Box Turtle Bulletin

There’s Something About Those NOM Commercials

Jim Burroway

April 10th, 2009

… which reminded Swedish blogger Tor Billgren of “The Shining”. The dialog also “brought to mind “2001: A Space Odyssey”. Maybe Maggie Gallagher is a Stanley Kubrick fan.

Maggie Gallagher’s PR Advisor Must Hate Her

Timothy Kincaid

April 9th, 2009

“Ah,” you’re thinking, “How tacky. Box Turtle Bulletin is now trolling for three-way hook-ups”.

But no. We haven’t turned into a sex site and actually 2M4M isn’t “two men for men” at all. It’s the name of the new initiative by the National Organization for Marriage: Two Million for Marriage.

Right on the heels of their much-mocked zombie ad sponsoring their Opus Dei buddy, NOM brings us their latest:

In just a few minutes, NOM President Maggie Gallagher and I will hold a press conference in Trenton, NJ, announcing an ambitious new nationwide “2 Million for Marriage” (2M4M) initiative.

C’mon. You’ve got to be kidding.

Surely her PR people are having a laugh at her expense. Can anyone really be in PR and not have at least done a quick google to see if your new acronym is going to engender giggles?

Although…. if I saw, “Hi, we’re 2M4M and we are against marriage”, it might make some weird sense.

But seriously, how is this even an accident. It’s not like M4M is new. They were using it in the personals columns before the first chat room ever lit up a green blinking curser on a solid black screen.

Delightfully Crazy Dingbat Insane Ookie Spookie Ad from National Organization for Marriage

Timothy Kincaid

April 8th, 2009

Well, it’s happened. Maggie Gallagher’s head has now exploded. That’s the only thing that could possibly explain the decision by National Organization for Marriage to produce and run their latest ad.

It’s called A Gathering Storm and its purpose is described as:

The centerpiece of the new initiative is a $1.5 million nationwide ad campaign launched today highlighting the threat that same-sex marriage poses to the core civil rights of all Americans who believe in marriage as the union of a husband and wife.

What it really is, of course, is an over-the-top cheesy horror flick reminiscent of what one might see late at night on the Chiller Network.

The “threat” is identified by three speakers with three scare “stories”:

• “I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.”
• “I’m part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we can’t support same-sex marriage.”
• “I am a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is OK.”

Ooooooooh. Scary!!!

I so very much wish I had the funds to run an identical ad with only a slight change. After warning about gay marriage coming, I’d have my B-movie horror victims say

• “I’m a California doctor who has learned how to reanimate dead flesh. Now the zombies are out to get me.”
• “I’m part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we won’t give up the secret to the mummy’s curse.”
• “I am a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools turn my son into a blood-sucking vampire.”

and end the whole thing with a maniacal laugh, “It’s all because of gay marriage. Mwaaa-haaa-haaaaaaa”

But that may not be necessary. This Halloween night fright is nearly a parody of itself.

And to add even more comedy to the story, Gallahger and her buddies were so careless that they allowed the audition tapes for this nut-job ad to get onto the internet.

Hop on over to Good-As-You and watch one bad wanna-be actor after another blunder their way through this wacky script. But you’ll have to provide your own lightning, screeching doors, howling wolves, and other eerie effects.

Anti-Gay Activist Maggie Gallagher Defends El Coyote’s Margie Christoffersen

Timothy Kincaid

December 12th, 2008

Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, is one of the leaders in the effort to deny gay citizens equal access to marriage laws. Her statements in the past have shown that Maggie finds efforts to sway public opinion to be more important than telling the truth. In an National Review Online article this week she continues that trend.

Gallagher seeks to demonize the gay community and uses the example of Margie Christoffersen and the response by El Coyote patrons as an example of the “McCarthyite” spirit of supporters of marriage equality. And facts certainly weren’t going to stand in her way.

Take her initial claim:

Marjorie is just one of 89 people who work for El Coyote.

Is she? Really?

There are absolutely zero regular customers, restaurant critics, or local color writers who would have described Margie in this manner – prior to the Prop 8 situation. Marjorie is just one of 89 people who work for El Coyote in the same way that the Pope is just one of a billion Catholics.

