Ten Dumbest Things Maggie Gallagher Said
August 17th, 2010
Matt Stopera collected these over at BuzzFeed. Another personal favorite is number 10:
Democratic forms of government are vulnerable to mass prejudice, the so-called tyranny of the majority.
But, of course, #1 is a real doozy.
[Hat tip: Chris Bodenner]
Maggie finds Judge Walker’s orientation relevant, not necessarily relevant, could be relevant, not totally irrelevant
August 11th, 2010
When Maggie Gallagher is around her buddies it’s easy to just say that Judge Walker is gay and everyone knows what that means. When you all share the same opinion that gay people and gay relationships are inferior and when you all think of gay people as “the other side” then you don’t need to explain yourself.
Oh, but listen to her try to explain that comment to Tour Tracker’s Arisha Hatch
She also seems to have read a ruling other than the one released by Judge Walker. Nothing new, nothing non-Maggie.
But then she said: “The way to get a totally neutral status is to just get the government out of the marriage business” before immediately reverting to her talking points.
What’s this? Is this Maggie’s next approach? “If we have to be equal then no one should get married!!”
LaBarbera Award: Maggie Gallagher
August 4th, 2010
It’s official. Maggie Gallagher had spent several years trying to cultivate an image of a well-informed and reasonable pundit with her Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. But founding the National Organization for Marriage, Gallagher has become among the more hysterical voices against LGBT people. And as we noted earlier today, she is now in full meltdown mode over the recent Federal Court decision declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional. More evidence of her unhingedness comes this op-ed in tomorrow’s San Francisco Chronicle:
If this ruling is upheld, millions of Americans will face for the first time a legal system that is committed to the view that our deeply held moral views on sex and marriage are unacceptable in the public square, the fruit of bigotry that should be discredited, stigmatized and repressed. Parents will find that, almost Soviet-style, their own children will be re-educated using their own tax dollars to disrespect their parents’ views and values.
That’s right: today marriage equality, tomorrow Soviet-style education camps.
Say, didn’t we just read something just yesterday about bogus threats to children?
Schadenfreude Alert, Part 2: NOM Is Apoplectic
August 4th, 2010
Brian Brown’s and Maggie Gallagher’s heads explode:
“Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM. “With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.”
“Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple – there isn’t!” added Brown.
“The ‘trial’ in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence. Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people’s right to vote for marriage,” stated Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM.
A Question for Maggie Gallagher
July 30th, 2010
Four days have passed since the infamous “kill the gays” sign appeared at NOM’s Indianapolis rally. And four days of silence on the sign from NOM. Instead, they’ve been complaining that NOM are the victims — that’s right, victims! — of the mean old gays.
The sign quotes Leviticus. Rob Tisinai points out that NOM President Maggie Gallagher has defended others who has cited the Levitical death penalty for gay men. So now is the time for a direct question to Maggie Gallagher. Leviticus 20:13 says:
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Maggie, do you or do you not agree with this statement?
[Graphic by Rob Tisinai]
Nom tours a mostly-empty plaza in Indianapolis
July 26th, 2010
The National Organization for Marriage rolled into Indianapolis on their Summer for Marriage Tour and the welcome was decidedly underwhelming. As has been the case in most of the stops on their Tour of Mostly-Empty City Plazas, the crowd was sparse and the counterprotest had more size, creativity, and energy.
The Courage Campaign’s Tour Tracker posted tentative preliminary attendance at the start of about 29 (though this picture shows more) and the protest at about 95. If we see updates, we’ll let you know.
It seems that equality supporters stayed back in their designated area and chanted. In one of the strangest comments so far, NOM’s Maggie Gallagher said “… not even the noisiest protests could drown out the voice and values of Indiana’s majority.” Because having no one show up means that you speak for the majority, I guess.
Maggie spent much of her time in town speaking to politicians. I hope they glanced out the window and saw how truly ineffective and uninspiring that she and NOM really are.
I believe at some point today we will have first hand comments and pictures from a regular BTB reader.
NOM speaks to another mostly-empty city plaza
July 23rd, 2010
As they moved out of the northeast and into more conservative Ohio, it was assumed that NOM’s rallies would begin to pick up attendance. They even brought out Maggie Gallagher, their big media star, to speak to the crowd at the State House south lawn. But the crowd didn’t show up.
