Maggie Thinks You’re a Bully… and She Wants You to Pay For It

Timothy Kincaid

September 8th, 2009

Maggie Gallagher, president of National Organization for Marriage seems to be getting shriller every time I hear from her. In her latest rant on Townhallgallagher, Maggie equates even the most cautious of concern for gay people as an accusation that she is a hater and a bigot:

Most of the people in Maine were enthusiastic, but one clergyman asked me, “Shouldn’t we live with our neighbors in peace?”

His question haunts me for its debased presumptions: Is using democracy to fight for shared values somehow an act of war against our neighbors? “Agree with me or you’re a hater” is not the authentic voice of peace and tolerance. But the question underscored an increasingly obvious truth: Gay marriage advocates now rage against Americans who disagree with them, no matter how civilly we conduct the debate. They believe only one side has the moral right to be heard.

Perhaps the Townhall readers can, with Maggie, hear rage, denial of a right to be heard, and an accusation that she’s a hater in the clergyman’s, but to me she’s sounding more and more like a loon. And a selfish entitlement-obsessed loon, at that.

Here’s the truth: You will now be called a hater and a bigot merely for standing for marriage as one woman and one man. What do we make of this sad truth? So far, the bullies pay no price for their meanness and their rage.

Oh, but you know that if Maggie can get her way, you’ll pay and pay dearly. How dare you question her authority?!

Which may be why I’ve finally figured out who Maggie Gallagher reminds me of: Delores Umbridge. They seem to share the same perspective on life.

Burr

September 8th, 2009

More projection as usual.

No, you NOMbnuts DO have the right to be heard. Have at it. I really don’t care how many people simply vocally disagree with my personal choices.

You don’t have to right to run my life though. BIG difference.

Andrew

September 8th, 2009

Oh my god! Love the Umbridge reference. And she really looks like the character too.

Cole

September 8th, 2009

If you are not silly, docile and subservient heterosexuals will have a problem with you. They want to make the rules for you, decide what you are, how you experience life and you are to accept it without question.

David

September 8th, 2009

ROFL! She even looks like Umbridge. Great parallel! She, however, does not have the ear and trust of the Minister of Magic, thank goodness.

Bearchewtoy75

September 8th, 2009

Maggie Gallagher IS a bigot. No, she’s not one of these foaming from the mouth types carrying a “God Hates Fags” sign.

However, how on earth can you claim that ANY relationship that is not a marriage between a man and woman is BENEATH traditional marriage and not expect to be labeled as such?

If Ms. Gallagher is so hung up on tradition and family, then she should start using her married named (it is tradition, after all!)

Priya Lynn

September 8th, 2009

I agree Bearchewtoy. Maggie’s crazy if she thinks she can be civil about insisting some people are inferior to her.

Fan

September 8th, 2009

The clergyman asked her a good question, and it’s appropriate that it haunts her. It tells me that her heart is not all stone. (Like, the question wouldn’t haunt Fred Phelps one iota, and probably not Peter LaBarbera either.)

I grant her the right to be heard — she seems to be getting that right, no?

I also grant us the right to feel authentic emotions. And authentic emotions here include rage. The rage is earned, deserved, and appropriate. We are not raging for no reason.

I think she was haunted by the question “Shouldn’t we live with our neighbors in peace?” because I think she knows, deep down, that her behavior is not “living with our neighbors in peace.” Her behavior is meddlesome interference in a natural process of expanding civil rights. Her rationales for her position make little sense; it seems that ultimately her rationale is nothing at all intellectual, but is just emotion — and the emotion is, overwhelmingly, aggression.

Check out what Alice Miller describes as “the vicious cycle of contempt” in her book The Drama of the Gifted Child. I am confident that Maggie Gallagher has a history of being treated poorly by others. Couched in “civility,” she’s now out for revenge, and has picked a vulnerable group to act-out upon.

grantdale

September 8th, 2009

Note to self: she didn’t give the answer to the question.

Civility, dear Maggie, is more than a concern for using swear words or name-calling. It ultimately is respect for the citizen, the person on which the word ‘civil’ is based.

Determinedly creating, or leaving, some citizens as lower creatures is NEVER a civil act. To expect those held down to be at peace with that abuse is an arrogance that has never been sustained, ever. Only a bigot does the first, and also thinks the second is possible “on this occassion, with these people”.

Frankly the boot fits, and she should wear it. Her campaigns do not ‘protect’ marriage one iota but they leave in their wake communities with re-awakened but baseless fears, and gay men and lesbians again reminded of the scorn and hate we recognise all too well.

At least Delores Umbridge is a work of fiction. Maggie Gallagher is a wrecking ball.

Michael

September 9th, 2009

“Is using democracy to fight for shared values somehow an act of war against our neighbors?”

Well, if by your own words you’re fighting for “shared” (ie imposed) values against a section of your society, I find it hard to see how it can end up and anything other than an act of war against your neighbours, and I think it shows a total lack of awareness on Maggie Gallagher’s part that she continues to use the military metaphor as she decries being called on it within the same sentence.

