Maggie Gallagher rebuts Maggie Gallagher

Rob Tisinai

January 17th, 2013

I found a delightful article by Maggie Gallagher today.

Wait. That can’t be — let me check…

Nope, that’s right: I found a delightful article by Maggie Gallagher today.

Maggie and her anti-marriage colleagues like to say the essential public purpose of marriage is regulation of procreation for the benefit of society; so if gay people can’t procreate, why should the government promote such relationships at all, much less grant them marital status?

Oh, I hear this all the time. I hear less enthusiasm for listening to an answer though. The question is usually offered up as an ultimate rock-em-sock-em debate clincher. But perhaps people like Maggie Gallagher should pay more attention to…people like Maggie Gallagher.

Twelve years ago, before the marriage equality fight was essential to her income her primary cause, Maggie wrote an article whose whole point, chief thesis, and entire raison d’être was to convince people that protecting children is not the only societal benefit of marriage. Maggie wrote:

Yes, marriage protects children. And yes, marriage therefore protects taxpayers and society from a broad and deep set of costs, personal and communal. But there is another case for marriage, equally significant, that you probably haven’t heard. Marriage is a powerful creator and sustainer of human and social capital for adults as well as children, about as important as education when it comes to promoting the health, wealth, and well-being of adults and communities. [emphasis added]

She then list “TOP TEN REASONS WHY MARRIAGE IS GOOD FOR YOU”:

IT’S SAFER.

IT CAN SAVE YOUR LIFE.

IT CAN SAVE YOUR KID’S LIFE.

YOU WILL EARN MORE MONEY.

DID I MENTION YOU’LL GET MUCH RICHER?

YOU’LL TAME HIS CHEATIN’ HEART (HERS, TOO).

YOU WON’T GO BONKERS.

IT WILL MAKE YOU HAPPY.

YOUR KIDS WILL LOVE YOU MORE.

YOU’LL HAVE BETTER SEX, MORE OFTEN.

Only 2 of those reasons are tied to procreation, and none of her arguments for them depend on mixed-gender relationships. It’s hard to say for certain that such benefits will extend to same-sex couples, but there’s the fact that, you know, we’re human beings too. In any case, there’s only one way to find out!

If you find yourself in these sorts of debates often, then bookmark Maggie’s article and have it ready when your opponent asks why the government should grant marriage to same-sex couples. And then come back here and let me know how it went.

Steve

January 17th, 2013

That article is as much full of shit as anything else she has ever written.

The only way to become rich through marriage is to marry someone who is rich. Two poor people marrying each other won’t magically have more money. And the sex doesn’t get magically better either. The “live saving” stuff is pure crap too.

Shofixti

January 17th, 2013

Steve, I kind of have to disagree.

Consider for instance the gender pay gap -> similar biases exist that preference those people who are married. Marriage is a form of costly signalling that lets other people know you 1) share their values, 2) are worth cooperating with, and 3) probably need money to support your family. That is what cultural and social capital is about – that cultural performances return in capital at a later date.

Shofixti

January 17th, 2013

Here’s some current material… although it does partly contradict her.

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/being-married-helps-professors-get-ahead-but-only-if-theyre-male/267289/

Gerald

January 18th, 2013

I recall reading a similar article (and shooting off a letter to the editor in response) years ago by Tony Perkins that made the same argument, something about how beneficial marriage is to society and how it needs protection. His arguments didn’t really distinguish between opposite-sex or same-sex couples in marriage; he just assumed his audience would understand his meaning. Wish I could locate it, too.

Stephen

January 18th, 2013

Is this when she was surreptitiously employed by the Bush administration to write ‘spontaneous’ op-eds extolling the benefits of marriage?

Good find.

Priya Lynn

January 18th, 2013

“Maggie and her anti-marriage colleagues like to say the essential public purpose of marriage is regulation of procreation for the benefit of society”.

I hope its not just me, but I find the idea of regulating procreation to be absolutely horrifying.

Ben

January 18th, 2013

Rob, this is an awesome find. It completely undermines what NOM has been saying for the past 5 years. Great work!

Simon Alipio

January 18th, 2013

What Maggie means by equality is that marriage is 50% a man and 50% a woman. For children, marriage is 50% a Dad and 50% of Mom.

It provides equality for children.

Homoparenting does not provide equality for children

Here is an adopted child who spoke clearly about this recently http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/2013/01/mind-blowing-speech-from-adopted-asian.html

Priya Lynn

January 18th, 2013

Simon, it makes no difference to children what gender their parents are. The children of same sex couples do just as well, if not better than the children of heterosexuals. There is nothing unequal about having same sex parents rather than opposite sex parents. What is unequal is telling Ted he can marry Jane and telling Alice she cannot marry Jane.

Simon Alipio

January 19th, 2013

Prya, I listen to children instead of speaking for them.
What children need is much more important than what adults want.
I dream of the day where adults and government officials are sued for depriving children of their right to a father and a mother.

It will come and the world will cry hearing their stories.

This video is very clear. Only a cold and selfish heart will not hear the message.

Marriage has never and will never be about civil union or domestic partnership. Stealing children is not a way to bypass natural law

Priya Lynn

January 19th, 2013

Simon said (hee hee) “Prya, I listen to children instead of speaking for them.”.

You’re full of sh*t, you haven’t the slightest idea what any but an infintestimal amount of children have to say. The scientific research on the other hand has actually surveyed large amounst of children and shows children do just as well, if not better, with same sex parents as they do with opposite sex parents. And the children of same sex parents are overwhelmingly happy with their parents.

Simon said “I dream of the day where adults and government officials are sued for depriving children of their right to a father and a mother.”.

No one has a right to choose who their parents are. You can pick your friends but you can’t pick your family. If there was such a right I’d have much rather had two women raise me than my heterosexual parents. Would you support my right to to sue government officials for depriving me of same sex parents? Don’t you believe children have just as much a right to same sex parents as they do to opposite sex parents? No, of course not, because when you talk about equality you’re just a BS’er making absurd statments like “same sex parents don’t provide equality for children because there aren’t an equal number of men and women in the marriage” which is the logical equivalent of “Gays and lesbians have two arms just like heterosexuals so therefore they have already have equality.”.

Priya Lynn

January 19th, 2013

Simon said “Stealing children is not a way to bypass natural law”.

There is no such thing as natural law and gays and lesbians do NOT steal children. If you have any examples of gays and lesbians stealing children post a link or stop spreading your vicious lies intended to provoke violence against innocent people.

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

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

Today In History, 2013: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Appeal of California's Prop 8

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.