Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

The ever klassy Maggie Gallagher

Timothy Kincaid

September 30th, 2010

In the worldview of the National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher, those who side with equality do not do so out of principle or a sense of decency or even from the clear “any person” language of the Constitution. Nope. Those who disagree with Maggie have ulterior motives.

Here’s how Maggie intuited the reasons for Judge Walker’s announced retirement from the court

Kathryn, I didn’t expect it either, but it kind of explains a lot, doesn’t it? How could Judge Walker exhibit such gross bias and deliver such an injudicious opinion? The answer appears to be, in part, that it was his swan song. He’ll leave the bench famous, a hero in his hometown, and a hot commodity in whatever private venture he moves into.

Oh she’s a klassy act, that Maggie. Klassy as hot pink stretch pants at a funeral.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Regan DuCasse
September 30th, 2010 | LINK

That woman is disgusting.
Seriously.

Mykelb
September 30th, 2010 | LINK

Ms. Gallagher, you doth project too much!!!

Regan DuCasse
September 30th, 2010 | LINK

When it’s all said and done, who would Maggie be if she weren’t a chronic professional gay hater?
It’s a controversial issue, without her. She doesn’t have to do a thing to make IT relevant, nor create anything to make it a tough subject to talk about.

She wouldn’t be famous, and she’s nobody’s hero in the way say…someone like Coretta S. King or Mildred Loving is. Or even Dr. Maya Angelou or Harvey Milk is.
She does no work that matters, has no talents that do.
She’ll never sit on a judicial bench, nor lawyer for those with no civil rights.
She thinks that’s what she’s doing, and CLAIMS the mantle of a civil rights warrior the way Brian Brown has.

But they are on the ‘just us’ bus, not the fighting for JUSTICE bus.
I think she knows she’s a zero, so has to justify her speeches, appearances and quixotic media forums because it’s the most attention she’s going to get.
It’s attention for an empty reason, really.
If there were no gay people, what WOULD she do, or say that anyone cares to listen to?
It’s not sexy to talk about things that have nothing to do with sex.

At least for her. She’s not sexy either.
She’s a slug, and I’m tired of her grating and using gay people to be somebody.
Judge Walker had a life, and will continue to, no matter WHAT MG says or thinks.
What’s SHE going to do for a second act?

Richard Rush
September 30th, 2010 | LINK

I don’t know about klassy, but Maggie Gallagher Srivastav certainly wishes she were Klassie, as in Khristianist lassie wannabe. She desperately wants people to forget that she is married . . . to her Hindu husband, Raman. Because, for the people who fund NOM, traditional marriage is definitely NOT between one Catholic and one Hindu. So, to create the illusion, she non-traditionally drops Srivastav from her name and keeps Raman well hidden.

If I could talk to Raman, I’d like to ask: Doesn’t that woman make you feel emasculated? Have you no pride? I’ll bet she’s pulling in some really big bucks from NOM to make it worth your while, isn’t she? Is that one of the reasons she wants to keep NOM’s finances hidden?

MJC
September 30th, 2010 | LINK

She has class, but it’s fourth.

Candace
September 30th, 2010 | LINK

She’s a slug

+100

Bob
September 30th, 2010 | LINK

Don’t be fooled by her words, she must say what the low IQ followers want to hear. It’s her job to keep her base both angry and misinformed. She knows damn well Cooper and the ADF did a poor job and had absolutely nothing in the form of evidence to back their claims.

Maggie, every judge is biased against nasty, mean-spirited unfair people like you. Get used to it.

Regan DuCasse
September 30th, 2010 | LINK

She kills me with this “gross bias” and “injudicious opinion” accusation.
Did she READ that 136 page decision?
I LOVED reading it. I like reading legal stuff.

A judge needs to have EVIDENCE to weigh in favor of a plaintiff or defendant.
That is if you don’t have a jury to do it. Apparently MG thinks that her side doesn’t need any.
Just saying that the big, bad gay people are going to ruin marriage, isn’t going to cut it.
You need proof.
Bitching about the judge isn’t going to change that. Not a very mature or intelligent response to the failure of ADF and Cooper, is it?