Timothy (TRiG)

September 9th, 2009

I think it shows a total lack of awareness on Maggie Gallagher’s part that she continues to use the military metaphor as she decries being called on it within the same sentence.

Applause.

TRiG.

Bruce Garrett

September 9th, 2009

Gay marriage advocates now rage against Americans who disagree with them, no matter how civilly we conduct the debate.

Since when is debating whether or not to take away your neighbor’s right to marry civil? What’s next…a civil debate on whether or not Jews should be allowed to own property? A civil debate on the correct way to stone a witch to death?

It’s not that clergyman’s question that’s haunting you Gallagher. It’s what’s left of your conscience. Your poor, lost, dying in agony conscience.

Matt

September 9th, 2009

“Is using democracy to fight for shared values somehow an act of war against our neighbors?”

When you’re trying to IMPOSE one set of values on your neighbors, you’re absolutely right it is, wench!

John Ozed

September 9th, 2009

I do love the fact that Mrs. Maggie Srivastav will only allow herself to be photographed from above. Helps hide some chinnage.

Jim Burroway

September 9th, 2009

That’s what we get for being so uppity.

paul j stein

September 9th, 2009

She sounds like a immature child bully who is very insecure in her social skills and insecure at skills for maintaining her/any marriage. She needs our love and support to develop into a functioning adult. Ya, RIGHT! B*TCH!

Elliot

September 9th, 2009

“His question haunts me for its debased presumptions: Is using democracy to fight for shared values somehow an act of war against our neighbors? “Agree with me or you’re a hater” is not the authentic voice of peace and tolerance. But the question underscored an increasingly obvious truth: Abolitionists now rage against Americans who disagree with them, no matter how civilly we conduct the debate. They believe only one side has the moral right to be heard.”

~Maggie just before the Civil War era.

I do feel for her, though. It must be difficult having such deeply held beliefs in a time where they’re becoming increasingly taboo to have. Imagine being a racist during the civil rights era! I’d feel persecuted too, and I’d have to live with that bitter feeling inside my whole life, watching the world go by, changed for equality’s sake.

She’s got a rough life ahead of her.

El Rose

September 9th, 2009

You always resort to name calling!!!!

Why don’t you address the issue Maggie purports: When people believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman, they are lambasted by your side. You support tolerance when it follows your script.

Timothy Kincaid

September 9th, 2009

El Rose,

One of the most common cries from those who seek to abuse and misuse their gay neighbors is, “You want tolerance, you always ask for tolerance, but you won’t give me tolerance”.

There are three problems with that cry

1. We very seldom use the word “tolerance” here at BTB. So your petulance seems out of place here. Perhaps you should step away from the Victim Script and actually read what we say here.

2. It is contrary to its own definition to tolerate intolerance. It’s like loving hatred or including exclusion.

3. We do tolerate you and Maggie and your intolerant, selfish, demanding, and controlling viewpoints. See, we posted yours right above this comment.

Alex

September 9th, 2009

El Rose,

I’m sure I speak for others when I say this: my problem with Maggie Gallagher is not that she wants marriage to be between one man and one woman. She is entitled to her opinion and should have the right to freely express it. My problem, however, is that rather than explaining her opinion logically, intelligently, and factually, she resorts to lies and fear-mongering…and then has the gall to play the victim card.

Priya Lynn

September 9th, 2009

El Rose, your side is welcome to believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, you can have all the one man/one woman marriages you want, no one is stoping you. Its when you try to deny other people the right to marry that you become a hateful bigot. The shoe fits – wear it.

Richard Rush

September 9th, 2009

John Ozed wrote: “I do love the fact that Mrs. Maggie Srivastav will only allow herself to be photographed from above. Helps hide some chinnage.”

Someone managed to get a photo at another angle. Check it out on this post at Good As You. Yikes!

Maggie can slap a veneer of civility on her bigoted self, but that just makes her a deceitful bigot. That’s much better.

Christopher Waldrop

September 9th, 2009

El Rose complains, “You always resort to name calling!!!!” And yet Maggie Gallagher dismisses all those who disagree or even question her views as “bullies”. That sounds like name-calling to me.

Ken in Riverside

September 9th, 2009

@El Rose: I’m sympathetic to your complaint that marriage equality supporters quickly resort to name calling. I don’t think that helps either side move towards reconciliation.

However, I encourage you to objectively examine if the “bigot” label fits or not. I think a pretty good case can be made that “obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion” is evident in the actions and words of those who seek to deny a group of citizens access to the civic rights and responsibilities of marriage.

Roger

September 9th, 2009

It´s had for the intolerants to understand that intolerance IS NOT tolerable at all, and that´s what makes then intolerant, its a vicious circle. But, well, vicious is an adjective the religious fan(lun)atics seem to enjoy. As for her likeness to magical creatures I am more inclined to another association, btw has someone tried to throw a water bucket on her? maybe a lot of our problems will melt away…

PMWOKC

September 9th, 2009

The comparison to Umbridge from the Harry Potter series is very apropos to what is going on with NOM.

