I agree whole heartedly with everything you said, with one exception: that her motivations don’t matter. I don’t think we need to know her motivations so that we can empathize with her. Knowing her motivations can help us identify her vulnerabilites and we can use this as a weapon against her (and people like her), if we have the balls to do so.

All the best.

Had I written this article, which is fine as far as it goes, I would have wanted to know what her income is; why none of her family would speak; why she won’t answer questions about her own marriage; why she doesn’t wear a ring; and why she doesn’t call herself by her married name. I would also have asked her why NOM refuses to obey court orders to release their donors’ names.

She mis-characterizes what marriage was and is and uses a definition based on her beliefs – offered without a shred of actual evidence – to try to shape public policy. In the past she hid the fact that she was paid by the Bush white house to spread propaganda about marriage. Which makes it hard to maintain the position that she acts from some disinterested, non-political place. She is leading a forum at CPAC which is an assault on the president couched in the terms of the fight to ‘save’ marriage. That very expression, ‘the fight to save marriage’ is profoundly offensive expressing as it does the idea that because I married my partner of 43 years I will wreck the foundation of our society. Whether not she’s personally a bigot is irrelevant and the writer of the article’s need to ‘humanize’ her is journalistic schlock.

Let me couch ‘the fight to save marriage’ in more traditional terms: “Though I personally hold no animus towards Jews they clearly must not be allowed to get their hands on the banking system. If they do that within minutes they will control Hollywood and the very life-breath of our culture will be in their hands. I’m sure they can be very nice people but they are not to be trusted with something so foundational as our money supply.”

That is Gallagher’s argument.

She shouldn’t be underestimated, I agree. Nor should we be required to feel for her. I don’t buy for one minute that she does what she does because her boyfriend knocked her up and walked out on her. I don’t believe that’s how human nature works. That’s how movies on WE work. If she can’t deal with reality that’s her problem.

I don’t need to understand her. I need to observe her actions. I don’t care what she believes. I don’t expect her to care what I believe. I do expect my civil rights to be respected among which being my right to be part of the nation’s diverse community at large. This issue of marriage masks the deeper desire for us to become part of the mainstream, to stop being marginalized, to be allowed to live in the open air with our lives respected. No more nor less than any other group.

Second, to say, as this article does, that Ms. G. is not anti-gay is ridiculous. NONE of NOM’s projects are directed toward strengthening heterosexual marriage: they are ALL focused on denying marriage equality to Gay and Lesbian people.

Third, I have also suspected for sometime that Ms. G. has a Gay child. So, imagine my pleasure when I read in the article: “Patrick, now 31, a New York University graduate and aspiring MUSICAL THERATER LIBRETTIST, would not be interviewed.” When I read this, I thought of an old exchange between Mary Jo and Suzanne on “Designing Women” when they saw two men shopping together, and Suzanne said, “Two men, one cart, fresh pasta, you tell me!”

I agree. Very well written. I don’t agree entirely with Marcotte’s premise, but she flays the flaws in Maggie’s thinking.

Yes, I AM inconsistent. \