The Tour Tracker reports that the NOMbies at the peak were about 30 and that protesters numbered about 120. Of course, NOM will report 60 supporters because it appears that their counting method is to simply multiply by two (the 19 or so in Annapolis became “about 50 supporters in attendance”).
In Columbus, police set up barricades behind which protesters were required to stand. The protesters chanted and blew whistles. While that is annoying to the speakers, I’m not sure exactly what it accomplished. There’s nothing really wrong with the “hey hey ho ho” chants, but I think it would be more effective to sing We Shall Overcome. Or really annoy NOM and get a few powerful tenors to belt out Ave Maria.
But for the most part they didn’t engage in Shocking! and Outlandish! behavior that would frighten the horses (and yes, there were horses; the police were mounted.) One young lady crossed the line and was reportedly confrontational towards the people attending the NOM rally before being arrested. That was unfortunate and if NOM got any pictures or video of her, she will undoubtedly be the star of their next “I’m a victim” video.
The protest was by far the most interesting part of NOM’s event – even to NOM. Their website has no pictures of their own crowd, deciding instead to post one of the marriage supporters.
One odd thing: Brian Brown was missing from the festivities, and rumor is that he flew to California. No one seems to know why. Maybe he was too bored and depressed from no one showing up to hear him speak.
UPDATE: Here are the two sides of the story about the young lady who was arrested:
One woman, before she was escorted out of the rally by police, went through the crowd offering her hand to NOM supporters before ripping it away and cursing in their faces.
Maggie Gallagher’s version:
The protestors seemed a pretty angry lot, but mostly respected the line. (The Ohio cops were going to make sure of that!) One woman tried to incite folks to storm the podium again, but the police made that seem like a pretty bad idea.
I love cops.
Holly Hahn’s version:
This is what happened. I accidentally wandered into the NOM side of the protest. Seeing some opportunity for amusement, I wandered around inside the barricades shaking hands and introducing my self as a homosexual. One older man got upset and grabbed me and tried to wrestle me away, the cops told me to go behind the barricade and i did. Then the cops told me to leave and I refused. They dragged me away, cuffed and charged me with disorderly conduct and obstructing. I cooperated once arrested. I need ANY AND ALL pics and videos, to prove I was shaking hands, not “grabbing arms” please repost!
To clarify” I parked in the parking garage and was unsure which side of the statehouse I need to be. There were NO barricades the way I entered. I didn’t actually realize I was in NOM territory until I noticed the logo on the podium.
p.s absolutely nothing happened to the old man who grappled with me, but i think they recorded me cussing at him to GTFO me, unfortunately. I am truly sorry if my um..unrestrained comments while being assaulted are used in a way that is detrimental to the cause. The fact is I am woman, 5’0 and there was a man grabbing and grappling with me and police yelling at me. I was scared and angry.
p.p.sYes, It wasn’t premeditated. I have done many many protests and actions over the years, but really this time I just wandered into the wrong side and decided to run with it. I can’t let anyone go through their life saying they haven’t met a queer. It’s kind of my policy. So I started shaking hands.
Putting myself in the public eye doesn’t scare me a bit. I am who I am.
I refuse to be afraid and unlike the anonymous donors to Prop 8 and other hate legislation, I am true enough to my beliefs to put my real name on them.
My name is Holly Hahn. I am a lesbian. I am not scared of police, social disapproval or bigots stalking me.
I believe that the time for Mr/s Nice Gay is over. I’m tired of endless attacks against our lives. I don’t want them to feel safe behind the barricade- why should they get the privilege of feeling safe when their words or hate make our brothers and sisters UNsafe?
I will cross barricades again, and I am hoping to organize a courthouse sit in on my court date
I bring you two messages from the National Organization for Marriage. The first is from Maggie Gallagher:
My message to the protestors: Hate is not a family value. The 62 percent of Ohioans who came together across lines of race, creed and color to vote for marriage are not haters, and it’s wrong to portray them, or the American people that way.
The second I bring from NOM’s Facebook page. The site is heavily edited by NOM’s associates and only the messages that the administrators want there remain. What follows is the comments to this post. (I left nothing out so as not to appear to be cherry picking the worst)
Daniel Rowinski: ugh i find out my city of Cleveland will host the gay games of 2014.