Yet to make her case about the evil of the pro-marriage crowd, Maggie said it anyway. Because that lie supports the point she really wants:

This is a totally new tactic by the way. Boycotts against businesses who donate to a cause or mistreat their customers have long been an accepted part of the American democratic practice. But targeting an entire business because one person associated with it made (in their personal capacity) a donation to a cause is brand new. It’s essentially McCarthyite in spirit. Gay-marriage activists hope to make you unemployable if you publicly disagree with them.

But there is no truth in Maggie’s assertion that individual-related boycotts are somehow “new” or outside the “accepted part of the American democratic practice”.

Yes, some successful boycotts, such as that against the Mongomery Bus system, were due to institutional policies. But there certain have been many boycotts over history because of the actions of one person, often outside of their capacity as an “employee”. For example here are two that have been conducted by the community:

• In the late ’70′s, gays led a boycott against Florida Orange Juice because of their spokesman, Anita Bryant, and her anti-gay activism. Bryant was dropped in 1979.
• Also in the late 70′s and through the 80′s Coors Beer was boycotted by gay bars because of the political contributions of some members of the Coors Family. The Coors Brewing Company is now one of the companies most supportive of their gay and lesbian employees and the gay community at large (though some family members remain politically conservative).

And gays are not alone in individual-based boycotts. There have been wallet-voting efforts made against a whole host of other companies ranging from Carl’s Jr. to Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream because various subsets of the population did not like the political views of individuals associated with the company.

Conservatives even went so far as to talk about boycotting Starbucks because of a gay individual was quoted on a cup. And it is not uncommon for viewers of various stripes to refuse to see movies which feature actors with whom they disagree politically; I’m willing to bet that even Maggie Gallagher watches her expenditures in just that manner.

Maggie Gallagher has absolutely no basis for claiming that targeting El Coyote and Marjorie Christoffersen is something new. She just thinks that saying so will stir ill will towards gay people and others who support marriage equality. She wants to accuse us of trying to make those who disagree with us unemployable. She wants to demonize us and continue feeding Proposition 8′s campaign of fear.

Those who read Maggie casually may not see immediate evidences of her contempt and disdain for those to whom she wants dictate. Maggie loves to wrap her calls for discrimination in cloaks labeled generous, kind, and ordinary. But at the basis of every self-righteous and indignant statement lies a willingness to say anything – no matter how far divorced from the truth – to advance her moral crusade. And that she writes skillfully does not make her articles any more benign or less dishonest.

She would never say it; she’s far too clever. But her writing makes clear: Maggie Gallagher wants her readers to hate you. And she’s willing to lie to acheive that goal.

Separating Religious and Secular Marriage?

Timothy Kincaid

June 20th, 2008

One doesn’t expect that Baptists in Texas would be particularly balanced in their discussion of same-sex marriage. But this article in the Baptist Standard, the Texas Baptist news journal, was surprisingly informative.

If featured a the viewpoints of Barry Lynn, a minister in the United Church of Christ and the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Maggie Gallagher, an orthodox Catholic and the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.

Gallagher argues that the government should recognize only such marriages are are determined by religions:

“A real alternative would be for government to recognize and enforce religiously distinctive marriage contracts so long as they serve the government’s interest—say, permanent ones for Catholics,” she continued. “But what people who talk about ‘separating marriage and state’ really propose to do is simply to refuse to recognize religious marriage contracts at all. This is not neutrality; it is a powerful intervention by the government into the lives of religious people.”

Oddly, I could be persuaded to support this idea. If the government were to allow churches to define marriage and then recognized and enforced those religiously distinctive marriage contracts, gay people could marry in every state of the union and in any nearly every city that had a Unitarian Universalist fellowship, a Quaker meeting, or a United Church of Christ congregation.

Of course, Gallagher really means that the government should recognize and enforce the contracts of her denomination and not those who disagree with her.

Lynn believes that the government should be out of the marriage granting business and instead should offer civil unions to all and let the churches provide marriages to whom they wish.

“Everybody recognizes that you don’t have to have a religious marriage. State legislatures write out the rules of marriage, the rights and responsibilities of this civil institution,” he said.