Jarred

September 9th, 2009

El Rose:

Consider the following quote from NOM’s own “Talking Points” page on their website:

“Language to avoid at all costs: “Ban same-sex marriage.” Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls.”

They admit openly that people look at them when they honestly admit that what they’re looking to do is ban same-sex marriage. They can try to positively rephrase it in terms of “protecting the definition of marriage” all they want, but it doesn’t change the reality and they know it. It’s just covering things up with a semantic shell game.

So I leave it to Maggie Gallagher to honestly explain how keeping same-sex couples from receiving the same marital rights and benefits as their heterosexual counterparts is not intolerant.

Bill S

September 9th, 2009

Um, gay marriage is legally recognized in six states, and in many countries outside the U.S.A. If refusing to acknowledge that gay coupls can and do legally marry ISN’T bigotry, then what is it?

BobbiCW

September 9th, 2009

Sounds like red meat intended for those who, she hopes, will send her money. Since they wasted so much in IA their coffers must be getting low.

Bruce Garrett

September 9th, 2009

When people believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman, they are lambasted by your side.

It’s one thing to believe something and another to insist same sex couples can’t get married whether or not they believe it too. That’s injecting those beliefs into the lives of other people. Other decent, loving, devoted people, who don’t deserve having their hopes and dreams dashed apart on the barren shoals of Gallagher’s beliefs.

The scorched earth war to deny gay couples the right to marry starts with a bedrock premise that the nature of the love between men or between women is so sterile, so grotesque, as to place it so far beyond the pale of normalcy that even the mere suggestion that it might possibly be of the same devoted and loving nature as heterosexual unions amounts to a profane attack on heterosexuals. That’s where this is coming from. No where else. Every time NOM insists that marriage is between a man and a woman they are saying, in effect, that homosexual couples don’t love, they just have sex, that homosexuals are not so fully human that they Can love, honor and cherish in the way heterosexuals do. Every cheap rationalization for excluding same-sex couples from the sanctuary of marriage boils down, sooner or later, to this one thing: that homosexual unions aren’t unions at all, but hollow, if not profane imitations of genuine heterosexual ones. One of the NOM board members, Orson Scott Card, has said so explicitly.

It is an assault, not just on our households, but on our essential human identity. Gallagher there is merely complaining that the people her political machine is brutalizing are fighting back. But this is not the 1950s. Gay folk don’t suffer quietly in silence anymore. We are not monsters, we are not empty shells, we are human beings. It is grotesque to accuse this community of being bullies simply for defending the honor and the dignity of our love.

Or perhaps Gallagher herself would merely shrug and quietly slink off were the government to cut off Her marriage ring. If so, then I am sorry for her.

Priya Lynn

September 9th, 2009

Exceptional post Bruce, you really summed it up in a profound and powerful way.

Rich

September 9th, 2009

“We got ours, and we ain’t sharin’ it with no damn queers!” That is their whole argument. To the dungheap of history with them! Sooner or later SOMEONE will read the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and decide we are entitled to Equal Protection of the Laws. We have to keep shouting until they hear.

homer

September 9th, 2009

She makes a living stirring up hatred against LGBT people. She does it for the money. She is evil, plain, unadulturated evil.

Matt

September 9th, 2009

Difference between NOMers and gay people- NOMers can’t imagine a world where gays and straights can coexist peacefully, but gay people can imagine a world where that IS possible.

And that is the crucial difference.

Penguinsaur

September 9th, 2009

When people believe marriage is the union of one white man and one white woman, they are lambasted by your side.

GreenEyedLilo

September 9th, 2009

I’m guessing that when she was a little girl, Maggie found the “stop hitting yourself!” playground trick hilarious.

El Rose, nobody’s trying to take anything away from you or Maggie. Remember that.

Ken in Riverside

September 9th, 2009

@Penguinsaur: I don’t get your meaning. Why introduce race into that sentence? Sincere question.

Priya Lynn

September 10th, 2009

Seems clear enough to me. Maggie wouldn’t expect to not get lambasted if she were opposing people marrying on the basis of race, its no different when its on the basis of sexual orienataion.

Penguinsaur

September 10th, 2009

“@Penguinsaur: I don’t get your meaning. Why introduce race into that sentence? Sincere question.”

Because for all their frantic denials their is no difference between denying people marriage because of something they cant change and doesn’t affect them in any way 40 years ago and denying people marriage because of something they cant change and doesn’t affect them in any way today. If the people opposed to gays marrying aren’t bigots, then neither are the people opposed to interracial marriage. I refuse to pretend theirs some massive difference in circumstance when no one has ever been able to show me one.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Pope Francis: Church Must Apologize To Gay People, Others

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1952: Congress Bars Gay People From Immigrating

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1964: "Homosexuality In America"

Today In History, 1965: Gay Rights Advocates Picket the Civil Service Commission

Today In History, 2003: U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Nation's Sodomy Laws

Today In History, 2013: U.S. Supreme Court Declares Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.