Theresa Preece: The Gay Games?
John Ozanich: Gay Olympics
Theresa Preece: Yes, I know. SO many comments….
Danielle Burke: That is extremely disappointing :(
John Ozanich: all about money
Tara J Later: Oh, now that is beyond funny. The thing that comes to mind is the javelin throw on the movie ” Revenge of the Nerds”. Let’s get the aerodinamics right. I’m rotfl, big time.
Minister Dixon: “The Gay Games?” Yeah, now I’ve heard everything. How are Gay Games different from other games?
John Acker: Do the males (they are anything but men) compete in accessorizing and lisping?
John Ozanich: you ever see Jesse Owens do a 500 yard sprint wearing a feathered pink boa ?
Tara J Later: @ Min. Dixon….I think I have the answer to that question. The uniforms are tighter and shorter, to make sure they show every part of the body as much as possible. That’s the difference. And the uniforms will be flaming loud.
Minister Dixon: John do you want my turkey sandwich to come back up? LOL
Minister Dixon: @ Tara, if it’s anything like their parades, you may have a point there :)
Tara J Later: I do have to admit, that everyone of my homosexual friends have great taste in style… Only one is on the loud side, but none of them want marriage. It’s quite interesting that they aren’t on the band wagon.
Nick Jones: Do these games consist of slapping fights, sex in public and who can say ‘hey’ the gayest?
Nick Jones: Do these games consist of slapping fights, sex in public and seeing who can say ‘hay’ the gayest?
John Ozanich: no, that’s Congress, Nick…
Minister Dixon: LOL, hey John, you’re not well, hahaha
And now my message to the Maggie: Hate is not a family value. It is true that not all of the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted to deny equality to their gay neighbors are haters, but many of the people who support the National Organization for Marriage and who participate at your Facebook page are.
NOM goes completely wackadoodle
July 13th, 2010
In the grand spectrum of anti-gay activism that ranges from relatively respectful disagreement through nasty and spiteful on its way to ragingly hateful and on to bizarre and downright insane, Maggie Gallagher and her National Organization for Marriage have managed to retain the appearance of being rational and principled. While their intentions were hostile and based in animus and the presumption of superiority, their rhetoric was more mainstream and avoided trips into the realm of paranoia, villainizing, or blatant hatred.
But increasing Maggie has been losing it, demonstrating an increasingly bitter and hostile persona and saying things that she never would have just a year or so ago.
And things have changed for NOM, as well. No longer behaving like a marriage advocate, NOM now seems to have morphed in to a radical anti-gay activist group with views and opinions similar to those of Peter LaBarbera or Brian Camenker. The new NOM doesn’t love heterosexual marriage anywhere near as much as they dislike gay people in general.
A few weeks ago we let you know about NOM’s merging with an anti-gay extremist group, One Man, One Woman, headed by Louis J. Marinelli. Although at first it seemed that NOM was trying to downplay their affiliation, this tactic has been abandoned and Marinelli’s facebook site is now at least semi-officially the voice of the National Organization for Marriage.
And a nasty voice it is, indeed.
Language about “the best interests of children” has been replaced with ranting about “the homosexual agenda” and posts about how violent gay people are. And Jeremy at Good_As_You has extensively documented Marinelli’s extremism from trying to equate gay people to pedophiles and prostitutes to repeating the old Paul Cameron lies.
Yes, NOM has decided it’s time to attach its bus to the wackadoodle train… and I marvel at that decision. Frankly, I thought Maggie was smarter than that.
NOM Is Furious — Just Furious!
July 8th, 2010
Reading this press release from the National Organization for Marriage made my spit my beer through my nose:
“Under the guidance of Elena Kagan’s brief that she filed when she was Solicitor General, Obama’s justice department deliberately sabotaged this case,” charged Brian Brown, President of NOM, referring to the Justice Department’s brief which described DOMA as discriminatory. Despite the explicit language in DOMA that the law was designed to protect children’s right to their mothers and fathers, the judge disavowed that DOMA has anything to do with responsible procreation. “With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1996. A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States,” Brown continued.
“Does this federal judge want to start another culture war?” asked Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM. “Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade? The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy. Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case. We expect to win in a higher court.”