“If people have to sign documents or register before an official, it in no way impugns the integrity of the religious promises that are made during a sectarian or religious ceremony

Kudos to the Baptist Standard for providing a clear presentation of two differing views on this subject.

Maggie Gallagher is Untruthful About CA Marriage Ruling

Timothy Kincaid

May 15th, 2008

Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and Board Member of the Marriage Law Foundation, likes to present herself as thoughtful and reasoned. She likes to dance along the edge of deception, implying rather than declaring that which is not accurate.

But the decision of the California Supreme Court seems to have thrown her enough that her innate dishonesty has shown through. Gallagher released a statement saying the following:

“California’s supreme court has just ruled that the 62 percent of Californians who voted for marriage as the union of husband and wife are just bigots. But thanks to the 1.1 million Californians who signed petitions to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot this November, activist judges will not have the last word in California, California voters will,” said Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.

The problem is that the court said nothing of the sort.

Many of those Californians who voted in favor of Proposition 22 did not do so out of anti-gay animus. We have long acknowledged that there are reasons other than bigotry for persons to be uncomfortable with marriage equality. All the court said was that such reasons are not a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause.

Further, Gallagher knows full well that the California Supreme Court is not a collection of “activist judges“. The court would be best described as cautiously conservative.

Why then would Gallagher say these untruthful things?

I believe it is because she has invested so much time and energy in opposing equal rights for gay citizens that she would rather try and sway public opinion than tell the truth. It is sad that many of those, including Gallaher, who most loudly claim the authority of morality, have so little personal integrity.

Is Maggie Gallagher a Marriage Protector or Obsessively Anti-Gay?

Timothy Kincaid

May 2nd, 2008

Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and Board Member of the Marriage Law Foundation, is always careful to present her arguments against marriage equality in terms of what is best for families and children. She does not rail against the evil sodomites or make bizarre claims about mortality statistics or invented diseases.

And because of her demeanor and her scholarly presentation, Maggie is regularly relied upon as a source for logical sounding soundbites and quotes in opposition to civil equality. She was even secretly paid to promote George Bush’s “marriage initiative”.

In fact, if one were not careful, one might think that Maggie’s objection to same-sex marriage is not based in an obsessive animus towards gay persons at all but rather in her devotion to children and family. One might think that this marriage champion was not seeking just to thwart gay couples, but was interested in all matters that could improve the family.

Thank God we’re careful.

Maggie has just distributed the Marriage Law Digest (edited by Bill Duncan of the Marriage Law Foundation) for April 2008.

Three of the eight cases discussed relate to issues about non-married same-sex couples:

• A German case in which a pension institution refused to provide pension to the survivor in a same-sex couple.
• An inmate in a state mental hospital who demanded that same-sex couples be grated the same conjugal visitation rights as opposite-sex couples.
• A New Jersey couple sought dissolution of their domestic partnership on grounds of irreconcilable difference.

Four of the cases dealt with other sexual orientation issues.

• A lesbian employment discrimination case.
• An transexual employment discrimination case.
• The Elane Photography case.
• The “Be Happy, Not Gay” anti-gay t-shirt case.

Only one case discussed in the digest, a public nudity issue, was not specifically gay related. And not one single case was directly about marriage.

A quick review of other recent editions of the Marriage Review illustrate that this focus on ‘all things gay’ with only token attention to other marriage matters is a consistent pattern for the Marriage Law Foundation’s digest.

Maggie Gallagher may present herself as an advocate for the protection of marriage. But a closer look reveals her association with an institute only tangentially interested in marriage but instead obsessed with gay people and how to deny them equality.

The Pope’s Anti-Marriage Record

Timothy Kincaid

April 15th, 2008

In conjunction with the visit of Pope Benedict XVI, anti-gay marriage activist Maggie Gallagher has compiled a listing of the Pope’s rants in opposition to any efforts to provide civil protections to same-sex families.

A new analysis entitled “Pope Benedict XVI on Marriage: A Compendium” [pdf] and published by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy on the eve of Benedict’s historic U.S. visit, finds that in less than three years of his pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI has spoken publicly about marriage on 111 occasions, connecting marriage to such overarching themes as human rights, world peace, and the conversation between faith and reason.

