I think the main point is being missed. The fact Maggie’s husband is Hindu is irrelevant. However, the fact that she has aligned herself with traditonal values advocates who abhor her marital choice is relevant. Tony Perkins, for example, freaked when the first Hindu prayer was read in the Senate http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LH07G02&f=WA07G24

No one can legitimately challenge the fact that the God America refers to in the pledge, our national motto, and other places is the monotheistic God of the Jewish and Christian faith. There is no historic connection between America and the polytheistic creed of the Hindu faith. I seriously doubt that Americans want to change the motto, “In God we Trust, which Congress adopted in 1955, to, “In gods we Trust.” That is essentially what the United States Senate did today.

Maggie refers to people of this mindset as

People who choose to be offended by others’ diverse attempts to gain the favor of the divine, simply because they pray differently or not at all, should be exposed for the illiberal, intolerant, small-minded bigots they are

Well, these “bigots” are Maggie’s supporters from whom she has been able to acheive fame and power. These “bigots” also donate gobs of money to her National Organization for Marriage.

unfortunely this new information will not give the marriage bigots pause since they’re entirely comfortable with the many hypocracies of their position.

can we expect anything different in a culture where christians, whether liberal or conservative, freely pick and choose which doctrines and scriptures they wish to follow and which to ignore?

to quote jesus / jack black:
the bible says a lot of things

Ms. Gallagher, as part of a panel on the Dr. Phil Show, participated very clearly in making the connection between “traditional marriage” and the Bible (and against Marriage Equality) several days after Prop 8 passed in California.

Her marriage only serves to illustrate the point that every single one of us lives a lifestyle that is immoral according to some of our neighbors – that is why we don’t use arbitrary notions of “morality” to set social policy, at least when we aren’t talking about GLBT people, of course.

To me her interfaith marriage actually seems perfectly consistent with her professed views about marriage. It’s only inconsistent with beliefs that others here claim she has but doesn’t reveal publicly.

Let’s lay into her for the bald-faced lies, for her attempts to fund fake grass roots campaigns, for the money she took from the Bush administration to transmit propaganda in her syndicated work, and on and on. But let’s not waste time feeding her victim complex with distorted smears like this.

I therefore see no problem to judge her marriage in the same way she judges our marriages, as a sin. Maggie sure doesn’t care about the individual circumstances of our relationships; they must all be condemned for arbitrary, religious reasons. Turnabout is fair play.

More importantly, when she starts off on how governmental recognition of same-sex relationships would require “people of faith” to compromise their principles to recognize us as married, her marriage is more than fair game. After all, if Maggie were hospitalized in a Catholic institution, that hospital would be forced, under current civil law, to recognize her pagan sex partner as a “husband” even though their marriage is not fully recognized by the Catholic church – it may not even be blessed by the church (that decision is really up to the individual pastor when she got married).

This post is a cheap shot. How long have you been following Ms. Gallagher, Timothy? You should know that while they make a lot of noise about threats to people’s religious liberties, she and her organizations do their best to avoid basing their anti-marriage equality arguments on religious grounds.

The avoidance of “religious grounds” is only for political necessity. Maine is one of the least religious states in the US, as I understand. And even beyond Maine, but outside of the Bible-Belt, the “religious grounds” argument is not a political winner.

Why did the Christian Civic League of Maine change their name to the Maine Family Policy Council? I think it’s because the word “Christian” is a political negative.

Virtually all organized persecution of gays in the US is Christian-based. “Religious grounds” rhetoric seems prevalent in private communications intended to rally their people to maintain the anti-gay crusade, but they are careful to avoid it in communication directed toward others.