NOM joins forces with virulently vile anti-gay activist
June 28th, 2010
It seems that the National Organization of Marriage has been gradually slipping off message. Long pretending that “we don’t hate homosexuals”, NOM tried to keep up the image that they were just opposed to same-sex marriage (for the children, you know). But it seems that Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown have found the effort of appearing pleasant to be daunting (or perhaps less financially fulfilling) because recent comments seem to be veering closer and closer to plain old anti-gay animus and playground meanness.
Now Jeremy at Good_As_You has (along with blogger Matt Algren) identified an affiliation between NOM and their new strategist, anti-gay activist Louis J. Marinelli III. The language and claims of Mr. Marinelli bring NOM into a whole new category. Here are a few of the tweets that Marinelli has recently made on NOM’s behalf.
Those who wish to promote homosexual behaviour are encouraging people to shorten their life spans. Homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle.
#nevertrust activists of the homosexual agenda – they are deceitful people who care only about themselves and not what’s best for society!
It is clear that Maggie and Brian have decided to link their organization to the most radical and extreme segments of the anti-gay movement. They are now taking on the tone of spiteful slurs and villification of the gay community.
But really, is it all that surprising?
When someone dedicates their life to fighting against your rights, freedom, liberty and equality, it isn’t out of love. It just isn’t
Maggie predicts that she’ll lose Perry
June 17th, 2010
Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for [gay-free] Marriage has posted her expectations based on the closing statement in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
Chuck Cooper is a heckuva lawyer. At stake in this case is the future of marriage in all 50 states, and he’s right that this attempt to shut down the debate by constitutionalizing gay marriage will backfire. Americans have a right to vote for marriage. Ted Olson doesn’t seem to understand the argument, and judging from today’s exchanges neither does Judge Walker. I expect Judge Walker will overrule Prop 8. But millions of Americans do understand why marriage is the union of husband and wife and I believe the majority of the Supreme Court will as well.
I both agree and disagree.
Yes, Chuck Cooper is a heckova lawyer. In exactly the same way that Brownie did a heckova a job cleaning up after Hurricane Katrina. And I agree that after Cooper’s self-contradictory, confusing, and irrational argument in support of Proposition 8, no one understood his argument.
And while Maggie’s beliefs about what the Supreme Court will do have no greater validity than her beliefs about the definition of marriage (I have no presumption how they will decide), I do agree with her that it is likely that Judge Walker will find Proposition 8 to be in violation of the US Constitution.
About those seven million, Maggie…
June 15th, 2010
Tomorrow is closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case over whether Proposition 8 was in violation to the US Constitution. Here’s what National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher has to say about it:
This is an outrage that never should have happened: 7 million Californians exercised their core civil rights to speak, to donate, to organize and to vote for marriage. Around the country millions of other have invested their time and their treasure. And Ted Olson today will be asking the courts to nullify our right to vote for marriage.
Well 7,001,084 does sound like a lot of folks. But let’s just for a moment put it in perspective.
- In 2008, the population of California was 36,756,666. So about 19.0% of Californians voted for Prop 8.
- In 2008, there were 23,208,710 people eligible to vote in California. About 30.2% of eligible Californians voted to take away marriage rights.
- At the time of the election, there were 17,304,091 people registered to vote in the state. Of registered voters, about 40.5% showed up at the polls to “vote for marriage” restricted to heterosexuals.
- A total of 13,743,177 voters turned up to vote. Of them 50.9% voted for proposition 8.
- There were 13,402,566 votes cast on Proposition 8. Of them, 7,001,084 (or 52.2%) voted for the proposition and 6,401,482 (or 47.8%) voted against it.
Yes, Proposition 8 won. But let’s not pretend that Californians as a whole were so fired up about marriage that they all couldn’t wait for the chance to vote against equality. Less than a third of eligible voters supported this bill enough to show up and vote for it.
New Hampshire results silence NOM’s Maggie Gallagher
March 20th, 2010
On March 10th, National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher was euphoric. She was joyously reporting that the residents of New Hampshire had voted to reject same-sex marriage (National Review Online)
Of the vote results reported by the Union-Leader, along with a couple from the Concord Monitor, seventeen towns approved and three rejected the article.
