Assuming for the sake of argument there is principled opposition to marriage equality it is one thing to argue that we are better off, or harmed less, by principled opposition rather than opposition motivated by animus and quite another thing to say we are served by principled opposition. Opposition whether “principled” or based in animus doesn’t benefit us in any way. That’s the point I was trying to make – we are better off without any sort of opposition than we are with it.

Andrew said “But I’m still pretty adamant when it comes to someone speaking on my behalf about how I’m “best served”.”.

Yes, once you pointed out that statement I as well thought “Wow, that’s quite a claim!”.

Nathaniel said “No matter how poorly placed the opinions that guided her actions, Ms. Ghallagher genuinely believed she was trying to save society.”.

I’d find that more plausible if she had been indifferent to gays and gayness and arguing solely on the basis of what’s good for heterosexual marriage but she didn’t. She advocated for “exgay” “therapy” and regularly asserted gay people are dysfunctional and “less than”. Someone who isn’t anti-gay at heart doesn’t do those things.

The anti-gays theoretical connections between gays marrying and heterosexuals deciding not to marry are extremely abstract and tenuous at best. I for one find it very hard to believe anyone honestly believes there’s any real chance one causes the other, particularly when anti-gay sentiments are part and parcel of their “save society” arguments. Maggie’s “I want to protect heterosexual marriage” claims are just the surface manifestation of her “I believe gays are bad” beliefs. To her “protecting” heterosexual marriage and suppressing gayness are one in the same.

Andrew said “Priya and I have clashed on a number of occasions because she tends to be fairly strong minded (I might sometimes argue intransigent), and more than a little black and white on many issues. So, I did indeed find it gave me pause that we were agreeing on something – it’s not the normal order of things.”.

Its not my impression that we disagree all that often, although when we do its usually pretty strongly. I often find myself agreeing with your posts but don’t necessarily comment on them.

So it’s no surprise that it was under her watch that NOM started the recruitment on “non-cognitive elites.” She learned increasingly on her college debate tour that there was no hope of winning over smart or educated young people. Their only hope was increase the anti-gay enthusiasm of the dumb, the uneducated and the ignorant by getting some celebrities that demographic pays attention to to reinforce the message that gay people (and those who support them) are not like “us.”

Priya and I have clashed on a number of occasions because she tends to be fairly strong minded (I might sometimes argue intransigent), and more than a little black and white on many issues. So, I did indeed find it gave me pause that we were agreeing on something – it’s not the normal order of things.

So I did some thinking.

I think it was the bizarre ennui, the sadness in the tone of TK’s commentary, the sound that he’s going to miss Maggie. I started thinking “who’s side is this guy on, anyways?, and how did this mode of thinking come to pass?”. My first thought – especially based on past conversations about what I perceived to be a fixation by certain BTB authors with Maggie that was entirely disproportionate to her actual relevance – was some kind of a personal relationship (or one rooted in professional advocacy). In fact, it sounded very much like a personal problem.

Then again, past conversations with TK have allowed me an understanding of his underlying conservatism, especially in his sympathies to the rights of employers to terminate workers (for whatever reason they see fit), and with respect to religion, most of which, IMHO is relatively free of logic. And so this felt very much like TK putting his conservative values – and a lot of what I perceive to be delusional wish fulfillment ahead of, frankly, my right to be a full and equal citizen.

My natural mode is contrarianism. Tell me it’s cold out, and I’ll tell you where it’s colder. Tell me “TGIF”, and I’ll tell you Friday’s just another week I didn’t get everything done. That plays no small role here as well (sounds like a personal problem).

But I’m still pretty adamant when it comes to someone speaking on my behalf about how I’m “best served”.

I get to decide how I’m best served, thanks. Hmm… maybe it was just that I hate being patronized.

Pro-segregationists, terrorists, anti-abortionists who kill doctors, murderous religious leaders, Nazis… these people all believed they were “saving” society.

The problem was… for whom?

Think about it – every time the “god hates fags” group starts foaming at the mouth, we win support. Their behavior strips bare the animus that truly underlies dedicated and directed opposition to gay rights by those who embark on these campaigns unasked (why gays, why not jews or lithuanians or zoroastrians?).

On the other hand, every time someone makes a reasonable, sympathetic argument that ends with “I’d like to agree with you, and I respect you, but that’s just a bridge too far for me”, average people think “well, that sounds reasonable – what is this gay person getting so upset about? what will ever be enough for them? can’t we just put this conflict to rest and move on?” (and with that, they vote against us).

When the second group is actually the first group using sweet words, carefully fudged arguments, and made up “facts” to sway the general public, what you have is a debacle – dedicated animus masked as reasonableness and “compassionate conservatism”… and it sells. What you have, in that latter group, in fact is Old Maggie. It’s only when folks stopped buying it that she dropped the act and reverted (New Maggie) to true animus, scare tactics, and other fire-breathing efforts to get attention and spark a reaction by the base (which turns out disproportionately to off-year elections and primaries).

Unfortunately, NOM’s (and Maggie’s own) history gives the lie to the idea that they (and she) were ever open to reasoned persuasion on this issue. As others have noted already, neither NOM nor Maggie has ever restricted their advocacy purely to opposing SSM; rather, they have repeatedly made many documented statements, and advocated politically, against non-heterosexual people themselves, as well as their legal and political rights, in many spheres other than marriage.