David
September 30th, 2010 | LINK

Maggie is telling us how her mind works. When she guesses about Walker’s motives, the only data she has to work with, is her own self – how she thinks, what she would do, her own motivations.

She has projected herself into Judge Walker’s shoes, and the result is something less than honorable.

Which is completely in keeping with everything else we know about Maggie from her own actions and words.

Amicus
October 1st, 2010 | LINK

Upset that all the money in the world couldn’t buy her the opinion she wanted, maybe?

Not that they have respect for legal opinions (see Mount Vernon Statement).

How many Federal Judges is NOM thumbing their nose at now? Just the one in Maine or is the list longer?

Clearly they prefer to pay the penalties/fine to keep their narrowly funded agenda out of the sight of voters, just long enough to dupe them (maybe twice).

Amicus
October 1st, 2010 | LINK

er…Manhattan Declaration, not Mount Vernon.

Alex
October 1st, 2010 | LINK

How come anti-gay girls are always fat and ugly like Maggie? Srsly, I never see hot chics fighting against gay equality, maybe bc they’re getting some? It’s like all the anti-gay doods are secretly queer, and the anti-gay gals are all fat and ugly, what gives?

ZRAinSWVA
October 1st, 2010 | LINK

Alex, in my opinion, making comments about body shape and physical beauty is crass (things one cannot control). Comment all you want, though, on her actions, words and deeds (things one does control).

TampaZeke
October 1st, 2010 | LINK

Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Hawaii’s Governor, Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin, Phylis Schlafley, Anita Bryant…

We may argue over whether or not these women are beautiful but there is no argument that they’re not fat.

Priya Lynn
October 1st, 2010 | LINK

How come anti-gay girls are always fat and ugly like Maggie? Srsly, I never see hot chics fighting against gay equality, maybe bc they’re getting some? It’s like all the anti-gay doods are secretly queer, and the anti-gay gals are all fat and ugly, what gives?

Not all of them are fat and ugly:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11270/christian-fundamentalist-terrorism-and-princess-barbie-talibania

justsearching
October 1st, 2010 | LINK

I don’t remember reading “by this ruling, I hope to increase my chances of having gay sex within a legally recognized marriage” in the verdict. Maggie either doesn’t know how to read, or is reading what isn’t between the lines.

Richard Rush
October 1st, 2010 | LINK

Alex, in my opinion, making comments about body shape and physical beauty is crass (things one cannot control[*]).

In general, I would agree. BUT . . .

Here we have Maggie, a self-appointed authority on societal health with respect to marriage, campaigning for laws banning same-sex marriage because, in her view, the future health of society depends on it. While there is no evidence to support that view, there is a mountain of evidence to support the view that obesity is a condition that almost always results in developing associated serious health problems. And those problems impact not only immediate families, but all of society.

With possibly one or two exceptions, the USA leads the world in high rates of obesity. And we are all literally paying for it in higher health care costs. Statistics also show that parents are increasingly teaching their children to be obese.

But Maggie prefers to blame society’s problems on gay-marriage, which harms no one, while ignoring how she is a role-model for promoting the obese lifestyle, which harms everyone. For this and other reasons, she has no credibility.

* The vast majority of people CAN control their weight.

Rob San Diego
October 1st, 2010 | LINK

I can’t wait for Maggie to be the one to be retiring. Oh if only she was too big to get in and out of a car.

David
October 1st, 2010 | LINK

“But Maggie prefers to blame society’s problems on gay-marriage, which harms no one, while ignoring how she is a role-model for promoting the obese lifestyle, which harms everyone. For this and other reasons, she has no credibility.”

Someone ought to launch a campaign against the sin of gluttony.

Jaft
October 1st, 2010 | LINK

@David

People have. It’s most often manifested in campaigns aimed at children reminding them that their country is obese and they should get their little tushes outside so they don’t dare follow down the same path. It also continues the implied rhetoric for little girls that permeates our media and society that their bodies are their highest worth, thereby unintentionally supporting cultures of anorexia and bulimia.