Voting for a marriage amendment were: Charlestown (620-305), Kingston (719-346), Milton (385-285), Littleton (912-627), Wakefield (504-242), Dunbarton (77-58), Kingston (719-346), Windham (1,428-832), Epsom (422-225), Bedford (2,783-1,040), Hampstead (1,190-499), Allenstown (383-198), Auburn, Swanzey (542-422), Stark (unanimously), Pittsburg (64-4), and Belmont.
Rejecting were Newhampton, Salisbury (30-27), and Northumberland (57-104).
This is a partial list; still looking for full electoral info.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! She chortled in her joy.
To understand what this means, we have to take a step back and look at how same-sex marriage came to New Hampshire and what these town votes mean.
New Hampshire is one of two states in which the legislature passed a bill which was signed by the governor which changed the family law code to allow same-sex couples to marry. This was not due to a lawsuit or other court action but was an act of the purest representative government.
To reverse this law, anti-gay activists have a few options.
They can vote for representatives who oppose marriage equality who could then repeal the law. But while it is possible for marriage rights to appear and disappear with the change (or whim) of the elected representatives, many legislators are hesitant to play so cavalierly with the lives of their constituents. Further, the representatives are aware that changing laws back and forth create complexities and legal confusion which would both make their jobs more difficult and open them up to criticism.
They can lobby for a change in the constitution, a one-time fix. However, New Hampshire does not have a initiative process and the constitution can only be changed in two ways.
The state has a provision by which a constitutional convention can be called. Every ten years (or by a majority of both houses) the people vote on whether to call a convention (the next vote is scheduled for 2012). Then delegates are elected and a convention convened. Amendments to the constitution require a 3/5 vote of the delegates and a 2/3 vote of the people. Anti-gay activists may encourage a “yes” vote on the next constitutional convention question.
The second method for changing the constitution for both houses, by a 3/5 vote, to place an amendment on the ballot. Such an amendment would require a 2/3 affirmative vote of the electorate. And it was towards the last method that the rhetoric of the anti-gay activists was directed. NOM (among others) sought to demonstrate that it was the will of the people that they be allowed to vote on the issue. And this was the focus of their language: marriage is too important to be decided by the legislature, it should have the input of the people.
NOM was hoping that folks who were moderate or even supportive of marriage would agree that a “people’s vote” was needed. And once it was on the ballot, they would dump tens of millions of dollars (from undisclosed sources) to fund a campaign of bald-faced lies and seek to enshrine the doctrines of some religious organizations into civil law.
To put pressure on the legislature and create an impression of public support, anti-gay activists used a political mechanism that is peculiar to New England states: the town meeting, a gathering of the residents to determine town business. They sought to have the towns demand of the state that the residents be allowed to vote on marriage equality.
There are (basically) two types of town meeting. A traditional type, which is a public gathering on the second Tuesday in March, works well for small communities. And, since 1995, the state has allowed a two-part meeting (called an SB2 Meeting) in which first a deliberate session is held, which creates wording, and then residents vote through polling places. These votes occur on the second Tuesday of March, April, or May. To get a matter up for consideration at a town meeting, concerned citizens can collect twenty-five signatures on a petition.
So anti-gay activists organized to have towns pass a non-binding resolution, an “opinion of the people”, if you will, to ask the legislature to “let us vote. And using the town meeting approach was actually a pretty smart move. Cities, such as Portsmouth or Dover, don’t have a non-binding resolution process, so any results would skew towards smaller towns or rural communities where conservative sentiment was more likely to thrive. Further, those fired up to “fight the homosexual agenda” were more likely to attend than residents who weren’t much interested either way.
The best scenario for anti-gay activists would be for each town to endorse the “let us vote” effort by 2/3 of the residents. This could allow NOM to spin the results as evidence that a constitutional amendment would pass and that residents demand their rights. But success would be a majority of voters – or a majority of towns – which would allow Maggie and Brian to claim that they speak for “the people”.
Even “a majority of those towns which voted”, while meaningless, would allow Maggie a press release (for NOM it’s all about perception and spin) and a “victory”. Any result which could be stretched to suggest that the legislators were out of touch with the residents of New Hampshire.
Thus the gloating comments she made at NRO.
But it seems that Maggie forgot to comment once the “full electoral info” was found. And she has good reason not to want to discuss the decisions of the New Hampshire towns.
