BILL O’REILLY: All right. Now, let’s get to this gay thing in Massachusetts. We’ve covered this from the jump. All right. I think it’s Newton, Massachusetts, public school. They want the 5-, 6- and 7-year-olds to read gay fairy tales, right? The two princes, and this, that, and the other thing.

WIEHL: Right.

O’REILLY: Adults said—parents said, “Hey, look, knock it off. They’re too little. We don’t want them reading this stuff. It goes against our religion, everything we stand for, and it’s inappropriate.”

But the Massachusetts—and only in Massachusetts—well, maybe in Berkeley and San Francisco—could this happen—they said, “No, if we want to have your 5-year-old read about two princes, then we’re damn well going to do it,” correct?

WIEHL: Mostly correct. I mean, it was—it was two couples in Lexington that said, “Look, you know, we don’t want our kids,” a kindergartner and a first-grader. Now, they were reading very different things. The kindergartner was reading about what families are, and it happened to include homosexual parents.

The first grader was reading “The Prince and I” or “The King and I.” And that had more of—“The King and King.” That had more to do with, really, a promotion of homosexuality. I have a problem with that one.

But the first one, the Massachusetts court was bound by precedent in that state and also bound by the constitution in that state, which says that public schools cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation in the public curriculum.

O’REILLY: All right. So you have to—when you’re 5 you have to know about alternative lifestyles?

WIEHL: It’s not forced down your throat, though, either, because this was optional reading. The child did not have to…

O’REILLY: But not “The Two Princes.”

WIEHL: Not “The Two Princes.”

O’REILLY: They had to read that in the first grade.

WIEHL: That one I have a problem with.

KELLY: I could not disagree with her more. Do you know what else the Massachusetts law requires? It requires that parents be given the opportunity to pull their child out of the classroom when—if they are going to discuss human sexuality with the child. That’s what Massachusetts law requires to the letter. That was not done.

All these parents wanted—they didn’t want to shut this program down for all of the public schools.

O’REILLY: OK. Then why did the judge boot this thing?

KELLY: But let me make my point. They didn’t want to shut it down for everyone. They just wanted notice when it was going to be taught to their child so they could quietly remove their child.

O’REILLY: Pull the kid out.

KELLY: That was too much for the Massachusetts court.

O’REILLY: Right.

KELLY: That what happened. Because the court said there’s no fundamental right to you, parents, to be able to do that. They…

O’REILLY: But the ACLU has been saying that for years, that the parent doesn’t have a right in the school—public school system to dictate anything.

KELLY: Well, here’s what the court found. The court said, “If you were—if your child were being indoctrinated with some sort of religious belief...”

O’REILLY: “The Two Princes” isn’t indoctrination?

KELLY: “... or gay belief, then that would be one thing. But we don’t think making them read that book is indoctrination.”

O’REILLY: But that’s a political viewpoint.

KELLY: I agree with you 100 percent. That’s why I think the court got it wrong. And I think it overlooks the enormous influence a teacher has on a 5-year-old child.

O’REILLY: All right. Let Wiehl have the last word.

WIEHL: Not in—not in the case of the kindergartner. The kindergartner was just reading about alternate lifestyles. That’s it.

O’REILLY: We got that. We got that, Wiehl. Now you’re being redundant. Address her concern.

WIEHL: But that’s exactly it. He could have been removed. This little Jacob did not have to read this book that did not promote homosexuality. It just said these are these alternate lifestyles out there.

O’REILLY: Address “The Two Princes.”

WIEHL: As “The Two Princes,” I do have a problem with it. And the court even said they had a problem with it, but they were bound by Massachusetts law.

O’REILLY: But they’re not, according to Kelly.

WIEHL: No, because I read the cases that they said they were bound by, and I agreed with the court. They—the president is there to…

O’REILLY: I’ve got to go and sort this out. You say one thing; she says another. And I’ve got to…

KELLY: The bottom line was, the court said it’s not indoctrination. That’s how the court found. And of course, the court didn’t have a problem with “King and King.” The court did not have a problem with it. The court loved “King and King.”

WIEHL: No, no, no.

KELLY: The court loved these two books, because they say gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts and, fine, if you want to teach it to the children.

WIEHL: The court said it was a lot closer on “King and King.”

O’REILLY: They’re pinheads. You know they are.

Ladies, thanks very much. We appreciate it.