, the heavy petting, and the home runs, but not
ever
with any of the following prohibited,
ridiculous
lines:

He says,

“I’ve never met anyone like you.” Please.

“You remind me of my mom.” Run, lady.

“Sex isn’t really that important.” Run very fast.

“Look, I just want to talk to you. Nothing will happen if I come in.” Lock the door.

“I haven’t felt this way about a woman in years.” If said on the first date, call the cops.

“Just one more drink won’t hurt.” Take his keys and drive home without him.

“Want to see my tattoo?” Begin coughing, and do not stop. Tell him you picked up something in the Amazon rain forest.

But it’s not just the guys who come out with the ridiculous lines.

Your reporter has tirelessly collected a few gems from the other side:

She says,

“Let’s be friends.” Fine. Date her best friend.

“My sister’s got two beautiful kids.” Whatever you do, do not have sex with this woman.

“I’m not that kind of girl.” Get the telephone number of her best friend right now.

“Where do you buy your clothes?” Get to a mirror fast.

“I’m
so
tired of the dating scene.” Fella, she has
designs
on you.

“My ex-boyfriend …” She’s still in love.

“When I graduated from Vassar …” Run.

“My mother says …” Run faster.

“Once I make up my mind about a guy …” Lock the door.

“I feel we have a soul connection.” Dial 911.

“Christmas with my folks would be nice.” That’s it. Your dating days are done.

I see no reason to change any of the rules in my dating manual. If you disagree, please let me know
.

But, more seriously …

Many self-described traditionalists support the death penalty. We’ve all heard their arguments; they go back to the beginnings of the Republic
.

This traditionalist disagrees
.

I am against the death penalty because I feel it is too lenient a punishment. For example, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh asked to be put to death and got his wish. McVeigh did not want to spend decades looking at the inside of stone walls and enjoyed going out as a martyr to his screwed-up confederates. According to some who corresponded with him, McVeigh almost relished the thought of the three different tubes of sedatives and poisons being dumped into his veins. And we accommodated him.

I’ve got a better idea. A punishment more appropriate—and much more terrifying—for McVeigh and others who commit crimes against humanity (this includes murder, rape, and large-quantity hard-drug dealing) would be to sentence them to life in prison in a federal penitentiary in Alaska. There they would be forced to endure hard labor, and if they refused to work, they would be quarantined in solitary confinement for twenty-three hours a day. This would effectively banish killers and rapists and condemn them to a life of harsh servitude. This is much more painful than death by injection or electricity.

There’s another advantage, and we have to be honest
about it. Mistakes can be made in criminal prosecutions for a variety of very human reasons. You’ve seen the reports about DNA or other evidence that has exonerated convicts, even some convicted of murder. It is going to happen because no system is perfect. By not executing prisoners a mistake like that can be rectified, as the convicts remain alive. (One interesting footnote: 53 percent of Americans in a national poll believe there should be an execution moratorium. That poll was taken in 2001 after some law students at Northwestern University produced evidence that some Illinois death row inmates had been improperly tried.)