28 towns supported the anti-gay effort
61 towns did not provide enough signatures
31 towns tabled the bill, refusing to even vote on it
33 towns voted “no” on the measure
1 town flipped the effort and voted to commend the state for supporting equality
31 towns supported the anti-gay effort
10 towns did not provide enough signatures
14 towns amended the language in the deliberative session, killing the petition
1 town flipped the effort but failed to vote to commend the state for supporting equality
There are 11 towns yet to decide. But of the 210 towns which could have supported the efforts of the anti-gay activists, only 59 chose to do so. Few of those were by a 2/3 vote.
Of course NOM and the other participants at LetNHVote are seeking to spin this as a victory. They simply don’t count the towns in which the motion was tabled or in which the deliberative sessions killed the effort, and claim that of the towns in which the residents did decide to vote, they won a majority.
But their claims ring a little hollow. It’s a bit like celebrating because the people inside the ice cream parlor voted that they like ice cream.
And for some reason, Maggie’s chortling has turned to silence.
Linda Harvey takes purer-than-pure to a whole new level
March 8th, 2010
Most social conservatives are not wild eyed hate-filled bigots who would like nothing more than to see gay folks burnt at the stake. Most folks who don’t support civil equality for their gay fellow-citizens really don’t know much about gay folk and don’t actually wish us individual harm. It’s more of a “them liberals” kind of thing.
And over the past decade Americans – including many folks who think of themselves as conservative – have began the process of seeing gay folk as human. We are neighbors, friends, coworkers, and family. We no longer are “confirmed bachelors” and “maiden aunts” living with “lifelong friends” who are a shameful secret, but instead are respected and acknowledged parts of our community.
And, as such, it is no longer socially acceptable to just oppose anything and everything to do with our lives. Yes, polls suggest that the nation isn’t quite ready to joyously celebrate marriage equality, but blatant discrimination is frowned on, even in right-wing circles. Especially if it sounds too hateful.
Ah, but not everyone is on board with the “treat ’em like human” idea. As we saw with the recent brouhaha at CPAC, some folks can’t even be in the same room with gay folk – even those who agree with most of their agenda. The uber-conservative CPAC crowd got a taste of excitement when the purer-than-pure conservatives attacked their brethren for not being adequately anti-gay.
But no one has ever accused Linda Harvey of noting being adequately anti-gay. In fact, few can live up to her standard. And now Linda is letting conservatives know just how pure she is, in the offensive over-the-top inflammatory language she’s know for.
Linda has decided that some people aren’t really conservative because they “support homosexuality”. And by “support homosexuality”, Linda means pretty much anything other than venom-spewing declarations of disgust and intolerance. Anything short of piling up the firewood and calling for the torches is seen by Linda as selling out.
And the list of “Conservatives who aren’t” is pretty impressive. Folks who just aren’t as pure as Lina include:
- CPAC, for allowing GOPride to be there
- “Bill O’Reilly and his feebly-informed culture warrior, Margaret Hoover” because they ” endorse repealing the ban on homosexuality in the military”
- Charles Krauthammer, who thinks that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is discriminatory
- Dick Cheney, for “listening to a self-declared ‘born-that-way’ homosexual relative”
- “Cindy McCain and her silly daughter” for backing same-sex unions
- Mitt Romney, because ” in 2004, ordered reluctant clerks to issue marriage licenses to Party A and Party B. A genuine conservative might have held off until forced.”
- Ted Olson, for the obvious
- Stand for Marriage Maine, for saying “we want to be tolerant of gays”
- Maggie Gallagher, because she can’t be depended on to “always articulate clear objections to homosexual behavior. Sometimes, she bows the knee to the vaunted ‘identity'”
- The Catholic Church, because it says that it “respects and accepts gays”
Oh yes, when it comes to being a real conservative, Linda is purer-than-purer-than-pure.
It’s behavior, it can be changed and it’s always wrong.
Teach kids to “respect” this behavior? No! Respect for others, yes, but people are born with the anatomy for heterosexuality, not homosexuality. Genuine respect involves telling the truth, and citing the risks, limitations and sinfulness of this perversion.
Ah, but lovely Linda has an extra-special place in her contempt for one fellow who is worse than anyone: Warren Throckmorton. Ya see, Warren actually thinks that you should treat gay people the way you want to be treated. Such heresy!!