I get that we’re pointing out the hypocrisy of these supposed “Christian” groups letting certain “sins” slide while attacking others, but discourse on weight and appearance often worries me. So, I totally support what you’re getting at…I just fear the road that type of discourse usually leads to.

Everett
October 1st, 2010 | LINK

This woman is a waste of a Yale University graduation.

Alex
October 1st, 2010 | LINK

@ZRA– liberals are wimps and that’s why they always lose. Conservatives fight rough, they win. Maggie Gallagher has said much worse things about gays, you think she worries about being perceived as “crass?” So let me repeat: Maggie Gallagher is ugly and morbidly obese, in fact she’s a cupid stunt and must be treated as such.

@Zeke– none of those chicks is hot, they’re all ugly except for Sarah Palin who is sorta MILF. But Palin is the least homo-obsessed of any of the ladies on your list. So maybe there’s a direct correlation between being ugly in high school and hating queers? Wouldn’t surprise me.

@David– AMEN BROTHER. A campaign against gluttony with cupid stunt Maggie Gallagher as the meme-image is win, win, win.

David
October 1st, 2010 | LINK

“People have. It’s most often manifested in campaigns aimed at children reminding them that their country is obese and they should get their little tushes outside so they don’t dare follow down the same path. It also continues the implied rhetoric for little girls that permeates our media and society that their bodies are their highest worth, thereby unintentionally supporting cultures of anorexia and bulimia.”

So, no, there hasn’t been a campaign against gluttony.

See, gluttony isn’t just about food, or even about being obese. Gluttony is taking more of anything than you need, gluttony is about waste and greed.

Maggie is a glutton not just because of her weight issue, but more importantly, by wasting millions of dollars to push her prejudice when there are children in this country whose only meal for the day is the one provided at school, people living in the U.S. without basic plumbing, dying from lack of basic health care.

Jaft
October 4th, 2010 | LINK

Against gluttony – no. But my point is proven nonetheless.

People hear gluttony and they hear fat. They don’t hear the proper definition. And by only hearing “weight”, they are still forcing and bringing forth everything I mentioned. Take a look at Alex’s comment – we should use Maggie’s picture as the campaign tool. Why? She’s fat and ugly. And that, really, is the most important part, right…? If Maggie is to be considered gluttony and her photo conveys and describes this, how does she differ from any of those tubby kids I mentioned before or even anyone older than them?

Again, I see and agree with what you’re getting at, but I still fear the road that this type of discourse usually leads to. My point still stands.

Richard Rush
October 4th, 2010 | LINK

Jaft, I’m not sure if I understand the main point of your two comments. It seems that you are suggesting we should NOT discourage obesity because the risks of anorexia and bulimia are too great. Is that right? If so, isn’t that like saying we should NOT discourage a sedentary lifestyle for older people because some people may overdo exercise and have a heart attack?

Jaft
October 4th, 2010 | LINK

Sorry, I’m being unclear. I don’t think we should discourage obesity, simply because I think that that’s a personal choice which is far more complicated than we make and, at the end, simply is a personal choice which has as much bearing on you or me as other homosexuals do.

However, I’m so prominently using the notion of anorexia and bulimia because that’s the biggest, most obvious reason we’ll all readily agree is something we should avoid and, I feel, often gets tied into the conversation in some fashion, intentional or not, when talking about fatness/gluttony.

If we were having a more in depth discussion on that facet, I would argue it’s because of the very fundamental aspect of what’s being done when criticizing fatness in general and that anorexia and bulimia (or simply terribly low self-esteem) are simply the most extreme side-effects of such rhetoric.

As it stands, though, the important part I’m trying to stress is that criticism of gluttony or fatness often spirals into non-faceted blame fests that more insult, mock, and vilify rather than any actual productive discussion that still respects the dignity of individual humanity.

I’ve likely not been utterly clear, but I ask you forgive me for that.

Priya Lynn
October 4th, 2010 | LINK

Everett said “This woman is a waste of a Yale University graduation.”.

From what I’ve seen of her that was a pretty pathetic education she got. I’ve exchanged a number of emails with her and she spells at a 4th grade level.

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.