Sadly, rather than revealing an obsession that places opposition to gay equality as more important than scandals within the church, Gallagher sees this as validation of her quest for civil discrimination.

The short pontificate of Benedict XVI is thus already a standing rebuke to those voices of our time who attempt to make us embarrassed about our concern for, and battles over, marriage, family and sexual issues – to those who see in the contemporary marriage debate merely a distraction from more important issues.

But Gallagher is a bright woman. And even she can recognize that Benedict is a bit extreme.

Marriage essential to world peace? This may strike American ears as an oddity.

Ummm, yeah. Ya think?

CitizenLink’s Lack of Transparency

Jim Burroway

March 14th, 2008

Update: I’ve changed the title of this post based on Glenn Stanton’s explanation.

Last week, we reported on Focus On the Family’s Glenn Stanton’s Citizenlink article in which he claimed that “anthropologists agree” that there is only one definition of what constitutes marriage and family. That article, when it first appeared on March 3, looked like this:

Anthropologists Agree on Traditional Definition of Marriage

‘A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female.’

There are two definitions of marriage in today’s culture — one of them has been around for centuries; the other is brand new.

Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family, said there’s a clear consensus among anthropologists.

“A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female,” he said. “Those two parts of humanity join together, create new life and they both cooperate in the legitimization of the child, if you will, and the development of the child.”

Maggie Gallagher, co-founder and president of the National Organization for Marriage, said gay activists want to change the definition of marriage because they say the traditional definition is irrational and bigoted.

“What does that mean down the road, if the idea that our ideas about marriage and about sexual morality generally make us the exact equivalent of bigots?” she asked.

“You can’t have a professional license in this country — you can’t be a physician, a social worker, a teacher, a lawyer, a psychotherapist, a marriage counselor — if you’re openly racist.”

That article prompted three sharp rebukes from real anthropologists, including the American Anthropological Association itself. Now it looks like Glenn Stanton has responded by re-writing the article and giving it a new title. This is how that same article appears now:

Classic Anthropology at Odds with New Same-Sex Definitions of Marriage and Family

‘A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female.’

There are two understandings of marriage in today’s culture — one of them has been around for centuries; the other is brand new.

According to a new research report, Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family, said, “if you look at the work of leading anthropologists through the past century, one is struck by the consistent understanding of marriage and family as a social unit that brings together male and female. The comparison between this diverse and learned understanding with the paper-thin, ahistorical and acultural definitions offered by leading same-sex proponents is stark. The former show great understanding and complexity, while the latter shows immense creativity.”

Stanton cited anthropologist Suzanne Frayser’s definition of marriage in her 1985 book, Varieties of Sexual Experience :

“Marriage is a relationship within which a group socially approves and encourages sexual intercourse and the birth of children… Marriage is not usually a transaction confined to the bride and groom. It extends beyond them, to include members of their own families or kin group.”

Stanton also cited same-sex “marriage” activist Evan Wolfson’s definition:

“Marriage is what we use to describe a specific relationship of love and dedication to another person.”

“The ways leading anthropologists and the brightest same-sex marriage advocates define marriage are breathtaking.” Stanton said. “This comparison should show us that the gay ‘marriage’ experiment is exactly that, without any rootedness in human experience.”

This new article retains its original publication date and URL, leading the casual reader to believe that this is how the article originally appeared. There is no notice anywhere that there were ever any changes or corrections. CitizenLink has often tried to portray themselves as “professional journalists” without actually behaving as professionals or as journalists.

When Box Turtle Bulletin makes a correction or an update, you’ll know it. There will be strikeouts, apologies, explanations, maybe even a poor excuse here or there. But regardless of the circumstances, we have nothing to hide. I believe that this level of transparency is indispensable to the task of keeping ourselves honest. Unlike CitizenLink, we don’t try to promote the delusion of infallibility. When we need to revise something, we make sure we do it in a way that everyone can know about it. That is what ethical discourse is all about.

CitizenLink however operates under their own set of rules. Their lack of transparency is more evidence that as far as Focus is concerned, the message is more important than honesty or the truth.