And Warren has gone so far as to suggest that instead of storming out of school on the Day of Silence, conservative Christian kids should observe the Golden Rule and hand out the following message.
This is what I’m doing:
I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated.
Will you join me in this pledge?
“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31).
But not Linda. She’s having none of that.
If I were a parent who discovered my minor child had been counseled in this way, I’d bring the largest and most aggressive medical malpractice suit I could launch against this counselor at Grove City.
Golden Rule? Not on your life.
And so now Warren is the pet project for Linda and her buddy Peter LaBarbera. LaBarbera has run a series of denunciations of “heretical” Dr. Throckmorton and has asked his readers to
TAKE ACTION: Contact Grove City College (President Richard Jewell: 724-458-2500; firstname.lastname@example.org) and ask them if GCC professor Warren Throckmorton’s unorthodox views on homosexuality represent “authentically Christian” teachings on this issue. (GCC advertises itself as a solid, “authentically Christian” institution.) Request a written response as to whether Throckmorton’s writings on and approach toward homosexuality honor Grove City’s Christian charter “rejecting relativism and secularism.”
Yes, it looks like Warren should be fired; he just can’t be counted on to be a hater. Nor Bill O’Reilly. Nor even the Catholic Church. Or at least not up to Linda’s and Pete’s standards. It’s a sad sad world.
But at least Linda and Pete have each other. And Pete’s porn collection.
Maggie Gallagher’s gays
March 4th, 2010
In Maggie Gallagher’s recent debate with Andrew Sullivan at the Cato Institute over whether there is a place for gay people in conservatism and conservative politics, the following exchange took place:
Sullivan: Can you name a single gay person who agrees with you?
Gallagher: Yes… I told you, I have them. They work for me.
Sullivan: Name them.
Gallager: Well no, I’m not going to name them. Because I’m not going to out them.
Sullivan: Why not? Earlier you said you don’t want to out an openly gay person?
Gallagher: As being anti-gay marriage, I’ll let them do it. I’m not outing them as being gay, I’m outing them as being on my side.
Not very many, but I do know them…
She goes on for a while giving illustrations of secret confessions of support and emails.
But setting aside Maggie’s flustered blunder and momentary honesty (she never admits to being “anti gay marriage”, only in favor of retaining blah blah blah), the important point that Andrew identified is that even considering the large number of conservative gay men and women, and even considering that our community is very diverse in age, culture, attitudes, religion, and perspective, no one is willing to publicly support Maggie Gallagher and her campaign against their rights.
So who, then, are these hand full of gay people who are secretly “anti-gay marriage”, in Maggie’s words. And why is it so important that she “know them.”
I’ll answer the second part first.
I believe that Maggie thinks of herself as a good person. She doesn’t want to acknowledge that she is engaging in deliberately hurtful, unjust, and discriminatory behavior. She doesn’t want to think of her motivations as being based in bias, animus, and religious supremacy.
Behind all of her “don’t call us haters” mantra is a real fear that she, truly, might be acting out of less than admirable instincts. She doesn’t want to even consider that possiblity, so it is the one thing that she finds most objectionable.
So it is extremely important that Maggie know people who can confirm to her that she isn’t hurting them. If I read her correctly, in order that she not see herself as being homophobic, she needs to believe that some gays – the ones who truly value the country and not their own selfish interests – agree with her. So, like every politician who doesn’t want to be seen as evil, she now “has gay friends”.
But who are these mythical gay friends that we never ever seem to meet?
Well, we do now have an answer in part. From none other than the National Organization for Marriage, of whom Maggie is the voice and face.
This comes from the amicus brief that NOM filed to support Proposition 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger:
Even at least a few gay people oppose gay marriage (see, e.g., “Gays Defend Marriage,” at http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com), and we welcome their participation as fellow citizens in our shared mission.
Oh, yes, I kid you not. Maggie’s “gays that agree with her” are epitomized by David Benkof. Yes, a celibate convert to Orthodox Judaism who spent a brief period trying to convince the world that he was just an ordinary gay guy who was concerned about marriage. Yep, the same one who is “gay” or “bisexual” or “not gay” or anything else he thinks will be convincing at the moment.
Yes, Maggie’s gays – or at least the one she presents – are sad, sad creatures indeed.
(hat tip to reader Mel, with whom I incorrectly argued about whether this exchange took place)